Gail Gillon CoE CU_Phonological Awareness Instruction (1)

Running Head: Classroom Phonological Awareness Instruction and Literacy Outcomes 1
Classroom Phonological Awareness Instruction and Literacy Outcomes

In the First Year of School
Karyn L. Carson
Gail T. Gillon
Therese M. Boustead
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Classroom Phonological Awareness Instruction and Literacy Outcomes 2
Abstract
Purpose: Despite strong investment in raising literacy achievement for all children significant
inequalities in literacy outcomes continue to exist among some of the world’s most advanced
economies. This study investigated the influence of a short and intensive period of phonological
awareness (PA) instruction implemented by classroom teachers on raising literacy achievement
for children with and without spoken language difficulties. Method: A quasi-experimental
design was employed to measure the PA, reading, and spelling development of 129 children aged
five years. Thirty-four children received 10 weeks of PA instruction from their teachers. Ninety-
five children continued with their usual reading program, which included phonics instruction but
did not target PA. Results: Children who received PA instruction demonstrated superior literacy
outcomes compared to children who followed the usual curriculum. Children with spoken
language difficulties showed significant improvements in PA, reading, and spelling, but varied in
their response to instruction compared to children with typical language. Importantly, the
number of children experiencing word decoding difficulties declined from 26% among children
who followed the usual literacy curriculum to 6% among children who received PA instruction.
Implications: A short and intensive period of classroom PA instruction can raise the literacy
profiles of typically developing and at-risk readers.
Keywords: phonological awareness, classroom literacy instruction, reading and spelling
instruction, duration and intensity of instruction

Ensuring that children become proficient readers through effective classroom instruction
is a critical issue in reading education. International prevalence statistics suggest that up to one in
three children struggle with the acquisition of basic reading and writing skills (National
Assessment of Educational Progress —NAEP, 2003), and that large inequalities exist between
good and poor readers residing in developed nations (United Nations Children’s Fund—UNICEF,
2010). One method towards raising achievement and reducing inequality in reading statistics is
to ensure key predictors of early literacy success are taught effectively and efficiently in the
classroom curriculum. Towards this goal, the current investigation examined the benefits of one
key predictor of literacy success, namely phonological awareness (PA), on reading outcomes
when taught in a time-efficient framework by teachers as part of the beginning reading program.
New Zealand provides an interesting context to evaluate whether teacher-implemented PA
programs at the class level can help raise reading achievement for all children. New Zealand has
a strong reputation for achieving high literacy levels among school-aged children and is ranked
third out of 34 countries within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) in terms of average reading ability (OECD, 2010). However, OECD data also reveal a
large gap between the ability of good and poor readers in New Zealand (Martin, Mullis, &
Kennedy, 2007), and thus scrutiny of interventions that may contribute towards successful
reading outcomes for all children is critical.
The Role of Phonological Awareness in Reading Development
The development of proficient reading relies on the integration of a complex tapestry of
knowledge and skills (Gillon, 2004). One widely recognized predictor and prognostic marker for
early reading success is PA (Carroll & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 2001).
PA can be defined as the purposeful ability to attend to and manipulate the sound structure of
spoken words at the syllable, onset-rime, and phoneme levels (Gillon, 2004). The more sensitive
children are to the sound structure of spoken words, the more likely they will become stronger
readers irrespective of educational measures such as socioeconomic status, intelligence, and
receptive vocabulary (MacDonald & Cornwall, 1995; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). PA
knowledge allows children to link phonemes to graphemes that in turn support word decoding
ability and subsequent reading comprehension. Early difficulties in acquiring PA skills are linked
to increasingly larger gaps in reading outcomes (Torgesen et al., 1994), not dissimilar to those
inequalities reported in international studies of reading achievement. Of particular concern is the
development of literacy abilities in young children with spoken language impairment. These
children are four to five times more likely to struggle with reading acquisition due to deficits in
underlying skills, such as PA, that support written language development (Catts et al., 2001).
Despite new initiatives over the last decade to improve reading standards, the gap between high
risk populations and good readers does not appear to be closing (Morgan, Farakas, & Hibel,
2008). Thus, it seems worthwhile that educators and researchers investigate how to efficiently
and effectively integrate key predictors of literacy success into the classroom to improve reading
equality.
Classroom Phonological Awareness Instruction
Understanding how to effectively and efficiently integrate PA instruction into everyday
classroom environments is critical for supporting initiatives that aim to elevate reading
achievement and reduce inequality in reading outcomes. The scientific evidence surrounding the
benefits of PA instruction for literacy growth is well reported for children with typical
development and children with risk for reading disorder. A majority of evidence supporting the
benefits of PA instruction comes from studies conducted in individual or small group frameworks
under controlled research settings outside of the classroom (Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster,
Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001; Gillon, 2000, 2005). Less is known about the effectiveness
of PA instruction, in particular optimal duration and intensity, when exported to the
heterogeneous classroom environment.
Successful integration of teacher-delivered PA instruction into beginning reading
curricula requires consideration of a number of classroom logistics. One key consideration is the
time-efficiency of the program. According to McLeod, Fisher, and Hoover (2003) the time
required to implement a particular program plays a critical role in determining whether it can be
successfully implemented as part of classroom practice. Activities that are too time consuming
may be omitted by teachers in an attempt to balance a busy classroom schedule. Frequent and
intensive sessions are considered an important component of effective PA instruction (Elbaum,
Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 1999; Gillon, 2004). In controlled clinical settings, two one-hour
individual sessions per week are considered high intensity (i.e., two hours per week). In
particular, instruction of this intensity for 20 hours over a 10-week period focused at the phoneme
level has proven effective in raising reading achievement for at-risk populations in individualized
therapy settings using the Gillon Phonological Awareness Training Program (PAT) (Gillon,
2000, 2005). Adapting the PAT program to investigate whether the benefits 10-weeks (20 hours)
of PA instruction can be replicated when taught by teachers to an entire classroom will offer a
valuable addition towards emerging research regarding the optimal duration and intensity of PA
instruction in the classroom.
Recent Studies of Phonological Awareness Instruction in the Classroom
Research into the effectiveness of classroom-based literacy programs that include a focus
on PA have varied in duration and intensity. Knowledge of these variables is critical for
designing effective and efficient classroom reading programs. In this study, the literature was
reviewed to identify research programs that included a focus on PA instruction and were
delivered by teachers to an entire classroom. Four studies met this criteria and were compared
using the following classifications: (a) duration: programs implemented for more than one
academic year (i.e., longer than 36 weeks) were considered long in duration, and programs
implemented for less than one academic year (i.e., less than 36 weeks) were considered short in
duration and; (b) intensity: programs involving two hours or more of instruction per week were
viewed as high intensity, while programs involving less than two hours of instruction per week
were considered low intensity. A cut-off of two hours per week was selected based on evidence
demonstrating that this intensity of PA instruction over a 10-week period is sufficient for eliciting
improved reading outcomes in at-risk children (Gillon, 2000, 2005), whereas less than 10 hours
of instruction has proven less effective in improving reading accuracy (p<.05) and reading
comprehension (p<.001) ability in school-aged children (Gillon & Dodd, 1997).
An additional area of variability between studies is the content of instruction. To compare
content, programs that target PA at the phoneme level (i.e., developing awareness of individual
sounds in words, also known as phoneme awareness) were classified as narrow, and programs
that target a wide range of PA skills (e.g., syllables, onset-rime, and phonemes) were classified as
broad. Table 1 compares the duration, intensity, and content of PA instruction on reading
outcomes from four recent classroom investigations.
[Insert Table 1 about here]
Of the studies reviewed in Table 1, Shapiro and Solity (2008) demonstrated a significant
reduction in the prevalence of reading disorder using a long duration and high intensity classroom
program focused on PA at the phoneme level. For two years, 251 British school children
received explicit instruction in phoneme blending and segmentation, high frequency phoneme-
grapheme correspondences, and sight vocabulary over three 12-minute sessions per day as part of
the classroom reading program. This equated to approximately 110 hours of instruction. The
prevalence of reading disorder reduced from 20% among children who received the usual
program to 5% among children who received instruction in phoneme awareness. Investigating

whether a similar reduction in the number of children experiencing reading problems can be
achieved through a shorter period of phoneme-focused instruction may contribute to the
manageable integration of PA into the classroom.
Studies of short duration (i.e., less than one academic year), low intensity, and have a
broad PA focus often report improved reading outcomes immediately following instruction but
struggled to demonstrate sustained improvements beyond five months of the program’s
completion. Using a short 20-week program, Fuchs, Fuchs, Thompson, Al Otaiba, Yen, Yang,
Braun, & O’Connor (2001) compared the effectiveness of teacher-delivered PA instruction with
and without instruction in decoding printed words. Four hundred and four five-year-old children
received instruction in either (a) PA and decoding instruction, (b) PA instruction, or (c) the usual
literacy curriculum (i.e., control). Fifteen PA activities were taken from the Ladders to Literacy
program and targeted syllable, onset-rime, and phoneme awareness. Decoding instruction was
based on Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) and involved children working in pairs on
word reading tasks. PA and word decoding instruction involved three 15-minute sessions per
week totalling 15 hours of teaching and was considered low intensity. Children who received PA
and word decoding instruction outperformed children in the PA only and control classrooms on
reading and spelling tasks immediately following instruction. Similarly, children in the PA only
condition performed significantly higher on post-instructional literacy measures compared to the
control classrooms. Five months post-instruction, children who received PA and word decoding
instruction no longer demonstrated a statistically significant advantage in reading and spelling
ability compared to children in the PA only and control conditions. These results suggest that
teaching a broad range of PA skills with low intensity (i.e., 45-minutes per week) over a short
period of time is less effective in achieving sustained improvements for reading outcomes. It is
possible that a narrow focus on phoneme level skills with high intensity over a short time period
may produce more promising results.

