1593638

Hammill Institute on Disabilities
Winner of CLD's 2003 Award for Outstanding Research: Integration of Letter-Sound

Correspondences and Phonological Awareness Skills of Blending and Segmenting: A Pilot Study
Examining the Effects of Instructional Sequence on Word Reading for Kindergarten Children
with Low Phonological Awareness
Author(s): Mary Karen Oudeans
Source: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Autumn, 2003), pp. 258-280
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1593638
Accessed: 10-04-2015 12:37 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1593638?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Learning Disability Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 203.19.81.250 on Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:37:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WINNER OF CLD'S 2003 AWARDFOR OUTSTANDINGRESEARCH

The followitg article was selected by CLD's Research Committee as thzewinner of the 2003 Award for Outstanding
Research. Presented annually, this award is designed to promote and recognize doctoral or master's level research
conducted within the last five years. Winners receivea certificate and a cash award during the Distinguished Lecture
at the InternationalConferenceon LearningDisabilitiessponsoredby the CouncilforLearningDisabilities.Sr.Mary

Karen Oudeans received her awarcdon SatuZrday,October 11, 2003, during the 25th International Conference on
Learning Disabilities in Bellevue, Washington.
INI'EGRATIONOF LEI'I'ER-SOUND
AND PHONOLOGICAL
CORRESPONDENCES
AWARENESSSKILLSOF BLENDINGAND
A PILOTSTUDY EXAMININGTHE
SEGMENT'l'NG:
EFFECTSOF INSTRUCTIONALSEQUENCEON WORD
READINGFORKINDERGARTENCHILDRENWITH
LOW PHONOLOGICALAWARENESS
Sister Mary Karen Oudeans
Abstract. Research evidence indicates that integration of letter

sounds with phonological blending and segmenting is critical for acquisition of beginning word reading skills. Yet, a review of kindergarten
intervention studies revealed that the optimal sequence for integrating
these two component skills has not been investigated empirically.In this
pilot study, two sequences for integrating and teaching letter-soundcorrespondences and phonological blending and segmenting were compared to determine which sequence resultedin higher word reading and
phonological awareness performance and higher rates of growth for
kindergartenchildren with low phonemic segmentation skills. Fifty-five
children, 36 with phonemic segmentation deficits, were randomly
assigned to two instructional conditions: (a) parallel, integrated (PI), or
(b) parallel, non-integrated (PN-I)sequence. At posttest, initial segmentation skills explained only 7%of the variance for the PI group and 36%
of the variance for the PN-I group on segmentation fluency measures.
The PI sequence "closed the gap" in phonemic segmentation between
children with low segmentation skills and children with adequate skills
by posttest. Children in the PI sequence also performed reliably higher
on word reading generalization at posttest and maintenance, and the
rate of change in the growth trajectory for letter-sound fluency was
greaterfor the PI sequence.
MARYKARENOUDEANS,Ph.D., is chair,Departmentof SpecialEducation,SilverLakeCollege,Manitowoc,Wisconsin.
SISTER
Learning Disability Quarterly
258
Recent promulgation and implementation of the

"EarlyReading First"and the "Reading First"initiatives
as part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 represents a nationwide effort to help all students become
readers by grade three (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001).
These initiatives focus on early identification, intervention and prevention of reading failure for all children,
but especially young children at risk of future reading
disabilities.
Prior to these initiatives, more than two decades of
research have investigated questions related to phonological and alphabetic awareness and successful acquisition of beginning reading skills (e.g., Adams, 1990;
Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Lewkowicz, 1980;
Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985; National Reading
Panel, 2000; Stanovich, 1986; Torgesen & Davis, 1996;
Wagner, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Several "big
ideas" (Kameenui & Carnine, 1998) have emerged from
this research base.
First, in beginning reading, phonological awareness is
critical, especially in kindergarten, because it forms the
foundation for developing alphabetic understanding, a
skill that requires children to map the individual sounds
in words onto the letters of the alphabet in order to be
able to read words (e.g., Adams, 1990; Ball & Blachman,
1991; Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher,
1997; National Reading Panel, 2000; Smith, Simmons,
& Kameenui, 1998).
Second, converging evidence suggests that specific
phonological tasks, especially phonemic segmentation,
are strong predictors of beginning reading ability (Muter,
Hulme, Snowling, & Taylor, 1997; Kaminski & Good,
1996; O'Connor & Jenkins, 1999; Snider, 1997; Spector,
1992; Wagner, Torgesen, Rashotte, Hecht, Barker,et al.,
1997; Yopp, 1988), and that the phonological awareness
skills of phonemic segmentation and phonemic blending are necessary prerequisites for success in learning to
read (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Davidson & Jenkins,
1994; Fox & Routh, 1984; O'Connor, Jenkins, & Slocum,
1995; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992).
Third, phonological awareness skills are teachable
(e.g., Adams, 1990; Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Brady,
Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Cunningham, 1990;
O'Connor et al., 1995; National Reading Panel, 2000;
Smith et al., 1998). Thus, instruction often results in significant gains in phonological awareness skills for most
children. Those who received phonological awareness
instruction and subsequently demonstrated increases in
these skills had higher scores on measures of reading
achievement than children who did not receive phonological awareness instruction (Ball & Blachman, 1991;
Cunningham, 1990; Fox & Routh, 1984; Davidson &
Jenkins, 1994; O'Connor et al., 1995; O'Connor, NotariSyverson, & Vadasy, 1996; Torgesen et al., 1992).
Finally, although phonological awareness is necessary, it is not sufficient for beginning reading acquisition. Phonological awareness instruction is most
advantageous for learning to read words when combined with alphabetic skills, specifically letter-sound
correspondences, to establish explicit links between letters and sounds in spoken words (e.g., Ball & Blachman,
1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1991; Ehri &
McCormick, 1998; Foorman et al., 1997; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998;
Vandervelden & Siegel, 1997).
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This pilot study examined the sequence of integrating
alphabetic and phonological awareness skills that best
facilitated word reading performance for children in
kindergarten with limited phonological awareness. A
multistep process was used as outlined below.
First, kindergarten studies were identified that
involved children with low phonological awareness
skills and had investigated the integration of lettersound correspondences and the phonological awareness skills of blending and segmenting to facilitate
word reading. Second, a conceptual framework was
developed to provide (a) a structure for organizing,
describing, and codifying the relationship between two
component skills- the integration of letter-sound correspondences and phonological blending and segmenting; and (b) a vehicle for analyzing and reporting how
these component skills were integrated to attain specific instructional outcomes (i.e., word reading) in the
kindergarten studies. These preliminary steps to achieve
the purpose of the study are detailed in the subsequent
sections.
Selection Criteria for Kindergarten Studies
Studies were selected for analysis if they met all of the
following criteria. First, the study included kindergarten
children with low phonological awareness skills.
Second, the independent variable included only the
phonological awareness skills of blending and segmenting or a combination of the two skills. This criterion was
selected because converging evidence indicates that
phonemic blending and segmenting are highly correlated with beginning reading acquisition. Third, lettersound correspondences were included as part of the
intervention. Fourth, a minimum of one word-reading
measure was used as one of the dependent variables.
Fifth, children were randomly assigned to treatment
conditions
Results of the Kindergarten Literature Search
The literature search identified 22 studies conducted
with kindergarten children. A review of these studies
revealed the following
pattern. Five studies
Volume 26, Fall 2003
259
(Christensen, 1997; McClure, Ferreira, & Bisanz, 1996;

Muter et al. 1997; Snider, 1997; Yopp, 1988) were
correlation studies. Three studies were longitudinal
studies that were initiated with a kindergarten cohort (Fielding-Barnsley, 1997; Foorman et al., 1997;
Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997) and continued
over several years.
Eight studies were implemented with intact classrooms of children and taught by kindergarten teachers
(Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel, 1994; Brady et al.,
1994; Brennan & Ireson, 1997; Kersholt, Van Bon, &
Schreuder, 1997; Kozminsky & Kozminsky, 1995; Kuby
& Aldridge, 1997; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988;
O'Connor et al., 1996). In these eight classroom studies
a variety of phonological awareness skills were taught
during the intervention. Some studies included alphabetic skills (i.e., letters) (e.g., Blachman et al., 1994); others did not (e.g., Lundberg et al., 1988; Kozminsky &
Kozminsky, 1995). Two studies included only typically
achieving kindergarten children (Ball & Blachman,
1991; Cunningham, 1990). One study (Vandervelden &
Siegel, 1997) included children with low phonological
awareness. Instruction included a variety of phonological and print activities to help kindergarten children
recognize printed matches of spoken words or syllables
and to spell words.
Four studies involving children with low phonological awareness (Davidson & Jenkins, 1994; Fox &
Routh, 1984; O'Connor et al., 1995; Torgesen et al.,
1992) evaluated the children on word reading tasks that
required the use of alphabetic skills, specifically lettersound correspondences, and the phonological awareness skills of blending and segmenting. These four
studies also met the final criterion of random assignment to treatment condition.
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
ON INTEGRATION
Before developing the dimensions of a conceptual
framework on integration in the specific context of
letter-sound correspondences and phonological awareness instruction, it was important to understand integration from a broad instructional perspective. To assist
in conceptualizing integration from this broader perspective, a definition of integration and two examples
of integration are provided.
An Instructional Perspective on Integration
Integration can be defined as the arrangement of separable component skills into a whole. To achieve certain
outcomes, component skills must be taught to mastery
in a specific order; that is, one component skill must be
taught to mastery before another. For other outcomes,
the order in which the component skills are taught to
mastery may not matter. However, all component skills

