Topics in Early Childhood

Special Education

Successful Phonological Awareness Instruction Volume 28 Number 1

May 2008 03-17
© 2008 Hammill Institute on
With Preschool Children Disabilities
10.1177/0271121407313813
http://tecse.sagepub.com
Lessons From the Classroom hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Beth M. Phillips
Jeanine Clancy-Menchetti
Christopher J. Lonigan
Florida State University

Phonological awareness is one of several key precursor skills to conventional literacy that develop during the preschool period.
Significant amounts of research support the causal and predictive relation between phonological awareness and children’s ease
of learning to decode and spell. However, many preschool curricula and early childhood educational and caregiving settings are
still lacking in robust instruction in this area, and many preschool instructors do not yet have a strong grasp of the developmen-
tal trajectory of phonological awareness nor of how to incorporate effective support and instruction into a developmentally
appropriate teaching plan. This article summarizes what is known from high-quality research about the development of phono-
logical awareness and about how this informs effective pedagogical strategies for its instruction. Numerous examples are given
of effective instructional strategies derived from randomized trials of preschool curricula and interventions.

Keywords: early education programs; emergent literacy; evidence-based practices; phonological awareness; readiness;
school(s); literacy; intervention strategies

S ignificant research and professional development

efforts in the past several decades have focused on
increasing scholarly and pedagogical knowledge about
their meaning. It is an increasingly sophisticated capa-
bility that is highly predictive of, and causally related to,
children’s later ability to read (Ehri et al., 2001; Lonigan,
the nature and relevance of phonological awareness for 2003; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1999; Storch &
children’s early literacy development (e.g., National Whitehurst, 2002). Findings from several decades of
Reading Panel, 2000; Wagner et al., 1997; Whitehurst & research converge on the idea that most children who
Lonigan, 1998). Despite these concerted efforts, many have difficulties learning to read have a core deficit in
early childhood educators, particularly those providing phonological awareness and related processing skills
child care and preschool education, are lacking in a (Share & Stanovich, 1995; Wagner et al., 1997). In other
sophisticated understanding of phonological awareness words, regardless of what other types of language and cog-
and of how to appropriately promote its development in nitive difficulties a child might display, a problem in per-
young children (Dickinson & Brady, 2005; Moats & forming and applying phonological awareness capabilities
Foorman, 2003; Phillips, Menchetti, Lonigan, & Farver, is at the heart of most children’s reading problems. One key
2007; Zill & Resnick, 2006). As a result, opportunities goal of instruction and intervention in the preschool period
are missed for supporting the emergent literacy develop- is, therefore, to minimize the number of children who
ment of many children, particularly those from back- develop later reading problems by maximizing the number
grounds that make them at risk for reading difficulties. who enter kindergarten with sufficient phonological skills
The goal of this article is to explain and clarify pedagog- to benefit from formal reading instruction.
ically relevant aspects of phonological awareness devel- Phonological awareness and phonics are terms
opment and to provide research-supported guidance for describing two related constructs that often are confused.
its successful instruction in early childhood. Phonological awareness is distinct from phonics.
Whereas phonological awareness is a measurable capa-
What Is Phonological Awareness? bility that each child can possess in smaller or greater
amounts, phonics is a method of reading instruction that
Phonological awareness is the ability to detect and focuses on the associations of letter sounds with printed
manipulate the sound structure of words independent of letters or groups of letters. Having strong phonological
3
4 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

