phonological awareness and ‘silent-reading’: the benefits of intervention and early intervention...
TRANSCRIPT
Phonological awareness and ‘silent-reading’:
The benefits of intervention and early intervention in reading for children who have Down syndrome.
Kathy Cologon.
Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Research background Expectations, opportunities and
outcomes Life for a person who has Down syndrome in
Australia – 1950 to today. What has changed? What has remained the same?
The question that arises… Implications for researchers, educators and
policy makers. Implications for this research.
The importance of literacy
Communication Social practices Education
Implications for inclusive practices.
The importance of reading Reading is a vital aspect of literacy
development. The importance of reading for all The potential additional importance of
reading for communication for children who have Down syndrome.
Implications for this research.
Phonological awareness
What is phonological awareness?
Why is it important for literacy development?
Phonological awareness and children who have Down syndrome.
What is known about phonological awareness in children who have Down syndrome? Implications of phonological awareness for
reading development in relation to models of reading mastery.
Implications for educational opportunities. Possible limitations that need further
investigation.
Implications for this research.
Reading comprehension
What is reading comprehension?
Why is reading comprehension important for literacy development?
Reading comprehension and children who have Down syndrome.
What is known about the reading comprehension of children who have Down syndrome? Implications for communication and reading
development. Implications for educational opportunities. Possible limitations that need further
investigation
Implications for this research.
Research Aims This research aims to provide further
empirical research evidence examining reading development in children who have Down syndrome with implications for inclusive educational practices. Specific research focuses:
The benefits of intervention and early intervention on the reading development of children who have Down syndrome.
Phonological awareness. Reading comprehension. The implications of reducing oral language
demands of reading tasks.
Research Hypotheses Instruction in phonological awareness will
facilitate phonological awareness development. Reducing the oral language demands of reading
tasks will facilitate improved reading comprehension.
Reading instruction, particularly instruction focused on phonological awareness development, will facilitate improved phonological output.
Early intervention will be beneficial for reading development.
School-age intervention will also be effective for reading development.
Methodology Experimental case studies
Sample
Basic research design Initial assessment Control period Pretest Intervention Posttest Maintenance posttest
Assessment tasks PPVT-III (Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test, Dunn & Dunn, 1981) STAP (South Tyneside Assessment of
Phonology, Armstrong & Ainley, 1992)
Digit span (Cupples & Iacono, 2000) Woodcock Reading Mastery Subtests
(Woodcock, 1987): Word Identification Word Attack Passage Comprehension
Assessment tasks continued… Word blending (Cupples, Iacono & Law,
2003) Non-word blending (Cupples & Iacono, 2000) Word segmentation (Cupples & Iacono,
2000) Non-word segmentation (Cupples & Iacono,
2000) Letter-sound production (Cupples, Iacono &
Law, 2003) Letter-sound recognition (Cupples, Iacono &
Law, 2003)
Assessment tasks continued… TACL (Test of Auditory Comprehension
of Language, Carrow-Woolfolk 1985) RCPM (Coloured Progressive Matrices,
Raven, Court & Raven, 1995) Word span Word comprehension Training word probe Generalisation word probe
Intervention Intervention groups
Phonological awareness intervention group Silent-reading intervention group
Training and Generalisation word probes.
Sample distribution
Age groups
Phonological awareness interventionIntervention steps:1. Oral reading of training words.2. Oral word reading and picture match (choice of two
pictures).3. Oral blending of an onset and rime presented orally only and
choose the corresponding picture (choice of three pictures). 4. Individual phoneme blending (plastic letters) orally and
visually, followed by picture match (choice of three pictures).5. Ask the participant to orally blend individual phonemes
(without plastic letters), make a picture match and put the picture in the box (Choice of three pictures).
6. Sentence completion (oral reading, three words to choose from, no picture).
7. Oral reading of training words.
Silent-reading intervention Intervention steps:1. Silent reading of training words.2. Silent word reading and picture match (choice of two
pictures).3. Silent reading of a short sentence then picture matching
(choice of three pictures). 4. Action task 1: Silent reading of a target word, then place
picture match in a box (choice of three pictures).5. Action task 2: Silent reading of an action sentence and
completion of the action (put the picture in the box/bag/hat) with the correct choice of picture (three possible pictures to choose from).
6. Sentence completion (silent reading, three words to choose from, no picture).
7. Oral reading of training words.
Results All participants in the study showed improvements in
reading ability at the conclusion of the intervention.
Case Number
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Va
lue
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TWPRE
TWSCORE
Case Number
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Va
lue
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GWPRE
GWSCORE
The comparison between pre and posttest scores for each participant on training and generalisation word probes.
Results for the intervention groups
Intervention Group
SILENT READINGPHONOLOGICAL AWARENE
Mea
n
30
20
10
0
Bars paired by colour. Pretest mean score followed by posttest mean score:
Generalisation word probe
Letter-sound production
Letter-sound recognition
Non-word blending
Non-word segmentation
Passage comprehension
Training word probe
Word attack
Word blending
Word comprehension
Word identification
Word segmentation
At the conclusion of the study all participants in both the phonological awareness and the silent-reading intervention groups showed improvement on all assessment tasks.