must be taught to mastery at some time to accomplish
the outcome. The following examples provide a way to
conceptualize integration from this broad instructional
perspective.
Two instructional tasks, shoe tying and time telling,
represent the extremes of what might be called orderspecific integration (e.g., shoe tying) and order-neutral
integration (e.g., time telling). When teaching shoe
tying, four component skills must be taught: (a) lacing
the shoe, (b) overlapping the laces, (c) knotting the
laces, and (d) tying the bow. Each component skill must
be taught to mastery in sequence to accomplish the outcome, a tied shoe.
When teaching time telling, four component tasks
(i.e., preskills) must be taught to mastery to attain the
outcome of accurate time telling: (a) knowledge of the
direction in which the hands of the clock move; (b) the
rule about the "little hand points and the big hand
counts;" (c) the skill of counting by fives from 0-60;
and (d) the ability to switch from counting by fives to
counting by ones (Silbert, Carnine, & Stein, 1990). Any
one of the first three component skills can be taught to
mastery prior to teaching either of the other two.
Counting by five, or the rule about the "little hand
points and big hand counts" can be taught to mastery
first. Neither component skill is a prerequisite for
teaching the other skill to mastery. That is, unlike shoe
tying, which requires that the component skills be
taught to mastery sequentially (e.g., order-specific), the
order for teaching the first three skills in time telling to
mastery is not specified (i.e., order-neutral).
Development of the Dimensions of a Conceptual
Framework
A conceptual framework on integration includes at
least two dimensions: (a) the order for sequencing sets
of activities that will be integrated, and (b) the amount
of time that is allocated for mastery of a skill or activity
to a specific criterion level of performance. In the
conceptual framework for examining the integration
of the two component skills, letter-sound correspondences and phonological awareness, order refers to the
sequence of letter-sound correspondence activities and
the phonological awareness skills of blending and segmenting.
Order dimension. The relationship between sets of
activities can be classified into four categories: successive,
parallel, integrated, and non-integrated. A relationship
between sets of activities that is successive requires
one set of activities to follow another set of activities,
while a parallel relationship requires the two sets of
activities to be taught within a specified period of time
(e.g., within the same training session). The relationship
260
between integrated sets of activities requires the two sets

of activities to be systematically linked with explicit
connections made between component skills. In contrast, the relationship between non-integrated sets of
activities is discrete and kept separate from each other;
that is, the two sets of activities are not linked.
Naturally, there are various combinations of these four
categories when integrating the sets of activities during
instruction.
The order dimension for the conceptual framework
combines these four categories for organizing the
relationship between sets of activities to form six primary instructional sequences, as follows: (a) successive,
(b) parallel, non-integrated, (c) parallel, integrated,
(d) successive/parallel, non-integrated, (e) successive/
parallel, integrated, and (f) parallel, non-integrated/
successive/parallel, integrated. A generic description of
these classifications for integrating sets of activities
involving component skills is provided in Table 1.
Because of space constraints, examples in which the
description is applied to the integration of letter-sound
correspondences and phonological awareness instruction are provided for only two of the order sequences:
parallel non-integrated and parallel integrated.
A parallel, non-integrated order refers to sets of activities that are taught within the same training session,
but as discrete and separate activities in which no connection is made between the two sets of activities. In
this order, phonological awareness and letter-sound correspondence are taught within the same training
session, but as separate activities. No connection is
developed between print and speech.
In a parallel non-integrated order children are taught
the letter name and sound for m in the first activity
during a lesson. In the second activity, children are
taught to segment (i.e., say the individual sounds in
the word map as /m/ /a/ /p/) and blend the individually
pronounced sequences of phonemes (i.e., /m/ /a/ /p/
together to form the word map). The activities for lettersound correspondences and the phonological awareness
activities of blending and segmenting are taught within
the same training session but separately. The activities
for letter-sound correspondences and phonological
awareness activities of blending and segmenting were
not integrated because no explicit connection was made
between the print (i.e., m = /m/) during the blending
and segmenting activities. Although the first sound of
the words used in the blending and segmenting was
/mmmm/, no explicit connections were made between
the print (i.e., the letter m that represents letter-sound
correspondence) and speech (i.e., the auditory blending
and segmenting activities).
A parallel integrated order, on the other hand, refers
to a sequence in which two sets of activities are taught
within the same training session, and the sets of activities are integrated and linked systematically with each
other to establish explicit connections between activities. For example, phonological awareness and lettersound correspondence activities are taught within the
same training session and are integrated systematically
and linked with each other to establish explicit connections between the two sets of activities. An example of
a parallel integrated order follows.
The letter name and sound for m is taught, and the
auditory skills of blending and segmenting are taught
within the same training session. The two sets of activities are integrated when the teacher gives each child a
card with the letter m on it and two blank cards. While
pointing to the m letter card, the teacher says, "The
name of this letter is m. The sound for this letter is
/mmmm/. I'm going to say the sounds in the word
map." The teacher now moves the letter card for m as
s/he says the first sound in map. As the teacher moves
each blank card, s/he pronounces the middle and last
sound in the word map. The teacher then points to the
letter card for m and says, "/Mmmm//aaaa/ /p/ begins
with the letter m. The first sound in /Mmmm/ /aaaa/ /p/
is /mmmm/." Explicit connections between the two sets
of activities are made.
Time dimension. Time as a dimension of integration
refers to the amount of actual time needed to master a
skill or activity to a specified criterion level. Time
needed for mastery may be based on either (a) a fixedtime criterion, or (b) a criterion level of performance. A
fixed-time criterion involves a predetermined amount
of time to perform a task to a particular criterion level.
The assumption is that the amount of time allotted for
mastery is sufficient for successfully completing the task
at an acceptable level of mastery. For example, if phonological awareness skills are taught 10 minutes a day,
5 days a week for 3 weeks, before beginning instruction
in letter-sound correspondences, a fixed-time criterion
is employed. The predetermined number of total minutes is assumed to be sufficient for successfully
completing the phonological awareness tasks to an
acceptable level of mastery.
In contrast, a criterion level of performance sets a
standard of performance for mastery. The amount of
time it takes to master a task is determined by the performance of a person executing the task. Achievement
of mastery occurs when a person meets the criterion set
as the standard to indicate mastery. For example, the
performance level criterion that indicates proficiency
in phonemic segmentation is 35-45 phonemic segments
per minute (Kaminski & Good, 1998). The amount of
time it takes to reach mastery depends on a child's
phonemic segmentation scores. Achievement of mastery in phonemic segmentation occurs when a child
261
reaches 35-45 phonemic segments per minute, the

predeterminedcriterionset as the standardto indicate
mastery.
ceptual framework on integration to identify and

describewhich instructional sequence it used to integrate letter-sounds with the phonological skills of
segmenting and blending. Each analysis includes (a) a
brief
statement of the study's purpose to determine if
ANALYSISOF KINDERGARTENSTUDIES
USING THE CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK it examined the effect of instructional sequence on
In this section, each of the four kindergartenstudies word = readingperformancefor kindergartenchildren
that met the selection criteria (Davidson & Jenkins, with low phonological awareness;and (b) a descrip1994; Fox & Routh, 1984; O'Connor et al., 1995; tion of the instructionalsequence that was used in the
Torgesenet al., 1992) will be analyzed using the con- study.
Learing Disability Quarterly
262
O'Connor, Jenkins, and Slocum (1995)

This study investigated the amount and kind of
phonological instruction necessary to produce levels of
phonological awareness and letter knowledge comparable to those of good readers. The researchers employed a
successive/parallel, non-integrated order of integrating
letter-sound correspondences and phonological awareness instruction with a fixed-time criterion for the
two experimental treatment conditions. Specifically,
O'Connor et al. taught only phonological awareness
activities (successive) for 15 minutes, twice weekly for 4
weeks (fixed-time). After letter-sound correspondence
instruction was introduced in Week 5 of the 10-week
study, both phonological awareness activities and lettersound correspondences were taught in the same training session (parallel), but separately (non-integrated),
with no explicit connections developed between the
two sets of activities. Beginning in Week 5, after 4 weeks
of instruction in only phonological awareness tasks,
the researchers added 3 minutes of instruction in lettersound correspondences to each lesson for the two treatment conditions. However, instruction in the phonological activities of auditory segmenting and blending or
a variety of phonological awareness tasks also continued
at this time. The letter-sound correspondences and
phonological awareness activities were taught within
the same training session, but as separate activities during the lessons. No explicit connections were made
between print (i.e., the letters representing the lettersound correspondence) and speech (i.e., the phonological awareness activities of blending and segmenting).
Fox and Routh (1984)
This study examined the effects of phonological
awareness training in phonemic segmentation and
phonemic blending on word reading. Fox and Routh
employed a successive order dimension and a time
criterion, but they did not integrate the phonological
awareness activities of blending and segmenting and
letter-sound correspondences activities during the intervention. For example, segmenting-blending or segmenting-only activities were taught fully and completely
until children produced two correct responses on either
the last segmenting activity for the segmenting-only
group or on the last blending activity (i.e., the time
criterion). When children met this criterion level of
performance, the intervention ended. Although Fox
and Routh included instruction in letter-sound correspondences (i.e., alphabetic understanding), the main
intent of alphabetic instruction was "to facilitate performance on the final word learning task" given as a
posttest (p. 1061).
Torgesen, Morgan, and Davis (1992)
This study examined the effects of phonological
awareness instruction in phonemic segmenting and

blending or blending-only on the development of
phonological awareness skills and word learning ability.
Students in the intervention groups were taught either
blending-only or segmenting and then blending,
whereas the control group was taught a variety of
phonological awareness tasks. After completing instruction in either blending-only or segmenting-blending,
or a variety of reading activities (the intervention
phase), and prior to administration of the word reading
posttest, all children were taught letter-sound correspondences during the last two weeks of the study.
Like Fox and Routh (1984), Torgesen et al. (1992) used
a successive order to teach the phonological skills. They
did not integrate phonological awareness activities and
alphabetic skills during the intervention phase. The
purpose of instruction in letter-sound correspondences
was to prepare children for the post-intervention word
reading tasks.
Davidson and Jenkins (1994)
This study investigated the effects of instruction in the
phonological awareness tasks of segmenting or blending, or a combination of the two tasks on children's ability to transfer phonologic skills to an untaught
phonological task, word reading, and spelling. Children
were taught either segmenting-only, blending-only, or
segmenting and blending for 10 minutes daily, for a
minimum of 8 weeks and a maximum of 12 weeks.
When children reached a criterion level of performance
(i.e., less than 2 errors on the phonemic generalization
tasks), the phonological awareness intervention phase
ended. Instruction in letter-sound correspondences was
initiated to prepare children for the final word reading
tasks.
Like Fox and Routh (1984) and Torgesen et al. (1992),
Davidson and Jenkins (1994) used a successive order
in which one phonological awareness activity followed
another. Phonological awareness activities and alphabetic skills were not integrated during the intervention.
The sole purpose of the letter-sound correspondence
instruction was to prepare children for the postintervention word reading tasks.
Limitations of the Kindergarten Research Studies
Converging research suggests that integrating alphabetic skills, specifically letter-sound correspondences,
and phonological awareness skills has a positive effect
on word reading (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne &
Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1991; Vandervelden & Siegel,
1997). Despite this evidence, however, a search of the
literature revealed that only four studies involving
kindergarten children with low phonological awareness
had evaluated children's performance on word reading
tasks that required integration of the phonological
263
awareness skills of blending and segmenting and alphabetic skills, specifically, letter-sound correspondences.
An analysis of these studies using the dimensions of
the conceptual framework developed for this study,
order and time, identified two important limitations.
First, three studies used a successive order for teaching
the phonological skills during the intervention, but
instruction in letter-sound correspondences was provided only after children had attained a performance
criterion in phonological awareness skills. Alphabetic
instruction was not included in the intervention, and
no integration of letter-sound correspondences and
phonological blending and segmenting skills occurred.
Second, O'Connor et al. (1995) investigated how readily children transferred letter-sound correspondences
to beginning word reading following explicit instruction in phonological awareness skills. To do so, the
researchers used a successive/parallel, non-integrated
order with a fixed-time dimension to integrate the
phonological awareness skills of blending and segmenting and alphabetic skills, specifically, letter-sound correspondences during instruction. The phonological skills
of blending and segmenting and letter sounds were
taught in the same training period (i.e., parallel), but the
skills were taught as discrete and separate activities (i.e.,
non-integrated).
The results of the analysis suggest that only two of the
order sequences for integrating letter-sounds with
phonological blending and segmenting were used in

