|
DOES
“PURE” PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING HAVE AFFECTREADING
COMPREHENSION? 1
STEPHENKRASHENUniversity
of Southern California
Perceptual
and Motor Skills 2001 vol 93: 345-358
Summary-
The six studies found concerning the impact of pure phonemic awareness
training (without phonics) on reading comprehension gave a positive but
modest overall effect size in favor of phonemic awareness training.Four
studies had small samples, two showed no or very small effect sizes, and
one inconsistent results.Three involved
languages other than English.Such
results do not support the popular movement for universal phonemic awareness
training.
The
National Reading Panel (7) concluded that phonemic awareness training has
a positive effect on reading ability, reporting an effect size of .32 for
tests of reading comprehension.Of
the studies included by the National Reading Panel, several combined phonemic
awareness training with instruction in phonics. As the Panel has pointed
out, phonics instruction may contribute to the impact of phonemic awareness
training on reading comprehension, as those who have had more phonics instruction
show modest, short-term advantages on tests of reading comprehension.It
is thus essential to determine if “pure” (no phonics) phonemic awareness
training has an effect on reading comprehension.
Table
1 presents studies of the impact of pure phonemic awareness training on
tests of reading comprehension. Studies were obtained in several ways.
Linnea Ehri graciously provided me with a list of the nine studies (18
comparisons) on which the National Reading Panel based its conclusions.
Also, an extensive survey of phonemic awareness training (8) was consulted,
and several scholars active in this area also provided help in locating
studies.2 TABLE
1 EFFECT
SIZES FOR STUDIES ASSESSING “PURE” PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ “First
test” given immediately after training, except for Kozminsky and Kozminsky
(1 year delay) and Lie (one semester delay). Interval:
interval between end of training and administration of delayed test. manipulation:
cutting, coloring, etc. positional:
training on initial,final, medial sounds sequential:
training on sounds as they appear in sequential order “unseen”:investigators
did not inspect comparison group treatment n
= sample size of experimental group/control group Effect
sizes were calculated by subtracting the posttest mean of the comparison
group from the posttest mean of the experimental group and dividing the
result by the pooled standard deviation (10), except in the case of Bradley
and Bryant (1). For this study, F ratios were converted to effect sizes
(4).There were no obvious differences
in pretest scores of the subjects in the studies reviewed here, except
for the one byLie (6) in which
the group trained on initial, final, and medial sounds in that order(“positional”phonemic
awareness training) had slightly higher letter knowledge scores than controls
on the pretest. The
average effect size for all eleven comparisons, using the most-delayed
test from each group, was .35, very similar to the Panel’s figure.Use
of the first posttest gave similar results. The highest effect sizes were
from studies with small sample sizes and with comparison groups who received
no training of any kind(the second
study in Bradley and Bryant, 1) or whose comparison groups were not observed
by the experimenters, the second study in Kozminsky and Kozminsky, 5).
If we consider these two comparisons to be outliers and omit them from
the analysis, the average effect size drops to .23. 3The
effect size for all eleven comparisons was significantly different from
zero (95% confidence interval = .13 to .57).Omitting
the two outlier studies, the95%
confidence interval for the remaining nine comparisons narrowly escaped
zero (.01 to .45). Before
concluding that there is a modest but significant effect for pure phonemic
awareness training on reading comprehension, the following should be considered:
Only six studies and eleven comparisons were found. Three involved languages
other than English (Hebrew (5), Spanish (2) and Norwegian (6)).Only
one of the six studies (6) found substantial effect sizes as well as statistically
significant results for all comparisons. Two studies showed very low or
zero effect sizes (2,3), and another reported highly inconsistent results
(9).Sample sizes were very small
in four of the six studies (1,2,5,9).The
only study showing a clear training effect with English speaking children
(1) utilized only 13 children in the trained group and results were statistically
significant for only one comparison. Because
training studies are crucial in establishing causality and because studies
using “pure” phonemic awareness training constitute the most valid tests
of the efficacy of phonemic awareness training, one must conclude that
the research does not provide a suitable basis for drawing conclusions
about the necessity of phonemic awareness training for English speaking
children. NOTES 1.Address
enquiries to S. Krashen, 23852 Pacific Coast Highway, PMB 919, Malibu CA
90265-4879. 2.I
thank Jennifer Watts, Steven Stahl, Jeff McQuillan, Cindy Marten, Sara
Hannes, and Pieter Reitsma for their help. 3.
The National Reading Panel reported somewhat larger effect sizes for Defior
and Tudela (2),.05 and .14 for comparison with one comparison group (“manipulation”)
and .29 and .18 for comparison with the “classification”comparison
group. Their result was based on an average of scores on three tests:a
cloze test in which subjects completed sentences filling in a single word,
a test in which subjects had to“complete
or choose a drawing following written sentences” (p. 307), and a more typical
reading comprehension test with passages and comprehension questions. The
figure in Table 1 is based on the third test only. Using the Panel’s effect
sizes, however, does not significantly change the overall results. REFERENCES 1.
Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. (1983) Categorizing sounds and learning to
read - a causal connection. Nature, 301,
419-421. 2.
Defior, S. & Tudela, P. (1994) Effect of phonological training on reading
and writing acquisition. Reading and Writing,6,
299-320. 3.
Hatcher, P., Helm, C. & Ellis, A. (1994) Ameliorating early reading
failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills:
The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65,
41-57. 4.
Johnston, D. (1995) DSTAT: software for the meta-analytic review of
research literatures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 5.
Kozminsky, L. & Kozminsky, E. (1995) The effects of early phonological
awareness training on reading success. Learning and Instruction,
5,187-201. 6.
Lie, A. (1991) Effects of a training program for stimulating skills in
word analysis in first grade children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(3),
234-250. 7.
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. Washington: National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development. 8.
Troia, G. (1999) Phonological awareness intervention research: A critical
review of the experimental methodology. Reading Research Quarterly,
34 (1), 28-52. 9.
Weiner, S. (1994) Effects of phonemic awareness training on low- and middle-achieving
first graders’ phonemic awareness and reading ability. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 26(3): 277-300. 10.
Wolf, F. (1986) Meta-analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. |