Post on 14-Apr-2017
transcript
Kari Hoffman
ISED 797
How does instruction in phonemic awareness affect decoding skills in
readers with dyslexia?
Dr. Helen Hyun
December 8, 2015
1
Table of Contents
Problem and Purpose of the Study
……………………………………………………………..
3
Background and Review of Related
Literature…………………………………………………..
5
Procedures
……………………………………………………………………………………..
1
3
Expected Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
………………………………………
1
7
References
……………………………………………………………………………………...
1
9
2
Problem and Purpose of the Study
Over the last thirty years, there has been extensive research on how
typical and struggling readers acquire reading skills. Due to the fact that I
teach first grade in a specialized school for students with language-based
learning differences, particularly dyslexia, I am interested in gaining a
better understanding of reading acquisition. This teacher study will
investigate the affect instruction in phonemic awareness has on decoding
skills in students with dyslexia.
Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate
phonemes in spoken words. This includes the understanding that spoken
words and syllables are made up of sequences of speech sounds (Yopp,
1992). Phonemes are the smallest unit of sound in words, which make a
difference in meaning. Instruction in phonemic awareness would include
activities aimed to teach a reader that words are made up of phonemes.
These phonemes or individual sounds can be segmented, blended and
manipulated to make new words. When preparing instruction, the aspects
of phonemic awareness to be considered include: grapheme phoneme
relationships and phoneme isolation, deletion, counting, blending and
segmentation (Yopp, 1988). Instruction should guide students in repetitive,
structured practice with these phonemic skills.
Decoding is the ability to apply knowledge of grapheme phoneme
relationships and knowledge of letter patterns to correctly pronounce
written words. Children who understand these relationships have the
3
ability to quickly recognize familiar words and to figure out words they
haven’t seen before. When reading a new or unfamiliar word, a reader
decodes the word by segmenting the sounds or phonemes, which correlate
which each individual symbol or grapheme and blending the sounds
together to read the word.
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is characterized by
difficulties with accurate and fluent word recognition and by poor spelling
and decoding. Developmental dyslexia is characterized by an unexpected
difficulty in reading in children and adults who otherwise possess the
intelligence, motivation, and schooling considered necessary for accurate
and fluent reading (Shaywitz, 1998). A deficit in phonological processing
impairs the ability to decode and identify meaning from written word
(Shaywitz, 1996). Deficits in the phonological component of language are
thought to be the cause of these difficulties, and these deficits are not
consistent when compared with other cognitive abilities. Compared to
typically developing readers, students with dyslexia have more difficulty
learning to read words and acquiring sight word vocabulary due to limited
knowledge of decoding and analogizing strategies (Ehri & McCormack,
1998). This deficit in decoding poses a challenge for gaining meaning from
text.
In this teacher study, I plan to implement instruction in phonemic
awareness with two students with dyslexia and monitor their process in
decoding. The students in this study will be two students from my first
4
grade classroom who have been diagnosed with a specific learning disability
in reading. I will administer instruction in phonemic awareness four days a
week for twenty minutes each session. The progress monitoring tool I will
use will be from the Wilson Fundations language program, which I use to
teach reading and writing in class. This progress monitoring tool will
assess the students’ abilities to decode written real words and nonsense
words and their ability to segment sounds in a word read aloud. Based on
prior research on the phonological nature of dyslexia, my assumption is that
instruction in phonemic awareness will positively affect decoding skills in
students with dyslexia.
In terms of ethical considerations, I will protect my students’ identity
by using pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality and that any documents
copied in the appendix do not show names, birth dates, addresses, or any
other personal information. All of the data will be stored in a personal
computer with password protection or in a locked file in the office which is
monitored by office staff. Only I and my instructional coach will have access
to scores and data for each student. Parents will be informed of all
procedures and attempts to protect student confidentiality. Additionally,
the information found in this study will not be related in the students’
school performance reports. Parental consent will be acquired before
conducting the study with students, and the parents have the right to
withdraw at any time as research is voluntary in nature.
