Will Explicit Instruction in Phonemic Awareness Increase the Reading Skills of At Risk First Graders? Ann M. Holewinski December 2007

Transcription

1 Will Explicit Instruction in Phonemic Awareness Increase the Reading Skills of At Risk First Graders? Ann M. Holewinski December 2007 Elementary Education 792 Seminar in Curriculum and Instruction Dr. Judith Hankes

2 2 Will Explicit Instruction in Phonemic Awareness Increase the Reading Skills of At Risk First Graders? Ann M. Holewinski A Seminar Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science in Education Curriculum and Instruction University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Oshkosh, Wisconsin December 2007 Approval Date First reader: Judith Hankes, Ph. D Second reader: Pam Dorn, MA

3 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract page 4 Study Sequence page 5 Statement of the Problem page 6 Situating the Problem page 6 Literature Review page 8 Methods Participants page 12 Data Sources page 13 Intervention page 14 Data Analysis and Findings page 16 Conclusions page 20 Future Implications page 22 References page 23

4 4 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine whether explicit instruction in phonemic awareness would increase the reading skills of at risk first graders. The study was motivated by the fact that several of my first grade students lacked phonemic awareness skills and read below grade level. Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness was the primary intervention method of this study. The control group of the study solely received guided reading and word work instruction. The experimental group of the study received guided reading, word work instruction, as well as explicit instruction in phonemic awareness during the four-week intervention period. The goal of the lessons was to help children develop phonemic awareness skills that promote success with learning to read. The results of the study indicated that explicit instruction in phonemic awareness combined with guided reading and word work produced greater learning gains than guided reading and word work alone.

5 5 STUDY SEQUENCE September Brainstormed possible action research topics Identified action research topic Drafted statement of the problem Drafted situating the problem Gathered phonemic awareness resource books Gathered pre-assessment and post-assessment materials Administered pre-assessments Began literature review research October Submitted UW-Oshkosh human consent form Revised statement of the problem Revised situating the problem Drafted literature review Revised literature review Drafted methods section Began phonemic awareness intervention activities November Revised methods section Continued phonemic awareness intervention activities Administered post-assessments Analyzed data Drafted data analysis and findings section Drafted conclusions and future implications section Drafted abstract Completed table of contents Submitted to second reader: Pam Dorn, MA Submitted to first reader: Dr. Judith Hankes, UW-Oshkosh professor Revised draft

6 6 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM At the beginning of the school year I assessed my first grade students level of phonemic awareness. All except three of the students performed proficient on this assessment. These three students also read at a text reading level that was below grade level. Research has shown that phonemic awareness is a strong indicator of a child s future reading success. Since explicit instruction in phonemic awareness may increase a child s reading ability I decided that a study of phonemic awareness would be a valuable undertaking. The purpose of this study was to determine whether explicit instruction in phonemic awareness would increase the reading skills of these three at risk readers. SITUATING THE PROBLEM This study was conducted during my first year as a first and second grade multiage teacher in the Madison Metropolitan School District. The school in which the study was conducted serves students in kindergarten through second grade and has a student population of approximately 350 students. This population is both culturally and economically diverse. Approximately 72% of the students are identified as representing minority racial groups, and 67% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. These demographics qualify the school to participate in the Wisconsin SAGE (Student Achievement Guarantee in Education) program, which ensures that the student to teacher ratio is no greater than 15 to 1. My first and second grade multi-age classroom is comprised of 10 first graders and 5 second graders of both Hispanic and Caucasian decent, 10 girls and 5 boys.

7 7 Children enter first and second grade with different backgrounds and experiences. Each year I must implement an appropriate literacy curriculum that will allow my students to become successful readers and writers. The school that I work at focuses on a balanced literacy approach to teaching reading. Since every student develops their literacy skills at a different rate, this approach allows the teacher to develop instruction that meets the various needs of each individual student. In kindergarten, students are given many opportunities to practice developing their phonemic awareness within this balanced literacy framework. At the beginning of the school year I assessed my first grade students level of phonemic awareness. All, except three, of the students performed proficient on this assessment. I noticed that when the students would sound out a word, they often did not hear all of the sounds in the word. They would often say the sounds in a word and were unable to blend them together to form the word. In addition, all three of these students were reading below grade level on the Rigby PM Benchmark Reading Assessment (2007). I wondered how I would meet the needs of these three students so that they could grow into successful readers and writers. As I began to learn more about the concept of phonemic awareness I realized that it was a valuable piece missing from my literacy curriculum. I began to consider ways that I could implement phonemic awareness activities into my daily instruction. The goal of my study was to help struggling first grade readers develop an ear for language to hear certain sounds, identify sound sequence, and to understand the role that phonemes play in forming words. It was my hope that increasing their level of phonemic awareness would lead to an increase in their text reading level.