In a short, low intensity program focused on a wide range of PA skills Justice, McGinty,
Cabell, Kilday, Knighton, and Huffman (2010) demonstrated the importance of including specific
teaching in PA at the phoneme level for children vulnerable for reading disorder. Sixty-six
children aged between three years three months and five years six months received literacy and
language instruction using a program called Read It Again (RIA). The program involved two 20
to 30 minute classroom sessions per week for 30 weeks that targeted PA, print, vocabulary, and
narrative knowledge. PA instruction targeted syllable, onset-rime, and phoneme awareness and
was taught at least once per week, equating to 10 to 15 hours of instruction. Children who
received RIA instruction performed significantly higher than comparison children (n=71) on
measures of language and literacy immediately following instruction. For children with low
language abilities, this program did not advance phoneme awareness and alphabetic knowledge to
the same extent as it did for children with average to high language abilities. It is important to
note that additional risk factors beyond language capabilities (e.g., socioeconomic status) may
have moderated results. Nonetheless, these results suggest that investigation into the benefits of
specific phoneme-focused PA instruction, particularly for at-risk children, appears worthwhile in
a classroom context.
Furthermore, McIntosh, Crosbie, Holm, Dodd, and Thomas (2007) investigated the
benefits of a short, high intensity, and broad PA program on the reading outcomes of 97
preschool children from low socioeconomic localities. Children received 10 weeks of daily PA
instruction targeting syllable segmentation, onset-rime identification, and initial sound
identification. Although significant improvements were identified in PA knowledge immediately
following instruction, follow-up indicated that initial gains in PA in preschool did not support
accelerated literacy development in the early school years. These studies show that a short 10-
week period of high intensity instruction focused on a broad range of PA skills is less
advantageous in generating sustained improvements for reading outcomes. Thus, it could be

argued that a similar 10-week high intensity period of instruction focused specifically on
phoneme-level knowledge, as opposed to syllables and onset-rime, could have a significant and
sustained impact on literacy growth.
Comparison of studies in Table 1 suggests that little is known about the benefits of a short
duration, high intensity, teacher-delivered PA program focused at the phoneme level for children
in the first year of formal schooling. Shorter programs are more cognizant to the time demands
of the classroom environment and can help educators ensure that children have key foundation
skills in place to take advantage of reading instruction (McLeod et al., 2003). Furthermore,
research shows that larger sound units (e.g., syllables) may develop from general classroom
instruction, but awareness of smaller sound units (e.g., phonemes) may require more explicit and
direct instruction (Fletcher, Parkhill, & Gillon, 2010). A specific focus on PA at the phoneme
level may provide a time-efficient alternative to the teaching of a broad range of PA skills while
also enhancing skills strongly associated with early reading success.
Children with Spoken Language Impairment
Children with spoken language impairment (SLI) present with an elevated risk for reading
difficulty (Gillon, 2004). Controlled research studies suggest that individual or small group
instruction can exert a positive effect on the early literacy abilities of young children with SLI
(Ehri et al., 2001). In particular, it has been shown that skills at the phoneme level can be
effectively stimulated in children as young as four years of age with expressive phonological
impairment (Gillon, 2005). Recent studies involving teacher-implemented PA instruction
demonstrated that children with language or speech impairment show greater individual variation
in their response to instruction. For example, Justice et al. (2010) found that children with
inferior language skills who received instruction using the RIA program appeared to benefit less
in terms of phoneme awareness, letter knowledge, and print awareness but showed equal benefit
in the areas of vocabulary, syntax, and onset-rime compared to typically developing peers. This
result highlights the need for further research into the effect of specifically targeting phoneme
level skills on reading outcomes as part of the classroom program. Similarly, Fuchs, Fuchs,
Thompson, Al Otaiba, Yen, Yang, Braun, and O’Connor (2002) found that the number of
children with speech and/or language impairment who demonstrated improvements in literacy
skills following classroom PA and decoding instruction was equal to the number of children
demonstrating no improvement. Individual variation in response to reading instruction suggests
that a classroom PA program may help teachers narrow down which children among this cohort
will respond to classroom instruction and which will require specialist support beyond the
classroom setting.
Modifying the PAT Program for the Classroom Environment
The Gillon Phonological Awareness Training Program (PAT), which has been
successfully used in a number of individual or small group controlled studies (Gillon, 2000,
2005), was adapted for the current study and used in the classroom. The PAT program was
originally designed for an intervention study to investigate the effect of PA instruction on the PA
ability, speech production, and literacy development of children aged five to seven with SLI
(Gillon, 2000). Children who received 20 hours of explicit PA instruction focused at the
phoneme level over a 10-week period (two sessions per week) made significant improvements in
PA and reading ability compared to children who received traditional or minimal speech-
language therapy. These benefits were maintained 11 months after intervention (Gillon, 2002).
The current study investigated the effectiveness of a class-adapted version of this program as a
supplement to the usual literacy curriculum. Adaptations to the original PAT program included:
(a) eight hours of professional development inclusive of in-class support, (b) the addition of
program adaptation charts to ensure teachers could adjust activities to meet a range of abilities in
the classroom, and (c) use of classroom curriculum topics and resources (e.g., books, science
tables, news) as a medium through which weekly PA targets could be addressed.

The "Usual" Literacy Curriculum in New Zealand
The "usual" classroom literacy curriculum employed by teachers in the present study
consisted of a whole language approach to literacy instruction, in addition to phonics instruction
to teach letter-sound knowledge. Whole language instruction focuses on meaning and
encourages children to read whole words and sentences in the context of real literacy experiences
(Tunmer, Chapman, & Prochnow, 2006). Phonics is a method of teaching children to read by
drawing attention to letters or letter patterns and the sounds they represent (Tunmer et al., 2006).
PA is different from phonics in that it deals specifically with the sound structure of words only
and does not focus on print. A combination of PA plus phonics instruction has demonstrated
significant benefits for reading outcomes (Ehri et al., 2001). The "usual" literacy curriculum in
the present study did not include a specific focus on teaching PA skills.
The goal of this investigation was to examine the effectiveness of a short and intensive
PA program focused at the phoneme level, as a supplement to the "usual" class reading program,
on the literacy outcomes of children with and without spoken language difficulties in the first
year of school. The study addressed the following hypotheses:
1. Children exposed to teacher-implemented PA instruction focused at the phoneme level for
20 hours over a 10-week period in the classroom will demonstrate significantly higher
phoneme awareness, reading, and spelling abilities both immediately post-instruction and
sustained to the end of the school year compared to children who receive the “usual”
literacy curriculum only.
2. Children with SLI will demonstrate significant improvements in phoneme awareness,
reading, and spelling following teacher-directed PA instruction for 20 hours over 10-
weeks. However, children with SLI may show less growth in phoneme awareness,
reading, and spelling development when compared to children with typical spoken
language profiles.
Method
Participants and School Selection
One-hundred and twenty-nine New Zealand children (54 boys, 75 girls) aged between
five years zero months and five years two months (M=60.41 months, SD=0.59 months) from 12
classrooms and their respective teachers participated in this study. A stratification process was
used to select and invite schools to participate in the study. One-hundred and ten government-
funded primary schools in the Christchurch region were stratified into high, middle, and low
socioeconomic groupings based on decile ranking (i.e., an indication of socioeconomic status
(SES) where 10 equals the highest SES and one equals the lowest SES (Ministry of Education,
2011)). In this study, a decile ranking from one to four was considered low, five to seven was
considered middle, and eight to 10 was considered high. Ten schools from each socioeconomic
grouping were selected at random and made up the 30 schools invited to participate in the study.
From these 30 schools, 12 Year 1 teachers (i.e., a teacher for children in the first year of formal
schooling) agreed to participate. Two Year 1 teachers from differing schools were asked to
participate as experimental teachers and were randomly assigned to either experimental Groups A
(n=18) or B (n=16). These two teachers were selected to implement the class PA program
because the children in their classrooms presented with similar spoken and written language
profiles and socioeconomic rankings. The remaining 10 teachers and a subset of children from
their respective classrooms were automatically allocated to Group C (n=95) and were asked to
continue with their “usual” literacy curriculum. The subset of children in these 10 classrooms
ranged from seven to 14 participants. Groups A and B were located in high-middle
socioeconomic areas, whereas comparison Group C represented an equal spectrum of
socioeconomic backgrounds. Group A, B and C teachers were appropriately qualified and
registered to teach in New Zealand. Table 2 illustrates the characteristics of the teachers in
Groups A, B, and C.
Child Participants
Year 1 teachers distributed consent forms to parents asking for permission for their child
to participate in the study. The inclusion criteria were broad to ensure representation of a range
of skill levels present in the classroom. Participants were required to: (a) be enrolled to
commence their first year of formal education at the start of 2010, (b) have written parental
permission to participate in the study, (c) present with sensory, neurological, and physical
abilities that did not require specialized equipment and/or additional professional support (e.g.,
use of sign language or a language interpreter) to achieve accurate testing, and (d) be present at
school during prescribed assessment periods.
Parental consent was obtained for all children in the classrooms who were assigned as
experimental Groups A and B. Four children in Group A and three children in Group B
presented with spoken language difficulties at school-entry as determined by standardized testing
procedures. A subset of seven to 14 children from the 10 classrooms that made up comparison
Group C received parental consent to participate. In New Zealand, children typically start Year 1
on the day of their fifth birthday or as close to this day as practically possible. All participants
spoke standard New Zealand English as their first language.
Procedure
A quasi-experimental design was used to investigate the PA, reading, and spelling
development of five-year-old children who received teacher-implemented PA instruction or the
"usual" literacy curriculum during the first year of school. This design was chosen because the
research was conducted in everyday classroom environments as opposed to a highly controlled
clinical setting. This research design was inclusive of a delayed treatment approach whereby
Group A received class PA instruction before Group B. This was to achieve replication of study
results, and to enable Groups A and B to act as an additional control for each other. The study
took place over a full school year, which in New Zealand runs from February through December
and is divided into four terms; each approximately 10 weeks in duration and separated by a two-
week holiday break. The study was designed around the four school terms as follows: (a) Term
One: the "usual" literacy curriculum for all groups; (b) Term Two: PA instruction for Group A
and the "usual" curriculum for Groups B and C; (c) Term Three: PA instruction for Group B and
the "usual" curriculum for Groups A and C; and (d) Term Four: the "Usual" literacy curriculum
for all groups
Professional Development for Classroom Phonological Awareness Teachers
Three levels of professional development were provided to experimental teachers. The
first level involved two one-hour meetings with the lead researcher to discuss the program theory
and structure. The second level involved providing teachers with an instruction manual outlining
the goals, program content, suggested activity dialogue, and pre-made resources. The third level
involved the lead researcher co-teaching the first three to four weeks of the program alongside
experimental teachers before these teachers independently administered the program from week
six to 10. Approximately eight hours of professional development was provided to each
experimental teacher. Group C teachers did not receive any professional development.
Assessment Phases and Measures
All participants received a comprehensive baseline assessment of their language, PA, and
early literacy skills at school-entry in addition to follow-up assessments of PA, reading, and
spelling at the middle and end of the school year. Additional assessment periods were warranted
for Groups A and B to measure pre- to post-instructional change. Groups A and B were assessed
at the start of the school year, the start of term two (i.e., just prior to Group A PA instruction), the
end of term two (i.e., after Group A PA instruction, just prior to Group B PA instruction), the end
of term three (i.e., after Group B PA instruction), and the end of term four (i.e., end of year
assessment for all groups).