5
I have chosen to do this teacher study because many studies on the
topic focus on students who are typical readers and students with various
learning differences. I would like to learn the effect that additional
instruction in phonemic awareness has on a small group of students with
dyslexia. Students who have holes in their early learning of language
typically struggle to read and write fluently later in their schooling. The
research question is: How does instruction in phonemic awareness affect
decoding skills in readers with dyslexia? If I can understand the
effectiveness of instruction in phonemic awareness, I may be able to
prevent gaps in my students’ learning in the future to prevent further
struggles in learning language skills. In addition, if instruction in phonemic
awareness is affective, it may be a skill to focus on in intervention with
students who are struggling with reading and writing fluency in later years.
Background and Review of Related Literature
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Phonemic awareness plays an important role in the ability to decode
words that will eventually become sight words read by memory. Ehri and
McCormick (1998) caution in order for students to gain sight word
recognition and build fluency without relying too heavily on context,
students should be able to distinguish and manipulate phonemes sufficiently
in order to make connections between graphemes and phones
spontaneously when reading text. Phonemic awareness is the ability to
hear, identify, and manipulate phones.
6
Smith (1998) discusses the importance of phonemic awareness in
students’ abilities to read and write. The article reviews strategies for
assessing phonemic awareness in children and suggests appropriate
intervention strategies for each of the assessed skill. Immature phonemic
awareness underlies reading and spelling delays in both children with
reading disorders and typically developing readers. Deficits in phonemic
awareness should be assessed and interventions should be put in place as
early as possible. In kindergarten and first grade, students are already
expected to begin learning rhymes, word patterns, and segmenting and
manipulating phonemes. As children become more mature in their
phonemic awareness, they are able to segment words into individual sounds
and split syllables, delete and substitute sounds in words. All of these skills
are critical for the decoding process, which requires children to be aware of
the order of sounds when sounding out and blending words. When students
who have weak phonemic awareness receive appropriate instruction, they
make a more rapid improvement in reading and spelling words when the
skill is linked with instruction in letter-sound and word learning. Smith
concludes instruction in both phonemic awareness and whole language
instruction can be integrated in order to maximize student progress in
vocabulary development, reading comprehension, and writing skills. “The
faster we boost children's phonemic awareness skills, the more likely
children with weaknesses in this area will "crack the code" and become
readers” (p.24).
7
The purpose of the study described by Weiner (1994) was to teach
beginning readers phonemic skills and direct students’ attention to the
relationship between their phonemic skills and decoding abilities to
determine whether phonemic awareness training would improve the
phonemic awareness and reading in beginning readers compared to no
phonemic awareness training. Three groups of beginning readers were
instructed with the following approaches, phonemic awareness training
only, phonemic awareness training with decoding opportunities, and
phonemic awareness training with decoding and reading opportunities. The
results show that phonemic skills’ training does interact with reading ability
in middle-level reading students. Due to limitations of this study, Weiner
calls for further studies in phonemic awareness. This provides rational for
the study, which focuses on instruction in phonemic awareness in order to
improve decoding skills. It is apparent that Weiner understands and
supports the implications that phonemic awareness has on reading
acquisition and comprehension in mid-level reading students and
recommends effective training coupled with opportunities to read.
Yopp (1988) argues that phonemic test reliability should be an
important consideration in test selection for classroom and research use.
She administered phonemic awareness test and a word decoding test to 96
kindergarten children. The test results showed a correlation between the
results of the phonemic awareness tests administered. The study supports
the notion that phonemic awareness is necessary for reading acquisition.
8
Yopp concludes that one assessment in both compound Phonemic
Awareness and Simple Phonemic awareness are necessary for assessing
reading acquisition than any one test alone. This information is necessary
for teachers to choose useful and well-rounded assessments in order to
assess beginning readers’ phonemic skills. The descriptions of the various
assessments administered break down the various skills beginning readers
need to acquire through instruction in phonemic awareness.