awareness skills likely aids children in benefiting from phonological awareness skills than more affluent peers.
phonics instruction. This discrepancy holds for the other key emergent liter-
Another important distinction to be made is between acy skills of print knowledge and oral language as well.
phonological awareness and phonemic awareness. In this Data indicate that there is a persistent gap in skill level
case, one is a subtype of the other. Phonological aware- and in rate of new skill acquisition (Lonigan, 2003,
ness represents a range of manipulation and detection 2007a, 2007b). Current theory suggests that these social
skills across different sizes of sound pieces. Phonemic class differences in early skill levels likely are related to
awareness, however, specifically refers to the ability to early language environments and vocabulary develop-
manipulate and detect the smallest sound pieces in ment (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003; Landry,
words, the phonemes (e.g., /b/, /s/, and /th/ all are Smith, Millar-Loncar, & Swank, 1997; Lonigan, 2003,
phonemes). For example, the ability to say that the word 2007b) as well as to the general home literacy environ-
hat has three phonemes, or to know that the sounds /p/ /i/ ment (e.g., Evans, Shaw, & Bell, 2000; Lonigan, Dyer, &
/g/ together make up the word pig, are indications that a Anthony, 1996; Payne, Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994;
child possesses phonemic awareness. Phillips & Lonigan, 2005, 2007; Sénéchal & LeFevre,
2002). Such findings suggest that instruction in phono-
Why Phonological Awareness Is Important logical awareness and other emergent literacy skills is
for Later Reading especially critical for preschool children from these at-
risk backgrounds if early education is to meet its aspira-
Children’s understanding that words are made up of tional goal of closing the gap in educational achievement
smaller sounds such as syllables and phonemes helps for children who grow up in conditions of poverty.
them to “break the code” of written language and acquire Phonological awareness, as with other decoding
the alphabetic principle. The alphabetic principle refers to skills, is not an intuitive or naturally developing ability,
the fact that written words represent spoken words in a as language skills may be for some children, but rather
sound-by-sound correspondence. Sounds are signified by may require deliberate teaching and practice opportuni-
a single letter, or, in some cases, several letters indicating ties. The greater challenge in learning is, in part, because
a single sound in a word (e.g., sh and ch). When teachers phonemes do not naturally exist in spoken language.
and parents tell a child who is trying to write or read to When both children and adults speak, they do not dis-
“sound it out,” this suggestion will only make sense if the tinctly pronounce each isolated phoneme. Instead,
child grasps the concept that the word can be broken human speech includes what is called “coarticulation” of
down into these smaller components. Phonological the speech sounds, with each phoneme affected by the
awareness, letter name knowledge, and letter sound ones preceding it, subsequent to it, or both. For example,
knowledge come together in young children to forge this not all words that begin with the letter b include the same
conceptual understanding and to facilitate reading and version of the /b/ phoneme. When we say words such as
writing development. This is accomplished when bit, bright, or body, the phoneme is pronounced differ-
children use their understanding of the regular relation- ently depending on what vowel or consonant comes after
ships between sounds and letters to sound out unknown (test this yourself by noticing your own mouth movements
words (Ehri, 2002; Foorman et al., 2003; Phillips & while saying the /b/ sound in these words). The fact that
Torgesen, 2006; Share & Stanovich, 1995). A strong phonemes do not exist as distinct units of sound when
grasp of phonological awareness also may help children people speak, and that children and adults may be more
understand that the alphabetic principle applies despite disposed to pay attention to the meaning of words than to
the fact that in English, two or more letters can stand for the specific sounds of words, represents a potential barrier
the same sound in different words (e.g., c in cat and k in to developing phonological awareness at the phoneme and
koala both represent the /k/ sound, and ee, ea, and ei larger unit levels. This suggests that a key early focus of
spelling patterns all can signify the long /e/ vowel sound, phonological awareness instruction for many children is to
as in need, team, and receive). prompt them to learn to attend to the sound structure of
Research by Lonigan and colleagues (e.g., Lonigan, words in addition to what the words mean.
2004b; Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony, & Barker, 1998) and
others (e.g., Bowey, 1995; Chaney, 1994; Hecht,
The Developmental Continuum of
Burgess, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2000; Raz &
Bryant, 1990; Webb, Schwanenflugel, & Kim, 2004) has
Phonological Awareness
shown consistently that preschool and early school-age A growing amount of research with young children
children from lower income backgrounds and those demonstrates that the normative developmental progres-
whose parents have less education demonstrate lower sion of phonological awareness skill is from larger to
 Phillips et al. / Preschool Phonological Awareness Instruction 5

Figure 1 continuum. It is not a sequential-stage model in which

The Developmental Continuum of children must demonstrate full mastery of a skill at one
Phonological Awareness level before beginning to develop skill in the next level;
rather, children’s skills in multiple levels of the contin-
uum may develop at the same time (Anthony et al., 2003).
The other way in which children’s phonological
Phoneme
Awareness
awareness skill develops is across different types of tasks
Rhyme
Awareness with varied difficulty. Tasks that assess or teach phono-
logical awareness can include identity tasks (e.g., rhyme

Linguistic Complexity
Onset-Rime
Awareness oddity, first-sound matching), synthesis tasks (e.g., sylla-
ble or phoneme blending), or analysis tasks (e.g., word
or syllable segmenting or deleting, phoneme-counting
Syllable
Awareness tasks). Blending tasks typically are easier to manage than
analysis tasks, and tasks requiring production are more
challenging than recognition tasks. Also, as will be dis-
Word
Awareness cussed below, tasks supported by visual props or that use
Compound-Word
Awareness
multiple-choice items often are simpler for children than
those that require more memory or verbal production.

Development of Phonological Awareness

What the Continuum Suggests for
Note: The development of phonological awareness proceeds along a Instructional Practice
continuum from awareness of large, concrete units of sound, such as
words and syllables, to awareness of smaller abstract units of sound, One pragmatic implication of this continuum of
such as phonemes. This is not a stage model in which a child has to phonological awareness along levels of linguistic com-
master one level before moving to the next. Rather, as the overlap plexity and cognitive operation is that at any given point
between levels in the figure indicates, children show beginning levels
of skill on more complex levels while still working toward mastery of
in time, a classroom of preschool children will include
less complex levels. Children’s ability to combine words to form a children at numerous points along the continuum.
compound word (e.g., hot + dog = hotdog) or to remove one word Therefore, a teacher’s initial task is to use formal or infor-
from a compound word and say what remains (e.g., baseball – ball = mal assessment to identify where each child is showing
base) is one way to measure children’s word awareness. Children’s mastery. Whereas some children may enter the preschool
ability to detect words that rhyme with each other (e.g., indicating
classroom with relatively advanced skills, many others,
that hat rhymes with flat and cat but not ham or man) is one way to
measure children’s onset-rime awareness. likely those with one or more familial risk factors or lan-
guage delay, may demonstrate very underdeveloped skills
and perform quite poorly on initial assessments or infor-
successively smaller units of sound (Adams, 1990; mal probes. However, there is no evidence that could be
Anthony et al., 2002; Anthony, Lonigan, Driscoll, Phillips, interpreted to mean that teachers need to postpone phono-
& Burgess, 2003; Blachman, 1994; Lane, Pullen, Eisele, logical awareness instruction until children reach kinder-
& Jordan, 2002). As depicted in Figure 1, the continuum garten age or until they show mastery in nonlinguistic
of skill development moves from the capacity to manip- sound discrimination and matching (e.g., musical tones).
ulate words, such as words in phrases and words within In fact, regardless of their initial level of phonological
compounds (rain + bow = rainbow), to the syllable level awareness, children clearly can make substantial and sig-
(sister – /sis/ = /ter/), to onset-rime (/b/ + ird = bird), nificant progress in phonological awareness without
and finally to phonemes (/m/+/o/+/p/ = mop). In linguis- attending to, or specific knowledge of, their auditory dis-
tic terminology, the onset of a syllable (or word, in the crimination skills (e.g., Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991;
case of single-syllable words) is the initial consonant, Lonigan, Farver, Menchetti, Phillips, & Chamberlain,
consonant cluster (e.g., cl), or digraph (e.g., sh) in a 2005; Lonigan, Phillips, & Menchetti, 2006; Lonigan
word, and the rime of a syllable (or word, in the case of et al., in press-a; Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988).
a single-syllable word) is the vowel and the remainder of It is likely that preschool teachers will be confronted
the phonemes after the vowel. Note that in Figure 1, the with substantial diversity of knowledge in each new
squares representing these levels of linguistic complexity group of children. At present, with respect to phonological
overlap. This overlap represents the fact that the growth awareness instruction, there is no empirical evidence either
of phonological awareness is best represented as a in favor of or against the idea of matching instruction to the
6 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