kindergarten intervention research, and that none of
the kindergarten studies examined the effect that an
instructional sequence for integrating alphabetic skills,
specifically letter-sound correspondences, and phonological blending and segmenting had on word reading
performance and rates of growth in word reading. Thus,
it appears that the optimal sequence for integrating
letter-sound correspondences and the phonological
awareness skills of blending and segmenting to increase
word reading performance for kindergarten children
with low phonological awareness has not been investigated empirically, but remains a substantive and real
"blank spot" (Wagner, 1993) in kindergarten research.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research questions for this pilot study were developed based on (a) the analysis of kindergarten studies
using the conceptual framework for integration, and (b)
prior research evidence. First, as revealed by the analysis
of the kindergarten studies, the successive and the successive, parallel non-integrated order sequences for integrating letter-sounds and the phonological skills of
blending and segmenting had been used in previous
kindergarten interventions. Second, research evidence
suggests that it is important to establish links between
letters and sounds in spoken words (Ball & Blachman,
1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1991; Ehri &
LearningDisabilityQuarterly
264
McCormick, 1998; Foorman et al., 1997; Simmons &

Kameenui, 1998; Vandervelden & Siegel, 1997) for successful acquisition of beginning word reading.
Establishing these links during instruction may best be
achieved by developing lessons that use the two
sequences in which phonological blending and segmenting and letter-sounds instruction were taught
within the same training session (i.e., parallel) with the
two component skills being explicitly linked together
(i.e., integrated) or linked by being taught within the
same training session but not integrated.
Thus, in this pilot study, two instructional sequencesparallel, integrated (PI) and parallel, non-integrated
(PN-I)-were compared to determine which instructional
sequence resulted in higher performance and rates of
growth on word reading and phonological awareness for
kindergarten children with low phonological awareness.
Five research questions were formulated.
1. Does a parallel, integrated (PI) sequence of instruction result in higher word reading performance
for kindergarten children with low phonological
awareness skills than a parallel, non-integrated
(PN-I) sequence of instruction?
2. Were the effects of instruction maintained for word
reading performance after the intervention was discontinued?
3. Does a parallel, integrated (PI) sequence of instruction result in higher phonological awareness performance for kindergarten children with low
phonological awareness skills than a parallel, nonintegrated (PN-I) sequence of instruction?
4. Were the effects of instruction maintained for
phonological awareness performance after the
intervention was discontinued?
5. Does a parallel, integrated (PI) sequence of instruction result in higher rates of growth in word reading
and phonological awareness for kindergarten children with low phonological awareness skills than a
parallel, non-integrated (PN-I) sequence of instruction?
METHODOLOGY
The following sections describe the methods used to
address the research questions, including design, setting
and subjects, independent and dependent measures,
procedures, and data analysis.
Design
A pretest-posttest, comparison group design with
random assignment of participants to groups was used
to examine the effects of two instructional sequences
for integrating the teaching of letter-sound correspondences and the teaching of the phonological skills of
blending and segmenting on word reading perform-
ance for kindergarten children with low phonological

awareness.
The between-groups factor was instructional sequence with two levels: (a) parallel, integrated (PI)
and (b) parallel, non-integrated (PN-I). The withingroups, repeated factor was time of test with two levels
(a) posttest and (b) delayed posttest, or three levels
(a) posttest, (b) delayed posttest, and (c) maintenance.
In addition, formative data from bi-weekly progress
monitoring probes were used to assess the rate of
change in learning trajectory as defined by slope of
performance for individuals and groups beyond that
typical of pretest-posttest designs.
Setting
Five kindergarten classrooms in three elementary
schools in a Pacific Northwest school district participated in this study. School A, with a total school population of 192 children, had a morning kindergarten
session with 16 children and an afternoon session with
7 children. The same classroom teacher taught both sessions. School B served a total school population of 141
children with a morning and afternoon kindergarten
session. The morning session was a kindergarten and
first-grade combination classroom with 9 kindergarten
children. The afternoon session was a kindergarten-only
classroom with 19 children. Different classroom teachers taught the morning and afternoon kindergarten sessions. School C served a total school population of 129
children with one morning kindergarten session of 12
children. Schools A and B were classified as Title 1
schools. School C also had Title 1 standing prior to the
school year during which the study took place, but did
not qualify for the current academic year.
Children in Schools A and B attended half-day kindergarten (i.e., 2.5 hours per day) 5 days a week. Children
in School C attended half-day kindergarten 4 days per
week, Tuesday-Friday, for approximately 3 hours 10
minutes per day. Table 2 shows the number of children
in each classroom and the number of treatment groups
per classroom across schools.
Kindergarten classes in all three schools participated
in music, physical education, library story time, and the
SMARTreading program, a volunteer reading-aloud program. Prior to intervention, the investigator met with
the classroom kindergarten teachers to obtain information about each teacher's early literacy program. Each
teacher was asked to describe the focus of her early literacy instruction and the types of activities she used
during instruction. Furthermore, in mid-February, the
investigator formally observed one early literacy lesson
for each classroom kindergarten teacher to validate their
self-report regarding kindergarten literacy instruction
and activities. During the observation the investigator
265
noted the instructional setting (i.e., large or small

group) and the content of the lesson. Early literacy
activities included story reading, letter name and sound
instruction, and writing instruction. Story reading sessions used predictable books and big books that fit a
particular theme to develop print awareness. Group discussions during story time were used to develop listening comprehension skills and to emphasize the
importance of reading.
Participant Selection
In late November, a norm-referenced, individually
administered, standardized test, the Word Identification
Subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised
[WRMT-R](1987), was administered to all children in
the five kindergarten classrooms (n = 63) as a screening
measure to identify nonreaders. A child was classified
as a nonreader if s/he read 5 or fewer words on the
WRMT-R. (The WRMT-Rwill be described fully in the
dependent variables section.) Approximately 94% of
the children (n = 59) met the nonreader criterion and,
therefore, were eligible to participate in the study.
Approximately 6% of the children (n = 4) read 9, 18,
22, and 50 words, respectively. These children were
considered readers and were not eligible to participate
in the study. Parental permission was obtained for 55 of
the eligible children.
Assignment to Treatment Conditions
A four-step process was used to randomly assign children within each classroom to treatment conditions.
First, pretests that assessed phonological awareness
skills, language ability, and alphabetic skills were
administered in mid-December. Second, children's
scores on the Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) measure
were ranked and ordered from highest to lowest score.
Third, children were paired using the LNF rank order.
Children with the two highest scores formed the first
pair, children with next highest scores formed the
second pair, and so on. Fourth, pairs of children were
assigned randomly, one member of the pair to the
parallel, integrated (PI) instructional sequence, the
other to the parallel, non-integrated (PN-I) instructional
sequence.
Participant Characteristics
Because converging research evidence suggested that
children with low phonological awareness in kindergarten could be at risk of future reading disability, children's initial phonological awareness skills were of
interest. An examination of children's performance on
the Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF)pretest measure revealed that approximately 65% (n = 36) of the
eligible 55 children produced 10 or fewer phoneme segments per minute. According to Good, Simmons, and
Smith (1998), scores within these ranges on the PSF in
winter of the kindergarten year could signal difficulties

in successful reading acquisition if not remediated. The
remainder of the eligible children's pretest scores (n = 19)
indicated that phonemic segmentation skills were
emerging (i.e., between 11 and 34 phoneme segments
per minute). These scores were considered adequate
at this time of the kindergarten year. Since the only
requirement for participation in the study was being a
nonreader (i.e., reading 5 or fewer words correctly on the
Word Identification Subtest of the WRMT-R), it was
decided that all the eligible children in the kindergarten
classrooms could benefit from the explicit phonemic
segmentation instruction provided during this study.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: TREATMENT
CONDITIONS
The purpose of this study was to determine which
sequence of integrating alphabetic skills and phonological awareness best facilitates word reading performance
for kindergarten children with low phonological awareness skills. Two instructional sequences (a) parallel,
non-integrated (PN-I), and (b) parallel-integrated (PI)
were employed as the independent variable.
Common Curriculum Features
Forty 15-minute instructional lessons that included
instruction in letter names and letter-sound correspondences and the phonological awareness skills of sequential phoneme blending and segmentation were
developed for each of the two instructional sequences.
Each 15-minute instructional session contained 7.5
minutes of instruction that required print (i.e., letters)
and 7.5 minutes of phonological awareness instruction
in sequential phoneme blending and segmentation of
two- and three-phoneme words that did not involve
print (i.e., letters). All activities were scripted to ensure
consistency of instructional language across groups.
Both instructional sequences provided clear, unambiguous strategies for teaching letter names and sounds,
and phonological blending and segmenting skills. All
lessons contained carefully sequenced examples, practice, corrective feedback, and review. Letter names and
sounds were taught simultaneously during print activities, and the amount of time children were engaged
in print activities was the same for both instructional
groups. For activities involving no print (i.e., letters),
the amount of time and the content of the sequential
blending and segmenting activities were identical for
both instructional groups.
During activities that involved print (i.e., letters), the
letter name and the most common sound for each letter were taught simultaneously (e.g., "The name of this
letter is _. The sound for this letter is /
/."). The
name and sound of letters that appear most often in
266
words (i.e., more useful letters)were introducedin the