de Carvalho (2014) investigated the relationship among reading
fluency, reading comprehension and phonological processing with typically
developing readers and readers with dyslexia. One hundred fifteen students
from grades 3-8 were grouped into a control group and a group with
dyslexia. Students were assessed in their in their abilities to read words
and pseudowords; as well as in their text (decoding) abilities, listening and
reading comprehension, phonological short-term memory and working
memory. The results showed that the dyslexic group performed more
poorly in all of these categories of assessment. However, both groups
showed similar performance in listening comprehension and in making
“gap-filling” inferences in reading comprehension. This study highlights the
importance of working memory, which is necessary for reading
comprehension. Working memory in reading involves the ability to hold on
to information and decoded words while making sense of the text. Students
with developmental dyslexia need phonological working memory to decode
and comprehend text. de Carvalho concludes the correlation between
9
reading fluency and phonological memory in students with dyslexia support
the specific nature of phonological disorder in students with dyslexia.
Instruction in phonemic awareness is necessary for beginning
readers. Students must understand that words are made up of individual
letters and sounds, which can be blended together to read words. They
must learn to recognize graphemes and phonemes and demonstrate the
ability to manipulate these sounds. According to the dual-route theory, this
is known as the indirect (phonological) route. According to Coltheart et al.
(1993), students with dyslexia who struggle to master the skills needed to
read using indirect route may have what is considered Developmental
Phonological Dyslexia (Temple & Marshall, 1983).
Because prevention is the best antidote for struggling readers,
phonemic and whole word instruction should be implemented as early as
possible (Smith, 1998). For students who have difficulty learning the
connection between graphemes and phonemes, instruction can be as basic
as learning the names and shape of each letter and how the mouth, teeth,
and tongue form different sounds. This can lead into direct instruction in
letter, sound correspondence, assigning keywords to represent the
connection between graphemes and phonemes (Ehri & McCormick, 1998).
When preparing instruction, the aspects of phonemic awareness which
should be considered include: grapheme phoneme relationships and
phoneme isolation, deletion, counting, blending and segmentation (Yopp,
1988). Teachers should guide students in repetitive, structured practice
10
with these phonemic skills. It is also vital to understand the instructional
history in order to assess student’s true reading abilities and potential
(Weiner, 1994). For students with reading challenges, it is possible that
there are gaps in their phonemic skills, which need to be filled before
building upon phonemic concepts towards decoding and eventually reading
and comprehending text.
DECODING
Decoding is the ability to apply knowledge of grapheme phoneme
relationships and knowledge of letter patterns to correctly pronounce
written words. Children who understand these relationships have the
ability to quickly recognize familiar words and to figure out words they
haven’t seen before. Explicit instruction in this area is necessary to teach
students the principles of letter-sound relationships and how to sound out
words (Reading Rockets, 2015).
Ehri argues that we must understand how readers process and
remember the written form of words. Because each student is unique, the
process may vary from student to student. Readers learn each skill and
eventually become capable of reading words in all five ways:
1. By sounding out and blending letters, referred to as decoding or
phonological recoding.
2. By pronouncing common spelling patterns, a more advanced
form of decoding
3. By retrieving sight words from memory.
11
4. By analogizing words already known by sight.
5. By using context to predict words. (Ehri, 1997, 1994)
The process of learning to read sight words relies heavily on the phases
involving phonemic awareness. Sufficiently read words often become sight
words which are read from memory. The processing of learning sight words
and meanings in memory involves forming relationship between graphemes
and phonemes to the spelling of words and their pronunciations (Ehri,
2005).
Ehri theorizes that the course of development of sight word reading
can be characterized by four phases. These phases include pre-alphabetic,
partial alphabetic, full alphabetic and consolidated alphabetic phases.
Readers move fluently between these four phases throughout the process of
learning to read. The first is decoding, also called phonological recording,
where a reader can either segment and blend graphemes into phonemes or
break words into larger chunks of syllabic units, hold them in mind, and
blend them into pronunciations that are recognized as real words. Those
students who are reading at the pre-alphabetic phase are able to use their
decoding skills in order to decode less complex words. This is in contrast to
readers who are reading in the partial alphabetic phase, where readers
used letter-sound cues to remember words. Ehri and McCormick (1998)
proposed readers learn to read sight words from memory by forming
connections between letters in spellings and sounds in pronunciation of the
words. This strategy includes both decodable words and irregular words,
12
however the process differs between the two. Furthermore, as readers
progress from the earlier phases of reading to the most proficient phase,
they learn to read words in several different ways, including: using context,
decoding by segmenting sounds or associating spelling patterns, by
analogy, and by sight. During each phase, reading improves as students
gain and practice more strategies for reading words.
