Can phonemic awareness be taught, and does it help children learn to read and spell? The NRP (2000) found that teaching phonemic awareness to children is “clearly effective” (chapter 2, p. 40). That is, the overall impact of phonemic awareness training on children was considered large and educationally significant. This skill does generalize to reading and spelling. Moderate effects were noted for phonemic awareness training on reading and spelling outcomes. Additionally, this training helps with word reading and also with reading comprehension. Interestingly, phonemic awareness training “contributes to children’s ability to read and spell for months, if not years, after the training has ended” (NRP, chapter 2, p. 40). Further, the effects of this type of training are enhanced when children are taught how to apply phonemic awareness skills to their reading and writing.
Which students benefit in their reading? Phonemic awareness training was found to produce positive effects in reading for preschoolers, kindergartners, and first graders who are just beginning to learn to read. Preschoolers exhibited more extensive effects than students in other grade levels—thus, the notion that the earlier we implement phonemic awareness instruction, the better! Further, children learning to read in English showed greater effects in reading as compared to those students learning to read in other languages. Interestingly, larger gains were noted for at-risk readers, and moderate effects were noted for children with disabilities and typically developing readers. Further, mid to high socio-economic status (SES) of children was associated with greater effects, as compared to lower SES.
Which students benefit in their spelling?Phonemic awareness training was found to benefit preschoolers, kindergartners, and first graders who are learning to spell. Children identified as at-risk and typically developing children were also aided in their spelling performance after receiving phonemic awareness training. Children learning to spell in English as well as those learning in other languages experienced gains. Children across SES levels showed improved spelling performance after phonemic awareness instruction. One group, those with reading disabilities, did not experience improvements in spelling; the NRP (2000) noted that “this is consistent with other research indicating that disabled readers have a hard time learning to spell” (chapter 2, p. 41).
Which methods of teaching phonemic awareness work best in helping children acquire phonemic awareness? Various types of phonemic awareness activities might be taught to children. We discussed these activities before when we defined phonemic awareness. In some effective programs, only one phonemic awareness skill is taught; in others, two or more skills are taught. Interestingly, “focusing on one or two skills produces larger effects than a multiskilled approach” (NRP, 2000, chapter 2, p. 41). Further, teaching phonemic awareness with letters helps students acquire phonemic awareness more effectively than teaching this skill without letters. We will discuss this last approach further in the next “question.”
Which methods of teaching phonemic awareness have the greatest impact on learning to read? One or two types of phoneme manipulation (activities)—specifically, phoneme blending and phoneme segmenting—are likely to produce greater gains in children’s reading performance than teaching several of these phoneme manipulations. Explanations have been provided as to why a small number of phoneme manipulations should be taught (Armbruster et al., 2001a). For example, children may become confused about which type to apply if they are taught using different ways to manipulate phonemes. Another explanation may be that no one approach is taught to mastery. Still another explanation is that instruction in several types of manipulations may make the skill more difficult before children actually acquire easier skills. To illustrate phoneme blending and segmenting (the recommended skill combination), we provide the following example:
Teacher: Listen. I’ll say the sounds in the word man--/m/ /a/ /n/. What word is this?
Children: Man.
Teacher: Say the sounds in the word man.
Children: /M/ /a/ /n/.
Teacher: What word is this?
Children: Man.
Teacher: Now we will write the sounds in man: /m/, write m; /a/, write a; /n/, write n.
Children: (Write letters along with teacher.)
Teacher: (Writes “man” on the board.) Now let’s read the word man.
Children: Man.
Instruction should be explicit about how phonemic awareness and reading are connected. Recall the importance of letters at this stage. “Teaching students to manipulate phonemes with letters yields larger effects than teaching students without letters, not surprisingly because letters help children make the connection between phonemic awareness and its application to reading. Teaching children to blend the phonemes represented by letters is the equivalent of decoding instruction” (NRP, 2000, chapter 2, p. 41). Combining phonemic awareness with letter writing/letter identification is referred to as the alphabetic principle (defined previously). Thus, the notion of the alphabetic principle takes on even greater importance.
Which methods of teaching phonemic awareness have the greatest impact on learning to spell? The NRP (2000) noted, once again, that teaching children to manipulate phonemes with letters is more effective than teaching phonemic awareness using only spoken units. Further, phonemic awareness instruction helps learners without disabilities below the second grade to spell.
The NRP (2000) noted that teaching children to segment phonemes in words and represent them with letters is the same as invented spelling instruction. Invented spelling “encourages a child to begin writing without having to be accountable for correct spelling” (Hall & Moats, 1999)—thus, children “invent” spelling on their own. This “phonetic spelling” is considered to be a useful first step for children (ages 4-7 years) to get them to begin writing earlier; interestingly, children who use invented spelling typically write longer stories than children who focus on spelling words correctly (Adams, 1990); however, “parents are justified in being concerned when a child continues to spell words incorrectly for too long” (Hall & Moats, p. 188).
In the early elementary years, children are encouraged to write stories. However, Hall and Moats (1999) note that by third grade, children should be expected to correct their spelling on final drafts of their writing. It is important to state that spelling instruction should still be a major component of any good reading program (Adams, 1990). “Learning about spelling reinforces children’s knowledge about common letter sequences. It also reinforces their knowledge about spelling-sound relationships and may help children become aware of word parts. Because of this, spelling practice enhances reading proficiency” (Adams, pp. 102-103).
How important is it to teach letters as well as phonemic awareness? As we have previously discussed, it is important (if not essential) to teach letters as well as phonemic awareness to beginning students (NRP, 2000). Knowledge of letters “is essential for transfer to reading and spelling” (NRP, chapter 2, p. 41). Nelson, Cooper, and Gonzalez (2004) teach letter names in their program, Stepping Stones to Literacy; there is a focus on rapid letter naming (where children say the names of letters in a rapid manner from left to right). The NRP advocates “over-learning” shapes, names, and sounds so that children can work with them automatically when learning to read and spell words.
How much time is required for phonemic awareness instruction to be effective? The NRP (2000) found that giving between 5 and 18 hours of phonemic awareness instruction yields very large effects; Armbruster et al. (2001a) reinforce this by stating, “Over the school year, your entire phonemic awareness program should take no more than 20 hours” (p. 9). The NRP noted that “effect sizes were more than twice as large for shorter programs than for the longest-lasting programs” (chapter 2, p. 42). However, the NRP did caution that it is what is taught during this time that matters. Students differ in their phonemic awareness skills and, thus, require varying levels of instruction. Armbruster et al. (based on the NRP Report) call for assessment of phonemic awareness to determine children’s skill levels and to provide instruction accordingly.
In addition, the NRP (2000) recommended length of training sessions. The average length of training from their analysis of phonemic awareness training programs was 25 minutes. If sessions lasted longer, they were typically for older students. The NRP concluded that sessions should probably not exceed 30 minutes in length.
Can classroom teachers teach phonemic awareness effectively to their students?The NRP noted that classroom teachers definitely could teach phonemic awareness skills to children; in fact, “the training they provided transferred and improved students’ reading and spelling, and the effect on reading continued beyond training” (chapter 2, p. 42). The average amount of training provided to teachers to enhance their skills in this area varied from 2 to 90 hours, with the average being 21 hours of in-service instruction.