8 8 LITERATURE REVIEW Phonemic awareness has become a key topic in reading research and practice. Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear and manipulate the individual sounds in spoken words (Chard & Dickson, 1999). Speech stream is made up of a continuous sequence of sounds called phonemes. Phonemes are the smallest unit of sound that are important in communication and the development of beginning literacy. In its simplest form, phonemic awareness involves understanding sound patterns. More complex tasks include the ability to segment, blend, delete, and insert phonemic segments (Stanovich, 1992; Yopp, 1988). Teachers often supplement the literacy curriculum with phonics instruction for students with poor decoding skills. Phonics generally refers to the ability to use letter sound and other rules to sound out words. Children who lack phonemic awareness are unlikely to benefit from instruction in phonics (Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986) because they do not understand what letters and spellings are meant to represent. Instruction in phonics teaches children to retrieve sounds as they look at letters. Phonemic awareness instruction takes a step back and helps children concentrate on the order of the individual sounds they hear in words (Adams, 1990; Chase & Tallal, 1991; Perfetti et al., 1987; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). Phonemic awareness is an essential component to learning to read and spell because English is alphabetic. In an alphabetic language, letters represent sounds. Adam s (1990) review of research related to beginning reading stressed the importance of functional understanding of the alphabetic principle. Adam s concluded, Faced with an alphabetic script, the child s level of phonemic awareness on entering school may be the

9 9 single most powerful determinant of the success he or she will experience in learning to read (p. 304). Children who start school with a lack of phonemic awareness will have difficulty acquiring the alphabetic principle, which will hinder their ability to decode words (Blachman, 1991). Phonemic awareness is found to be a powerful predictor of future reading difficulties, and it is also a major cause of word-level reading difficulties (Torgesen & Wagner, 1998). Studies have shown that phonemic awareness instruction results in improved phonemic awareness skills, more rapid response to beginning reading instruction, and improved subsequent reading development (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1993; Cunningham, 1990; O Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; Tangel & Blachman, 1992). Phonemic awareness has been shown to be a strong predictor of future reading achievement (Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Lomax & McGee, 1987; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). Children who enter first grade with poor phonemic awareness skills are most likely to remain struggling readers at the end of fourth grade, since their lack of phonemic awareness contributes to their slow acquisition of word identification skills (Juel, 1988). Phonemic awareness is a hard concept for many children to understand. According to Adams (1990), about one-third of middle-class children fail to attain phonemic awareness by the end of first grade. This may be caused by the fact that phonemes are such abstract elements (Griffith & Olson, 1992). Teachers can determine whether or not a child is phonemically aware by administering a variety of tasks (Lewkowicz, 1980; Yopp, 1988). Performing phonemic awareness tasks is not easy. Children must treat speech as an object and move their

10 10 attention away from the content of speech to the form of speech. Phonemic awareness tasks require that children manipulate the units of speech instead of focusing on the meaning. Research on phonemic awareness has identified tasks that appear to be reliable and valid predictors of reading improvement. Yopp (1988) identified two tasks from a series of 10 phonemic awareness tests that together accounted for 58% of the variance in scores on a test devised to simulate the process of learning to read. It is suggested that these phonemic awareness tests could be used to identify children who may benefit from instruction in phonemic awareness (Share et al., 1984). Research has shown that at risk readers have trouble distinguishing sounds on their own, and require explicit instruction in these skills (Blachman 1997; Mathes & Torgesen, 1998; Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998). Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness is a systematic method of instruction that teaches children to hear the sounds that make up words, recognize relationships between sounds, and rearrange sounds to make new words. The National Reading Panel (2000) reported that phonemic awareness was an important educational component because it helps children understand and use the alphabetic system to read and write (p. 2-33). In order for struggling readers to develop phonemic awareness they need to be given opportunities to practice phonemic awareness skills. Most instruction can be incorporated into the context of meaningful reading or writing (Wadlington, 2000; Yopp, 1992). Some children need more extensive practice with phonemic awareness skills. Struggling readers benefit most from explicit instruction