Those students who are reading at the pre-alphabetic phase are able
to use their decoding skills in order to decode less complex words. Readers
who are reading at the partial alphabetic phase use their knowledge of
letter-sound cues to read and remember words. Based on the phases laid
out by Ehri, most of my students are reading at the partial alphabetic phase
and are growing into the full alphabetic phase. According to Ehri and
McCormick (1998), multiple word reading deficiencies are apparent in
struggling readers, specifically students with Dyslexia due to a discrepancy
in how strategies for reading words are developed. Each skill is dependent
on the other; if one skill is not adequately developed, the others will not
develop adequately either. Decoding skill is necessary to retain sight words
in memory. A sight word vocabulary is necessary to read words by analogy
(recognizing how the spelling of an unfamiliar word is known similar word).
Familiarity with the relationship between sight words and spelling patterns
is useful for more efficient decoding. Instruction in all aspects of word
reading is necessary for students who have difficulty learning to read, “Very
13
little can be left to self-discovery or chance” (Ehri & McCormick, 1998, p.
158.)
de Oliveria, da Silba, Dias, Seabra, and Macedo (2014) studied the
importance of various components in reading comprehension in students
with dyslexia comprising a study on the components of the reading
comprehension model and predictive skills in 40 typically developing
students and students with dyslexia. In the study, listening, reading
comprehension, and word recognition skills were assessed. de Oliveria et
al. introduce the cognitive model of reading comprehension posits that
reading comprehension is a result of the interaction between decoding and
linguistic comprehension. They include the notion of word recognition in
her definition of decoding skills, including processing speed and
phonological awareness.
According to de Oliveria et al., The Simple View of Reading suggests
reading comprehension includes an interaction between decoding and
linguistic comprehension. Decoding can be understood as the conversion of
graphic symbols into sounds. de Oliveria et al. describe three different
strategies for decoding and word recognition. The logographic strategy
includes the use of contextual cues and visual recognition. The alphabetical
includes an understanding of the correspondence between graphemes and
phonemes in order to decode and encode words. The orthographic strategy
involves the accumulation of the reader’s experience and the development
14
of a “mental orthographic lexicon” (p.2) or ability to read sight words from
memory and based on understanding of vocabulary.
Results of de Oliveria et al.’s study showed a discrepancy in decoding
and reading comprehension skills between typically developing readers and
readers with dyslexia. They found students with dyslexia showed deficits in
processing speed and word recognition, but preserved auditory
comprehension, which allows for the understanding of listening
comprehension and text comprehension in reading. When both abilities are
intact, written text can be decoded and understood in order for reading
comprehension to occur. Alternately, if one of these processes is impaired,
reading comprehension will not occur due to the interaction between the
two strategies necessary for reading comprehension. Students with
dyslexia have deficits related to word recognition, specifically in
orthographic strategy and have more difficulty in creating an “orthographic
mental lexicon,” which causes a challenge in the orthographic strategy of
reading. Students with dyslexia have appropriate knowledge in
phonological awareness, vocabulary, naming and oral accuracy and reading
comprehension, although they require more time to complete tasks which
may be related to processing speed. The fact that these skills are intact
suggests students with dyslexia have the ability to comprehend text and
make inferences regardless of challenges in processing speed and
phonological and decoding skills, which suggest that the readers have
developed strategies that enable them to compensate for these difficulties.
15
The ability to decode words relies heavily on phonological awareness.
