PA Facts noted by C-S & E, 2003:
Prereaders are unaware of individual phonemes in words
(Adams, 1990; Ehri, 1979; Griffith & Olson, 1992; Liberman, Shankweiler, Foscher, &Carter 1974; Stahl & Murray, 1994; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987).
"Beginning readers need to learn how distinguish phonemes in spoken words and how they are linked to graphemes in the spellings of words” (C-S & E, 2003, p. 25).
These studies show that PA and letter knowledge predict reading ability:
Juel, Griffith, & Goff, 1986; Share, Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984)
Segmenting support over "other" tasks:
Cunningham, 1990; Ludberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988)
Using letters to segment phonemes, more benefits in learning to segment, read, and spell:
Ball & Blachman, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983, 1985;Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989; Ehri & Wilce,
1987, Hohn & Ehri, 1983; Tangel & Blachman, 1992, 1995; Uhry & Shepherd, 1993)
Meta-analysis verifications of the above knowledge:
Bus & van IJendoorn, 1999; Ehri et al., 2001)
The separate contribution of markers and articulatory pictures was not determined until this study.
Methods:
3 groups: mouth treatment used articulatory pictures of mouth movements; ear treatment - used blocks; and control - no treatment
Urban setting (2 schools, lower SES, children weren't taught to read in K.
Criteria for inclusion:
name 13/17 letters, segment one phoneme within 1 of the 10 words, but no more than 3, read only 1 cvc pseudoword and 10 or fewer primer words, identified picture-words on Peabody Pic Vocab, performed about the same as 2 other children to form a triplet with similar scores on segmentation, word reading & vocab. Members of triplets randomly assigned to 3 groups. 1 pretest session, 3-6 training sessions, 2 post-test sessions.
pretests:
- letter naming (capital letters)
- segmenting 8 words (modified Yopp, 88)
- 5 Pseudowords
- Spell 5 words
- read 22 high frequency words
- Peabody Pic Vocab-Rev
Instruction:
Correspondence relationship between blocks and sounds taught. Segmentation, pronounce separate sounds in words and pseudowords, and position blocks for sounds. The meaning of the words was provided with a picture card while pseudowords were represented with people's faces.
Children had to reach a criterion of 8 consectutive correct responses or have completed 6 training sessions. word patterns used were cv, vc, cvc, ccv vcc ccvc, cvcc. The last task (exit task) A picture card was shown, the experimenter said what it was, provided a defining sentence, thent he child repeatedthe names. Finally, the child was shown pictures again, had to name the object and segment it in a frame (3 or 4 segments).
Researcher used a mirror to help children identify mouth moves.
The control group did regular kindergarten work with no PA or reading instruction. They memorized and sang the alphabet.
Posttests
administered a day after training ended and a week later, by another researcher, blind to participant grouping.
1. segmented words into phonemes using pretest words + 7 new words/delayed test had 14 new words
2. pseudoword decoding, same as pretest, only on day after posttest
3. spelling pretest readministere on both posttests
4. different word were taught for learning to read words: 8 s words on potst 1 and 8 f words on potst 2. Five trials of practicing reading (no words had been taught but sounds had been taught).
Experimenter read the word the first time on an index card, provided a defining sentence, andthe child repeated it. On subsequent trials, word presented on a card, if incorrect, researcher provided the word for each trial. Word learning was measured by counting the number of words read correctly over 5 trials, scoring only the first response.
ANOVAs verified treatment groups were well matched on pretests.
Reliability of posttest assessed with Chronbacks alph
ANOVAs used for effects of PA on outcomes under 3 conditions at 2 times. Post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison found effect sizes of 1.47 for mouth group and 1.53 for ear group on segmenting task.
Theory at work: Connectionist model proposed by Plaut et al. 1996.
Rack et al., Laing & Hulme (1999) showed that word learning is a "connection-forming process, referred to as direct mapping hypothesis.
Ehri's theory: beginners read words by "forming connections between some leters in spellings and phonetic cues in pronunciations." Children become sensitive to "articulatory gestures" providing them "better access to phonetic cues in word if . . . motoric gestures" are used (Liberman & Mattingly, 85) (in C-S & Ehri, 2003, p. 46).
No comments:
Post a Comment