11 11 in phonemic awareness along with instruction in how to apply those skills in a meaningful context (Cunningham, 1990). Studies have revealed that instruction in phonemic awareness has a positive effect on the development of children s word recognition and spelling abilities. Bradley and Bryant (1983) presented phonemic awareness training to children over a two-year period. They concluded that training in phonemic awareness had a positive effect on reading improvement, and the training was most successful when combined with explicit instruction in the alphabetic principle. Ball and Blachman (1991) found that most kindergarteners are capable of being taught how to segment spoken words into phonemes. Their research concluded that the most beneficial phonemic awareness training involves letter-name and letter-sound instruction because it makes explicit the connection between sound segments and letters. The importance of phonemic awareness is present in different instructional approaches. Griffith, Klesius, and Kromrey (1992) found that phonemic awareness is an important factor in both whole language and traditional classrooms. Dahl and Freppon s (1995) study found that both skills-based and whole language classrooms helped children increase their awareness of and experiment with letter-sound relations. It was only in whole-language classrooms that children were found to apply their understanding of letters and sounds. Research literature suggests that brief amounts of phonemic awareness training result in increases in phonemic awareness performance (Brady & Moats, 1998). The length of instruction ranged from 10 minutes to 30 minutes per session. In some studies,

12 12 instruction occurred daily. In other studies instruction occurred two or three times a week. Training took place over the course of a minimum of 3 weeks up to 2 years. There were several gaps that I found as I reviewed the literature. Although Snow et al. (1998) suggested that some type of daily phonemic awareness instruction be provided in kindergarten, the exact amount of time required is still unclear (Blachman, 1997). Researchers are unsure as to which phonemes should be introduced first and whether phoneme counting should be introduced before phoneme segmenting (Blachman, 1997; Stanovich, Cunningham, & Cramer, 1984). It is also less clear whether phonemic awareness develops as a prerequisite or a consequence of learning to read. Some studies supported the notion that phonemic awareness is a consequence of exposure to print and formal reading instruction (Ehri, 1979; Read et al., 1986;), but there is also evidence that at least some level of phonemic awareness is a prerequisite to learning to read (Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). METHODS PARTICIPANTS This study included both an experimental group and a control group. Six six-year old first grade students, three boys and three girls, were selected as study participants based on their comparable text reading levels using the Rigby PM Benchmark Reading Assessment (2007). All six students received minimal scores on the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (1995) and read below grade level. Of these six matched students, three were selected as intervention participants and three were selected as control participants.

13 13 DATA SOURCES Students in both the experimental and control groups were assessed using the Rigby PM Benchmark Reading Assessment (2007) and the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (1995). The Rigby PM Benchmark Reading Assessment is a series of leveled books and recording sheets designed to allow teachers to determine students' reading accuracy and comprehension levels. If the accuracy level is between 90%-94% and the student has replied to the comprehension questions with appropriate understanding, the student s instructional reading level has been identified. This assessment provides teachers with a method for assessing and documenting primary students' development as readers over time within a literature-based instructional reading program. The assessments are conducted during one-on-one reading conferences as children read specially selected assessment texts. The Rigby PM Benchmark Reading Assessment was given as both a pre-test and a post-test. The Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation is a brief test of children s ability to isolate and pronounce the individual phonemes in a word. For example, given the orally presented word fish, the student should respond with three separate sounds: /f/- /i/-/sh/. Sounds, not letter names are the correct response. This 22-item test is reported by Yopp (1988) to be both a valid and highly reliable measure of phonemic awareness. Immediately prior to the administration of the test, a student is trained with three practice items. Feedback is provided to the child in the form of praise, or in the case of an error, the correct answer is modeled. The child's score is the number of items correctly segmented into all constituent phonemes. Students who obtain a perfect or nearly perfect

14 14 score are those who are phonemically aware. Students who respond correctly to some of the items may be thought of as having emerging phonemic awareness skills. Little or few correct responses suggest intervention. The Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation was given as both a pre-test and a post-test. INTERVENTION Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness was the primary intervention method of this study. The control group of the study solely received guided reading and word work instruction. The experimental group of the study received guided reading, word work instruction, as well as explicit instruction in phonemic awareness during the fourweek intervention period. Students in both the control group and experimental group met with their guided reading groups daily. Guided reading lessons focused on specific reading strategies using books that were at the student s level. Such strategies included predicting, making connections, questioning, and fluency. Students also engaged in word work activities each day. Word work activities provided students the opportunity to manipulate words in meaningful activities. Word word activities included word sorts that involved finding patterns in words. Students in the experimental group received explicit instruction in phonemic awareness. The phonemic awareness lessons were presented over a four-week period and took approximately minutes each to administer. The twenty phonemic awareness lessons used in the intervention were all taken from the book, A Sound Start: Phonemic Awareness Lessons For Reading Success (2002). The first ten lessons focused on the