As students learn to recognize and manipulate graphemes and phonemes to
read words, they begin to build a lexicon of words they are able to read
from memory or by sight. According to the dual route theory, this implies
that students can build skills using the indirect or phonological route in
order to broaden their lexile vocabulary in order use the direct or
orthographic route to read words. Students with dyslexia may struggle with
either the indirect or the direct route for reading words, and sometimes
both. Understanding how to support readers who struggle with either or
both of these strategies is vital for supporting struggling readers. Practice
reading words using indirect route can be used as a tool to strengthen the
ability to read using the direct route. This implies that direct instruction in
both phonemic awareness and decoding are necessary for students to gain
and appropriately practice reading skills required for reading words by
sight. This notion illustrates the importance of gaining practice in
segmenting sounds and blending phonemes for decoding words in order to
gain a broader sight word vocabulary in order to build reading fluency.
The studies reviewed show that there is a relationship between
phonemic awareness and decoding. The phonological nature of dyslexia
mentioned in the literature reviewed also supports the question asked in
this study: How does instruction in phonemic awareness affect decoding
skills in readers with dyslexia?
Procedures
16
This teacher study will include a journal of teacher reflections. Each
week, I will reflect on the Phonemic Awareness lessons taught, student
engagement and performance, and the progress monitoring process for
each student. Reflections will include observations of how the students
respond to instruction and to relate this information to student performance
in progress monitoring. It will also include ideas on what should be taught
next based on assessments and how to improve instruction in future lessons
to increase student engagement.
My instructional coach, Rosa Lee Johansen will observe one lesson a
week and give feedback in our weekly debrief sessions. Rosa Lee is an
instructional coach and specializes in teaching language and beginning
reading, specifically with students with language-based learning differences
such as dyslexia. She is trained in Wilson and Wilson Fundations programs
and has been my instructional coach in teaching Fundations for three years.
During her observations, she will take note of student engagement and
performance in addition to reviewing my lesson plans and creating
suggestions on how to proceed with instruction.
In this teacher study, I plan to administer instruction in phonemic
awareness and to monitor student progress on a weekly basis for 17 weeks.
The instruction in phonemic awareness will take place four times a week for
20 minutes each session. The design of the instruction will be guided by or
directly taken from Phonemic Awareness in Young Children: A Classroom
Curriculum, (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998). The
17
instruction includes teacher lead activities including identifying beginning
and ending sounds, replacing sounds to create new words, recognizing
rhyming words, and segmenting and blending sounds in words. There is an
assessment included in the curriculum, which I will administer as a pre
assessment before beginning instruction in order to choose appropriate
activities for my group. I will also assess my students as a post assessment
at the end of the semester to see what my students have learned. This
curriculum was recommended to me by my instructional coach, Rosa Lee
Johansen. She will provide feedback and guidance in using the curriculum
in addition to her observations throughout the study. The curriculum is
research based and created by experienced teachers in reading acquisition.
The progress monitoring tool will be taken directly from the WILSON
Fundations® program, which monitors student progress compared to skills
taught in the program. The probes I will be using from the WILSON
Fundations® progress monitoring tool assess students’ abilities to decode
written real words and nonsense words and to segment sounds heard in a
word spoken aloud. In my research study, I will provide examples of these
assessment tools. Students will be given a minute to complete each of the
three probes. The number of words read or sounds segmented within 60
seconds will be recorded, and each error will be subtracted from the score.
When reading nonsense words, each sound correctly identified will be
recorded, and each error will be subtracted from the score. The number of
words read and sounds segmented in the 60 seconds will be recorded and
18
plotted on a graph. A line will be drawn from the number of sounds read
the first week to the benchmark number of words or sounds to be read by
week 17, which is provided by WILSON Fundations®. As the number of
words read and sounds segmented are charted onto the graph each week,
progress will be reflected by assessing where the data is plotted on the
graph compared to this benchmark baseline. According to the Qualitative
Overview (2014) of the WILSON Fundations® systematic, research-based
program is a reliable source for instruction in “…foundational skills for
reading and spelling, emphasizing phonemic awareness, phonics-word
study, high frequency word study, fluency, vocabulary, handwriting and
spelling.” The reliability of the results of this progress monitoring tool will
be strengthened by keeping a consistent time, location and warm up routine
for each testing session.
