Constructivism in Reading Education ~Keith Stanovich (1994)

Tenets of Constructivism: Self-discovery is the most efficacious way of learning; learning is natural (like walking and talking); cognitive components cannot be extricated from the whole - the job of the learner is to discover these if real learning is to occur.

Differentiating Levels of Processing: Is Reading Like Reasoning?

E.L Thorndike and R.L. Thorndike (1917, 1974) posited that reading was best thought of as reasoning. Stanovich & Cunningham (1991), however, explain that word recognition is a different cognitive process than comprehension of text; these are two very different processing levels.  Word recognition follow an exogenous Constructivism - external instruction resulting in learning about subprocesses, then applying the knowledge to word recognition; while reading comprehension is better explained by dialectical/endogenous Constructivism - constructing meaning in a social context, based on individual prior knowledge and understanding of language (schema theory).

The comprehension process is similar to reasoning; but word identification requires the knowledge of discrete skills, and how they function together (i.e., phoneme awareness, letter knowledge, phoneme-grapheme correspondences, blending, adequate knowledge of language, and the metacognitive ability to connect the blended sounds to words in the reader's lexicon.)

"Word recognition in the fluent adult reader is the part of reading that is not like reasoning or problem solving. It does not recruit information from general knowledge bases and is not directed by central processes of expectation generation." p. 262

Central Processes: The Part of Reading That is Like Reasoning


A firmly established principle: readers must make use of background knowledge in sentence processing. Studies have provided evidence that "variations in topic knowledge modify the quantity and quality of information recalled from text" p 263 (Lipson, 1983; Taylor, 1985) Components of comprehension training for at risk & LD children include: activating prior knowledge and expectations (Pearson & Fielding, 1991) The learner is viewed as an active information processor (Harris & Pressley, 1991; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pressley & Van Meter, 1993). The reader requires some knowledge of cognitive resources in selecting and interpreting a text: how textual features like structure, clarity and difficulty influence memory and comprehension are metacognitive abilities. Declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge work together as the reader makes strategy decisions. This falls into the realm of active, engaged thinking. Increasing a reader's knowledge of strategies and when to use them improves comprehension (p 263 for studies cited). Reading theory is bifurcated: background knowledge permeates the "central processes of text inferencing, comprehension monitoring, and global interpretation" (p. 264) direct and explicit instruction allows the development of word recognition strategies.  Reading is thus better described as constrained reasoning, that is, reading as reasoning can only occur when automatic word recognition predominates.

Different Instructional Philosophies for Different Contexts

Because the processes are so different, instructional programs must align with theoretical differences based on distinct cognitive processes.

'Training programs for at-risk and LD children in these different subdomains of reading differ in the degree of explicitness in the instructional procedures and in the degree of analytic versus holistic experience provided. Differences follow from assumptions about the naturalness of learning. Pressley (1993) noted "self-discovery and lack of explicitness" as defining features of most constructivist approaches: "Educators with constructivist orientations contend that various forms of knowledge, including knowledge of strategic procedures are applied more generally if constructed by learners than if explicitly taught to them (p. 264)." The tenets of endogenous constructivism contradict empirical evidence on how early word recognition skill is acquired and on efficacious treatments for at-risk/LD children. Strategies for word recognition apply to non-disable children as well.

"There is no known teaching method that has resulted in good reading comprehension without simultaneously leading to the development of at least adequate word recognition ability. Furthermore, an overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that the primary processing problem that characterizes at-risk children and children with LD is a phonological processing difficulty that impedes word learning and word recognition (Adams & Bruck, 1993; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Perfetti, 1985; Share. 1994; Siegel, 1993; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987) (p. 265).

Is Reading Natural?

Goodman makes the claim that it is natural and that it can be learned through "authentic literacy events" defined by a need. He charged that educators made it hard by "trying to make it easy" (Goodman, 1986).