child’s current skill level (i.e., as opposed to starting all classrooms, indicating that intentional instruction and
children at the same point or only teaching one level of use of small-group instruction were rare, irrespective of
the continuum). Early childhood pedagogical research the targeted skills (National Center for Early
and theory (e.g., Bedrova & Leong, 2006; Berk & Development and Learning [NCEDL], 2005). In particu-
Winsler, 1995; Rogoff, 1990) does, however, support the lar, the time spent on letter or sound activities averaged
concept of teaching within the near range of children’s 3%, and time spent in small groups averaged just 6%, of
abilities. Thus, we recommend that teachers become pro- the total daily time allocation.
ficient in teaching at multiple levels of the phonological Perhaps one reason for the dearth of phonological
awareness continuum and in understanding what tasks awareness instruction in preschool classrooms is the con-
are more or less challenging than others. Likewise, the cern expressed by some members of the early childhood
overwhelming majority of instructional approaches with education community that preschool is too early to begin
empirical support include small-group or individualized phonological awareness or other letter- and sound-focused
instruction (Lonigan et al., 2006; Rashotte, MacPhee, & instruction or that because of the children’s age, it would
Torgesen, 2001; What Works Clearinghouse, 2007c). not be effective or appropriate (Alliance for Childhood,
Therefore, we suggest that findings from an initial assess- 2006; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Elkind, 1987; Olfman,
ment of children should lead to grouping children into 2003). One of the most notable conclusions of the forth-
homogeneous subgroups, and then instruction should focus coming National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) report,
on the appropriate level of the continuum for each group. As however, is that phonological awareness interventions had
these children may progress along the continuum at differ- an equivalent, and substantial, effect on children regard-
ent rates, these groupings should be flexible and children less of whether they were of kindergarten or preschool age
regrouped as indicated by ongoing assessment. (Lonigan et al., in press-a). Furthermore, results showed
Instructional suggestions provided throughout this that children’s skills improved significantly regardless of
article are derived not only from developmental and the level of their print-related skills at the outset of inter-
experimental findings but also from principles of univer- vention. From a broader perspective, the recent research
sal design. That is, these pedagogical methods are studies conducted by Lonigan and colleagues, and by
intended to be appropriate for children with a wide range other early childhood educational researchers, clearly
of cognitive and sensory abilities, including those with refute the notion that early educators have to choose
developmental disabilities and delays. The instructional dichotomously between imaginative, play-based, and
principles described are fully consistent with current best developmentally focused activities and activities that
practices for children with developmental disabilities enhance early literacy skills such as phonological aware-
and delays (i.e., small-group instruction, explicit instruc- ness. Rather, these and similar studies show that children
tion, individualized differential instruction, scaffolding can benefit from well-designed early literacy instruc-
techniques; see also Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & tion in a developmentally appropriate preschool context
Beeler, 1998). Furthermore, as detailed below, many of that also involves daily opportunities for independent
the experimental studies in which these methods have exploration, dramatic play, and other important activities
been evaluated included significant representation of of early childhood (Landry, Swank, Smith, Assel, &
children with a range of developmental disabilities, pri- Gunnewig, 2006; Lonigan et al., 2005, 2006; Phillips &
marily children with speech and language disabilities Lonigan, 2005). In fact, empirically supported instruc-
and delays (e.g., Lonigan et al., 2005, 2006). tional methods rely on very consistent, but brief and inter-
Despite the evidentiary support for the efficacy and active, small-group or individual sessions lasting no
benefits of phonological awareness instruction in this longer than 10 to 15 min a day (Ehri et al., 2001; Lonigan
age group, recent observational research indicates a et al., in press-a; What Works Clearinghouse, 2007c).
striking absence of such instruction in preschool class- Such findings support the idea that effective phonological
rooms. In a recent intervention study, nine classrooms awareness instruction can be integrated into a curriculum
assigned to a “business-as-usual” condition were repeat- that simultaneously supports the development of
edly observed during a 2-year period. The observers children’s language, social, and motor skills and general
encountered phonological awareness activities, regard- knowledge and interests.
less of the group size or whether they were explicit or
implicit, in only 12% to 15% of the observations
(Phillips et al., 2007). Similarly, in a recent multistate
The Issue of Rhyme
study of state-funded pre-K, researchers found a rela- Long before researchers and educators became aware
tively low average rating for the instructional climate of of the powerful link between phonological awareness
 Phillips et al. / Preschool Phonological Awareness Instruction 7