Formal Assessment Measures of Language and Non-Verbal Abilities
The following formal measures were administered at school-entry to profile the language,
speech, PA, and non-verbal intellectual abilities of all participants.
- The Clinical Evaluations of Language Fundamentals Preschool—2nd Edition—Australian
and New Zealand Edition (CELF P-2) (Wiig, Secord, & Semel, 2006) was administered to
obtain a detailed profile of receptive, expressive, and core language skills and is norm-
referenced for children aged three years and zero months to six years and 11 months.
Children were required to complete the following six subtests with an examiner: (a) sentence
structures, (b) concepts and following directions, (c) basic concepts, (d) word structures, (e)
expressive vocabulary, and (f) recalling sentences. Results from these subtests were collated
to produce a receptive language index score and an expressive language index score. Test-
retest reliability correlation coefficients range from excellent (0.90) to adequate (0.78).
Measures of internal consistency range from 0.80 to 0.96 across the subtests.
- The New Zealand Articulation Test (NZAT) (Ministry of Education, 2004) was administered
to evaluate speech sound development. The NZAT is appropriate for children aged five
years and zero months to eight years and 11 months and includes norm-referenced tasks for
the production of single consonants and initial consonant blends in words. Children were
required to complete the single consonant and initial consonant blends subtests by naming
pictures presented by an examiner. Inter-rater reliability is 98% for single consonants in
words and 92% for initial consonant blends. Results from the NZAT were entered into
Computerized Profiling of Phonology (PROPH) Software (Long, Fey, & Channell, 2002) to
obtain a percentage consonants correct (PCC) score for use in data analysis.
- The Preschool and Primary Inventory of Phonological Awareness (PIPA) (Dodd, Crosbie,
McIntosh, Teitzel, & Ozanne, 2000). The PIPA is suitable for children aged three years and
zero months to six years and 11 months and provides normative data for Australian and
British children. Children were required to complete the subtests of rime oddity, initial
phoneme identity and letter knowledge with an examiner. Test-retest reliability coefficients
are 0.87, 0.95 and 0.98 for rime oddity, phoneme identity, and letter-knowledge respectively.
- The Primary Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (PTONI) (Ehrler & McGhee, 2008) was used to
obtain a measure of non-verbal intellectual ability. This test is appropriate for children aged
three years and zero months to nine years and 11 months. Children were required to examine
pictures on a page to identify which picture does not belong. This test progresses in
difficulty, beginning with lower-order reasoning skills such as visual and spatial recognition,
and moving towards more advanced reasoning skills such as sequential reasoning and
categorical formulation. Internal consistency reliability coefficients are greater than 0.90
from three to nine years of age. Test-retest reliability is excellent (0.97).
The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability—3rd Edition (NARA) (Neale, 1999) was
administered when participants turned six years of age and coincided with the end of the school
year. This test measures reading accuracy (decoding) and reading comprehension of connected
text and is standardized on Australian children from six years of age. Children were required to
read aloud a series of passages of increasing difficulty which provides a reading accuracy score.
After each passage, children are required to answer a series of comprehension questions which
provides a reading comprehension score. Test-retest reliability coefficients are reported as 0.95
for reading accuracy and 0.93 for reading comprehension. Internal consistency reliability
coefficients range from 0.71 for accuracy and 0.95 for comprehension in the first year of school.
Informal Assessment Measures of Phonological Awareness, Reading, and Spelling
The following assessments were administered to all participants at the start, middle, and
end of the year and were also used as pre- and post-instruction measures for Groups A and B:
- Phonological Awareness: PA was measured using a Computer-Based Phonological
Awareness Assessment (Carson, Gillon, & Boustead, 2011): This assessment measures rime
oddity, initial phoneme identity, final phoneme identity, phoneme blending, phoneme
deletion, and phoneme segmentation ability. Letter-name and letter-sound knowledge are
also assessed. The rime oddity, initial phoneme identity, and letter knowledge subtests are
modelled on paper-based probes developed and reported by Gillon (2000, 2002) which in
turn are based upon earlier work by Bradley and Bryant (1983). The final phoneme identity,
phoneme blending, phoneme deletion, and phoneme segmentation subtests are modelled on
work developed and reported by Stahl and Murray (1994). The children were required to
watch the computer present each test item (i.e., verbal instructions and pictures/letters as
multiple-choice response options) and then click their response (i.e., click a picture/letter)
using the computer mouse. The computer then scored each response. Test-retest reliability
estimates and internal consistency reliability coefficients are above 0.70 for all PA and letter
knowledge tasks.
- Real and Non-Word Reading: Real word reading was measured using the Burt Word
Reading Test— New Zealand Revision (Burt) (Gilmore, Croft, & Reid, 1981). This test
requires children to read single words across a test sheet until 10 consecutive errors are
made. The words are represented in a graded order of difficulty. Internal reliability is
excellent (0.97). Although this test does not provide normative data for children under the
age of six years, it was used to provide information on early decoding and sight word
abilities. Non-word reading was measured using the 10 non-words (i.e., 10 simple CVC
words using short vowels) from the Non-Word Reading Task in the Reading Freedom
Diagnostic Reading Test (Calder, 1992). Children were required to read non-words across a
test sheet until 10 non-words were attempted. This non-word reading task has been used to
track PA development in a number of PA intervention studies (Gillon, 2000, 2002, 2005).