Evidence that it is not natural: all communities have developed spoken language but only a minority have a written form. Speech is about as old as the human race but written language wasn't discovered until 3 or 4 thousand years ago. Most children learn to speak in normal environments but they require explicit instruction in acquiring reading and writing, with many not "getting it" after intensive efforts from teachers and parents. Liberman & Liberman (1990) explain that all oral language uses a universal strategy in constructing utterances but written language takes many forms: alphabetic, logographic, morphologic. Oral and written language are dramatically dissimilar with elaborate code learning for the latter. Research continues to conclude that reading is not a natural human activity in the same way that speech is. It requires analytic processing and not mere pair associations. Pre-literate children could not learn to discriminate Fat from Bat or Fun from Bun with greater than chance accuracy (Byrne, 1992). Environmental print, when decontextualized, is not recognized by a preliterate child (Masonheimer, Drum, and Ehri, 1984). Children are attentive to unrelated clues if given the task of learning whole words on flash cards. They will focus on a thumb print or other salient feature rather than the letter features or shapes of the word (Gough, 1993; Gough & Juel, 1991). Seymour & Elder (1986) studied children new in school and their acquisition of sight vocabulary learned via whole word methods and no phonics instruction. The children could not recognize unfamiliar words that were not taught after two terms, unlike children receiving letter-sound decoding skills instruction.

Fractionating Language Processes Helps

"Successful reading acquisition requires the development of an analytic processing stance toward words that is not natural"

A deficit in segmental language skills (PA or phonological sensitivity - PS) precedes difficulties with phonological coding (Ball, 1993; Brandley & Bryant, 1985; Bruck, 1992; Stanovich, 1982, 1992; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987; Wagner, Torgesen, et al., 1993).  A minimal level of phonological sensitivity seems to be a prerequisite to fluent reading. Low levels of PS inhibit learning the alphabetic principle underlying automatic word recognition (Tunmer & Hoover, 1992; Tunmer &  Nesdale, 1985).

Justification for my study:

"Instructional interventions for preschool children at risk for learning difficulties that involve the conscious and explicit teaching of sound segmentation have been found to lead to faster rates of reading and spelling acquisition. Explicit, analytic teaching of spelling-sound correspondences has been found to be particularly efficacious for at-risk chldren and children with reading disabilities" (p. 268 ~ see article for lengthy empirical studies cited for these two statements).

(2000) Effects of Preschool Phoneme Identity Training After Six Years: Outcome Level Distinguished from Rate of Response

Byrne, B., Fielding-Barnsley, R, and Ashley, L. (2000).  Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (4), 659-667

After 6 years, children trainined in phoneme identity (preschool) outperformed untrainined controls on irregular word reading; a composite list of pseudowords, regular words,and irregular words, and on another nonword test. Those who were poor readers in gr 5 were slow in making progress in phonemic awareness in preschool. The rate of achieving PA in preschool accounted for variance in school literacy progress as well as the level of PA achieved. PA training had modest but detectable effects on later reading skill.

"It is awareness of the phonemic constituents of words that underpins an understanding of the nature of alphabetic writing because alphabetic letters represent these constituents" (p. 659).

Learning to read alphabetically does not necessarily develop PA or guarantee that rules relating print to speech will be applied to new words.

Evaluation Study of Original experimental materials

64 preschoolers were trained with the "Sound Foundations" program used in 1991, for 1/2 hr per week for 12 weeks. Training = learning to classify items in color picture posters, on worksheets, and with games - e.g., search the s poster for things that begin with /s/.  Small groups were employed for intensive instruction and monitoring. The control group (62) did not receive instruction in phoneme identity, They learned to classify items semantically (color, shape, animacy, edibility). Random assignement to groups with constraints: equal numbers of children from each preschool, equivalent PPV scores, & equivalent pretests on PA. Same teacher conducted experimental and control procedures. Experimental group had greater gains in PA including untaught phonemes and they outperformed on a decoding test. 1 yr later, (gr K), experimental group were ahead of controls on pseudoword decoding but not real word identification or spelling. Concluded that the training taught phoneme sharing among words and supported the development of  decoding skills (660).

In the 1st and 2nd grades, the experimental group outperformed controls on pseudoword decoding but not on real words or spelling. However, the ex group outperformed contols on reading infrequent but regular words, giving validity to their superior decoding skills and their reading comprehension was superior in grade 2 while there was no variance in listening comprehension scores - indicating equal ability. Superior word identification was thought to provide the edge in reading comprehension.