teaching cycle first.Letterswith more auditorilysimilar
(e.g., /d/ and /t/) or more visually similar(e.g., m and n)
letter names and sounds were separated.For example,
the letter name and sound for m were taught in Lesson
4, and the letter name and sound for the letter n were
introduced in Lesson 24. A new letter name and its
sound were introducedevery 2 days and were reviewed
systematically in the following lessons. Children in
both treatmentconditions were taught the letternames
and sounds for 13 consonants (m, t, s, f, d, r, p, n 1,c, b,
g, h) and 4 vowels (a, i, o, u).
Within each 15-minutelesson, childrenin both treatment conditions were engaged in 7.5 minutes of
phonological awarenessinstructionthat taught sequential phoneme blending and segmentationand required
no print (i.e., letters). In Lessons 1-20, the phoneme
blending and segmentation skills were taught as separate activities but within the same lesson. During the
phoneme blending activitythe teachersaid the individual sounds in a word slowly and then directedchildren
to say the word "fast"(e.g., "I'llsay the sounds in a word
slowly, then you say it fast. Listen, /fffff//iiiii//zzzzz/.
Say it fast. Fizz.").The teacherused the same word sets
for the phoneme segmentation activity in which children were taught to say the sounds in each word slowly
(e.g., "We'regoing to say the sounds in the word fizz
slowly. /fffff/ /iiiii//zzzzz/. Say the sounds in the word
fizz slowly.").
In Lesson 21, the phoneme blending and segmentation activities were combined. That is, children were
taught to say the sounds in a word slowly, and then say
the word "fast"within the same activity.The following
example demonstratesthis combined activity.
Teacher:"Listen./Sssss/ /aaaaa//mmmm/."
Teacher:"Sayit slowly."
Children:"/Sssss//aaaaa//mmmm/."
Teacher:"Sayit fast."
Children: "Sam."
Word sets for the phoneme blending and segmentation activitiesincluded 4-6 regular(i.e., each letter in a
word representsits most common sound) words with
the consonant-vowel (e.g., am) and/or consonantvowel-consonant (e.g., mat) pattern. To avoid predictability, only 2 words with a phoneme in the same
position (e.g., sad, sat) were included in each word set.
Severaltypes of instructional materialswere used to
scaffold the complexity of a phoneme blending and
segmentation task. Cardswith a picture representation
of the word were used whenever possible. When a
word did not have a picture representation(e.g., am),
a sentence that contained the target word was used
during the blending and segmentation activities to
provide a context for the word (e.g., I am hungry.).
A plastic coiled spring (i.e., a "Slinky")was used to

help children represent physically the process of
(a) "stretching out" the sounds as a word was said
slowly (i.e., segmented), and (b) "puttingtogether"the
sounds as a word was said the "fastway"(i.e., blended).
During some activities children moved a blank card
or chip onto a three-squaretemplate to representeach
phoneme as it was said slowly (Ball& Blachman,1991;
O'Connor et al., 1995). All lessons included a game
that reviewed and reinforcedphoneme blending and
segmentation skills.
Differences Between Treatment Conditions
The criticaldifferencebetween treatmentconditions
occurredduringthe 7.5 minutes of each 15-minutelesson when children were engaged in activities that
requiredprint (i.e., letters).The two sequencesdiffered
on a single variable-the presenceor absenceof explicit
connections between letter-soundcorrespondencesand
the phonological awarenessskills of blending and segmenting during activitiesinvolving print. In the parallel integrated(PI)sequence,the alphabeticskillsof letter
naming and letter-sound correspondences and the
phonological awarenessskillsof blending and segmenting were systematically and explicitly linked during
instructioninvolving print (i.e., letters).In the parallel
non-integrated(PN-I)sequence,letternames and lettersound correspondencesand the phonological blending
and segmentingskillswere taught as separateactivities.
No explicit connections were made between the alphabetic activitiesthat taught letternames and letter-sound
correspondencesand the phonological blending and
segmenting activities during instruction involving
print.
Parallel integrated (PI) sequence.In the PI sequence,
explicit connections were made between the sounds
representedby the printedlettersand the phonemes in
the words that were taught duringthe phoneme blending and segmentation activities. The 7.5 minutes of
instruction that involved print was divided into two
activities. In the first, children were taught the names
and sounds for letters(e. g., m = /m/). In the integration
activity, the letter names and sounds were systematically integratedwith words that children were taught
during the phonological blending and segmenting
activities.Specifically,letterswere used to representthe
phonemes in some words childrenwere taught only to
blend and segment during the 7.5 minutes of instruction in the phonological awareness activities that
involved no print. Eithera blank card or a letter was
used to representthe phoneme in a word during the
integrationactivity, determinedby when a letter name
and sound were introduced or reviewed in the lesson
sequence.Forexample,when a letter'sname and sound
Volume26, Fall 2003
267
had been taught for two consecutive lessons during

the first print activity, a blank card was used to represent the phoneme in the word during the integration
activity. However, after a letter's name and sound
had been taught explicitlyin four consecutivelessons, a
lettercardwas used to representthe phoneme in a word
duringthe integrationactivity.
The following example illustrates how letters were
used to representthe phonemes during an integration
activity afterthe letter name and sound for the letter a
was taught expli-citlyduringfour consecutivelessons in
the first print activity.
Childrenweregiven a 3 X 3 cardwith the lettera on it
and two blank 3 X 3 cards.While pointing to the letter
cardfor a, the teachersaid, "Thename of this letteris a.
The sound for this letteris /aaaaa/.I'm going to say the
sounds in the word mat."The teachermoved the blank
card as she pronounced the first phoneme /mmmm/.
The teacher likewisemoved the letter card for a as she
pronounced the /aaaaaa/ sound. Finally, the teacher
moved a blankcardas she pronouncedthe phoneme /t/
in the word mat. Next, she pointed to each card in
the sequence and said, "The first sound in /mmmm/
/aaaaa//t/ is /mmmm/. The middle sound in /mmm/
/aaaaa/ /t/ is /aaaaa/. The last sound in the word
/mmmm//aaaaa//t/ is /t/." When a letter was used to
represent all the phonemes in a word (i.e., after its
lettername and sound had been taughtexplicitlyin four
consecutive lessons), the word was printed on a large
card. The teacher directedchildren to "say the sounds
in the word slowly"as she moved her fingerunder each
letteron the wordcard.Afterchildrensaidthe soundsfor
each letterslowly, the teachertold them to say the word
"fast."Only regularwords(i.e., each letterin a wordrepresentsits most common sound)with a consonant-vowel
(e.g., am) and consonant-vowel-consonant(e.g., mat)
patternwereused duringthe integrationactivity.
Parallel non-integrated(PN-I) sequence. In the PN-I
sequence, the activitiesinvolving print and the phonological awarenessactivities of phoneme blending and
segmenting that involved no print were taught within
the same lesson (i.e., parallel)but as separateactivities.
No explicit connections were developed between the
two sets of activities.Letter-soundcorrespondencesand
phonological blending and segmenting were not integrated.Forexample, during the 7.5 minutes of instruction involving no print (i.e., during the phoneme
blending and segmenting activities), children were
taught to blend and segment words containing the /m/
phoneme (e.g., mat). In the same lesson, children also
were taught the letter name for m and the sound /m/
(e.g., "Thename of this letter is m. The sound for this
letter is /m/) during the 7.5 minutes of instruction
involving print. However,no explicit connections were
made between the sound for /m/ representedby the

letter m and the /m/ phoneme in the words that were
taught during the phonological blending and segmentation activities.
In Lessons1-20, the 7.5 minutes of instructioninvolving print occurredduringthree separateactivities:(a) at
the beginning of the lesson, (b) between the phonological blending and segmenting activity, and (c) at the
end of the lesson. In Lessons21-40, the activitiesinvolving print were divided into two activityperiods:(a) one
at the beginning of the lesson, priorto the phonological blending and segmentationactivity;and (b) one at
the end of the lesson after the phonological blending
and segmentation. Although both the print activities
and the phonological blending and segmenting activities contained the /m/ phoneme, no connections were
made between the alphabetic and the phonological
blending and segmenting activities
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCEDURES
Fourproject teachershired specificallyfor the study
taught the lessons for 10 weeks, 15 minutes per day,
4 days a week, to groupsof 3-4 children.These teachers
varied in levels of experience. Teachers 1 and 2 had
completed a teacher education program but had no
teaching experience except the practicumexperiences
in their training program.Teacher3 had a degree but
not in education, and Teacher 4 had over 20 years
of teaching experience. All project teachers delivered
instructionfor both treatmentconditions to control for
teacher effects that could result from the varying
degreesof teaching experienceduring implementation.
Project teachers within each classroom also changed
instructionalgroupsat Lesson21 to control for teacher
effects within classrooms. See Table 3 for teachers in
school, classroom,treatmentcondition, and lessons.
Treatment fidelity. To ensure integrity of treatment
implementation, project teachers participated in six
hours of training. Three hours of training on implementation of Lessons1-20 occurredpriorto beginning
the study. Three additional hours of training was provided prior to implementation of the activities in
Lessons 21-40. During training the investigatormodeled lessons and providedopportunitiesfor the teachers
to practice delivering the lessons. Training sessions
focused on helping teachers to develop a conceptual
understandingof the critical instructional design featuresof the lessons and emphasizedthe similaritiesand
the important differences in the lesson procedures
between the two treatmentconditions.
Throughout the study, the investigator conducted
both full and partial lesson observations to ensure
implementation fidelity. Specifically,during a full les-
268
II
-,,
~;
_;;:~~i~.:;:~~~::~
L ,,_L
...........
............,.......
...;
~~;;~rI
"
?-?..;).,.;-,uwr.:.
Il.:~???????r.
,r-....:,,..
-i;?- ,-
.L!
...
..
.... . ..............
s I .a..I
L..
.--,
..
4,-,j
,,.,;-....._L,,,~..l...:.
,....!.11.;:
son observation, the investigator observed one teacher