As indicated in the table on the following slide, a comparison of posttest mean scores for measures of phonological awareness are higher for the phonological awareness intervention group, while mean scores for measures of reading comprehension as well as measures of single real-word reading are higher for the silent-reading intervention group.
These results are consistent with the research hypotheses.
7 15.4286 21.3842 8.0825
8 24.8750 26.3191 9.3052
7 5.0000 5.2915 2.0000
8 4.2500 8.0490 2.8457
7 2.7143 2.2147 .8371
8 8.7500 7.7782 2.7500
7 9.7143 2.0587 .7781
8 7.2500 2.4928 .8814
7 5.2857 3.3022 1.2481
8 3.0000 2.0702 .7319
7 3.1429 4.0999 1.5496
8 2.0000 2.2039 .7792
7 2.5714 3.5523 1.3427
8 1.2500 2.3755 .8399
7 21.1429 4.3753 1.6537
8 19.2500 5.6758 2.0067
7 15.2857 7.4098 2.8006
8 11.7500 8.2592 2.9201
7 22.2857 8.9947 3.3997
8 25.6250 7.5958 2.6855
7 24.7143 13.6957 5.1765
8 27.8750 16.2607 5.7490
7 15.2857 15.4458 5.8379
8 12.2500 16.5076 5.8363
INTGROUPPHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
SILENT READING
WISCORE
WASCORE
PCSCORE
WBSCORE
NWBSCORE
WSEGSCOR
NWSEGSCO
LSRSCORE
LSPSCORE
WCSCORE
TWSCORE
GWSCORE
N MeanStd.
DeviationStd. Error
Mean
Intervention Group StatisticsIntervention group mean score comparison.
Results for the age groups
AGEGROUP
7-12 YEARS3-6 YEARS
Mea
n
40
30
20
10
0
Bars paired by colour. Pretest mean score followed by posttest mean score:
Generalisation word probe
Letter-sound production
Letter-sound recognition
Non-word blending
Non-word segmentation
Passage comprehension
Training word probe
Word attack
Word blending
Word comprehension
Word identification
Word segmentation
8 8.1250 9.8043 3.4664
7 34.5714 27.8140 10.5127
8 .7500 .8864 .3134
7 9.0000 7.7889 2.9439
8 3.5000 3.9641 1.4015
7 8.7143 7.9313 2.9977
8 7.8750 1.8077 .6391
7 9.0000 3.2660 1.2344
8 3.0000 1.6903 .5976
7 5.2857 3.5456 1.3401
8 1.1250 1.2464 .4407
7 4.1429 3.9761 1.5028
8 .5000 .7559 .2673
7 3.4286 3.7796 1.4286
8 18.2500 5.0356 1.7803
7 22.2857 4.3861 1.6578
8 9.3750 4.9262 1.7417
7 18.0000 8.2260 3.1091
8 18.6250 5.3168 1.8798
7 30.2857 6.1296 2.3168
8 17.8750 8.2191 2.9059
7 36.1429 14.6905 5.5525
8 4.8750 3.2705 1.1563
7 23.7143 18.1357 6.8547
AGEGROUP3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
3-6 YEARS
7-12 YEARS
WISCORE
WASCORE
PCSCORE
WBSCORE
NWBSCORE
WSEGSCOR
NWSEGSCO
LSRSCORE
LSPSCORE
WCSCORE
TWSCORE
GWSCORE
N MeanStd.
DeviationStd. Error
Mean
Group Statistics
As can be seen in the table below, overall mean scores for posttests for both interventions are consistently higher in the 7-12 age group than in the 3-6 age group.
Implications of results for phonological awareness intervention group
Hypothesis testing
Implications for educational practices
Implications for further research
Implications of results for silent-reading intervention group
Hypothesis testing
Implications for educational practices
Implications for further research
Implications of results for the 3-6 age group Given the successful progress made by
participants in the 3-6 age group the possible benefits of early intervention in reading for children who have Down syndrome needs to be explored further in the areas of: Phonological awareness
Implications of study and potential benefit for later reading development.
Reading comprehension Implications of study and potential benefit for later
reading development. Oral language development
Implications of study and potential benefit for later language development.
Implications of results for the 7-12 age group Plateau's and glass ceilings…
Possible benefits of school-age intervention in reading for children who have Down syndrome. Phonological awareness Reading comprehension Oral language development
Implications of phonological output scores Change in phonological output scores
The relationship between phonological output scores and reading improvement
Implications for the relationship between reading and oral language development for children who have Down syndrome
The relationship between phonological output and phonological awareness scores
Implications for reading instruction
Further discussion Intervention comparisons
Age group comparisons
Towards inclusion – implications for educational opportunities and policy The importance of phonological awareness
and reading comprehension for all.
Implications for further research
Conclusions Early intervention and school-age
intervention’s were found to be successful in facilitating reading development in this study.
The results of this study suggest that children who have Down syndrome can demonstrate phonological awareness and greater decoding skills after participating in phonological awareness instruction.
The results of this study suggest that reducing the oral language demands of reading tasks may facilitate reading comprehension for some children who have Down syndrome.
The results of the silent-reading intervention group also demonstrate that children who have Down syndrome demonstrate improved reading comprehension after engaging in reading comprehension tasks.
The results of this study provide support to the suggestion that reading development aids oral language development for children who have Down syndrome.