In the thrid grade, only pseudoword reading was different (experimental suuperior). No significant differences in word id, reading or listening comp and a "Title Recognition Test" (from Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990).

Vaccination model
Shanahan & Barr proposed a model where a targeted treatment guarantees freedom from future reading problems. The vaccination effect seemed a good explanation for this treatment and was consistent with Stanovich's phonological core model of reading disability (1988).

Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? (2004)

"Frank R. Vellutino, Jack M. Fletcher, Margaret J. Snowling, and Donna M. Scanlon

Abstract quote: "in most cases [of deficiencies in reading-related cognitive abilities], phonological skills deficiencies associated with phonological coding deficits are the probable causes of the disorder rather than visual, semantic, or syntactic deficits, although reading difficulties in some children may be associated with general language deficits. . . . general learning abilities (e.g., attention, association learning, cross-modal transfer) and low-level sensory deficits have weak validity as causal factors in specific reading disability (supported by research evaluating the biological foundations of dyslexia). Many poor readers are impaired because of inadequate instruction or other experiential factors. Implications: focus on the need for enhanced instruction."


Purposes of the review: 
Examines the literature for causal relationships in dyslexia; presents research evidence for distinguishing between biological/cognitive deficits and experiential/instructional deficits as possible causes.

Cognitive Model of knowledge, skills, and abilities assumed to underlie reading ability

Permanent Memory

Background knowledge: cultural, environmental, experiential

Linguistic Coding Processes            Lexical Knowledge              Sublexical Knowledge                   Visual Coding Processes

Phonological                                       Spoken words                      Phonological Awareness                  and knowledge

Semantic                                               Printed words                      Orthographic Awareness

Morphological                                                                                   Alphabetic Knowledge

Syntactic                                                                                            Orthographic conventions

Pragmatic

Written Text                                       Word Identification Language Comprehension       

                                                            Reading Comprehension


Knowledge of Print                          Working Memory Processes                          Metalinguistic Processes
Concepts and Conventions                                                                                       and knowledge

                                                               Permanent Memory

Definitions:
Visual coding process: sensory and higher level visualization skills that link visual stimuli with symbols
Linguistic coding: processes that facilitate language development and its use for coding, memory storage, and retrieval. Includes:

• phonological coding (speech codes), 
• semantic and morphological coding (word and word part meanings), 
• syntactic coding (word order rules - organizing ideas into coherent sentences), 
• pragmatic coding (storing information about conventions of language use for communication, including pitch, volume, intensity, punctuation in written language)
• phonological awareness: understanding that speech sounds and combinations of them create

Linguistic and visual coding processes help establish associations between spoken and written words and aid in the acquisition of sight words, i.e., words identified automatically as meaningful lexical units. This association is dependent upon knowledge of print concepts and print conventions - left to right, letters represent phonemes comprising oral language. An understanding of the alphabetic principle facilitates sight word learning, because words contain so many visually similar features. Phonological decoding reduces the load on visual memory, providing letter-sound information as the child constructs access to lexical knowledge.

This necessitates building sublexical knowledge, specifically phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge (reciprocally related), as well as skills in metalinguistic analysis. (p.5)

Causes of reading disability

Diagnosis of dyslexia is determined by inadequate facility in printed word identification and related skills of spelling and decoding. The primary deficity is in learning to decode print (Gough & Tumer, 1986; Perfetti, 1985; Snowling 2000; Stanovich, 1991; velutino, Scanlon, & Chen, 1995; Vellutino, et al., 1996). Reading comprehension problems are also identified by inadequate word identification skills due to decoding deficits.

Concepts of print

"Limitations in such knowledge are probably not basic causes of specific reading disability in the biological sense, and are, in most cases, caused by experiential and instructional deficits rather than by biologically based cognitive deficits" (p. 7).

Regression studies abound contributing to a causal link between reading ability, PA deficits and phonological decoding.