and reading, parents and teachers of young children have how much more complex the task might be for a 4- or 5-
been singing songs, reading books, and playing games year-old child if instead of pig, he or she was faced with the
associated with rhyming. Many have experienced a same task using the words cup, cat, and bat. Now, the word
child’s enjoyment of the cadence and humor in these cup shares an onset with one of the other two words—a
rhyming texts. The assumption that rhyming falls under possible challenge to his or her focus on words sharing
the umbrella of phonological awareness abilities has led ending, rather than beginning, sounds (Carroll &
many educators either to assume that the rhyming activities Snowling, 2001).
already present within their curriculum were sufficient for Preschool intervention studies also suggest that when
building skills or to expect that rhyming is among the eas- compared head-to-head with phonological awareness
iest of the phonological awareness capabilities and that it instruction focused on alternative tasks and activities,
should be a central focus of early literacy activities children exposed to rhyming interventions made less
(Culatta, Kovarsky, Theadore, Franklin, & Timler, 2003; progress. In fact, none of the studies that form the empir-
Majsterek, Shorr, & Erion, 2000; Snow et al., 1999). ical basis in support of modular phonological awareness
Although rhyming is indeed part of the phonological instruction has used rhyming as its level of instruction
awareness construct (e.g., Anthony et al., 2002; Anthony & (What Works Clearinghouse, 2007c, 2007d; Yeh, 2003).
Lonigan, 2004; Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000), Likewise, the few comprehensive preschool curricula
evidence shows that rhyming is not necessarily the most that have empirical support for their impact on phono-
evidence based of the pedagogical choices or the simplest logical awareness include rhyming only as one of several
phonological awareness skill to master (Lonigan, 2007a; levels of phonological awareness instruction (What
Woods, 1998). To understand why this is the case, consider Works Clearinghouse, 2007a, 2007b, 2007e).
that rhyming activities might involve identifying which Of course, none of this implies that children will not
two of three words rhyme in a matching task or identifying enjoy exposure to nursery rhymes, Dr. Seuss books, and
which word in a trio does not rhyme with the others (e.g., other rhyming classic and more modern texts and songs. It
rhyme oddity). Another popular task and instructional is also possible that such exposure may aid children in
game, potentially the most challenging of all, is rhyme pro- learning to pay attention to the sound structure in words as
duction (i.e., responding correctly to a query of “Say a well as the semantic structure. However, the instructional
word that rhymes with boat”). All of these rhyme tasks rely implications from the developmental and efficacy research
on the basic fact that words rhyme because they share a are several. First, it is likely that teachers who mistakenly
common rime, or ending sound, and thus, these tasks rep- consider rhyme manipulations or productions to be entry-
resent assessment or instruction of skills near the middle of level skills that children can master readily may find them-
the developmental continuum of phonological awareness. selves frustrated and bewildered by the confusion and poor
Indeed, evidence from some developmental and interven- performance demonstrated by their students. Second, the
tion samples indicates that contrary to popular belief, com- studies suggest that if teachers are to include a focus on
petence at these types of rhyme matching, oddity, and rhyming in their instructional plans, then the expectation
production tasks arrives on average at an older age than likely needs to be that children will benefit from repeated
does the capability to manipulate segments of compound exposure, explicit teaching of what it means to rhyme, and
words, syllables, and perhaps even some phoneme-level a high degree of scaffolding (i.e., supportive verbal
skills (Dorr, 1999; Lonigan, 2007a). prompts and modeling; Roth, Troia, Worthington, & Dow,
One way of explaining why rhyme manipulations are 2002). Moreover, given the metalinguistic skills involved,
actually more difficult than they may appear is to do a kind it may be best to teach rhyming in the context of explicit
of task analysis and break down the component abilities onset-rime instruction rather than as a stand-alone activity.
within the successful performance of a rhyme oddity prob- Third, and perhaps most important, the findings suggest
lem, for example. Suppose a child is confronted with three that teachers looking for an efficient and effective linguis-
pictures: of a cat, a bat, and a pig. To correctly identify pig tic focus may be better served by teaching children phono-
as the odd one out, the child must first know what it means logical awareness via word, syllable, onset-rime, and
to rhyme—that words share the same ending sounds. The phoneme-level manipulations rather than exclusively or
child must then attend to the sound structure in all three predominantly through more traditional rhyming activities.
words and mentally segment the /at/ and /ig/ sounds from
the onsets of /c/, /b/, and /p/. He or she then has to compare Pedagogical Strategies for Young Children
these ending vowel-consonant rime sounds across the three
words. Finally, the child needs to conclude that cat and bat The instructional strategies presented below are derived
share a rime, whereas pig has a different rime. Imagine from the processes and outcomes of three curriculum and
8 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