for the entire 15-minute lesson and used a checklist
containing the critical lesson features to assess implementation fidelity. During a partial fidelity of implementation observation, the investigator used the
scripted lesson to monitor lesson delivery and observed
more than one teacher during a 15-minute lesson.
Fifty-four full lesson observations, representing
approximately 27% of the total number of lessons
taught during the intervention period, and 67 partial
lesson observations, representing approximately 61% of
the total number of lessons taught were conducted during the 10-week study. Following the observations, the
investigator provided feedback, modeled activities, or
offered additional training if necessary.
Inter-observer reliability. Results of the data collected
from the full fidelity of implementation observations
indicated that the percentage of correct implementation
procedures for both treatment conditions ranged from
81 to 100% per lesson (M = 98%). No significant differences in fidelity of implementation for treatment conditions, t (52) = -1.25, p > .05, were found.
To establish inter-observer reliability, a second person
observed 20 (approximately 37%) of the 54 lessons with
the investigator. Reliability was calculated by dividing
the total number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements. Reliability scores on observations ranged from 87% to 100% agreement, with a
mean inter-rater reliability of 96%.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
The study included measures of (a) alphabetic knowledge, (b) phonological awareness, (c) language ability,
and (d) rapid retrieval of information. Data were collected during six periods of the study: (a) screening, (b)
pretest, (c) formative progress monitoring, (d) posttest,
(e) delayed posttest, and (f) maintenance. Posttests were
administered at the end of the week in which the study
ended, and delayed posttests were administered approximately 10 instructional days later. Maintenance tests
were administered 6 weeks after the study ended.
Formative progress monitoring measures were administered during Weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8 of the study to assess
growth on Phonemic Segmentation Fluency and
Nonsense Word Fluency (DIBELS).The following sections describe the dependent variables. Table 4 summarizes the relation of the dependent measures to the
research questions
Assessment of Alphabetic Skills
Four measures were used to assess alphabetic skills.
Two subtests of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS)(Good & Kaminski, 1998) were
used to assess letter and word reading fluency. First, the
Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)measure was administered
to assess the accuracy and speed with which children
named the letters of the alphabet. The ability to name
letters of the alphabet rapidly and accurately has been
identified as a significant predictor of future reading
Volume26, Fall 2003
269
achievement (Kaminski & Good, 1996). Children who

cannot meet the demands to quickly, accurately, and
repeatedly access the symbol system (e.g., printed letters) often make limited progress in acquiring beginning word reading (e. g., Blachman, 1994; Manis,
Seidenberg, & Doi, 1999).
Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) was used to measure
children's ability to use letter-sound correspondences
to read nonsense (e.g., tob) words. Nonsense word
reading is the most rigorous test of alphabetic knowledge because correct responses rely primarily on a
child's ability to use letter-sound correspondences
to read the word correctly (Chard, Simmons, &
Kameenui, 1998). In addition to the DIBELSfluency
measures, the Word Identification subtest (Woodcock
Reading Mastery Test-Revised [WRMT-R], 1987) was
used to evaluate children's decontextualized word
identification skills. The WRMT-R subtest contains
both phonetically regular (e.g., ten) and irregular

(e.g., house) words.
Finally, an experimenter-developed Word Reading
Generalization measure was administered to determine
the extent to which the letter-sound correspondences
that children were taught during the lessons in the
absence of print generalized to word reading. The following sections describe the administration procedures
for each assessment.
The Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) subtest of the
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS) (Good & Kaminski, 1998). The LNF is an
individually administered test that assesses children's
ability to name upper- and lower-case letters of the
alphabet rapidly and accurately. The child is expected to
tell only the name of the letter, not whether it is capital
or lower case. Letters are randomly arranged in 11 lines
per 8-1/2 X 11 paper with 10 letters per line. The exam-
270
iner instructs the child to "Tell me the names of as many

letters as you can. When I say 'begin,' start here (point to
first letter) and go across the page (point). Point to each
letter and tell me the name of that letter. If you come to
a letter you don't know, I'll tell it to you. Put your finger
on the first letter. Ready, begin." The examiner tells the
child to stop at the end of 1 minute. The score is the
number of correct letter names stated per minute.
Reliability and validity for LNF are high (.99) with
kindergartners (Kaminski & Good, 1996). One-year predictive validity coefficients with reading criterion measures range from .59 to .90 (Kaminski & Good, 1996).
Nonsense Word Reading Fluency (NWF) subtest of
(DIBELS) (Kaminski & Good, 1996). The NWF measure
combines high-utility and high-frequency sounds to
form the nonsense words (e.g., rom). Both accuracy and
fluency are measured. The examiner presents each
student with an 8-1/2 X 11 sheet with 80 two- and
three-letter nonsense words (e.g., lut) and instructs the
child to read either the sounds in the word or the whole
word. The number of correct letter sounds produced
within 1 minute is recorded. Even though the correct
letter sounds per minute is reported, the scoring procedures allow the examiner to note whether the child has
(a) produced only an individual letter sound in the
word, (b) blended two sounds together, or (c) decoded
the entire word. Because it is timed, the NWF test is an
indicator of how automatically children can translate
the print to sounds and sounds into words. Alternateform reliability ranges from .67 to .87. The NWF correlation with the Woodcock Readiness Subtest (concurrent validity) ranges from .35 to .55.
Word Identification
subtest of the Woodcock
Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R) (1987). The
WRMT-R Word Identification subtest is an in-dividually administered, norm-referenced test with alternate
forms. Children are asked to orally pronounce "real
words," which are arranged in order of graduated difficulty. The examiner points to the first word on the
page and says, "What is this word?" If the child does
not respond to the first word, the examiner scores the
item as zero, tells the child the word and asks the child
to repeat it. The examiner does not tell the child any
other words during the remainder of the test. The test
is discontinued after 6 consecutive incorrect responses.
The time for administration is approxmately 5-10 minutes. The WRMT-Rsubtest was standardized on 6,089
students in 60 geographically diverse communities.
Word Reading Generalization Test. This test consists
of a list of 20 words that children in both treatment
conditions were taught to blend and segment orally
(i.e., with no print). Only words that (a) included letters
that children were taught during the study, (b) had
a consonant-vowel-consonant (e.g., mat) pattern, and

(c) contained letters that represented the common
sound for the letter were included. Words were arranged
5 words per line, 4 lines per 8-1/2 X 11 sheet of paper.
During administration, the examiner placed the word
list in front of the child and provided the following
directions: "Read these words the best you can. Start
here (examiner points to the first word) and go across
the page (examiner moves finger across the words).
Ready. Read these words." If a child hesitated for
5 seconds on a word or letter sound, the examiner
pointed to the next word and said, "Try this word."
The examiner did not provide the correct letter sound.
When a child did not blend the sounds into word,
the examiner provided the prompt, "What word?"
This prompt was allowed twice during the assessment.
As a child read the words, the examiner (a) underlined
any correct letter sounds a child produced in a word
(e. g., /m/ /a//n/), and (b) indicated whether the child
blended the sounds into the correct word. The examiner
recorded the total time when the child had completed
the task. Completion was defined as (a) when the child
finished reading the last word or (b) when the child read
5 consecutive words incorrectly. The underlined words
were counted and divided by the total time to obtain
the correct number of words read per minute. The
number of correct words read per minute was used as
the indicator of children's ability to generalize lettersound correspondences they had been taught in the
absence of print to reading words. The individual letter
sounds produced by the children were used only to
provide diagnostic information about children's lettersound knowledge.
Assessment of Phonological Awareness
The ability to access the sound structure of a word by
segmenting it into its individual phonemes has been
identified as a strong predictor of successful beginning
reading acquisition and a necessary prerequisite for
learning to read (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991;
Kaminski & Good, 1996; Muter et al., 1997; National
Reading Panel Report, 2000; O'Connor & Jenkins, 1999;
Wagner, Torgesen et al., 1997; Yopp, 1988). Two reliable
and valid instruments were used to assess children's
ability to segment words.
Onset Recognition Fluency (OnRF) subtest of
(DIBELS) (Kaminski & Good, 1996). The OnRF measure is individually administered and assesses the fluency
of onset (i.e., the sounds in a word preceding the vowel)
recognition and production. The examiner asks the
child to identify which item in a group of four pictures
begins with a specified sound or to produce the sound
for a picture labeled by the examiner.
271
The following is an example of an onset-recognition

task. The examiner points to each of four pictures and
says, "This is a sink, a cat, gloves, and a hat. Which picture begins with /gl/?" The child can respond by pointing to the picture or saying the word gloves. Every fourth
response requires the child to produce the sound for
a picture labeled by the examiner. For example, the
examiner says, "What sound does cat begin with?" The
examiner records the child's responses and calculates
the number of correct onsets per minute. Norms for the
OnRF have been established for children in late preschool through the middle of kindergarten, and reliability ranges from .65 to .90 (Kaminski & Good, 1998).
Concurrent validity with the DIBELSPhoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)measure ranges from .44 to .60.
Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF) subtest of
(DIBELS) (Good & Kaminski, 1998). The PSF is a 1minute timed measure in which the child is presented a
word orally and asked to produce the individual sounds
in the word. For example, the examiner asks the child to
say the sounds in the word sat. The child should
respond with the sounds, /s/ /a/ /t/. Directions for the
PSF measure include a model of the task (e.g., "I am
going to say a word. After I say it, you tell me all the
sounds in the word. So, if I say, Sam, you would say /Sss/
/aaa/ /mmm/."). Following the model, the examiner
asks the child to practice, "Tell me the sounds in mop."
If a child responds incorrectly, the examiner provides
corrective feedback, "The sounds in mop are /mmm/
/ooo/ /p/." The words are arranged in 12 lines, 2 words
per line. The number of phonemes contained in each
word determines the number of phonemes per line. For
example, a line with the words prize and sighed has 7
phonemes per line, whereas a line with the words helped
and stood contains 9 phonemes per line. The total
number of phonemes per form ranges from 74 to 229.
At the end of 1 minute the examiner stops presenting
words and adds up the number of correctly identified
phonemes to obtain the number of correct phoneme
segments per minute.
The PSF provides a quick, reliable and valid indication of phonemic segmentation skills (Kaminski &
Good, 1996) with alternate-form reliability of .88 for
kindergartners, criterion-related validity ranges from
.43 to .67, and predictive validity ranges from .60 to
.91 (Johnson, 1996). There are 20 alternate forms of
the PSF.
Picture Naming Fluency (PNF), was administered at

pretest to provide an index of group comparability on
rapid naming tasks and to help understand students'
response to instruction (Blachman, 1994; Torgesen,
Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994; Wolf & Bowers, 1999).
Picture Naming Fluency (PNF) (Kaminski, 1996).
The PNF is an individually administered, 1-minute
timed test that assesses a child's ability to rapidly name
objects. A set of 42 drawings of objects (e.g., sheep, pin,
teacher, and top) is arranged, 6 objects per line, 7 lines
per 8-1/2 X 11 sheet of paper. The examiner asks the
child to verbally identify each of the pictures as quickly
as s/he can. When a child (a) names a picture incorrectly, (b) stops or struggles with a picture for 3 seconds,
or omits a picture, it is counted as an error. The student
is not penalized for imperfect pronunciation due to
dialect, articulation, or second language. For example,
if a child consistently says /t/ for /k/ and pronounces
/tat/ for /cat/, he/she receives credit for correct picture
naming. At the end of 1 minute the examiner records
the number of correctly identified objects.
Assessment of Verbal Language Ability
Many intervention studies have used a measure of
language ability as an index of general intelligence that
may influence student response to instruction (e.g., Ball
& Blachman, 1991; O'Connor et al., 1995, 1996). One
measure of receptive language skills was administered at
pretest to provide an indicator of group comparability
on language ability and information for individual student profiles.
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R)
(Dunn & Dunn, 1981). The PPVT-Ris an individually
administered test of receptive language that assesses a
child's ability to comprehend single word meanings.
The PPVT-Rwas administered at pretest only as a means
to determine whether children in both treatment conditions had comparable language skills prior to beginning instruction. During administration, the examiner
shows a child a set of four pictures and asks the child to
point to the picture that represents a verbally stated target word. Words on the PPVT-Rare presented in order
of graduated difficulty. Test administration is discontinued when a child misidentifies 6 of 8 consecutive items.
The PPVT-Ris a norm-referenced test. Retest and alternate form reliability scores range from .77 to .82.
Estimated administration time is 10 minutes.
Assessment of Rapid Retrieval of Information