Cognitive Deficit theories of dyslexia (discredited)

The following hypotheses have been discredited by empirical studies
Specific learning disabilities are linked to deficiencies in visual, linguistic and low level sensory functions, and general learning abilities involved in all learning enterprises and not just learning to read.
SLD in reading attributed to deficiencies in selective attention, associative learning, cross-modal transfer, serial-order processing, pattern analysis and rule learning.
Reviews of this literature can be found in: Vellutino, 1979, 1989;' Vellutino & Scanlon, 1982; Katz, Shankweiler, & Lieberman, 1981; Katz, Healy, and Shankweiler, 1983). Where group differences were noted in studies, most could be attributed to a lack of control in verbal coding and working memory processes affected by verbal coding deficits. When these controls were implemented, group differences between normal readers and poor readers were eliminated for general learning abilities.

Cross modal transfer invalidated by Vellutino and associates in 1979, 1982 and 1987 and the theory was invalidated numerous times (Givson, 1969; Bryant, 1974; Meltzoff & Kuhn, 1994;  )

National Reading Panel Report (2000)

NRP Report ~ Chapter 2 ~ Alphabetics 
Part I. Phonemic Awareness Instruction

Summary of the Review of Literature and Meta-analysis of data from experimental and quasi-experimental designs


Definition: "PA is the ability to focus on and manipulate phonemes in spoken words." p. 2-1

Common Tasks used to Assess PA:

1. Phoneme isolation recognizes individual phonemes in words, e.g., "What is the first sound in man?" (/m/)
2. Phoneme identity requires recognition of a common sound in different words, e.g., "What might be the same sound you hear in these words: bear, box, bug?" (/b/)
3. Phoneme categorization requires identifying a word in a sequence of three or four words without a similar sound, e.g., "Which one of these words doesn't belong with the others, bag, bike, rat?"  (rat)
4. Phoneme blending requires listenting to a sequence of separated sounds and combing them to form a word, e.g., "What word do you think this is /k/ /a/ /t/?" (cat)
5. Phoneme segmentation requires breaking a word into sounds through pronouncing them, moving a marker for each sound, or tapping for each sound, e.g., "How many phonemes do you hear in pot?" (/p//o//t/ - 3)
6. Phoneme deletion recognizes a new word when one phoneme is removed, e.g., "What is stop without the /s/?" (top)

Results of phonemic awareness instruction compared to other types of instruction aimed at developing phonemic awareness. 

• PA outcomes large effect size: 0.86
• on reading moderate effect: 0.53
• on spelling 0.59
• Effects significant on follow up tests, on measures of the ability to read words and pseudowords, and on reading comprehension. Significant on standardized tests and experimenter tests. 
• "Teaching children to manipulate phonemes in words was highly effective across all literacy domains and outcomes." (p. 2-3)

Moderator findings:

Effects on learning PA

• Absence of halo and Hawthorne effects
• Training didn't generalize to math performance.
• PA acquired under all conditions but some had greater effects, e.g., focused and explicit instruction on one or two skills than when taught three or more. 
• Using letters in manipulations helped normal and at-risk children
• Small group instruction had greater effect than individual and whole class instruction
• 5 to 18 hrs of instruction produced larger effect sizes than shorter or longer treatments.
• Greater effects for beginning at risk children (PreK-K) than older disabled readers and even first grade.
• SES exerted no impact on effect size

Effects on reading

• Effects on reading greater for experimenter tests than standardized (not sensitive to PA skills)
• Blending and segmenting more effective than multiple skill instruction.
• Largest effects with at-risk children over disabled and normally developing.
• Small group over individual and classroom
• preschoolers much larger effect on reading than students in other grade levels.
• English learners had larger effects than other languages.
• mid to high SES - higher effects than low SES

Effects on spelling

• Minimal effects on spelling (not significant from 0)
• Teaching manipulations with letters had more impact on spelling than no letters
• Kindergarten made greater gains from PA training in spelling than 1st graders did
• Mid to high SES had larger effects on spelling than low SES
• English > than other languages

