Phonological Awareness Assessments 1 Running Head: PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS ASSESSMENTS

A Look into Comprehensive Phonological Awareness Assessments Of Reading Readiness Rhonda D. Williams University of Calgary

Phonological Awareness Assessments 2 Throughout North America, educators and politicians have demonstrated an increasing focus on the early identification of struggling readers and the implementation of intervention programs to support students in the beginning stages of reading acquisition. Phonological processing assessments have been instrumental in early detection and intervention. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role phonological processing assessments have regarding the prediction of reading readiness skills. Is this what you are really looking at? Or are you looking at what constitutes evidence-based practices in this area (i.e., Best Practices). Several assessment tools and studies will be reviewed to evaluate the comprehensiveness of skill identification and suggest an accurate way ? evidence-based approach to the assessment of assess phonological awareness in students. OK. Phonological processing is the awareness that words can be broken down into smaller individual sound components and the ability to recognize similarities and differences between sounds (McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008). Excellent defining of concept at onset. The majority of the research and available assessment tools [have focused] focus on emerging readers in kindergarten and elementary. Two of the more widely used phonological assessments are the Test of Phonological Awareness Skills (TOPAS) (Newcomer & Barenbaum, 2003; as cited in McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008) and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) (Wagner, Torgesen & Rashotte, 1999; as cited in McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008). The TOPAS focuses on early intervention and is designed to be administered to elementary students ages 5-0 to 10-11. It is based on three phonological constructs: sound comparison (rhyming), phoneme blending and phoneme segmentation. The CTOPP can be used in the assessment of students ages 5-0 to 24-11. Three different abilities are tested in the CTOPP: phonological awareness (deletion and blending), phonological memory and rapid naming tasks (time needed to put a verbal name to a visual stimulus). The phonological portion of the test has a limited range of tasks and therefore is limited

Phonological Awareness Assessments 3 in its evaluation. The CTOPP attempts to test students of varied ages despite evidence that phonological awareness diminishes in its predictive power over time. Perhaps the identification of learning difficulties in older readers, especially students with dyslexia might be a preferred use. Each of these assessment tools only test a maximum of three phonological constructs and are not as comprehensive as more recent studies demonstrate. They demonstrate or they indicate should be assessed? Rhonda the above section reads similar to a test review. You could have more succinctly summarized the above information with respect to your argument in this paper, i.e., The majority of available assessment tools [have focused] focus on emerging readers in kindergarten and elementary. Two of the more widely used phonological assessments are the Test of Phonological Awareness Skills (TOPAS) (Newcomer & Barenbaum, 2003; as cited in McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008) and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) (Wagner, Torgesen & Rashotte, 1999; as cited in McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008). One of the problems with these measures is that they do not provide as comprehensive of a measure of phonological awareness as is suggested by research in this area. For example, the TOPAS can be used to measures three phonological constructs: sound comparison (rhyming), phoneme blending and phoneme segmentation. Similarly, three different abilities are tested in the CTOPP: phonological awareness (deletion and blending), phonological memory and rapid naming tasks (time needed to put a verbal name to a visual stimulus). The phonological portion of the test has a limited range of tasks and therefore is limited in its evaluation.(what does this mean). Then link to the next section. In contrast, OR the research suggests that more than just these three areas should be assessed (but actually these 2 tests together measure five areaswhich is the same as what is outlined below I believe).

Phonological Awareness Assessments 4 In a study completed by Runge & Watkins (2006) a comprehensive assessment battery was created using 23 different subtests to assess phonological awareness. It utilizes five different tasks to assess kindergarten students identified by Adams (1990 the date is not given for secondary sources see APA p. 247 as cited in Runge & Watkins, 2006): rhyme, sound categorization, blending, segmenting and manipulation. (Rhonda I am somewhat confused 23 subtests were used to assess 5 areas? The MS-PAS (what is this you did not introduce this)was used within some of the subtests. The study concluded that the largest dimension was phonological awareness encompassing sound categorization, blending, segmenting and manipulation. (If phonological awareness was the largest dimension this would suggest that other areas of reading were being assessed. Correct?) Runge & and Watkins (2006) identified rhyme tasks as a second dimension that influences phonological assessment in emerging readers. The authors propose a two-dimensional approach suggesting that a comprehensive assessment include both traditional phonological awareness tasks and as well as rhyme tasks. But does the TOPAS not already measure rhyming? How is this different? These two measures can sufficiently predict the reading readiness of kindergarten students.(how was this study designed to demonstrate this?) Runge & are Watkins (2006) suggest that future studies increase the difficulty of test items within the same skill set to further assess developmental trends in reading acquisition and phonological awareness. Interventions should begin with rhyming skills before shifting to more complex phonological tasks that help students identify, isolate and manipulate phonological units. the research design and results of this study is needed. Linking sentence needed While Runge and Watkins (2006) have argued for a two-dimensional approach to the assessment of XXX, there is also evidence in support of a unidimensional approach to the assessment of phonological awareness. In particular, Vlodgraven and Verhoeven (2007; 2009) argue that .. Evidence for this view (then cite study). More clarity in describing