Rapid naming of objects has been identified as a significant predictor of reading achievement that appears
to be independent of phonological awareness skills
(e.g., Blachman, 1994; Torgesen et al., 1994; Wolf &
Bowers, 1999). One measure of rapid naming, the
Descriptive statistics were computed for the two

instructional groups on all dependent variables at
pretest, posttest, delayed posttest, and maintenance
points in time. A 2 X 2 between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on each pretest measure
to assess the effect of attrition on group equivalence. No
DATA ANALYSIS
272
pretest differences were found, and group equivalence

was not affected by attrition.
When assumptions were met (e.g., homogeneity of
regression), each dependent variable was analyzed using
a separate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)to examine
whether there were statistically significant differences
between the two instructional groups on word reading
and phonological awareness performance at posttest.
When the analysis resulted in a significant interaction
between the covariate and the intervention, the nature
of the interaction was examined using a regression
analysis.
An effect size (ES) was calculated using the posttest
adjusted means and actual standard deviations for
each dependent variable. The formula used to calculate
effect size was Cohen's d, the difference in mean scores
on posttest between the experimental and alternatetreatment comparison group divided by a pooled
standard deviation for the treatment conditions
(Cohen, 1988).
Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) procedures (Bryk
& Raudenbush, 1992) were used to examine the relation
between instructional group and children's learning trajectories on the Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) and
Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF) measures,
respectively.
Finally, a chi-square analysis was used to examine
whether there were statistically significant differences
between the two instructional sequences in the number
of children who reached proficiency in phonemic segmentation skills by posttest. A score of 35-45 phoneme
segments per minute on the Phonemic Segmentation
Fluency (PSF) represents proficient segmentation skill
(Good & Kaminski, 1998). However, children had to
maintain 35-45 segments per minute for two consecutive progress monitoring sessions (i.e., for 4 weeks) on
the PSF to be considered proficient in phonemic segmentation skills.
RESULTS
Posttest Differences on Alphabetic Measures
(Research Question #1)
A separate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was
conducted to examine whether there were statistically
significant posttest differences between the two instructional groups on the Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) and
the Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF). No statistically
significant differences were found for either dependent
variable. The effect size for LNFwas negligible (.06)-an
effect size of .20 is considered small (Cohen, 1988). The
effect size for NWF was moderate, .54 (Cohen, 1988).
Pearson correlation revealed that initial PSF scores
were a significant predictor, F(1) = 12.515, p = .002, of
posttest performance on the Word Identification measure, explaining approximately 37% of the variance
in posttest scores for the PI group. However, initial
PSF scores were not a significant predictor, F(1) = .498,
p = .4894, of posttest performance on the Word Identification measure, explaining only 3% of the variance in
posttest scores for the PN-I group. Results of a multipleregression analysis revealed a statistically significant
interaction, F(1, 39) = 5.471, p = .024, between instructional group and initial phonemic segmentation skills,
indicating that performance on the Word Identification
posttest was differentially affected by pretest phonemic
segmentation skills. Children in the PI sequence with
higher initial scores in phonemic segmentation read
more words on the Word Identification posttest than
children in the PN-I sequence with higher initial segmentation skills.
To examine the effect of instructional group on
children's ability to generalize their letter-sound correspondences to word reading, the Word Reading
Generalization posttest was used as the dependent variable and the Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF)
pretest score as the covariate. The correlation between
pretest PSF scores and Word Reading Generalization
posttest scores was .66. Results revealed a statistically
significant difference between instructional groups, F(1,
40) = 6.540, p = .0146, after adjusting for initial differences in phonemic segmentation skills. The effect size
for the Word Reading Generalization Test at posttest
was moderate, .73; an effect size of .80 is considered
high (Cohen, 1988). Figure 1 illustrates that several children with initially low phonemic segmentation skills in
the PI sequence, including scores of 0 and 1, were able
to use their letter-sound knowledge and blending and
segmenting strategies to read words.
Posttest Differences on Phonological Measures
An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to
examine the effect of instructional group on children's
ability to quickly recognize and produce the onset of a
word (i.e., the sounds in a word preceding the vowel).
No statistically significant differences were found
between instructional groups on the OnRF. The effect
size for OnRF was .30.
Pearson correlation revealed that initial Phonemic
Segmentation Fluency (PSF) scores were a significant
predictor, F(1) = 10.06, p = .005, of posttest performance
on the Phonemic Segmentation Fluency measure,
explaining 36% of the variance in posttest scores for the
PN-I group. However, initial PSF scores were not a significant predictor, F(1) = 1.615, p > .05, for the PI group,
explaining only 7% of the variance in posttest scores for
the group. Results of the multiple-regression analysis
revealed a statistically significant interaction between
273
instructional groups and initial phonemic segmentation

skills, F(1,39) = 4.844, p = .0337, indicating that performance on the Phonemic Segmentation Fluency posttest
was differentially affected by pretest phonemic segmentation skills. Figure 2 illustrates the interaction between
instructional group and pretest PSF skills. Children
in the PI sequence with initially low PSF skills demonstrated posttest PSF skills comparable to those
of children with emerging and adequate phonemic
segmentation skills at pretest.
Posttest, Delayed Posttest, and Maintenance
Performance on Alphabetic and Phonological
Measures (Research Questions #2 and #4)
Separate two-way analyses of variances (ANOVAs)
with one between-groups factor and one within-groups
factor were conducted for each dependent variable to
examine whether the effects of instruction on word
reading and phonological awareness were maintained
after the intervention. No statistically significant interaction was found between instructional group and time
of test, nor were the main effects for instructional group
or time of test for Letter Naming Fluency and Nonsense
Word Fluency statistically significant. Further, no statistically significant interaction was found between
instructional group and time of test, nor were the main
effects for instructional group or time of test for Letter
Naming Fluency and Nonsense Word Fluency statistically significant. No statistically significant interaction
was found between instructional sequence and time of
test for the Word Reading Generalization Test. However,
statistically significant main effects were found for
instructional sequence, F(1, 39) = 7.020, p = .0116, and
time of test, F(1.39) = 9.027, p = .0046. The mean scores
of the PI sequence were higher than those of the PN-I
sequence at posttest and maintenance on the Word
Reading Generalization Test.
274
The results of the 2 x 3 mixed-effects ANOVA for

OnRF revealed no statistically significant interaction
between instructional group and time of test, indicating
that instructional group was not affected differentially
by time of test. Similarly, the results of the 2 x 3 mixedeffects ANOVA for Phonemic Segmentation Fluency
(PSF) revealed no statistically significant interaction
between instructional group and time of test, indicating
that instructional group was not differentially affected
by time of test. However, statistically significant differences were found for instructional group and time of
test favoring the PI group. Specifically, the mean scores
of the PI group on the PSF measure were higher at
posttest, delayed posttest, and maintenance than the
scores of the PN-I sequence.
Effect of Instructional Sequence on Rate of Growth
(Research Question #5)
To examine the relationship between instructional
group and children's learning trajectories on the
Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) and Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF) measures, hierarchical linear
modeling (HLM) procedures (Bryk & Raudenbush,
1992) were conducted on each measure at two levels.
When instructional sequence was added to the Level
2 model, there were no reliable differences, t = .239,
p > .05, between PI and PN-I groups in the predicted
intercept on the NWF. Further, at posttest, the two
groups were not significantly different from each other
on the number of letter sounds produced per minute.
However, the slopes (i.e., rate of change per 2 weeks of
instruction) were significantly different on the NWF,
t = 2.411, p = .021, favoring the PI group.
When instructional sequence was added to the Level
2 model for PSF, results indicated that there were no
statistically significant differences, t = 1.746, p = .08, between the PI and PN-I groups for the predicted intercept. However, the rate of change in the learning
trajectory was statistically significant, slope, t = 12.301,
Volume26, Fall 2003
275
p = .000, for both instructional sequences, although

there were no reliable differences between the PI and
PN-I sequences, t = .860, p = .395.
In addition to rate of growth for Phonemic
Segmentation Fluency (PSF), the amount of time that
was required to reach proficiency in phonemic segmentation skills was calculated. The PSF measure was
administered bi-weekly (at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8) during the
intervention and at posttest. Children were considered
proficient in phonemic segmentation if they maintained the criterion of 35-45 phoneme segments per
minute on the PSF measure for 2 consecutive data
collection periods (i.e., for 4 weeks). The results of a chisquare analysis revealed statistically significant differences, chi-square (1, N = 43) = 4.08, p < .05, between
instructional sequence groups for the number of children who attained this criterion by posttest. The num-
ber of children who reached proficiency was significantly higher for the PI group than for the PN-I group.
(See Figure 3.)
DISCUSSION
The Effect of Instructional Sequence on
Phonological Awareness Performance
Several major findings emerged when the results of
Onset Recognition Fluency (OnRF) and Phonemic
Segmentation Fluency (PSF) measures were examined.
First, no reliable differences between PI and PN-I sequence were found on the OnRF posttest, suggesting
that the PI and PN-I sequences were equally effective
for teaching first sound skills and that both sequences
provided enough instructional support to maintain first
sound skills after intervention.
276
Second, only 7% of the differences in posttest PSF

