Phonological Awareness Training (PAT)

OVERVIEW

Phonological awareness training (PAT) refers to a group of curricula designed to increase the phonological awareness abilities of children. These include activities that teach children how to identify and manipulate segments of spoken word as well as how to rhyme and alliterate. The curriculum varies from study to study as PAT practices were developed by study authors. Several evaluations have been conducted of PAT and have found that participants in PAT do not differ significantly from control groups on measures of phonological awareness.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: Phonological awareness training has been evaluated with children ranging from age 3 to 6 from Washington State and the Pacific Northwest.

Phonological awareness training does not have a single developer or uniformity among implementations. As a result, not all programs will have the same components. PAT is designed to help children develop the skills that precede reading. Typically, PAT serves as a supplemental activity to classroom activities. Skills taught may include detecting rhymes, blending sounds together, and segmenting words into sounds. Phonological awareness training can be implemented by a teacher in a one-on-one setting, in pairs, or in small groups.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Majsterek, D.J., Shorr, D.N., & Erion, V.L. (2000). Promoting early literacy through rhyme detection activities during Head Start circle time. Child Study Journal, 30(3), 143-151.

Evaluated population: 40 low-income Head Start children (ages 3 to 6) in Washington State.

Approach: Children were randomly assigned to receive either phonological awareness training or word training with an emphasis on word meanings. PAT participants received nine 10-minute lessons over the course of four weeks. Lessons focused on rhyming and identifying rhymes. Lessons also included the use of DaisyQuest software (a computer program designed to teach phonological awareness). The control group received nine 10-minute sessions that focused on word meaning as well as synonyms, comparative-superlative, position in space, and reasoning. At post-test, participants were assessed using a measure of phonological processing, specifically the identification of rhyming words.

Results: At post-test, the treatment group did not differ from the control group on a the identification of rhyming words, suggesting that PAT is ineffective in affecting phonological processing.

O’Conner, R.E., Jenkins, J.R., Leicester, N., & Slocum, T.A. (1993a). Teaching phonological awareness to young children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(6), 532-546.

Evaluated population: 55 four to six year old preschool children who were developmentally delayed. Due to attrition and pre-test scores, 47 children were in the final sample.

Approach: Children were blocked on age and cognitive ability and randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups (blending, segmenting, rhyming) or a control group.  In all three intervention groups, participants received a 2 phase intervention.

Participants in the blending group received three weeks of learning a specific blending task in the first phase. In the second phase participants reviewed the task in the first phase and adding other blending tasks. Participants in the blending group were given 10 minute lessons three or four times a week.

Participants in the segmenting group received three weeks of learning how to separate sounds by stretching each sound into two or three word phonemes in the first phase. In phase two, participants were taught how to separate words into onset-rime, say each word in a sound, and indicate which sound is first. Participants in the segmenting group were given 10 minute lessons four times a week.

Participants in the control group received three weeks of lessons (phase one) where they were given examples of rhyme, rhymed in a group, and then asked to produce a rhyme. In phase two, participants were asked to continue to make rhymes and also identify pairs of rhyming words and identify words that did not rhyme. Rhyming group participants received 10 minute lessons four times a week.

Participants in the comparison group received routine preschool activities. These activities included listening to stories and oral language activities.

At post-test, participants were assessed using nine nonstandardized measures of phonological processing: three blending tests, three segmenting tests, three rhyming tests. In addition, participants were assessed with a phonological mastery test.

Results: Overall, results of the study found that PAT had no effects on phonological awareness. Neither of the three intervention groups scored significantly different from the comparison groups on the measures of phonological processing. However, there were several significant differences on subtests. The blending group scored significantly higher than the comparison group on measures of blending continuous sounds, onset-rime, and separated sounds. In addition, the segmenting group scored significantly higher than the control group on measures of blending continuous phonemes, segmenting all sounds, and segmenting onset-rime.

Yeh, S.S. (2003). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to children in Head Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(4), 513-529.

Evaluated population: 44 low-income four and five year old children from two Head Start programs in Boston, MA.

Approach: Participants were randomly assigned to one of two PAT groups. One group focused on phonemic segmentation. Activities in the phonemic segmentation group included segmentation, blending, and substitution of phonemes. Teachers modeled behaviors and had children practice. Participants in the phonemic segmentation group received 20-25 minutes a week of instruction over 9 weeks.

The second group focused on rhyming and alliteration. Activities in this group included rhyming practices and bookmaking towards the goal of telling stories to accompany pictures. Participants in the second group received 20-25 minutes a week of instruction over 9 weeks.

Participants were assessed at post-test using a nonstandardized measure of letter sound matching, four nonstandard measures assessing phoneme blending, phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, and phoneme substitution. Additionally, participants were assessed with using a nonstandardized test of oral reading.

Results: Results of the study indicated that the two PAT groups did not significantly differ on measures of letter-sound matching, phonological awareness, or oral reading.

Slocum, T.A., O’Conner, R.E., & Jenkins, J.R. (1993). Transfer among phonological manipulation skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 618-630.

Evaluated population: 48 low-income preschool children in 4 Head Start classrooms in an urban area in the Pacific Northwest. Due to attrition, the final sample was 35 children.

Approach: Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Two intervention groups included a blend-then-segment intervention group and a segment-then-blend intervention group. Two control groups included a word manipulation-then-segment comparison group and a word manipulation-then-blend comparison group. All groups received interventions in two phases and received 10-minute sessions. For intervention groups, sessions continued until mastery of skills was achieved, for control groups, sessions continued until intervention counterparts had mastered skills.

The blend-then-segment group received blending instruction in the first phase and in the second phase were taught how to segment using onset-rime.

The segment-then-blend group received segmenting instruction using onset-rime in the first phase and were taught blending in the second phase.

The word manipulation-then-segment group received word manipulation instruction in the first phase and received the same segmenting instruction in phase two that their counterparts were receiving.

The word manipulation-then-blend group received word manipulation instruction in the first phased and the same blending instruction in phase two that their counterparts were receiving.

At post-test, participants were assessed for their phonological processing with two nonstandard measures: onset-rime blending and onset-rime segmenting.

Results: Overall, results of the study indicated that the intervention groups did not significantly differ from the control groups on phonological processing. However, the blend-then-segment group did score higher than the word manipulation-then segment comparison group on the measure of onset-rime blending. Likewise, the segment-then-blend group scored higher than the word-manipulation-then-blend on the measure of onset-rime segmenting.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

Curriculum materials available for purchase at: Phonological awareness training does not have a single developer or distributor of materials, consequently there is no standardized program nor are there standardized program materials.

References:

Majsterek, D.J., Shorr, D.N., & Erion, V.L. (2000). Promoting early literacy through rhyme detection activities during Head Start circle time. Child Study Journal, 30(3), 143-151.

O’Conner, R.E., Jenkins, J.R., Leicester, N., & Slocum, T.A. (1993a). Teaching phonological awareness to young children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(6), 532-546.

Slocum, T.A., O’Conner, R.E., & Jenkins, J.R. (1993). Transfer among phonological manipulation skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 618-630.

Yeh, S.S. (2003). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to children in Head Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(4), 513-529.

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: 3-6

Evaluated participant grades: Preschool

Program age ranges in the guide: early childhood          

Program components: school-based; early childhood education

Measured outcomes: education and cognitive development

Program information last updated on 8/7/07

© Child Trends 2003