Design Analysis

• Rigorous design yielded significant effects
• Random assignemt effect sizes on reading moderate to large
• Trainer fidelity yielded moderate effects.
• Treated and untreated controls did not produce larger effect sizes (indicating no Hawthorne effect)
• Large studies showed significant effects (moderate in size)
• Small groups showed greatest effects

Conclusions

• PA can be taught and it is effective under a variety of teaching conditions with a variety of learners.
• PA instruction helps children learn to read words and pseudowords.
• PA training boosted reading comprehension (indirect influence)
• PA instruction helped all types of children improve in reading, from normally developing, at risk, and disabled readers (and children in grades 2-6), kindergarten, and 1st, across SES levels, and English learners
• It assists children in learning to spell, especially K and 1st grade but not for disabled readers
• Manipulating with letters is more effective

Implications for Reading Instruction

• Acquiring PA is a means to reading acquisition, not an end in itself, which is why letters should be included.
• Children differ in PA and some need more instruction. Benefits greatest to non-readers. Readers may not need any PA instruction
• PA training isn't a complete reading program but it's an important component. Doesn't guarantee children will learn to read and write but strongly correlated with reading success.
• Motivation of the student and teacher has not been addressed in research. Techniques, however, are more likely to develop PA if they are relevant and exciting, in order to engage children's attention and interest.
• NRP cannot infer that every teacher and student experienced success in acquiring PA or transferring it to reading and writing as indicated by variation within and across individual studies. 
• Training lasting less than 20 hours was most effective.

Directions for Further Research

• Need research identifying what teachers need to know and do to teach PA effectively and integrate it with other elements of beginning reading instruction.
• Need to study whether small groups are the most effective way to teach PA and if so, processes and conditions that make the approach effective.
• Need research to evaluate motivational properties of PA training and ways of enhancing motivation and interest.
• Need research to determine how PA can be taught with computers (effectively) with transfer to spelling and reading.

Report Details 

Design Features

• Pretesting should be given with pretest compared to posttest to evaluate results.
• Group receiving PA training should be compared to a control group, equivalent in all respects except for no PA instruction. Use of an alternative-treatment control is preferable to no-treatment to rule out the Hawthorne effect.
• Random Assignment should be used with groups equal in variance
• Posttests follow training, assess reading and spelling, show that PA training transfers to improve these skills.
• PA training effects are supported by rigorous experimental design

Other Features of Studies

• Correlational studies found that children who are or will become disabled readers have poor PA, This may underly and explain their acquisition of reading skills (Bradley & Bryant, 83; bruck, 92; Fawcett & Nicholson, 95) 
• Being at risk is defined as having low PA or low reading in a large percentage of cases.
• Training delivery varied. Either researchers or specially trained assistants taught children to manipulate phonemes. Some had classroom teachers as trainers. Few used computers. If teaching PA requires special training, it can't be imposed on classroom teachers. 
• Effects of PA training examined for teachers, computers, and researchers.
• one-on-one tutoring was effective but so was small group (Bus and van Ijzendoorn, 1999)

Technical Report on Early Childhood Literacy Research (2009)

WestEd. (2009). Technical Report: Recommendations for Future Early Childhood Literacy Research. National Institute for Literacy: Early Childhood Literacy. Washington, D.C.

Identified needs: 

Target children from birth to 3 yrs with more measures of early literacy to determine if there's a broader impact of early childhood intervention.

Increase experience with early writing and enhance language development.

Focus on including parents in interventions as well as in the classroom, to increase the effect on language development.

Research studies of younger children should examine complex interventions aimed at improving children's functioning with multiple measures, e.g., rapid naming, print awareness, name writing, language development beyond vocabulary.

Prioritize Research (what should be done first)

• Identify prerequisites to reading and adequate levels of performance. What can be done to increase the number of preschoolers attaining the determined level of competence?
• Study children's writing
• More studies on parent involvement and onset of children's early language and literacy development.
• We don't know about the impact of the family.