scores were explained by initial phonemic segmentation
skill for children in the PI sequence. However, initial
segmentation skill explained 36% of the posttest differences in the PN-I sequence. This pattern prompts an
important conclusion about the effect of instructional
sequence on phonemic segmentation fluency for
kindergarten children with low segmentation skills
in January. That is, they benefited from being in the
PI sequence. The explicit connections made between
letter sounds and phonological blending and segmenting in the PI sequence helped children who entered the
study with low segmentation skills attain posttest PSF
skills that were comparable to those of children who
entered the study with adequate skills. In essence, the PI
sequence was effective in "closing the gap" in phonemic
segmentation between children with low segmentation
skills and children with adequate skills by posttest.
A third major finding indicates that explicit instruction in letter sounds and phonological blending and
segmenting works. Three different analyses were used to
examine the effects of instructional sequence on phonemic segmentation skills for kindergartners. Although
the results appear to be somewhat contradictory for
determining which instructional sequence resulted in
increased phonological awareness skills, it is important
to consider the nature of the different statistical analyses used to answer the research question.
First, the chi-square analysis examined how many
children in each instructional sequence reached proficient segmentation skills based on an established
benchmark at posttest. Results indicated that more
children reached proficiency on the PSF measure
(i.e., attained 35-45 phoneme segments per minute for
two consecutive progress monitoring sessions) in the
PI sequence (n = 20) than in the PN-I sequence (n = 12)
at posttest. According to Good and Kaminski (1998),
children who are proficient (i.e., can produce 35-45 segments per minute) on the PSFin winter of kindergarten
have a better chance of becoming successful readers in
first grade.
Next, the results of a repeated-measures ANOVA
showed that children in the PI sequence demonstrated
higher skills in phonemic segmentation fluency at
posttest, delayed posttest, and maintenance than children in the PN-I sequence. This finding suggests that
not only was the PI sequence more effective than the
PN-I sequence for increasing PSF skills, but its effects
were strong enough for children to maintain gains in
segmentation skills even after the intervention ended.
Finally, the results of the HLM procedure indicated
that the rate of change in phonemic segmentation skills
as defined by slope was statistically significant for both
the PI and the PN-I sequence. The average rate of
change in slope per week of instruction was 3.33 correct

phonemes per minute, suggesting that children's ability
to segment words into individual phonemes was
increasing at a reasonably high rate as a result of the
explicit instruction that both the PI and PN-I sequences
provided. The results of the HLM also suggest that given
a longer intervention (i.e., > 10 weeks) and the continued rate of growth, children in the PN-I sequence could
also meet the proficiency benchmark criterion for PSF.
In summary, the findings of this pilot study suggest
that both the PI and the PN-I sequence were effective in
helping children develop an understanding of the
sound structure of spoken words at the most difficult
level-the phoneme. Although it is beyond the range of
the data to "guarantee" that the kindergarten children
in this study will become successful readers in first
grade, the findings suggest that both instructional
sequences were instrumental in helping children reach
a critical phonemic segmentation goal by the end of the
study. Although the PI sequence may have strengthened the reciprocal benefit of alphabetic instruction on
phonological awareness skills, the most concise way to
summarize the effect of instructional sequence on
phonological awareness skills is to note that explicit
instruction in alphabetic skills and phonological blending and segmenting works.
The Effect of Instructional Sequence on Word
Reading Performance
Several major findings regarding the effect of instructional sequence on word reading performance also
emerged from the analyses. First, the PI and PN-I
sequences were equally effective in teaching children
the letter names and sounds in isolation. These results
may have occurred for two reasons. First, the instructional design similarities between the PI and PN-I
sequences may have been sufficient for children to
make comparable progress on isolated alphabetic
skills such as letter naming fluency and letter-sound
identification fluency. For example, both instructional
sequences provided clear, unambiguous strategies for
teaching letter names and sounds, and phonological
blending and segmenting, and required children only
to produce the letter names and or sounds in isolation.
Second, the one critical difference between the PI and
PN-I sequences-the presence or absence of instruction
that made explicit connections between letter-sound
correspondences and phonological blending and segmenting during print activities-may not have been
necessary for children to show gains in fluent letter
naming and letter-sound production.
Third, the PI sequence was reliably more effective in
helping children apply their letter-sound knowledge to
word reading regardless of initial phonemic segmenta-
Volume26, Fall 2003
277
tion skills. Thus, children in the PI sequence read significantly more words per minute on the Word Reading
Generalization Test at posttest than the children in the
PN-I sequence. Lack of group differences on the LNF
and NWF at posttest suggests that the word reading
skills demonstrated on the generalization test were
attributable to the instructional sequence and not the
result of differences in letter naming fluency and lettersound fluency skills.
The results of this pilot study are not trivial, especially
for children with low phonological awareness. The findings suggest that when the connections between lettersound correspondences and phonological blending and
segmenting skills were made explicit, children with low
phonological awareness were able to successfully map
the sounds to letters in a word and then blend the
sounds together to read the word.
Finally, the results of the HLM analysis indicated that
the PI sequence led to a higher rate of change in the
growth trajectory for letter-sound fluency. This finding
suggests that if the rate of change in letter-sound fluency continues, the difference between the PI and PN-I
in letter-sound fluency would increase over time. It is
important to note that the increased learning trajectory
was the result of instruction after only 10 weeks. If
the learning trajectory was to increase over time with
additional instruction, the assumption is that instruction will be similar to that provided in the PI sequence
during the 10-week intervention period.
This finding suggests two things. First, letter-sound
fluency is not an end in itself. It is a critical component
of early reading development that is required for efficient and accurate decoding, a reading skill that is
highly correlated with comprehension (Stanovich,
1986). Perhaps extending the intervention to the end of
the kindergarten year might result in fluency levels on
letter sounds that could substantially increase success in
first-grade reading for all children. Second, the explicit
connections made between print and phonological
blending and segmenting were more efficient in helping children acquire the alphabetic principle and learn
to translate letters into sound rapidly. While efficiency
of instruction is important for all kindergarten children,
it is especially critical for children with low phonological awareness, who may be at risk of reading disability
unless their learning trajectory changes in a more positive direction.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations in this study include time of year, representativeness of the two instructional sequences used,
intensity of instruction, and small-group setting. First,
the results are based on a winter term intervention in
kindergarten. The alphabetic and phonological awareness skills that were taught in the two instructional
sequences were chosen because they were ecologically
valid for a January-through-March kindergarten intervention study. Second, the instructional sequences
represent only two of many possible instructional sequences for integrating the alphabetic skills and phonological skills of blending and segmenting. Any combination of instructional sequences other than the PI and
PN-I sequences may provide a very different pattern of
results in terms of the effects of instructional sequence
on reading performance in kindergarten. Third, the
children received intensive instruction that included
(a) small-group instruction, (b) carefully sequenced examples, (c) consistent instructional language, (d) many
opportunities to respond, and (e) immediate feedback
from teachers who were hired specifically for this study.
For these reasons, the findings may not generalize to
large-group instruction in the kindergarten classroom
with different curricula and procedures.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The importance of an instructional sequence that systematically and explicitly links letter-sound correspondences and phonological blending and segmenting
cannot be overemphasized. Based on the results of this
pilot study, kindergarten teachers who have developed
their own curriculum for teaching early literacy skills
may need to consider including a 15-minute instructional period beginning in January that systematically
and explicitly links letter-sound correspondence
instruction with phonological blending and segmenting. Also, kindergarten teachers who are required to use
a basal reading textbook to teach early literacy skills
may need to carefully evaluate the content and
sequencing of critical skills by asking the following
questions and making instructional adjustments
accordingly.
First, when is instruction in phonemic blending and
segmenting taught? Instruction in these two component skills should begin early enough so that children
can reach the 35-45 segments per minute benchmark by
the end of kindergarten. Second, is instruction in letter
sounds and phonemic blending and segmenting integrated systematically and taught explicitly? If they are
not, the teacher must make the connections between
the alphabetic skills and phonemic blending and segmenting skill activities explicit, choosing instructional
language and examples carefully. Third, do kindergarten teachers need to determine if there is sufficient
time allotted for instruction in these critical skills in the
text? Kindergarten teachers are key people who can
make explicit those processes that are essential to begin-
278
ning reading acquisition but that are not typically

attended to by kindergarten children with low phonological awareness-the connections between print and
the sounds of spoken language. The greater effectiveness of the PI sequence in strengthening the word reading ability of children with low phonological awareness
skills suggests that how kindergarten teachers teach the
two component skills of letter sounds and phonological
blending and segmenting is as important to children's
progress in becoming readers as what they teach.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This pilot study has only begun to explore the effect
of instructional sequence for integrating letter-sound
correspondences with the phonological awareness skills
of blending and segmenting on word reading and
phonological awareness performance in kindergarten.
The future direction for research includes replicating
the findings of this study with different groups of
kindergarten children and conducting a series of studies
to extend the generalizability of the results.
The findings of this study offer evidence that the
instructional sequence for integrating alphabetic and
phonological skills affects reading and phonological
awareness performance. However, more research is
needed to examine whether the same pattern of results
would occur if (a) children received instruction in a
larger group, or (b) an educational assistant or classroom teacher taught the lessons. It is important to note
that only two of the six instructional sequences that
were identified as part of the conceptual framework
were compared. An ambitious research agenda might
also include systematically studying other combinations of instructional sequences and their effect on
word reading performance and phonological awareness
performance for kindergarten children
CONCLUSION
The PI sequence helped kindergarten children make
sense of the alphabetic writing system when learning to
read. The sequence made explicit those processes that
are essential to beginning reading acquisition and the
implicit strategies that good readers use to recognize
sounds in words, relate sounds to letters, and blend
sounds into words. It was more effective in strengthening early reading and phonological awareness skills.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginningto read:Thinkingand learningabout
print.Cambridge,MA:The MITPress.
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1988). Phoneme segmentation
training:Effecton readingreadiness.Annalsof Dyslexia,38, 208225.
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness

training in kindergartenmake a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? ReadingResearchQuarterly,
24, 49-66.
Blachman, B. A. (1994). What we have learned from longitudinal
studies of phonological processingand reading,and some unanswered questions: A response to Torgesen, Wagner, and
Rashotte.Journalof Learing Disabilities,27(5), 287-291.
Blachman, B. A., Ball, E. W., Black,R. S., & Tangel, D. M. (1994).
Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in lowincome, inner-city classrooms: Does it make a difference?
Journal,6, 1-18.
Readingand Writing:An Interdisciplinary
Brady, S., Fowler, A., Stone, B., & Winbury, N. (1994). Training
phonological awareness:A study with inner-city kindergarten
children. Annalsof Dyslexia,44, 27-59.
Brennan,F., & Ireson,J. (1997). Trainingphonological awareness:
A study to evaluate the effects of a program of metalinguistic
games in kindergarten.Readingand Writing:An Interdisciplinary
Journal,9, 241-263.
linearmodels:
Bryk,A. S., & Raudenbush,S. W. (1992). Hierarchical
Applicationsand data analysismethods.Newbury Park,CA:Sage.
Byrne,B., & Fielding-Barnsley,R. (1989). Phonemic awarenessand
letter knowledge in the child's acquisition of the alphabetic
principle. Journalof EducationalPsychology,81, 313-321.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Bamsley,R. (1991). Evaluationof a program
to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journalof
EducationalPsychology,83, 451-455.
Chard, D. J., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). Word
recognition: Instructional and curricularbasics and implications. In D. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), What reading
researchtells us about childrenwith diverselearing needs:Bases
and basics (pp. 129-140). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Christensen,C. A. (1997). Onsets, rhymes, and phonemes in learning to read. ScientificStudiesin Reading,1, 341-358.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statisticalpoweranalysisfor the behavioralsciences
(2nd ed.). New York:AcademicPress.
Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in
phonemic awareness.Journalof ExperimentalChild Psychology,
50, 429-444.
Davidson, M., & Jenkins, J. R. (1994). Effects of phonemic
processes on word reading and spelling. Journalof Educational
Research,87(3), 148-157.
Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). PeabodyPicture VocabularyTestRevised.Circle Pines, MN: AmericanGuidance Service.
Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning:
Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers.
Readingand WritingQuarterly,14, 135-163.
Fielding-Barnsley,R. (1997). Explicit instruction in decoding benefits children high in phonemic awareness and alphabetic
knowledge. ScientificStudiesin Reading,1, 85-98.
Foorman,B. R., Francis,D. J., Beeler,T., Winikates,D., & Fletcher,
J. M. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading
problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning
Disabilities:A Multidisciplinary
Journal,8, 63-71.
Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1984). Phonemic analysis and synthesis as
word attackskills:Revisited.Journalof EducationalPsychology,76,
1059-1064.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Smith, S. B. (1998). Effective
academic interventions in the United States: Evaluating and
enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills. Educational
and ChildPsychology,15(1), 56-69.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski(1998). Dynamicindicatorsof basic early
literacyskills (DIBELS).Eugene: University of Oregon, School
Psychology Department.
Volume26, Fall 2003
279
Johnson, D. S. (1996). Utilityof dynamicindicatorsof basic earlyliteracyskills forpredictingfuturereadingperformance.Unpublished

doctoral dissertation,University of Oregon.
Kameenui,E.J., & Carnine, D. W. (1998). Effectiveteaching strategies that accommodatediverselearners.Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Kaminski,R. A. (1996). PictureNamingFluencyTest (unpublished).
Eugene:University of Oregon, School Psychology Department.
Kaminski,R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for
assessing basic early literacy skills. SchoolPsychologyReview,25,
215-227.
Kaminski,R. A., & Good, R. H. (1998). Assessingearly literacyskills
in a problem-solvingmodel: Dynamic indicators of basic early
literacy skills. In M. Shinn (Ed.),Advancedapplicationsof curriculum basedmeasurement
(pp. 113-142). New York:GuilfordPress.
Kerstholt,M., Van Bon, W.H.J.,& Schreuder,R. (1997). Using visual
support in preschool phonemic segmentation training. Reading
and Writing:An Interdisciplinary
Journal,9, 265-283.
Kozminsky,L.,& Kozminsky,E. (1995).The effectsof earlyphonological trainingon readingsuccess.Learning
andInstruction,
5, 187-201.
Kuby,P., & Aldridge,J. (1997). Directversus indirect environmental print instruction and early reading ability in kindergarten
children. ReadingPsychology,18, 91-104.
Lewkowicz,N. K. (1980). Phonemic awarenesstraining: What to
teach and how to teach it. Journalof EducationalPsychology,72,
686-700.
Liberman,I. Y., & Shankweiler,D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learningto readand write.RemedialandSpecialEducation,
6(6), 8-17.
Lundberg,I., Frost,J., & Peterson,0. (1988). Effectsof an extensive
program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool
children. ReadingResearchQuarterly,
23, 263-284.
Manis, F. R., Seidenberg,M. S., & Doi, L. M. (1999). See Dick RAN:
Rapidnaming and the longitudinalpredictionof readingsubskills
in firstand second graders.ScientificStudiesof Reading,3, 129-157.
McClure,K. K., Ferreira,F., & Bisanz,G. L. (1996). Effectsof grade,
syllable segmentation, and speed of presentation on children's
word-blending ability. Journalof EducationalPsychology,88,
670-681.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Taylor, S. (1997).
Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts early progressin learning
to read. Journalof Experimental
ChildPsychology,65, 370-396.
National Reading Panel Report. (2000). Teaching children to
read: An evidence-basedassessment of the scientific research
literatureon readingand its implicationsfor readinginstruction:
Reports of the subgroups. Report of the National Reading
Panel. Retrieved April, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110,
115 stat.1425 (2002). Retrieved October, 2003, from:
http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/107th/education/nclb.htm
O'Connor, R. E., & Jenkins,J. R. (1999). The prediction of reading
disabilities in kindergartenand first grade. ScientificStudiesof
Reading,3, 159-197.
O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. K., & Slocum, T. A. (1995). Transfer
among phonological tasks in kindergarten:Essential instructional content. Journalof EducationalPsychology,87, 202-217.
O'Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. F. (1996).
Ladders to literacy: The effects of teacher-led phonological
activities for kindergartenchildren with and without disabilities. ExceptionalChildren,63, 117-130.
Silbert, J., Carnine, D., & Stein, M. (1990). Direct instruction
mathematics.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (Eds.). (1998). What reading
researchtells us about childrenwith diverselearningneeds:Bases

and basics.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Smith, S. B., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998).
Phonological awareness:Researchbases. In D. C. Simmons & E.
J. Kameenui (Eds.), What readingresearchtells us about children
with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (pp. 129-140).
Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Snider, V. E., (1997). The relationship between phonemic awareness and later reading achievement. The Journalof Educational
Research,90(4), 203-211.
Spector, J. E. (1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading:
Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of
EducationalPsychology,84, 353-363.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading:Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.
ReadingResearchQuarterly,21, 360-407.
Torgesen,J. K., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference variables
that predict response to training in phonological awareness.
ChildPsychology,63, 1-21.
Journalof Experimental
Torgesen, J. K., Morgan, S., & Davis, C. (1992). The effects of
two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergartenchildren. Journalof EducationalPsychology,
84, 364-370.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994).
Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading.
Journalof Learing Disabilities,27, 776-786.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997).
Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities:
Keepingthe end in mind. ScientificStudiesin Reading,1, 217-234.
Vandervelden,M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (1997). Teaching phonological
processing skills in early literacy: A developmental approach.
LearningDisabilityQuarterly,20, 63-80.
Wagner,J. (1993). Ignorancein educational research:Or how can
22, 15-23.
you not know that? EducationalResearcher,
Wagner, R. K. (1988). Causal relations between the development
of phonological processing abilities and the acquisition of
reading skills: A meta-analysis. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly,34(2),
261-279.
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen,J. (1987). The nature of phonological
processingand its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills.
Bulletin,101, 192-212.
Psychological
Wagner,R. K.,Torgesen,J. K., Rashotte,C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker,
T. A., Burgess,S. R., Donahue, J., & Garon,T. (1997). Changing
relations between phonological processing abilities and wordlevel reading as children develop from beginning to skilled
readers:A 5-year longitudinal study. DevelopmentalPsychology,
33, 468-479.
Wolf, M. A., & Bowers,P. G. (1999). The double-deficithypothesis
for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational
Psychology,91, 415-438.
Woodcock, R. W. (1987). WoodcockReadingMasteryTests-Revised.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic
awarenesstests. Reading ResearchQuarterly,23(2), 159-176.
NOTE
The author would like to acknowledge the expert guidance
and feedbackof EdwardJ. Kameenui,Ph.D., University of Oregon,
for his untiring support during the conceptualization and implementation of this dissertation study.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Sr. Mary Karen
Oudeans,School of Education,SilverLakeCollege, 2406 S. Alverno
Rd., Manitowoc, WI 54220.
280

1593638

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1593638

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Winner of CLD's 2003 Award for Outstanding Research: Integration of Letter-Sound

WINNER OF CLD'S 2003 AWARDFOR OUTSTANDINGRESEARCH

at the InternationalConferenceon LearningDisabilitiessponsoredby the CouncilforLearningDisabilities.Sr.Mary

Abstract. Research evidence indicates that integration of letter

Learning Disability Quarterly

Recent promulgation and implementation of the

Volume 26, Fall 2003

(Christensen, 1997; McClure, Ferreira, & Bisanz, 1996;

mastery may not matter. However, all component skills

Learning Disability Quarterly

between integrated sets of activities requires the two sets

Volume 26, Fall 2003

reaches 35-45 phonemic segments per minute, the

ceptual framework on integration to identify and

Learing Disability Quarterly

O'Connor, Jenkins, and Slocum (1995)

awareness instruction in phonemic segmenting and

Volume 26, Fall 2003

phonological blending and segmenting were used in

McCormick, 1998; Foorman et al., 1997; Simmons &

ance for kindergarten children with low phonological

Volume 26, Fall 2003

noted the instructional setting (i.e., large or small

winter of the kindergarten year could signal difficulties

Learning Disability Quarterly

words (i.e., more useful letters)were introducedin the

A plastic coiled spring (i.e., a "Slinky")was used to

Volume26, Fall 2003

had been taught for two consecutive lessons during

made between the sound for /m/ representedby the

son observation, the investigator observed one teacher

Volume26, Fall 2003

achievement (Kaminski & Good, 1996). Children who

both phonetically regular (e.g., ten) and irregular

iner instructs the child to "Tell me the names of as many

a consonant-vowel-consonant (e.g., mat) pattern, and

Volume 26, Fall 2003

The following is an example of an onset-recognition

Picture Naming Fluency (PNF), was administered at

Assessment of Rapid Retrieval of Information

Descriptive statistics were computed for the two

Learning Disability Quarterly

pretest differences were found, and group equivalence

Volume 26, Fall 2003

instructional groups and initial phonemic segmentation

The results of the 2 x 3 mixed-effects ANOVA for

Volume26, Fall 2003

p = .000, for both instructional sequences, although

Second, only 7% of the differences in posttest PSF

change in slope per week of instruction was 3.33 correct

Volume26, Fall 2003

Learning Disability Quarterly

ning reading acquisition but that are not typically

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness

Volume26, Fall 2003

Johnson, D. S. (1996). Utilityof dynamicindicatorsof basic earlyliteracyskills forpredictingfuturereadingperformance.Unpublished

researchtells us about childrenwith diverselearningneeds:Bases

S-ar putea să vă placă și