intervention studies with preschool children that pro- implicit instruction carry the presumption that all
duced statistically significant and educationally mean- children bring to the instructional situation a level of
ingful effects on the children’s phonological awareness conceptual understanding by which they can benefit
development (Lonigan, 2004a; Lonigan et al., 2005, from this type of instruction. For phonological awareness
2006). Children served within these studies included typ- instruction, this conceptual understanding (i.e., the
ical children; children with mild, moderate, and severe knowledge and skills necessary to help children think
developmental disabilities; and English language learn- about and understand the learning process and its goals)
ers. These projects were conducted in collaboration both would include aspects such as the understanding that
with certified teachers serving Title I prekindergarten they should attend to the sound structure of words, an
children and with noncertified teachers in Head Start understanding of what it means to blend sounds, and the
centers and other child care settings. knowledge of what it means for words to rhyme.
The goal here is to summarize the core pedagogical It is clear from developmental and observational
content knowledge accrued during the development and research that a presumption of children’s preexisting con-
implementation of these studies and several other ongo- ceptual understanding is inaccurate in many classroom
ing projects with the same age group and younger contexts (Neuman & Roskos, 1993; Zill & Resnick,
children. These suggestions also are consistent with the 2006). Therefore, many children require a more explicit
methodologies of the effective studies surveyed by the and systematic type of instruction that follows a care-
NELP and the What Works Clearinghouse in their fully planned scope and sequence and that intentionally
respective comprehensive reviews of early code-focused includes a focus on building conceptual understandings
instruction (Lonigan et al., in press-a; What Works in the process of helping children to master specific
Clearinghouse, 2007c, 2007d). Although not promoting tasks. There are several key elements to providing sys-
a particular curriculum or specific instructional activi- tematic and explicit instruction. These include instruc-
ties, the information reviewed below may assist early tional sequencing, modeling, and explaining the task;
childhood teachers in scrutinizing, selecting, or develop- scaffolding; and providing corrective feedback. Each of
ing the phonological awareness component of classroom these is described below in the context of phonological
curricula. Throughout each of the following sections are awareness instruction for the preschool age group.
examples of accommodations and modifications that Instructional sequencing requires the teacher to plan
may be useful when working with children with devel- ahead of time what is going to be taught (e.g., phono-
opmental disabilities and delays and ways in which logical awareness skills), the order in which it is going to
speech language pathologists and other early interven- be taught (e.g., compound words, syllables, onset and
tion specialists can provide integrated small-group and rime, phoneme), the pacing of instruction, and how it is
individualized instruction that supports both individual going to be taught (e.g., whole group, small group, or
children’s Individualized Education Program goals and one-on-one). A lesson plan that includes these details
the needs of the inclusive classrooms. serves as the teacher’s “instructional road map” and
should reflect the coherent and intentional design as well
as the planned presentation of the instruction. Classroom
Systematic and Explicit Instruction management strategies that encourage children to learn
A teacher whose goals include providing every child routines and schedules also help teachers to maximize
with the opportunity to make substantial advances in his the instructional time during each day and to ensure that
or her phonological awareness capabilities is unlikely to children receive the level of instructional intensity they
find that incidental or implicit instruction alone will suf- need to learn these novel concepts and skills. Moreover,
fice. Incidental instruction relies on seizing the moment well-managed transitions and small groups help support
to bring up a phonological awareness topic in interac- the needs of children with attention and behavioral diffi-
tions with children, typically prompted by a text or song culties, a significant challenge that in many children goes
with rhymes or by something a child says that prompts hand in hand with developmental disabilities and difficul-
attention to the sound structure in words, rather than ties in learning to read (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002; Nelson,
intentionally introducing these topics in planned instruc- Benner, & Gonzales, 2003; Torgesen et al., 1999).
tional sequences. Likewise, implicit instruction in During instructional activities, pacing can contribute
phonological awareness, albeit more planful, typically to student attentiveness if it moves quickly but not so fast
focuses exclusively on exposure to different sound pat- as to cause unnecessary errors. A fast pace helps students
terns and on teachers’ commenting about shared sounds stay engaged, provides more practice time, and helps
between words. To varying degrees, both incidental and students maintain on-task behavior—thus reducing
 Phillips et al. / Preschool Phonological Awareness Instruction 9

behavior management problems (Zanolli, Daggett, & teacher would make connections throughout the day to
Pestine, 1995). One way to maintain an optimal pace is reinforce the phonological awareness lesson. For example,
to limit the number of different lesson formats so that if the lesson had been on compound words, the teacher
children can focus their attention on the conceptual tasks might have compound-word cards in the writing center,
at hand rather than on learning a new procedural or game books with multiple examples of compound words in the
sequence. Likewise, limiting task variability within the reading center, an art activity focusing on creating pictures
instructional session makes learning the task easier. of the two independent words of a compound word, transi-
Attempting to teach too many skills in one session can be tion signals using compound words, and so on.
overwhelming for the novice learner. Limiting the focus Some children with disabilities or classroom behav-
of each phonological session to a single skill is effective ioral difficulties may benefit from additional structured
and efficient, as it reduces the complexity of introducing practice with the teacher or an early intervention special-
numerous skills that would increase the memory ist, particularly with newly introduced concepts and with
demands for the child. Pacing considerations may be novel additions to the classroom environment. For
particularly important when working with children with example, if the teacher adds a set of rhyming-word puz-
cognitive and language impairments, as they may bene- zles to the writing center for independent exploration,
fit from a slightly slower pace and more “wait time” to some children may need more explicit guidance on how
allow them to process the verbal and visual prompts and to interact meaningfully with the new materials.
formulate a response. A hallmark of explicit instruction is that it includes spe-
Planned redundancy or systematic review helps cific teacher statements and behaviors that make it very
preschool-age children gain mastery of newly acquired clear to the students both what they are being asked to do
skills. This means that newly introduced skills, concepts, and what it looks like when accomplished. Instructional
and vocabulary need to be repeated and revisited as a nat- strategies typically used include defining the concept (e.g.,
ural occurrence not just throughout the day but as a “Compound words are words made up of two separate
planned, ongoing cycle throughout the year. Young words combined together to make a new, different word”),
children need to use newly acquired skills in multiple set- modeling and explaining (“When I put sea and shell
tings to help them gain proficiency. Setting up the class- together, they become seashell”), providing guided prac-
room environment and teacher-child interactions to tice with feedback, and following with supported practice
provide children with multiple opportunities to explore and and then independent practice. These different types of
utilize newly acquired skills and concepts is a vital means practice relate to how much support, or scaffolding, a
of supporting and encouraging phonological awareness child needs to be able to successfully produce the targeted
development. As an analogy, a print-rich environment pro- behavior (e.g., saying the compound word or identifying
vides many opportunities for children to see and actively the piece left when a sound piece is removed). The scaf-
engage in print-related activities (e.g., having a classroom folding is directed at providing just the right amount of
library, a listening center, or a writing center; displaying support for the child to arrive at the correct answer or per-
examples of children’s writing around the room; taking form a skill independently. Support may include verbal
dictation on children’s art work; and demonstrating writing cues or reminders after an error occurs. The error may
during group time, to name a few). In the same way, an indicate a skill or conceptual deficit, in which case the
environment in which teachers include review of phono- skill may need to be further divided into smaller steps or
logical awareness instruction as brief transitional activities task analyzed to help the child gain mastery. Other types
and as whole-group games, where the picture cards and of support may include repeated modeling, providing
props from the instructional groups are made available to additional examples, and guided practice. For example,
children for independent play and where teachers seize during an activity on compound words, a child may have
opportune moments for incidental reinforcement, can sup- difficulty blending the two separate words into one. The
port children’s mastery of these new skills and can con- teacher may say, “What word is this, cow (2 s pause)
tribute to the rich language and conceptual milieu of the boy?” If the child does not answer, the teacher can repeat
classroom. An observer in a classroom abundant in phono- with a shorter pause between the two words, “What word,
logical awareness would see planned, systematic, explicit cow (1 s pause) boy?” Additionally, the teacher could use
instruction in one of the phonological awareness modules pictures during this activity. He or she could hold up a pic-
taking place with small groups of children. The instruc- ture of a cow and a boy. When the words are said sepa-
tional format would be gamelike in manner and use visual rately, the two pictures are held apart, and when the words
props and hand signals. The teacher would rotate small are said together, the teacher moves the pictures together
groups until all the children participated. Additionally, the and asks, “What word?”
10 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