- Real and Non-Word Spelling: Real word spelling was measured using the Schonell Essential
Spelling Test (Schonell, 1932). This test requires children to spell single words spoken by an
examiner until 10 consecutive words are spelled incorrectly. The words are graded in order
of difficulty. Satisfactory correlations between the Schonell and the Phonic Inventories
(0.60) have been reported (Potter, 2009). Non-word spelling was measured using 10 non-
words from the Pseudoword Spelling Subtest of the TOPA-2+ (TOPA - 2+) (Torgesen &
Bryant, 2004). Children were asked to spell 10 non-words presented one-by-one by an
examiner. Internal reliability, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability estimates are
greater than 0.80 for all age groups in the TOPA-2+.
Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the language and literacy abilities of participants in Groups A, B,
and C at the start of the school year. These tables include one-way ANOVA results which did
not reveal any significant between-group differences at baseline.
[Insert Tables 3 and 4 about here]
Assessment Administration and Scoring Reliability
Assessments were administered individually to each child by the primary researcher or a
qualified speech-language pathologist trained in test administration procedures for this study.
Children were tested in a quiet area near their classroom across two sessions for initial school-
entry testing and then across one session for middle and end-of-year assessments. Data were
scored in real-time with 50% of measures being scored twice using DVD recordings. Inter-rater
reliability for PA, language, and non-verbal intellectual measures was 100%. Inter-rater
reliability for speech sound performance on the NZAT was 98.2%.
Classroom Phonological Awareness Program
The Gillon Phonological Awareness Training Program (PAT) was adapted for the
classroom environment and used as the instructional program for this study (Gillon, 2000). The
content of the PAT program covers onset-rime knowledge, phoneme analysis, phoneme identity,
phoneme segmentation, phoneme blending, and linking speech to print. The PAT program was
adapted for the classroom in three primary ways. First, teachers were provided with eight hours
of professional development that included discussion regarding program theory to in-class
support for the first four weeks of the program. Second, activity adaptation charts were created
so that teachers could adjust each activity to meet a wide range of ability levels in the classroom.
For example, when using the word ‘nest’ in a phoneme blending activity, the teacher could make
the task easier for children with lower ability by asking them to identify the first sound in the
word. The task could be made harder for children with higher ability by asking them to
manipulate sounds to create new words. Third, classroom resources were used alongside
activities in the original PAT program. For example, when linking speech to print during PA
sessions classroom library books could be used to target the PA skill of the week (e.g., for initial
phoneme identity the teacher may say, “This book is about a cat. What sound do you hear at the
start of cat”?). In addition, classroom topics (e.g., going to the beach) or news (e.g., school
productions) were used to reinforce PA targets. This adapted version of the program required
approximately 20% of the classroom literacy teaching time.
The original PAT program involves two one-hour sessions per week until 20 hours of
instruction is complete. Following collaboration with the teachers of Groups A and B, it was
agreed that four 30-minute sessions per week for 10 weeks during the morning literacy block
were most cognizant to the needs of the classroom timetable. PA instruction targeted rime oddity
for one week before progressing to explicit teaching of phoneme level skills for nine weeks.
Outside of the specified instructional periods, Groups A and B continued with the "usual" literacy
curriculum which involved whole language instruction in addition to Jolly Phonics (Lloyd, 1992).
Table 5 illustrates the weekly schedule of PA skills targeted.

A 30-minute session involved a five-minute review of activities from the previous session
and discussion about how listening for sounds in words helps with reading and spelling. The next
20 minutes were devoted to two activities of approximately 10 minutes each in duration. Each
10-minute activity targeted the PA skill for that week and also ensured that an explicit link to
print was demonstrated. For example, when listening for initial sounds in words children were
encouraged to write the letters that represented those sounds on a laminated piece of card in front
of them. Each session finished with five minutes of shared reading using a book from the
classroom with emphasis being placed on the PA target for that week.
Children in Groups A and B were not required to reach a pre-determined performance
criterion before moving on to the next PA skill in the program. Instead, children were exposed to
a range of PA activities known to support literacy development, and teachers were encouraged to
modify and scaffold activities to match different ability levels using program adaptation charts.
The "Usual" Literacy Curriculum
The "usual" literacy curriculum consisted of a whole language approach to the teaching of
reading, but each classroom in this study also incorporated a phonics program. The teachers of
Groups A and B and eight teachers from Group C specifically used the Jolly Phonics Program.
This program involves teaching children letter-sound correspondences and also includes a section
that instructs children on how to blend sounds together to form simple words (e.g., CVC) (Lloyd,
1992). Groups A and B teachers reported using this program to teach letter-sound skills and used
the concept of blending sounds together during shared book reading. Seven Group C teachers
used the Jolly Phonics Program to teach letter-sound knowledge but did not report using the
blending section of this program. One Group C teacher reported using the blending section of
this program regularly. Two teachers from Group C used school-developed programs to teach
letter-sound knowledge. No teachers used a program that specifically targeted PA knowledge in
an explicit and systematic manner.