I will be using a convenience sample when collecting information and
data in this teacher study. The two students I have chosen are both first
grade students in my classroom. They have both been diagnosed with a
specific learning disability in reading. In my study, I will write a more in
depth portrait of each of these two students.
Validity
I will use triangulation to increase the validity of this study and
decrease data collection bias. Triangulation means that I will gather
information from multiple sources and perspectives. Triangulation includes
the use of my teacher reflection journal and observations and meetings with
19
my instructional coach. In addition, I will use two pre-existing assessments:
a pre and post assessment for phonemic awareness, and the WILSON
Fundations® progress monitoring tool. The use of a preexisting phonemic
awareness curriculum and a research based language program for progress
monitoring assure that this teacher study supports the question being
investigated. In addition, the students participating in the study will have
the diagnoses of dyslexia and/or specific learning disability in reading. A
major threat to the validity of this study is that students may acquire
phonemic awareness skills in settings outside of the instruction
administered in this study. It will be necessary acknowledge this possibility
and to explore ways to ensure that any progress made in decoding can be
related specifically to the addition instruction in phonemic awareness
administered in the study.
As a teacher study using a convenience sample, I acknowledge that
there is still an element of data collection bias to consider. The findings in
this teacher study will mostly be valuable to me as a teacher in this specific
setting with these specific students and resources. The findings in my
teacher study may be generalizable to teachers who are searching for an
intervention strategy for readers with dyslexia who are struggling to
acquire decoding skills. However, the small sample size makes this study
less generalizable. It would be useful to conduct a study with a larger
sample size and a wider demographic. Further
20
Threats to the validity of my teacher study include inconsistency, data
collection bias, history, subjects’ attitude, implementation and history.
Inconsistency is a threat because it is common for students with specific
learning disabilities in reading to perform with inconsistency. In order to
help prevent this threat, I will take this inconsistency in performance into
account in my analysis of the results of my teacher research study. I will
also begin each lesson and assessment session with the same 3 minute
warm up review procedure to refresh students’ memory of the letters and
sounds they have learned. Test anxiety is also a threat because many
students who struggle with reading are often hesitant to read aloud for
assessments, especially when timed. I will attempt to minimize this threat
by allowing students to believe that this instruction and the assessments are
a typical part of the lesson, and not an assessment of them independent
from the group. I will tell them that I am using a timer to keep myself on
track so that it does not take too long, and that I am having them read aloud
so that I can learn more about what they know so that I can become better
at teaching them how to read. Due to the possibility that the students may
struggle with test anxiety and distractibility, testing will be conducted in a
small group room with limited auditory and visual distractions in which
students are familiar. History is a possible threat because some students
have had additional tutoring or speech and language services outside of
school, which may affect their performance in the classroom. I will
acknowledge this possibility and report it in my final teacher research study
21
and discuss how any such services may affect student performance in class
and in assessments. Instrumentation is a threat because this teacher
research study is a convenience sample, and thus there is data collection
bias in how I interpret the findings. As stated above, I will use triangulation
with my instructional coach and two different methods of assessment to
limit the threat of data collection bias to the best of my ability.
I will assess the data from my teacher reflection journal and my
instructional coach’s observations by discussing them with my instructional
coach and comparing our findings. We will compare our observations and
findings throughout the teacher study in order to decide what instruction
strategy from the phonemic awareness curriculum to implement next. We
can use coding to find a theme within our reflections and notes as a data
analysis tool. This way, the common words and themes found can be
analyzed in order to create an instruction strategy in addition to
understanding the results of this study. We will also discuss and compare
our findings at the end of the study. I will assess my students’ progress
through comparing the scores in each section of the pre and post
assessment from the phonemic awareness curriculum. I will compare my
students’ improvement in decoding skills by comparing their weekly
progress to where they stand on the graph in relation to the projected
growth baseline drawn after the first assessment. I will also review this
data with my instructional coach to gain her input on the effectiveness of
the additional instruction in phonemic awareness.