Research Design Issues
Research often lacks:

• comparison groups with random assignment
• info on reliability and validity of researcher developed measures
• adequate sample sizes
• details for replication and analysis
• appropriate statistical analysis

Research Needs

• A wider range of outcome measures to increase the quality of the design
• Studies should address the scalability of the intervention within the context of actual classrooms implemented by preschool teachers.
• Don't resist school settings
• Develop a deep understanding of how to get good implementation in classrooms
• Background characteristics to report demographics including language, developmental delays, SES, household make-up, child behavior
• Evidence of equal variance between groups indicating all from the same population. 

Domains of early literacy skills and instructional practices to address in research:

• alphabet knowledge and fluency at naming letters
• phonological awareness
• rapid naming of pictures/objects
• name writing and other writing
• phonological memory (ability to remember and repeat spoken information)

Interactive Reading Justice, et al. (2008)

Interactive Reading

Chapter 11 Strategic and Intentional shared Storybook reading Achieving Excellence in Preschool Literacy Instruction Justice, Laura M. and Vukelich, Carol (2008) New York: Guilford Press (198-218)

Print Salient books are storybooks in which print is a notable design characteristic. They integrate print into illustrations with labels, environmental print, and visible speech sounds (Smolkin, Conlon, & Yaden, 1988)

Print references comprise any verbal or nonverbal reference to print that adults make when they share books.

Adult references to print typically are in these areas: concepts of print, letters, words, print-to-speech connections.

Example from a Head Start classroom:

T: Today we’ll read one of my favorite books, There’s a dragon at my school. Here is where it says the title (runs finger along the title)

C: That’s the title?

T: Yes, the title is the name of the book. This one has a lot of words in it. One, two, three, four, five, six! They are written with red letters

C: S T A etc.

T: That’s a lot of letters. I hear someone say S (points to s)) and I heard T (points to T). You have sharp eyes today. Let’s think about what this book might be about. It’s called there’s a Dragon iat my school. I think it might be about a mouse in a house

C: No it’s about a dragon at school.

Print salient storybooks:

Chicka chicka boom boom (Martin Jr. and Archambault, 1989)

Click, Clack, Moo: Cows that type (Cronin, 2000)

Growing vegetable soup (Ehlert 1987)

My little brother Debi Gliori, 1992)

Silver seeds (Paolilli and Brewer 2001)

The crunching munching caterpillar

The gigantic turnip (Tolstoy & Sharkey, 1998)

The runaway orange (F Brooks 1999)

There’s a dragon at my school (Tyler & Hawthorn, 96)

Phonologically salient books

There’s a dragon at my school and he’s broken every rule

Mrs PiggleWiggle; Tessa the teacher; Gerda the goose; Tooth Trouble; Olive the other reindeer; ChickaChicka boom boom

Make phonological features an explicit aspect of the reading session.

Sample teacher talk:

T: This book is called Tooth Trouble. That’s interesting. Each word in the title starts with /t/ Listen for it. I’ll read the title again TTTTooth TTTTrouble. It looks like the walrus has a toothache.

When adults reference the phonological features of language they bring attention to words, syllables, onsets, and rimes.

“Though many early childhood curricula organize phonological awareness instruction to follow a developmental sequence, doing so does not appear to be necessary given that preschool-age children show sensitivities to all of these aspects of phonology, indicating that phonological awareness development does not follow a strict linear developmental continuum (Anthony, Lonigan, Driscoll, Phillips, Burgess, 2003)

Developing print knowledge and phoneme awareness can be integrated into storybook reading.

Justice & Ezell, 2004

Phonological Awareness includes words, syllables, intrasyllable units of onset and rime, and phonemes. Print knowledge, alphabet and PA represent important elements of emergent literacy development that pave the way for unlocking the alphabetic principle.

Point to print,

Track print

Comment on print,

Ask questions about print to make it an object of salience

References to print occur at very low rates if at all (Ezell & Justice, 2000; Phillips & McNaughton, 1990; van Kleeck, GILLAM, Hamilton, & McGrath, 1997)

Including an expliit focus on print in reading interactions with children can significantly accelerate their print knowledge (Justice & Ezell, 2002)

Types of questions to build comprehension

Predictions

Discussion of vocabulary and story events by linking to something the child knows

Why and how questions stimulate inferential thinking

Why do you think they wanted to do that?