The "usual" literacy curriculum across Groups A, B and C involved 15 minutes of guided
reading with the teacher in small groups in which meaning-based strategies such as using
knowledge of sight words, looking at the pictures, and attempting to read to the end of the
sentence were utilized. Shared book reading as a whole class for approximately 10 to15 minutes
also involved the use of meaning-based strategies. Each day children were given up to 15
minutes for silent reading during which they selected a book from the class or school library. The
teaching of letter-sound knowledge using the Jolly Phonics Program or using a school-developed
program usually involved 20 to 25 minutes of instruction at the start of the day.
Independent Review of Post-Treatment Data
An independent examiner conducted all post-instructional testing for both Groups A and
B to ensure data were collected by an individual who was blinded to the experimental versus
comparison conditions (Troia, 1999). Furthermore, 30% of post-instructional assessment
measures from DVD recordings were randomly selected and reviewed by an independent
examiner with a qualification in speech and language pathology. A 100% agreement rate was
achieved between the real-time examiner results and the independent review of DVD recordings
of post-assessment measures.
Treatment Fidelity
Teachers in Groups A and B were required to complete a PA teaching log for each week
of instruction. In this log, teachers had to name the PA skill that was targeted (e.g., phoneme
blending), the activities that were used from the program to address that target (e.g., phoneme
blending bingo), and the duration of time spent on each activity. The teachers were also required
to write a short paragraph outlining the responses of children to this instruction, in particular
children who were demonstrating difficulty relative to their peers. Out of 10 log entries for
classroom teacher A and 12 log entries for classroom teacher B, all were validated as accurately
matching the activities described in Table 5. Comparison teachers were also required to complete
a weekly teaching log for the same periods over which Groups A and B were receiving PA
instruction. In this log teachers were asked to document the types of literacy activities that were
implemented in the classroom (e.g., guided reading), the types of teaching methods and strategies
employed (e.g., context-based cues, letter-sound knowledge), and the duration of time spent on
each activity. Out of 82 log entries for classroom teachers in Group C, all were validated as
matching a whole language approach to reading instruction with the supplementation of phonics
instruction. In addition, the lead researcher visited each teacher in the study twice during each
school term and twice during Group A and Group B’s 10-week period of instruction to observe in
the classroom and recorded details of the classroom literacy program for treatment validity
purposes.
All PA sessions were recorded using a Sony DCR-DVD201 camcorder. Twenty percent
of DVD footage was randomly selected and reviewed by an independent researcher to ensure that
each PA skill was targeted during the program (e.g., phoneme blending, phoneme segmentation)
and that the link between speech and print was emphasized. DVD footage was coded by having
the independent researcher tick a box to indicate whether or not the PA activities (i.e., listed in
Table 5) were targeted in the DVD sessions viewed. One hundred percent of the reviewed data
was validated as accurately illustrating the instructional content reported in Table 5. Ten teachers
in the comparison classrooms participated in four recording sessions to enable data gathering on
what constituted activities and strategies within the "usual" literacy curriculum (i.e.,
approximately one per term). To ensure that Groups A and B returned to the "usual" literacy
curriculum following classroom PA instruction, Group A received recording sessions in terms
three and four, while Group B received one recording session in term four. Twenty percent of
data from Group C was reviewed by an independent examiner who validated that instructional
strategies consisted of guided, shared, and silent reading with a focus on meaning-based cues.
The examiner also validated the use of letter-sound knowledge instruction and the absence of
explicit and systematic teaching in phoneme identification, phoneme blending, phoneme
segmentation, phoneme deletion, and phoneme manipulation skills. The independent examiner
also investigated the instructional strategies used in the "usual" literacy curriculum by
experimental teachers following their 10-week implementation of classroom PA. It was possible
that exposure and practice at implementing PA activities and strategies would affect the reversal
back to the "usual" literacy curriculum. Review of each recording session showed that
instructional strategies and resources were predominantly focused on whole language instruction
(e.g., there were no time slots allocated specifically to PA), but teachers were more likely to
spontaneously draw children’s attention to the initial sounds in words and how to blend and
segment sounds in words during classroom reading and spelling activities.
Results
Literacy Outcomes Following Classroom Phonological Awareness Instruction
Group performances on measures of PA, reading, and spelling were compared at the start,
middle, and end of the school year. A multivariate approach to repeated measures, Wilk’s
Lambda (Assessment T1, T2, and T3 X Group), was used to explore between-group differences
on measures of PA, reading, and spelling development over time. A significant group x time
effect when adjusted for sphericity using the Greenhouse-Geisser Correction method was
identified for measures of initial phoneme identity (F(3.403, .851)=9.095, p=.000), final phoneme
identity (F(2.820, .705)=22.306, p=.000), phoneme blending (F(3.554, .889)=9.171, p=.000),
phoneme deletion (F(3.650, .912)=16.723, p=.000), phoneme segmentation (F(3.580,
.895)=23.996, p=.000), real word reading (F(3.078, .769)=18.540, p=.000), non-word reading
(F(3.091, .773)=16.817, p=.000), real word spelling (F(2.961, .745)=31.450, p=.000), and non-
word spelling (F(3.698, .925)=13.677, p=.000). A significant group x time effect was not
identified for rime oddity (F(3.758, .940)=.971, p=.420). Linear and quadratic group x time
results from repeated measures analyses validated significantly different growth trajectories for
phoneme level skills and literacy measures, but not for rime oddity. Tamhane’s T2 post hoc tests
showed that Groups A and B did not perform significantly different to each other on measures of
phoneme awareness and early reading and spelling development, but did perform significantly
different to Group C on all measures except for rime oddity.
The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability was administered after one year of schooling when
participants were six years of age. This was six months post-instruction for Group A and three
months post-instruction for Group B. A one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc tests showed
that Groups A and B performed significantly better than participants in Group C in reading
accuracy (F(2, 126)=39.937, p=.000, η2=.39) and comprehension (F(2, 126)=38.434, p=.000,
(η2=.38). The resulting effect sizes using Eta Squared were considered large (Cohen, 1988).
Importantly, only 5.88% of children who received PA instruction performed below an age-
expected level in reading accuracy after one year of school compared to 26.32% of children who
received the "usual" literacy curriculum. Similarly, 5.88% of children who received PA
performed below the age-expected range in reading comprehension at six years of age compared
to 31.58% of children who received the "usual" curriculum. These results demonstrate that
sustained benefits for literacy were achieved beyond the immediate conclusion of the program.
Classroom Phonological Awareness Instruction and Spoken Language Impairment
Data were analysed to examine the response of children with SLI to classroom PA
instruction and to compare this response to that of children with typical language development
(TD). To achieve a larger sample size of children with SLI who received classroom PA
instruction, data from Groups A and B were aggregated to form one experimental group. It is
important to acknowledge that aggregation of Groups A and B may introduce an error margin
because Group A received instruction 12 weeks earlier than Group B. In total, the experimental
condition consisted of seven children with SLI and 27 children with TD. Paired t-test showed
that children with SLI who received 10-weeks of classroom PA instruction showed significant
improvements (i.e., p <.01) on measures of initial phoneme identity (t(6)=7.33, p<.0001, d=3.92),
final phoneme identity (t(6)=9.98, p<.0001, d=5.34), phoneme blending (t(6)=3.90, p=.002,
d=2.08), phoneme deletion (t(6)=3.70, p=.003, d=1.98), phoneme segmentation (t(6)=8.08,
p<.0001, d=4.32), letter-name recognition (t(6)=3.71, p=.003, d=3.03), letter-sound knowledge
(t(6)=6.40, p=< .0001, d=5.23), real word reading (t(6)=8.49, p<.0001, d=4.54), non-word
reading (t(6)=3.81, p=.0025, d=2.04), real word spelling (t(6)=9.17, p<.0001, d=4.90) and non-
word spelling (t(6)=7.69, p=.0001, d=4.11). Paired t-tests did not reveal any significant pre-to
post-instructional differences for rime oddity (t(6)=1.86, p=.09, d=1.0).
Gain scores were calculated to measure growth in response to classroom PA instruction
and to determine whether children with SLI benefited equally from instruction in comparison to
children with TD. Independent sample t-tests on gain scores showed that children with SLI and
children with TD differed in how they benefitted from classroom PA instruction. Children with
SLI and TD appeared to gain equally in the development of deeper-level phoneme awareness
skills including phoneme blending (t(32)=0.69, p=.50, d=0.24) and phoneme segmentation
(t(32)=1.22, p=.23, d=0.43). Children with TD showed significantly more growth in phoneme
deletion (t(32)=8.83, p<.0001, d=3.12). This skill was not taught as part of the classroom PA
program suggesting that children with TD were more readily able to transfer PA knowledge to an
untrained task. Children with SLI demonstrated significantly more growth on measures of rime
oddity (t(32)=3.11, p=.004, d=1.10) and initial phoneme identity (t(32)=8.43, p<.0001, d=2.98)
compared to children with TD. Children with TD were approaching mastery of, or had already
mastered, these skills before instruction. Therefore, they had less potential for gain on these tasks
compared to children with SLI.
Children with TD showed significantly greater gains in reading and spelling development
compared to children with SLI. Specifically, children with TD produced significantly higher gain
scores on measures of non-word reading (t(32)=4.27, p=.0002, d=1.51), real word spelling
(t(32)= 9.20, p<.0001, d=3.25) and non-word spelling (t(32)=3.06, p=.004, d=1.08). The
resulting effect sizes were large. Comparison of gain scores in real word reading revealed no
significant differences between children with SLI and TD (t(32)=0.50, p=.62, d=0.18). The Burt
Word Reading Test (Gilmore et al., 1981), which was used to measure real word reading, may
have been too difficult for this age group, resulting in low and non-significant results. These
results suggest that children with TD in this sample were more readily able to transfer their
enhanced PA knowledge to reading and spelling tasks. Although children with SLI made
significant improvements in reading and spelling relative to their own pre-instructional abilities,
they did not demonstrate as much growth in these literacy areas as did children with TD who
received the same classroom PA instruction.
Finally, the performance of children with SLI who received classroom PA instruction was
compared to children in Group C who followed the "usual" literacy curriculum. At the start of
the school year the PA and alphabetic skills of children with SLI were significantly lower than
children in Group C. However, at the end of the year the PA and literacy profiles of children
with SLI following class PA were not significantly different to children in Group C who did not
receive class PA (e.g., phoneme blending (t(100)=1.0184, p=.311, d=.20), phoneme deletion
(t(100)=1.5745, p=.184, d=.31), phoneme segmentation (t(100)=1.7801, p=.078, d=.36), non-
word reading (t(100)=.1185, p=.906, d=.02), and real word spelling (t(100)=.5152, p=.608,
d=.10). At six years of age, only one child in Group A and one child in Group B performed
below the age-expected level in reading accuracy and comprehension. This suggests that it is
possible to raise the reading abilities of at-risk children to a typical level following exposure to
classroom instruction that includes a short-term intensive focus on phoneme level skills.
Discussion
This study investigated the impact of a short and intensive teacher-directed classroom PA
program on raising literacy achievement for children with and without spoken language
difficulties in the first year of school. Understanding variables such as duration, intensity, and
content of PA instruction may help with effective and efficient integration of PA teaching into the
classroom environment. This in turn may contribute to the elevation of reading achievement in
the early school years.
The Positive Impact of Classroom Phonological Awareness on Reading Outcomes
The first study hypothesis stated that children who received a short and intensive period of
classroom PA instruction focused at the phoneme level would show significantly higher scores on
PA and early literacy measures immediately post-instruction and sustained to the end of the
school year compared to children who followed the "usual" literacy curriculum only. This
hypothesis was supported by statistical analyses of the data. Children who received teacher-
directed classroom PA instruction performed significantly higher on end-of-year reading and
spelling measures compared to children who continued with the "usual" classroom reading
program. For example, by six years of age, 5.88% of children who received PA instruction
performed below the age-expected level in word decoding ability compared to 26.32% of
children who did not receive class PA instruction. Furthermore, 5.88% of children who received
PA instruction and 31.58% of children who continued with the "usual" curriculum performed
below the age-expected level in reading comprehension after one year of school. This represents
a 20% reduction in the number of children presenting with reading difficulties through
modification of the classroom curriculum to include a short-term focus on PA. This initial
finding holds promise for establishing comprehensive evidenced-based classroom programs
aimed at raising reading achievement and reducing reading inequality.
Collecting information that will contribute to a greater understanding regarding the
optimal duration and intensity of classroom PA instruction is critical for ensuring educators can
teach this skill efficiently and effectively in the classroom. The current study differs from
previous investigations referred to in Table 1 by employing a short duration, high intensity,
phoneme-focused PA program. Previous classroom-based studies of shorter duration have
generally struggled to show maintenance of reading improvements (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2001)
compared to studies of longer duration and higher intensity (e.g., Shapiro & Solity, 2008) which
have reported sustaining improvements for literacy development. Contrastingly, the results of the
current investigation demonstrate that a short duration and high intensity teacher-directed PA
program can result in improved reading outcomes both immediately and up to six months post-
instruction. A reduction in the percentage of children experiencing reading difficulties was
similar to that reported by Shapiro and Solity (2008) and was achieved in a shorter timeframe
(e.g., 10 weeks compared to two years). This result holds educational implications for classroom
practice in that a shorter period of PA instruction may be more manageable for teachers to
integrate into existing curriculums. Time-efficient periods of PA instruction may help ensure
children possess the necessary precursory skills to take advantage of beginning reading
instruction, thereby minimizing the possibility of growing inequality in reading outcomes. In
addition, these results demonstrate that the efficacy of the PAT program, previously used in
individual or small group clinical settings, is maintained when modified for the classroom and
administered by teachers to a large group of children with differing skill levels.
Another key variable that may underpin the positive literacy outcomes reported in the
current study is the specific focus on developing PA skills at the phoneme level. Skills at the
phoneme level are critical to early literacy success, are often deficient in children at-risk for
reading disorder, and can be stimulated in children as young as four years of age with spoken
language difficulties (Gillon, 2005). As indicated in Table 1, classroom-based studies of shorter
duration have often taught a broad number of PA skills (e.g., syllables, onset-rime and phonemes)
and appear to be less effective in achieving sustained literacy improvements. In the current
study, a specific focus on skills at the phoneme level, as opposed to a broad focus on PA, may
have allowed a shorter period of instruction to contribute to the maintenance of improved literacy
outcomes by maximizing teaching time on the level of PA most strongly associated with early
reading success. In this study, the first week of instruction was directed at onset-rime awareness
before moving to an explicit focus at the phoneme level for nine weeks. Children in Group A
maintained their enhanced performance on both PA and literacy measures six months following
instruction. Similarly, children in Group B maintained their advances in PA and literacy
development three months following classroom PA instruction. In addition, onset-rime
awareness developed similarly across the three groups, irrespective of exposure to PA. This
suggests that classroom instruction may be sufficient in scaffolding the awareness of larger sound
units but less efficient in raising awareness at the phoneme level without supporting PA
instruction. The educational implication of this finding posits that PA teaching time should
include a comprehensive focus on developing children’s awareness at the phoneme level.
Children with Spoken Language Impairment and Response to Classroom Phonological
Awareness Instruction
The second hypothesis stated that children with typical spoken language and children with
SLI would show significant improvements in reading and spelling following short and intensive
phoneme awareness instruction. However, in line with previous research (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2001,
2002; Justice et al., 2010) children with SLI may show less growth in phoneme awareness,
reading, and spelling development due to lower language skills. In this study, children with TD
and SLI who received classroom PA instruction showed significant improvements on all PA
reading and spelling measures (except onset-rime awareness). Children with TD and SLI equally
benefited from instruction in growth of final phoneme identity, phoneme blending, and phoneme
segmentation abilities. However, children with SLI showed less ability to transfer phoneme level
knowledge to an untrained PA activity, namely phoneme deletion, compared to children with TD.
Children with SLI showed significantly more growth in initial phoneme identity and onset-rime
awareness compared to children with TD. This is most likely because children with SLI had
more scope for growth in these early PA skills. These findings may suggest that children with
SLI can benefit equally if not greater than children with TD in the development of phoneme
awareness, and are in contrast to the latter part of the second hypothesis stating that children with
SLI may benefit less in development of skills at the phoneme level. This suggests that an explicit
focus on phoneme level skills is necessary to enhance knowledge at this critical level of PA.
Children with TD showed significantly higher gain scores in reading and spelling
development compared to children with SLI. That is, children with poorer language skills
appeared less able to transfer their enhanced PA knowledge to the processes of reading and
spelling. On-going support in applying phonologically based knowledge to the written language
process may therefore be necessary for this group of children. Although children with SLI who
received classroom PA instruction did not demonstrate as much growth in reading and spelling
development compared to children with TD, this cohort did perform at similar reading and
spelling levels to children in the comparison group who did not receive PA. This suggests that
inclusion of a short period of phoneme-focused instruction, as part of the beginning reading
program, can exert a positive influence on the reading outcomes of children who enter school
with an increased risk for reading disorder. It is important to acknowledge that these results are
based on a small sample size which may limit generalization of results. Despite this, these results
provide promise for future initiatives aimed at achieving greater equality in reading outcomes.
Limitations
A number of study limitations must be acknowledged. First, the use of a quasi-
experimental design in which participants were not randomly assigned at an individual level to
each instructional condition may limit the causal relationships postulated in this study. A quasi-
experimental design was employed because participants were already found as part of “intact”
(i.e., classrooms) groups in their local areas. Attempts to counteract this lack of random
assignment included the use of comparison Group C and ensuring that Groups A, B, and C were
not significantly different at the start of the study. Furthermore, it is plausible that generalization
of findings may be confounded by variability in teacher, child, and location factors that exist
between educational settings. All participants resided in the same metropolitan city and those
participants who received intervention came from average socioeconomic backgrounds. It must
also be acknowledged that gains in reading and spelling may in part be related to the quantity of
professional development experimental teachers received. Teachers of Groups A and B received
eight hours of professional development and in-class support, whereas teachers of children in
Group C did not receive any formal professional development. These limitations warrant further
investigation through replication studies involving a range of education contexts. The limited
number of children with SLI necessitates future investigation through the use of larger sample
sizes to ensure improvements are not mediated by regression towards the mean. Research to help
children with SLI transfer their phonological knowledge into written language is also necessary.
In summary, teaching children to become efficient readers in their own classrooms is
paramount to future academic learning and lifelong success. The findings from this study
contribute to existing literature by demonstrating that a short and intensive period of teacher
instruction in PA focused at the phoneme level during the first year of schooling has the potential
to exert a significant and positive influence on the reading and spelling development of children
with and without typical language development. Pursuing improved literacy outcomes for all
children requires exposure to a comprehensive multi-focal curriculum. This study suggests that
such a curriculum should include a period of concentrated and time-efficient instruction in PA.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the teachers, children, and families who willingly
dedicated their time to this research study. Thanks are also expressed to Ellen Nijhof for her
assistance in data collection, assessment reliability, and treatment validity work. Grateful thanks
are also expressed to the New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission for financial support.
References
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read—A causal
connection. Nature, 301, pp. 419-421.
Calder, H. (1992). Reading freedom teacher’s manual. New South Wales, Australia: Pascal Press.
Carroll, J., & Snowling, M. (2004). Language and phonological skills in children at high risk of
reading difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(3), pp. 631-645.
Carson, K., Gillon, G., & Boustead, T. (2011). Computer-administrated versus paper-based
assessment of school-entry phonological awareness ability. Asia Pacific Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing, 14(2), pp. 85-101.
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future
reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical
implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, pp. 38-50.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dodd, B., Crosbie, S., McIntosh, B., Teitzel, T., & Ozanne, A. (2000). Preschool and Primary
Inventory of Phonological Awareness (PIPA). London, UK: Psychological Corporation.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T.
(2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the
national reading panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), pp. 250-287.
Ehrler, D. J., & McGhee, R. L. (2008). Primary Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (PTONI). Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (1999). Grouping practices and reading
outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, pp. 399-415.
Fletcher, J., Parkhill, F. and Gillon, G. (Eds.) (2010). Motivating Literacy Learners in Today's
World. Wellington: NZCER Press.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., O’Connor, R.
(2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with
teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), pp. 251-
267.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., O’Connor, R.
(2002). Exploring the importance of reading programs for kindergarteners with
disabilities in mainstream classrooms. Exceptional Children, 68, pp. 295-311.
Gillon, G. T. (2000). The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention for children with
spoken language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31,
pp. 126-141.
Gillon, G. T. (2002). Follow-up study investigating benefits of phonological intervention for
children with spoken language impairment. International Journal of Language and
Communication Disorders, 37(4), pp. 381-400.
Gillon, G. T. (2004). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Gillon, G. T. (2005). Facilitating phoneme awareness development in 3- and 4-year old children
with speech impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, pp.
308-324.
Gillon, G., & Dodd, B. (1997). Enhancing the phonological processing skills of children with
specific reading disability. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, pp. 67-
90.
Gilmore, A., Croft, C., Reid, N. (1981). Burt Word Reading Test—New Zealand Revision.
Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER

Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., Cabell, S. Q., Kilday, C. R., Knighton, K., Huffman, G. (2010).
Language and literacy curriculum supplement for preschoolers who are academically at
risk: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, pp. 161-
178.
Lloyd, S. (1992). The Jolly Phonics Handbook. Essex, United Kingdom: Jolly Learning Ltd.
Long, S., Fey, M., & Channell, R. (2002). Profile of Phonology (PROPH). Computerized
Profiling [Computer Software]. Retrieved 9th January 2009 from:
www.computerizedprofiling.org.
MacDonald, G. W., & Cornwall, A. (1995). The relationship between phonological awareness
and reading and spelling achievement eleven years later. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
28, pp. 523-527.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Kennedy, A. M. (Eds.). (2007). PIRLS 2006 technical report.
Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
McIntosh, B., Crosbie, S., Holm, A., Dodd, B., Thomas, S. (2007). Enhancing the phonological
awareness and language skills of socially disadvantaged preschoolers: An
interdisciplinary programme. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 23(3), pp. 267-286.
Ministry of Education. (2004). New Zealand Articulation Test (NZAT). Wellington, New
Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2011). School Decile Ratings. Retrieved 1 December 2011 from
http://minedu.govt.nz/Parents/AllAges/EducationInNZ/SchoolsInNewZealand/SchoolDec
ileRatings.aspx.
Morgan, P., Farakas, G., & Hibel, J. (2008). Matthew effects for whom? Learning Disability
Quarterly, 31(4), pp. 187-198.
NAEP. (2003). The nation’s report card. Retrieved February 2011 from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
Neale, M. D. (1999). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (3rd Ed.). Victoria, Australia: ACER
Press.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do – Student performance in
reading, mathematics and science – Volume 1. Paris, France: OECD.
Potter, C. S. (2009). The Phonic Inventories: Test Administration Manual Version One.
Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand and PhonicInventories.com
Schonell, F. (1932). Schonell Essential Spelling List. Gloucestershire, UK: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Shapiro, L. R., & Solity, J. (2008). Delivering phonological and phonics training within whole-
class teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, pp. 597-620.
Stahl, S. A. and Murray, B. A. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to
early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, pp. 221-234.
Troia, G.A. (1999). Phonological awareness intervention research: A critical review of the
experimental methodology. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1), pp. 28-52.
Torgesen, J.K., & Bryant, B. R. (2004). Test of phonological awareness 2+ (TOPA-2+) (2nd Ed.).
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing
and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, pp. 276-286.
Tunmer, W.E., Chapman, J.W., & Prochnow, J.E. (2006). Literate cultural capital at school entry
predicts later reading achievement: A seven-year longitudinal study. New Zealand
Journal of Educational Studies, 41(2), pp. 183-204.
UNICEF (2010). The children left behind: A league table of inequality in child well-being in the
world’s rich countries. Report Card 9. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Wiig, E., Secord, W., & Semel, E. (2006). Clinical Evaluations of Language Fundamentals
Preschool-2nd Edition-Australian and New Zealand Editions. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Table 1. Duration, intensity, and content of PA instruction on reading outcomes
Duration Intensity Content Reading Outcomes
Long Short High Low Broad Narrow Immediate Sustained
Shapiro & Solity (2008) + + + + + (3 years)
McIntosh et al., (2007) + + + + – (2 years)
Fuchs et al., (2001) + + + + – (5months)
Justice et al., (2010) + + + + N/A
Note. + indicates the type of duration, intensity and content included in each study; “Reading
Outcomes Immediate +” refers to improvements demonstrated immediately after the
program’s conclusion; “Reading Outcomes Sustained + (duration post-instruction)” refers to
improvements still evident at least five months post-instruction; “Reading Outcomes
Sustained – (duration post-instruction)” refers to reading improvements that were not
sustained at least five months post-instruction; “N/A” indicates that follow-up assessment is
unreported thus far.
Table 2. Teacher characteristics for experimental Groups A and B
Teacher Age (Years) Experience (Years) Decile* Gender Class Size