22
Expected Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
My expectation for this teacher study is that additional instruction in
phonemic awareness has the potential to improve decoding skills in
students with dyslexia. This statement is based on the phonological nature
of dyslexia found in the research previously stated in this proposal. I expect
that the students will show improvement in their decoding abilities and that
their progress will show growth that is somewhat in line with their
projected growth baseline set at the beginning of the study. This will be
shown in both their abilities to decode real and nonsense words. I also
expect that students will be able to segment sounds in words heard aloud
with increased accuracy due to the nature of instruction provided, which
includes explicit instruction in segmenting sounds in many lessons and
activities.
As a beginning researcher, I am aware that this teacher study has
limitations. However, moving forward I might consider altering this study
to increase the validity of the study and the transferability of the findings.
It would be beneficial to extend this study to a whole class of 12 students
rather than limit the study to two students in my language group. The
students in this study may be of a narrow demographic, and the study would
need a greater cross section, possibly involving several classrooms or
schools. I would recommend comparing data between a study group and a
control group of students with dyslexia or other specific learning disabilities
in reading. Although there may be ethical considerations to consider, it is
23
worth considering implementing instruction in phonemic awareness to one
group, and to compare the findings to a control group who has not received
this additional instruction. This would be in addition to a teacher reflection
journal and additional observations and coaching sessions with an
instructional coach, since the findings should not be solely based on
assessment data. It would be interesting to also research the effects of
instruction in phonemic awareness on students’ fluency and comprehension
skills since these skills are also necessary for reading acquisition.
24
References
Adams, M., Foorman, B., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic
awareness in young children:
A classroom curriculum. Baltimore, Md.: P.H. Brookes.
Blachman, B. (1997). Sight word learning in normal readers and dyslexics.
In foundations of reading
acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 163-
189). Mahwah, N.J.: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Coltheart, M. , Curtis, B. , Atkins, P. , & Haller, M. (1993). Models of
reading aloud: Dual-route and
parallel distributed processing approaches. Psychological
Review,100(4), 589-608.
Coltheart, M., Masterson, J., Byng, S., Prior, M., & Riddoch, J.
( 1983). Surface dyslexia. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 469– 495.
de Carvalho, C. , Kida, A. , Capellini, S. , & de Avila, C. (2014).
Phonological working memory and
reading in students with dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 5,
746-753.
de Oliveria, D. , da Silba, P. , Dias, N. , Seabra, A. , & Macedo, E.
(2014). Reading component skills
25
in dyslexia: Word recognition, comprehension and processing
speed. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1339-1344.
Ehri, L. (2005) Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2),
167-188.
Ehri, L. , & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning:
Implications for instruction with
delayed and disabled readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
14(2), 135-163.
Holmes, J. M. (1973). Dyslexia: A neurolinguistic study of traumatic
and developmental disorders of reading.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, Scotland.
Pikulski, J. , & Chard, D. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding
and reading comprehension. The
Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510.
“Qualitative Overview.” SpringerReference (2014): n.
pag.Http://www.wilsonlanguage.com/. Web.
<http://www.wilsonlanguage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/
Fundations-Overview
and-Studies-of-Program-Effectiveness.pdf>.
Samuels, S. (1976). Automatic decoding and reading comprehension.
Language Arts, 53(3), 323-325.
26
Siegel, L (2006). Perspectives on dyslexia. Pediactrics & Child
Health, 11(9), 581-587.
Samuels, S. , & Flor, R. (1997). The importance of automaticity for
developing expertise in reading.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13(2), 107-121.
Smith, C. (1998). From gibberish to phonemic awareness: Effective
decoding instruction. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 30(6), 20-25.
Stahl, S. , & Murray, B. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and
its relationship to early reading.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 221-234.
Temple, C. , & Marshall, J. (1983). A case study of developmental
phonological dyslexia. British
Journal of Psychology (London, England : 1953), 74 (Pt 4)(4),
517.
Weiner, S. (1992). Effects of Phonemic Awareness Training on Low
and Middle-achieving First
graders’ Phonemic Awareness, Decoding, and Reading Ability.
n.p.: ProQuest, UMI
Dissertations Publishing.
Yopp, H. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness
tests. Reading Research Quarterly,
23(2), 159-177.
27