How do you think baby bear feels about that?

Why did Goldilocks go into the house?

Acquiring the Alphabetic Principle: A Case for Teaching Recognition of Phoneme Identity (1990)

Byrne, B. & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1990). Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 805-812.

Given: an understanding of the phonological structure of language, a.k.a. PA, initiates an understanding of the alphabetic principle, the prerequisite to reading (Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989; Juel, Griffith, & Gough,1986; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988).

This article addresses "some questions of detail concerning phonemic awareness—in particular, how it might be efficiently taught,whether various phoneme classes might present special problems, and whether phonemic awareness "spreads" unaided from the phonological locality in which it was first generated."

Experiment 1
Dealt with teaching preschoolers phoneme identity and the phoneme's position in the word (beginning and ending). Children trained to identify /m/ and /s/. Later /f/ and /b/ were introduced. The research question addressed was whether children trained in identity on the first two sounds would show evidence of the alphabetic principle through successfully transferring their knowledge to /f/and /b/.

Training: The experimenter first named items presented to children and said they started or ended with a target  phoneme. This was repeated twice (three exposures). The child was then asked to name the items 3 times while the experimenter reminded the child that "all the words are /?/ words." This training lasted 4 days.
Testing followed immediately after each training day - the child was presented with two pictures, provided the names of the pictured items, told "one is an /?/ word and one is not" then was asked "Which is the /?/ word?"
12 pairs of words were used while six were presented after each training session.

Days 5 and 6, were termed the alphabetic stage of the experiment. Children were trained to read the words sat and mat to a criterion of six correct responses. They were also taught the the phonemes associated with the graphemes for /s/ and /m/ (same criterion). Transfer was tested by presenting new words while being asked to choose one with a target phoneme: Is this "mow" or "sow" ? The eight transfer items were "sum, mad, sow, met, mum, sad, mow and set." On day 6,the same procedure as day 5 continued with the phoneme-grapheme instruction for f and b with a transfer task. Words targeted for phonetic cue reading: "fun, big, fell, bat, bun, fig, bell, and fat." (p.806)

Results: "children can be trained to notice the identity of phonemic segments in words."

• 15 of 16 subjects scored better than chance on some of the identity tests
• 11 reached criterion on six or more of the eight phonemes
• children no worse at identity of final consonants than initial
• high correlations among eight identity tasks means the concept of phoneme identity for a single sound can transfer to all sounds. 
• children with a high level on phonemic awareness completed the transfer task 

". . . a single aspect of phonemic awareness, sensitivity to phoneme identity, was sufficient to support acquisition of the alphabetic principle (p. 807)."

Implications for teaching: reading curriculum can be limited to select phonemes rather than  systematic coverage or all phonemes.

Experiment 2


Experiment 2 examined the same issues as Experiment 1 but focused on segmentation. Did thorough training in segmentation alone lead to acquisition of the alphabetic principle? The second question addressed transfer, would children who successfully acquired /s/ and /m/ perform well on /f / /b/ transfer without segmentation training for these phonemes? A third inquiry involved position effect (initial vs. final). The effect did not exist for phoneme identity, but was hypothesized that it could occur in the segmentation task.


Results: identity performance predicted total alphabetic transfer whereas segmentation did not.

Segmentation of the initial and final consonants of words was taught to preschoolers. There was no child who failed to respond correctly to some degree.  But performance on segmentation task was less stable on than it was on the identity task. The results from Experiment 1 showed that once the principle
of phoneme identity was understood, it generalized to untaught phonemes, but this did not apply to segmentation in Exp. 2. However, segmentation training did make children aware of phoneme identities. Thus, a benefit of segmentation is that it results in phoneme identity


Article's purpose is the "fine-tuning of instructional materials designed to teach phonemic awareness."

Phoneme identity tasks differ based on phoneme position in word. Final phonemes are harder to detect than initial phonemes.

(2003) Phonemic Awareness Instruction: Contribution of Articulatory Segmentation to Novice Beginners' Reading and Spelling

(Castiglioni-Spalten and Ehri, 2003, pp.25-52) Scientific studies of reading vol 7


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).