Group A 39 13 7 F 18
Group B 40 14 8 F 16
Group C-1 37 15 10 F 7
Group C-2 38 13 10 F 8
Group C-3 39 16 9 F 8
Group C-4 37 12 6 F 7
Group C-5 37 11 7 F 14
Group C-6 37 14 6 F 13
Group C-7 39 18 6 F 10
Group C-8 38 16 4 F 10
Group C-9 39 13 3 F 8
Group C-10 38 6 2 F 10
Note. Each numeral beside a label ‘Group C’ represents one teacher in the comparison group;
* In New Zealand, each school is assigned a decile ranking that provides an indication of the
socioeconomic community within which the school is located and is based on national census
data (Ministry of Education, 2011).
Table 3. School-entry performance on formal measures of verbal and non-verbal skills
CELF-P2 PTONI PIPA PCC
RLI ELI RO IPI LS
Group A (n=18)
M 102.7 100.3 106.2 5.9 7.9 6.3 94.1
SD 8.3 2.2 6.1 2.2 3.7 2.0 11.7
Range 85-115 83-110 92-115 0-9 0-11 4-9 63-100
Group B (n=16)
M 102.9 100.6 106.9 6.4 7.9 6.9 94.2
SD 7.0 2.3 5.1 2.1 2.7 1.5 11.1
Range 85-110 80-111 95-113 3-9 0-10 0-8 64-100
Group C (n = 95)
M 98.3 96.8 103.2 6.3 9.1 7.2 93.2
SD 10.8 1.1 7.3 2.5 2.6 2.1 11.0
Range 79-119 80-116 85-116 2-13 3-15 4-11 61-100
One-way ANOVA F(2,126)=2.501, F(2,126)=1.656, F(2,126)=3.003, F(2,126)=.218, F(2,126)=2.548, F(2,126)=1.449, F(2,126)=.105,
p=.086 p=.195 p=.056 p=.805 p=.082 p=.239 p=.90
Note. CELF-P2 RLI=Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Preschool 2, Receptive Language Index (Wiig et al., 2006); CELF-P2
ELI=Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Preschool 2, Expressive Language Index (Wiig et al., 2006); PTONI=Primary Test of Non Verbal
Intelligence standard scores (Ehrler & McGhee, 2008); PIPA=Preschool and Primary Inventory of Phonological Awareness Standard Scores where
RO=rhyme oddity, IPI=initial phoneme identity, LS=letter-sound knowledge (Dodd et al., 2000); PCC=Percentage Consonants Correct.
Table 4. Group performance on informal measures of literacy ability at school-entry
Phonological Awareness Reading Spelling
RO* IPI* FPI* PB* PD* PS* LN* LS* Real NW Real NW
Group A (n=18)
M 5.4 5.4 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.3 13.7 10.9 4.06 2.3 1.1 2.7
SD 2.4 2.2 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.4 4.3 4.7 3.2 3.9 0.9 1.9
Range 0-8 1-8 0-1 0-3 0-1 0-1 4-18 1-16 0-10 0-4 0-3 0-6
Group B (n=16)
M 5.7 4.8 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.4 13.9 11.5 3.9 2.6 1.1 2.8
SD 2.4 1.8 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.5 3.9 4.7 2.7 3.6 0.7 1.8
Range 1-9 1-6 0-2 0-3 0-1 0-1 3-18 1-16 0-10 0-4 0-2 0-6
Group C (n=95)
M 5.3 5.3 0.6 1.3 0.5 0.6 13.4 11.1 3.7 2.2 1.2 2.5
SD 2.5 3.0 0.7 1.2 0.8 0.9 4.6 5.4 4.5 3.4 1.7 0.3
Range 0-10 0-10 0-2 0-5 0-4 0-4 2-18 0-18 0-10 0-7 0-9 0-9
One-way ANOVA F(2,126) F(2,126) F(2,126) F(2,126) F(2,126) F(2,126) F(2,126) F(2,126) F(2,126) F(2,126) F(2,126) F(2,126)
=.219, =.254, =.980, =.588, =.649, =1.247, =.110, =.059, =.123, =.092, =.077, =.127,
p=.804 p=.783 p=.378 p=.557 p=.525 p=.291 p=.896 p=.943 p=.885 p=.912 p=.926 p=.881
Note. *Part of a Computer-Based Phonological Awareness Assessment (Carson et al., 2011) where RO=rhyme oddity, IPI=initial phoneme identity,
FPI=final phoneme identity, PB=phoneme blending, PD=phoneme deletion, PS=phoneme segmentation, LN=letter-name, LS=letter-sound; Real
Word Reading=The Burt Word Reading Test—New Zealand Revision (Gilmore et al., 1981); NW Reading =Calder Non-Word Reading Probes
(Calder, 1992); Real Word Spelling=Schonell Spelling Test (Schonell, 1932); NW Spelling=Pseudoword Spelling Subtest of the Test of
Phonological Awareness—2nd Edition (TOPA—2+; Torgesen & Bryant, 2004).
Table 5. Content of the classroom phonological awareness program.
Week PA Skill Activity Description

1 Rhyme Rhyme bingo and odd-one-out activities were used by the teachers to
encourage children to listen for rhyming components of spoken
words.
2 Initial Initial sound bingo, initial sound matching, and odd-one-out activities
Phoneme were used to draw children’s attention to the first sound in spoken
Identity words. Medial or final sounds were included for children with more
advanced skills.
3 Final Final sound bingo, final sound matching, and odd-one-out activities
Phoneme were used to draw children’s attention to the final sound in spoken
Identity words. Medial or final sounds were introduced for children with
advanced skills.
4 & 5 Phoneme Drawing, singing, and bingo games were used to teach children to
Blending blend words together. Two and three phoneme words were
predominantly used; however, words with four phonemes and initial
and final blends were used for children with more advanced abilities.
6 & 7 Phoneme Drawing, singing, and bingo games were used to teach children how
Segmentation to segment sounds in words. Two and three phoneme words were
used; however, four phoneme words and initial and final blends were
used to extend students.
8 & 9 Manipulation Large letter cards or a white board was used to teach children to
manipulate letter sounds in words to create new words.
10 Review Activities from each of the nine weeks of instruction were reviewed.
Focus was directed toward phoneme segmentation and blending
activities.
Linking Speech to Print: All activities required a demonstration of how the PA task related to
print. For example, during or after initial sound bingo, children were asked to select three
pictures from the bingo board, articulate the first sound they heard, and then write the letter for
that sound.
Tier 1 Effective classroom
practices
What classroom
practices are
effective in
facilitating young
children’s learning?
Prof. Gail T Gillon, PhD
University of Canterbury
NEW ZEALAND
Instructional approaches that have a
significant positive effect on children’s
learning (Hattie, 2005)
• Teacher feedback (effect size, 0.81);
• Direct instructional approaches (0.81);
• Phonological awareness (0.66);
• Early intervention (0.66);
• Peer assessment strategies (0.63);
• Self assessment strategies (0.56);
• Setting challenging goals (0.59); and
• Mastery learning approaches (0.55)
Quality professional development for teachers

also has a positive influence (effect size 0.48)
Introducing phonological
awareness into the class
reading programme
Karyn Carson, Gail Gillon & Therese Boustead,

2012 (Ref: LSHSS paper accepted for publication)
PARTICIPANTS
•One-hundred and twenty-nine children (75 girls & 54 boys).
classes randomly divided into:
–Group A (n=18, 4 with language delay)
–Group B (n=16, 3 with language delay)
–Group C (n=95, 21 with language delay)
•Sample Demographics:
-Aged between 5;00 and 5;02
-12 Government funded schools
-High, middle and low SES
Study Design: A school term = 10 weeks
Term 1: Term 2: Term 3: Term 4:
Group A: Usual PA Usual Usual
Group B: Usual Usual PA Usual
Group C: Usual Usual Usual Usual