15 15 phonemic awareness skills (e.g. rhyming, word/syllable awareness, onset-rime) and the last ten lessons focused on the phoneme (e.g. isolation of beginning, middle, and ending sound; phoneme counting, blending, and segmenting). The goal of the lessons was to help children develop phonemic awareness skills that promote success with learning to read. Literature was included in some of the lessons to help link phonemic awareness to reading. The stories gave students the opportunity to look at pictures, follow a sequence of events, listen to oral speech, and practice phonemic awareness skills. The children were often active during many of the activities and took turns manipulating words and sounds. The following is an outline of the skills targeted each day: Day Area targeted 1 Concept of words 2 Rhyme recognition and discrimination 3 Rhyme choice 4 Rhyme production 5 Syllable awareness/counting 6 Syllable blending 7 Syllable deletion 8 Onset-rime blending 9 Onset-rime blending 10 Review/Assessment of rhyme production, blending syllables, and blending onset-rime

16 16 11 Initial sound identification 12 Initial sound production 13 Final sound identification 14 Final sound production 15 Medial sound production 16 Phoneme counting 17 Phoneme blending 18 Phoneme blending 19 Phoneme Segmentation 20 Review/assessment of initial, medial, and final sound identification; phoneme counting, segmenting, blending, and deleting DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS I organized the students phonemic awareness pre-test and post-test scores in a table format. Figure 1 shows the results of the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation that was administered prior to and following the intervention. Analysis of the phonemic awareness pre-test scores revealed that students in both the experimental and control group were performing at a minimal level of phonemic awareness. At the end of the four-week intervention, students were given the phonemic awareness post-test. Analysis of the post-test data revealed that the students in the experimental group had higher phonemic awareness scores than the students in the control group. Both pre-test and post-test scores are reported in Table1.

17 17 Student One of the control group segmented 5 out of 22 words correctly on the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation pre-test. On the post-test, Student One segmented 12 out of 22 words correctly. Student Two of the control group segmented 6 out of 22 words correctly on the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation pre-test. On the post-test, Student Two segmented 11 out of 22 words correctly. Student Three of the control group segmented 6 out of 22 words correctly on the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation pre-test. On the post-test, Student Three segmented 12 out of 22 words correctly (Table 1). Student One of the experimental group segmented 6 out of 22 words correctly on the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation pre-test. On the post-test, Student One segmented 18 out of 22 words correctly. Student Two of the experimental group segmented 5 out of 22 words correctly on the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation pre-test. On the post-test, Student Two segmented 17 out of 22 words correctly. Student Three of the experimental group segmented 5 out of 22 words correctly on the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation pre-test. On the post-test, Student Three segmented 17 out of 22 words correctly (Table 1).

18 18 Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation Results Table 1 Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation Score = /22 (Pre-intervention) Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation Score = /22 (Post-intervention) Control Group Student Student Student Experimental Group Student Student Student Students text reading levels were also organized in a table format. Figure 2 shows the results of the Rigby PM Benchmark Reading Assessment that was administered prior to and following the intervention. Analysis of the text reading level pre-test revealed that the students in both the experimental and control group were reading below grade level. At the end of the four-week intervention, students were given the text reading level post-test. Analysis of the post-test data revealed that the students in the experimental group were reading at a higher text reading level than the students in the control group.

19 19 Student One of the control group read at a text reading level 3 on the Rigby PM Benchmark Reading pre-test. On the post-test, Student One read at a text reading level 6. Student Two of the control group read at a text reading level 3 on the Rigby PM Benchmark Reading pre-test. On the post-test, Student Two read at a text reading level 5. Student Three of the control group read at a text reading level 3 on the Rigby PM Benchmark Reading pre-test. On the post-test, Student Three read at a text reading level 6 (Table 2). Student One of the experimental group read at a text reading level 3 on the Rigby PM Benchmark Reading pre-test. On the post-test, Student One read at a text reading level 8. Student Two of the experimental group read at a text reading level 3 on the Rigby PM Benchmark Reading pre-test. On the post-test, Student Two read at a text reading level 7. Student Three of the experimental group read at a text reading level 3 on the Rigby PM Benchmark Reading pre-test. On the post-test, Student Three read at a text reading level 7 (Table 2).