Feedback to children is most effective when it is spe- might experience when a teacher sounds out the word stop
cific, positive, frequent, and immediate. Effective feed- in this manner, /ssSs/ /tuh/ /OOo/ /puh/, and then asking the
back is specific as opposed to generic (e.g., “You’re child, “What word?”).
right, the first sound in deer and dog is /d/” vs. “Good As children will repeat the teacher’s model, it is
job”). Frequent positive reinforcement is especially imperative that the modeled letter-sound production be
important during the skill acquisition phase, when the articulate and clear. Teachers also need to model correctly
child is learning the new skill. Positive feedback should the space between sounds when conducting blending and
be provided immediately following the desired behavior segmenting activities. In multisyllabic words, teachers
or response; this lets the child know what he or she is need to be very careful not to repeat letter consonant
doing right. Likewise, when providing corrective feed- sounds in words that contain repeated consonants, such as
back, it is important to distinguish whether the error is butter (bu/ter, not but/ter). In Standard American English,
because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of attentiveness. the letters that make stop sounds are b, c, d, g, j, k, p, q, t,
A lack of knowledge indicates a skill limitation requiring and x. The letter h and the ch sound, although not stop
the appropriate instructional support and additional scaf- sounds, also can be challenging to articulate without
folding. A lack of attention on the part of the student adding extra sounds. The letters that make continuous
requires the teacher to focus on the child’s motivation sounds are a, e, f, i, l, m, n, o, r, s, u, v, w, y, and z.
and increase his or her eagerness to learn or to focus on
minimizing distractions in the environment. Within these Scaffolding Children’s Learning
instructional contexts, the provision of corrective feed-
back is not “high stakes” for the children, and all Nonverbal cues can be used to support children’s task
children can feel successful, motivated, and supported engagement and understanding, to maintain good pac-
regardless of their actual performance. Positive feedback ing, and to minimize behavioral problems during instruc-
for even partially correct responses or good efforts may tion. Many classrooms are filled with a variety of
be especially important for maintaining the motivation nonverbal cues—signals that alert the children to a tran-
and attention of children, such as those who may have sition, a request, or some other requirement without the
cognitive delays and who may initially struggle with teacher’s having to speak. For example, many teachers
some of these activities. blink the lights on and off (or ring a bell) to cue the
children that it is time to stop what they are doing, clean
up, and get ready for the next activity. The visual and
Specific Pedagogical Features Important for
auditory cues can be seen or heard by all the children
Phonological Awareness Instruction simultaneously. Research on the use of signals (Cowart,
One of the most salient features of phonological aware- Carnine, & Becker, 1976) indicates that the use of sig-
ness instruction is the importance of clear and consistent nals by a teacher resulted in the students’ attending more
articulation. Many letters—especially vowels—have more and responding at higher levels.
than one sound. The most common sound of a letter is the Nonverbal cues can be used during small-group time to
one produced in a short, one-syllable word, such as sun or signal a child to respond after a teacher directive. For
mad. For vowels, the most common sound is the short example, if a child starts to speak while the teacher is
vowel sound (the a in bat, e in set, i in fit, o in hot, and u in explaining directions, the teacher can hold up his or her
nut). When producing letter sounds, it is important to hand like a stop sign to signal the child to wait before talk-
understand the difference between stop sounds and contin- ing. This is less obtrusive and keeps the group focused on
uous sounds (i.e., most fricatives, nasals, and approxi- the lesson. The teacher may also want to teach the students
mants). A stop sound can only be “said” for an instant, that different hand signals mean different things depending
whereas continuous sounds can be said for several seconds. on the nature of the task. For example, during a lesson on
Holding a stop sound for longer than an instant distorts its compound words, when the teacher holds the picture cards
sound. For example, the letter b makes the /b/ sound, not apart, the children say the two words with a pause between
/buh/. It is critical not to add the uh at the end of any letter them (segmenting); when the pictures are placed side by
sound, as it will cause confusion for the child. When mak- side, the students say the words together (blending).
ing a continuous sound, the voice should be held in a Another positive implication of the use of signals is that it
monotone fashion without raising or lowering the voice in allows the student the opportunity to initiate his or her own
a “sing-song” manner. For example, the letter m makes the response (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1997).
/mmm/ sound. Again, this is to avoid confusion (imagine One successfully implemented, strategic use of non-
the misunderstandings and opportunities for errors children verbal cues is to introduce hand and body gestures to
 Phillips et al. / Preschool Phonological Awareness Instruction 11