Phonological Awareness Assessments 5 Two studies based out of the Netherlands [address some of the suggestions made by Runge & and Watkins (2006) omit ] by using an item response theory perspective to assess phonological awareness in kindergarten and early elementary students (Vloedgraven & Verhoeven (2007; 2009)). The unidimensional approach used conceptualizes that the skills involved be thought of as a continuum from the easiest tasks (rhyming) to the most difficult ability to acquire (manipulation). Here, rhyming is not seen as a separate construct (Runge &Watkins, 2006) but rather part of the developmental process. Vloedgraven & Verhoeven (2007; 2009) also used item response theory to scale the level of difficulty of the test items to the developmental ability of the person within phonological processing. (This level of detail not required simply sufficient to say that they studied the progression/skills that underpins the development of phonological processing skills.) The study in 2007 measured four tasks differing in difficulty: rhyming, phoneme identification, phoneme blending and phoneme segregation with students in kindergarten and grade one. In 2009, the study used participants from kindergarten to grade 4 and included the additional task of phoneme deletion in the measuring assessments. Both studies found that the appropriateness of the phonological task depended on the level of the student. As students acquired skills along the continuum, easier skills became less of a predictor for reading ability. In the 2007 study, segmentation activities were proven to have the most predictive power with students. As the segmentation tasks became easier, the predictive power decreased steadily. As a result, phonological awareness assessment should be conducted before the completion of grade one to be the most accurate and valid. In the 2009 study, phoneme deletion was the most difficult task to acquire. Vloedgraven & Verhoeven (2009) state that, when phonological awareness starts to develop, children seem to acquire rhyming, phoneme identification, and phoneme blending skills; as phonological awareness continues

Phonological Awareness Assessments 6 to develop, children seem to acquire phoneme segmentation and phoneme deletion skills (p. 167). The identification of specific phonological awareness skills have a direct impact on the skills taught and interventions provided for each individual student, promoting the development of literacy skills. Both studies concluded (studies do not conclude authors conclude see APA pg. 38 re: anthropomorphism) that phonological tasks should be suited to the childs level of development to gain an accurate predictive measure (Vloedgraven & Verhoeven 2007; 2009). Conclusion Phonological processing has been identified as a strong predictor in evaluating the reading readiness of a child within the early years of school (Source you said in your introduction that you were going to be looking at this area but you did not which is fine but ensure there you consistently and accurately report on what you will be doing in a study). Based on the two articles reviewed in this paper, there does not appear to be Currently there is no consensus regarding the dimensionality of phonological awareness and the underlying constructs that make it up (colloquial expression see APA pg. 37) . Despite this what can you possibly conclude? Do not restate information outlined earlier rather summarize and drawn conclusions. It is likely that phonological awareness is a complex ability that consists of a number of skills. These skills may be present at all ages (to varying degrees) or they may develop in a sequential order. Irrespective of this fact, the above reviewed studies suggest that a comprehensive approach is needed to the assessment of phonological awareness. Areas to

Phonological Awareness Assessments 7 be included within such assessments are: Then link back to contemporary measures and reiterate they may not be sufficient and suggestions for improvements in this practice.

Runge & Watkins (2006) suggest a two-dimensional approach involving phonological tasks and rhyming. More recent studies (Vloedgraven & Verhoeven 2007; 2009) suggest a unidimensional approach that views phonological skills on a continuum based on developmental gains and utilized item response theory in the test designs. A more comprehensive picture of reading readiness emerges when specific developmental skill sets are assessed. This allows for targeted interventions for struggling readers early in their educational experience. Additional research needs to be conducted following the assessment battery used by Vloedgraven & Verhoeven (2007; 2009) to see if these findings can be replicated in North American schools. This comprehensive approach is what is needed in the assessment of phonological processing for accuracy and increased predictability.

Overall this is a good paper. You clearly are demonstrating some key writing skills. What you need to work on is integrating the provided information together. What is similar and dissimilar about the reviewed research? What does this tell you? How does it inform your practice (i.e., review your conclusion in contrast to the short piece I wrote) Can you see how I am working to integrate the information into a cohesive conclusion? As well, more work is needed on links within your paper, e.g., links between sections and linking back to earlier ideas (e.g., return back to the contemporary measures in your conclusion).

Phonological Awareness Assessments 8

References McLouglin, J.A., & Lewis (2008). Assessing students with special needs (7th edition). Upper indent Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Runge, T. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2006). The structure of phonological awareness among kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 35(3), 370-386. Vloedgraven, J. M. T., & Verhoeven, L. (2007). Screening of phonological awareness in the early elementary grades: An IRT approach. Annals of Dyslexia, 57(1), 33-50. Vloedgraven, J. M. T., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). The nature of phonological awareness throughout the elementary grades: An item response theory perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 161-169.

Phonological Awareness Assessments 9