20 20 Rigby PM Benchmark Assessment Results Table 2 Text Reading Level (Pre-intervention) Text Reading Level (Post-intervention) Control Group Student Student Student Experimental Group Student Student Student CONCLUSIONS Analysis of the pre-intervention and post-intervention data indicated that explicit instruction in phonemic awareness combined with guided reading and word work positively impacted the experimental group s reading levels. Although students in both the control group and the experimental group showed growth, the students in the experimental group showed the most significant improvement in regards to their reading levels and phonemic awareness skills.

21 21 Post-assessment data supported studies that have shown that phonemic awareness instruction results in improved phonemic awareness skills, more rapid response to beginning reading instruction, and improved subsequent reading development (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1993; Cunningham, 1990; O Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; Tangel & Blachman, 1992). The gains made by the experimental group from a text reading level 3 to a text reading level 7 and 8 provided evidence that students who read below grade level do benefit from explicit instruction in phonemic awareness. According to Bradley and Bryant (1983), training in phonemic awareness had a positive effect on reading improvement, and the training was most successful when combined with explicit instruction in the alphabetic principle. The alphabetic principle is the idea that letters and letter patterns represent the sounds of spoken language. In addition to the explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, all students in the study were given opportunities to practice the alphabetic principle in their guided reading groups and word work activities. Research literature suggests that brief amounts of phonemic awareness training result in increases in phonemic awareness performance (Brady & Moats, 1998). I found this claim to be true over the course of the study. It was interesting to see the significant gains that the students in the experimental group had made over the brief 4-week intervention period.

22 22 FUTURE IMPLICATIONS As a result of this study, I plan to continue to provide the experimental group with explicit instruction in phonemic awareness. It is my hope that daily phonemic awareness instruction will further increase the experimental group s text reading levels. I also intend to implement phonemic awareness activities with a few other struggling readers in my classroom. Since the experimental group was positively impacted by instruction in phonemic awareness it is my hope that other struggling readers will benefit from this intervention too. I also plan on sharing the phonemic awareness activities that I used during this study with my colleagues.

23 23 References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, Blachman, B. A. (1997). Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Blachman, B. A. (1991). Phonological awareness: Implications for pre-reading and early reading instruction. In S. A. Brady & D.P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read--a causal connection. Nature, 301, Brady, S., & Moats, L. (1998). Buy books, teach reading. The California Reader, 31(4), Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, Chard, D., & Dickson, S. (1999). Phonological awareness: Instructional and assessment guidelines. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), Chase, C. H., & Tallal, P. (1991). Cognitive models of developmental reading disorders. In J.E. Obrzut & G.W. Hynd (Eds.), Neuropsychological foundations of learning disabilities: A handbook for issues, methods, and practice. New York: Academic Press. Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, Dahl, K. L., & Freppon, P. A. (1995). A comparison of innercity children's interpretation of reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, Ehri, L. (1979). Linguistic insight: Threshold of reading acquisition. Reading research: Advances in theory and practice, 1, Griffith, P. L., Klesius, J. P., & Kromrey, J. D. (1992). The effect of phonemic awareness on the literacy development of first grade children in a traditional or a whole language classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6,

24 24 Griffith, P. L., & Olson, M. W. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break the code. The Reading Teacher, 45, Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, Lewkowicz, N. (1980). Phonemic awareness training: What to teach and how to teach it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, Lomax, R. G., & McGee, L. M. (1987). Young children's concepts about print and meaning: Toward a model of word reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, Mathes, P., & Torgesen, J. (1998). All children can learn to read: Critical care for prevention of reading failure. Peabody Journal of Education, 73, McCormick, C. E., Throneburg, R. N., & Smitley, J. M. (2002). A Sound start: Phonemic awareness lessons for reading success. New York: The Guilford Press. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MA: National Institutes of Health. O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Leicester, N., & Slocum, T. A. (1993). Teaching phonological awareness to young children with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L. C., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill- Palmer Quarterly, 33, Read, C., Yun-Fei, Z., Hong-Yin, N., & Bao-Qing, D. (1986). The ability to manipulate speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic writing. Cognition, 24, Rigby PM Benchmark Reading Assessment. Harcourt Achieve Inc Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculations on the causes and consequences of individual differences in early reading acquisition. Reading Acquisition, 24(5),

25 25 Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Cramer, B. B. (1984). Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, Tangel, D. M., & Blachman, B. A. (1992). Effects of phoneme awareness instruction on kindergarten children's invented spelling. Journal of Reading Behavior, 29, Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (1998). Alternative diagnostic approaches for specific developmental reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, Tunmer, W. E., & Nesdale, A. R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, Wadlington, E. (2000). Effective language arts instruction for students with dyslexia. Preventing School Failure, 44, Yopp, H. K. (1995). A test for assessing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 49, Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 45, Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23,