accompany the auditory phonological awareness activities. course, for a child who is demonstrating strong perfor-
The most ubiquitous and familiar version of this is clap- mance with visual support, removing the pictures can
ping while counting, such as clapping the number of appropriately increase the challenge and allow for gener-
words in a phrase or the number of syllables in the alization to words that are not as easily pictured (e.g.,
children’s names. Going beyond that, teachers in experi- adjectives, verbs, etc.).
mental intervention studies have found that physical The use of boxes or markers to represent each word,
movements that represent the act of putting sounds syllable, or phoneme can help make oral activities more
together or taking them apart can be a useful augmentation concrete for young children (Castiglioni-Spalten & Ehri,
during word-, syllable-, and phoneme-level blending or 2003). A number of evidence-based phonemic awareness
elision tasks. Teachers can model gestures such as holding curricula make use of these visual aids, and some evi-
hands wide apart and then bringing them together to rep- dence suggests that the use of blank markers can be an
resent the concept and action of blending two syllables or intermediary step between purely auditory and writing-
compound-word elements. Children may also be taught to linked activities, in which the next step would be to use
use such gestures themselves when they are engaged in individual letter tiles to represent each phoneme.
these blending and segmenting activities. Children with Many of the activities teachers use to teach phonologi-
limited oral language or mobility can be given adaptive cal awareness may include multiple-choice-type tasks
response modalities, such as pointing, nodding, or using where the child is asked to choose the option that rhymes
images within their communication boards. with or starts or ends with the same sound as a presented
Given that phonological awareness activities require a word. This type of task also can work well with some
child to hold a representation of multiple sound pieces in blending or deletion tasks where the target choice is the
memory while performing a manipulation (i.e., blending correct remainder when a sound is removed (i.e., a picture
or separating sounds), the use of picture or object props of a key, when the teacher says, “Point to monkey without
can help ease the memory load and enable better task the /mon/ sound”). In developing such activities, it is
performance. A child who can be looking at the image of important to keep in mind that the nature of the alternative,
a pony, for example, is likely to bring more cognitive incorrect choices presented can increase or decrease the
resources to bear on the task of producing the segment difficulty level of the task. For example, in a rhyming task
po when asked, “What do you get when you say pony where the presented word is bug, the task would be harder
without ny?” than will a child who must also remember if one of the foils was bus or nut, both words that share
the original word. Perhaps more important, the use of sound elements with the cue word without sharing the tar-
pictured items allows for children to demonstrate gradual get sound of the rime. Likewise, in a blending task for com-
skill mastery via less taxing multiple-choice, matching, pound words, having the component words be among the
and similar activities in which they can point to a picture choices along with the complete compound increases the
to indicate their response. These tasks are lower on the challenge, as it forces the child to focus very specifically on
continuum of task difficulty than are tasks in which a the sound-assembly task that yields the correct response
child is asked to produce the target word or component and not to just choose an option that seems to sound like
sound section of a word. Pictures of the words may be the cue words (i.e., if the teacher presented door and bell as
especially useful when manipulating compound words, the prompt, having images of a door, a bell, and a doorbell
such that one can display both the component word pic- as the options). As with all other scaffolding strategies,
tures and the image of the compound word, and when teachers can alter the difficulty level of teaching and prac-
pictures are cut into the same number of puzzle pieces as tice tasks for individual children by changing the multiple-
component parts (e.g., cutting a picture of a banana into choice options presented. Increasing the challenge is also
three pieces). Using pictures and other visual props one way of informally assessing whether a child truly
also allows children with limited expressive language grasps the underlying concept of the sound manipulation
abilities—because of delay, developmental disability, or tasks. In the same manner, tasks can be made simpler by
English language learner status—to actively participate reducing the number of choice options and by including
in the interactive learning in the preschool context. It incorrect options that are clearly distinct from the target.
would be particularly useful to build pictures from these
activities into the communication boards of children with
limited oral language. Likewise, adding knobs, hooks, or Other Instructional Considerations
other easily grasped devices onto picture cards or using
enlarged copies can allow students with limited fine A survey of published studies of phonological aware-
motor skills or impaired vision more independence. Of ness instruction in early childhood is important not only
12 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