Assessment Measures
Computer-Based Phonological • Rhyme Oddity
Awareness Assessment • Initial Phoneme Identity
• Final Phoneme Identity
• Phoneme Blending
• Phoneme Deletion
• Phoneme Segmentation
• Letter Knowledge
In addition....
Reading:
Burt Word Reading Test
Calder Non-Word Probes
Spelling:
Schonell Spelling Test
TOPA Non-Word Subtest
Classroom Phonological Awareness
Framework:
• 10-weeks
• 4 x 30-minute sessions per week (total 20 hrs)
• Initial sessions co-taught by SLT and teacher, remainder taught
only by teacher
Principles:
- Targeted skills at the phoneme level
- Explicit and systematic instruction
- Frequent and intensive sessions
- Integrated with letter knowledge and real written language
contexts
- Professional development for teachers
Programme Content
– Generating rhyming words

– Identifying initial and final sounds in words
– Blending sounds to form words
– Segmenting words into individual phonemes
– Manipulating sounds in words
– Letter-knowledge & generalisation to reading
and spelling tasks
– Making explicit the link between speech and
print
Class Intervention
Adapted from The Gillon Phonological
Awareness Training Programme
http://www.education.canterbury.ac.nz/people/gillon/
Initial Sound Sorting
Each child has a card

They
- name the picture
- say the initial sound
- Put the card with the
grapheme
Hearing and recording sounds
sleep: s…l….ee…p
let’s write the letters for sleep
s l ee p. Say the word together: sleep
Key research findings
Phonological awareness
Literacy outcomes
Word decoding ability
Word Reading Performance in the First Year at School

30
25
Number of Items Correct
20
Group A
15
Group B
Group C
10
0
Start Middle End
Time of School Year
Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Test:

Repeated Measures ANOVA: Groups A & B: p = 1.000; Groups A & C:
F(3.091, .773)=16.817, p=.000 p = .000; Groups B & C: p = .000
Results:
Reading Fluency after One Year of School…..
Mean Reading Fluency Performance Between Children Who Received
and Did Not Receive Classroom PA
Mean Raw Scores
6 Years;
11 Months
6 Years
Group C Groups A & B

Usual Literacy Program Classroom Phonological
awareness
Results:
Reading Comprehension after One Year of School…..
Mean Reading Comprehension Performance Between Children Who Received
and Did Not Receive Classroom PA
6 Years;
Mean Raw Scores
9 Months
6 Years
Group C Groups A & B

Usual Literacy Program Classroom PA
Percentage of Children At-Risk
Percentage of Children Falling Below Age-Expected Levels on the Neale
Analysis of Reading Ability after One Year of Schooling
35
30
% of Children Falling Below
25
Age-Expected Levels
20
Classroom PA
Instruction (i.e., Groups
15 A & B)
Usual Literacy
Curriculum
10
0
Fluency Comprehension
Neale Reading Measures

Children with LD (Group A):
Language Profiles at 5 Years
Child Gender Ethnicity Receptive Expressive Speech Vocabulary Phonological
ID # Language Language Sound Awareness
Index Index Production
1A F NZ 89 86 63% 90 <7
2A M NZ 85 83 64% 88 <7
3A M Maori 95 83 89% 93 <7
4A F NZ 93 84 88% 94 <7
Receptive Language Index (CELF-P2): A score between 85-115 is considered within normal limits
Expressive Language Index (CELF-P2): A score between 85-115 is considered within normal limits
Speech Sound Production: <50% = severe; 50-65% = moderate-severe; 65-85% = mild-moderate; > 85% = mild
Vocabulary (PPVT-4): A score between 85-115 is considered within normal limits
Phonological Awareness (PIPA: RO, IPI, LS): A standard score between 7-13 is considered within normal limits
Children with LD (Group B):
Language Profiles at 5 Years
Child Gender Ethnicity Receptive Expressive Speech Vocabulary Phonological
ID # Language Language Sound Awareness
Index Index Production
1B F Maori 93 89 79% 90 <7
2B M NZ 85 80 64% 89 <7
3B M NZ 94 83 70% 96 <7
Receptive Language Index (CELF-P2): A score between 85-115 is considered within normal limits
Expressive Language Index (CELF-P2): A score between 85-115 is considered within normal limits
Speech Sound Production: <50% = severe; 50-65% = moderate-severe; 65-85% = mild-moderate; > 85% = mild
Vocabulary (PPVT-4): A score between 85-115 is considered within normal limits
Phonological Awareness (PIPA: RO, IPI, LS): A standard score between 7-13 is considered within normal limits
Responsiveness to Instruction
Mean Pre and Post Instruction Scores for Children with
Delayed Speech Language Development (n=7)
20
Mean Pre and Post Instruction
18
16
14
(Raw) Scores
12
10
8
6 Pre-Instruction
4 Post-Instruction
2
0
Phonological Awareness, Reading, & Spelling Measures

Responsiveness to Instruction
Gain Scores for Children with Typical Development and Speech

Language Delay
25
20
Mean Gain Scores
15
Typical Development
10
Delayed Language
Phoneme Phoneme Non-Word Non-Word

Blending Segmentation Reading Spelling
Phonological Awareness, Reading, & Spelling Measures

Key Findings
• Classroom phonological awareness instruction delivered by

teachers can be beneficial for literacy development.
• Percentage of at-risk students can be minimized by 6-years of
age.
• A short intensive burst can result in significant and maintained
benefits for reading and spelling.
• Children with spoken language difficulties can
benefit from classroom PA instruction- their reading and spelling
accelerated to the level of their peers with TD peers who did not
receive classroom PA but they may need more assistance in
transferring skills to reading and spelling activities.
Contact details
Contact:
Professor Gail Gillon

College of Education
University of Canterbury
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND
Gail.gillon@canterbury.ac.nz
http://www.education.canterbury.ac.nz/people/gillon/

Gail Gillon CoE CU_Phonological Awareness Instruction (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gail Gillon CoE CU_Phonological Awareness Instruction (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gail Gillon CoE CU_Phonological Awareness Instruction (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: Classroom Phonological Awareness Instruction and Literacy Outcomes 1

Classroom Phonological Awareness Instruction and Literacy Outcomes

awareness (PA) instruction implemented by classroom teachers on raising literacy achievement

profiles of typically developing and at-risk readers.

Keywords: phonological awareness, classroom literacy instruction, reading and spelling

instruction, duration and intensity of instruction

New Zealand provides an interesting context to evaluate whether teacher-implemented PA

reading outcomes for all children is critical.

The Role of Phonological Awareness in Reading Development

The development of proficient reading relies on the integration of a complex tapestry of

readers irrespective of educational measures such as socioeconomic status, intelligence, and

inequalities reported in international studies of reading achievement. Of particular concern is the

Classroom Phonological Awareness Instruction

Understanding how to effectively and efficiently integrate PA instruction into everyday

of PA instruction, in particular optimal duration and intensity, when exported to the

heterogeneous classroom environment.

Successful integration of teacher-delivered PA instruction into beginning reading

intensive sessions are considered an important component of effective PA instruction (Elbaum,

instruction in the classroom.

Recent Studies of Phonological Awareness Instruction in the Classroom

comprehension (p<.001) ability in school-aged children (Gillon & Dodd, 1997).

An additional area of variability between studies is the content of instruction. To compare

outcomes from four recent classroom investigations.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

program to 5% among children who received instruction in phoneme awareness. Investigating

achieved through a shorter period of phoneme-focused instruction may contribute to the

manageable integration of PA into the classroom.

struggled to demonstrate sustained improvements beyond five months of the program’s

condition performed significantly higher on post-instructional literacy measures compared to the

instruction no longer demonstrated a statistically significant advantage in reading and spelling

may produce more promising results.

specific phoneme-focused PA instruction, particularly for at-risk children, appears worthwhile in

instruction targeting syllable segmentation, onset-rime identification, and initial sound

identification. Although significant improvements were identified in PA knowledge immediately

advantageous in generating sustained improvements for reading outcomes. Thus, it could be

sustained impact on literacy growth.

also enhancing skills strongly associated with early reading success.

Children with Spoken Language Impairment

impairment (Gillon, 2005). Recent studies involving teacher-implemented PA instruction

demonstrating no improvement. Individual variation in response to reading instruction suggests

Modifying the PAT Program for the Classroom Environment

tables, news) as a medium through which weekly PA targets could be addressed.

The "Usual" Literacy Curriculum in New Zealand

consisted of a whole language approach to literacy instruction, in addition to phonics instruction

to teach letter-sound knowledge. Whole language instruction focuses on meaning and

year of school. The study addressed the following hypotheses:

1. Children exposed to teacher-implemented PA instruction focused at the phoneme level for

literacy curriculum only.

2. Children with SLI will demonstrate significant improvements in phoneme awareness,

Participants and School Selection

socioeconomic groupings based on decile ranking (i.e., an indication of socioeconomic status

ranged from seven to 14 participants. Groups A and B were located in high-middle

socioeconomic areas, whereas comparison Group C represented an equal spectrum of

socioeconomic backgrounds. Group A, B and C teachers were appropriately qualified and

[Insert Table 2 about here]

school during prescribed assessment periods.

presented with spoken language difficulties at school-entry as determined by standardized testing

spoke standard New Zealand English as their first language.

development of five-year-old children who received teacher-implemented PA instruction or the

research was conducted in everyday classroom environments as opposed to a highly controlled