for what it does support, as illustrated throughout this that almost all of the instructional studies to date that
article, but also for what it does not support. At present, yielded significant growth in letter knowledge also
virtually all phonological awareness interventions for included instruction in phonological awareness, and the
preschool and kindergarten that are supported by efficacy earlier National Reading Panel (2000) report on phone-
data have been conducted with individual children or with mic awareness instruction supported the inclusion of let-
small groups of children rather than with large groups ters when teaching phonemic awareness.
(Ehri & Roberts, 2006; Lonigan et al., in press-a; What At the same time, evidence from a preschool inter-
Works Clearinghouse, 2007c, 2007d). Furthermore, the vention study indicates that instruction in phonological
overwhelming majority of the successful efficacy studies awareness or letter knowledge alone will not always
have included explicit instructional strategies in which automatically lead to growth in the untaught skill area
the teacher clearly explains, models, and supports (Lonigan, 2004a). Moreover, instruction in phonological
children’s initial practice with the tasks. awareness that actively includes written letters, which is
In contrast to the strategies included within the inter- essentially the earliest stage of phonics instruction,
vention literature, observation of preschool classrooms assumes that children already know the names and, to
(Bracken & Fischel, 2006; NCEDL, 2005; Phillips et al., some degree, the sounds of individual letters. For
2007) and a review of popular preschool curricula (e.g., preschool-age children, for whom in many cases this is
Heroman & Jones, 2004; Hohmann & Weikert, 2002) an invalid assumption, teachers may need to use formal
indicate (where there is any relevant instruction at all) a and informal assessment results to determine whether
predominance of either whole-group activities, implicit children have acquired enough letter knowledge to bene-
activities, or the combination to teach phonological fit from a fully integrated instructional strategy that
awareness. Examples include reading rhyming stories, teaches phonological awareness by having children
whole-group clapping of syllables, and singing word manipulate written letters, rather than targeting phono-
play songs. Whereas no published study to date indicates logical awareness and letter knowledge in distinct but
that exposure to these more implicit activities or to contemporaneous instructional modules. That is,
instruction in large groups has null or negative effects on whereas letter name or sound knowledge is clearly not a
phonological awareness skills, there is an absence of prerequisite for sound-based phonological awareness
studies supporting that they have any positive effect. This instruction, it may be beneficial to ensure that children
implies that teachers would be best served by consider- know the sounds of letters used if conducting integrated,
ing these common—and no doubt enjoyable—implicit phonicslike instruction (i.e., using written letters to
experiences as supplemental to, rather than sufficient for, manipulate sounds or spell words).
a scope and sequence of phonological awareness instruc- Like phonological awareness, strong letter knowledge
tion. Teachers who want to implement instructional skills facilitate the acquisition of decoding ability and
strategies supported by scientific evidence should attend can be taught effectively with preschool children.
to the evidence for small-group or individual, systematic, Evidence from comprehensive instructional studies in
and explicit instruction. preschool classrooms (e.g., Lonigan, 2004a; Lonigan
et al., 2005) indicates that instruction in letter names and
sounds should be systematic and explicit. Virtually all of
Reciprocal Links With Print Knowledge
the pedagogical features discussed regarding phonologi-
and Oral Language cal awareness instruction apply comparably to teaching
A number of longitudinal studies (e.g., Burgess & letter names and sounds. Similarly, experimental evi-
Lonigan, 1998; Frost, 2001; Webb et al., 2004) indicate dence suggests that incidental and implicit exposure to
that the development of letter-name and letter-sound letters without explicit instruction is unlikely to result in
knowledge and the development of phonological aware- substantial growth in children’s letter knowledge
ness are reciprocally supportive and that both are strong (Lonigan et al., 2006). Children benefit from systematic
predictors of decoding skill. That is, growth in one skill opportunities to hear the letter names and sounds mod-
can set the stage for, and increase, improvement in the eled, to practice discriminating between different letters,
other. This may be particularly true for the link between and to practice both receptive (i.e., “Point to the letter
letter-sound knowledge and onset-rime and phoneme- G”) and expressive (i.e., “What is the name of this
level phonological awareness skills (e.g., Carroll, 2004; letter?”) identification of letters.
Foy & Mann, 2006; Johnston, Anderson, & Holligan, Preschool teachers are faced with numerous decisions
1996; Webb et al., 2004). Furthermore, the forthcoming regarding letter knowledge instruction, including the
NELP report (Lonigan et al., in press-a) demonstrates order in which to teach letters, whether to teach letter
 Phillips et al. / Preschool Phonological Awareness Instruction 13

names and sounds simultaneously or sequentially, and with expressive and receptive language delays from all
whether to teach uppercase, lowercase, or both. backgrounds demonstrate lower phonological awareness
Unfortunately, there is a lack of empirical evidence eval- than more typical peers, a factor contributing to these
uating and comparing these instructional choices. Recent children’s increased risk for reading problems (e.g.,
investigations do suggest, however, that children may Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin,
benefit from learning letter names before letter sounds 1999). Clearly, strong and consistent instruction in
(Justice, Pence, Bowles, & Wiggins, 2006; Share, 2004) vocabulary and other language skills is critically impor-
and may be most motivated by, and most readily learn, tant for young children, especially those from at-risk
the letters in their own names (Bloodgood, 1999; Phillips, backgrounds and those with known language difficulties,
Lonigan, & Graham, 2006; Treiman & Broderick, 1998). irrespective of its potential indirect impact on phonolog-
In the absence of more concrete experimental evidence, ical awareness development. Moreover, the NELP report
teachers should at a minimum focus on giving all (Lonigan et al., in press-b) and other data sources (e.g.,
children the opportunity to learn all the letter names and Storch & Whitehurst, 2002) indicate that various types of
as many sounds as possible and on planning instruction oral language component skills, such as vocabulary, syn-
such that exposure and manipulation activities with each tactical knowledge, and narrative understanding, are key
letter are repeated and cumulatively reviewed (i.e., as for reading comprehension later in elementary school.
opposed to a brief exposure to a letter and then no further All children can benefit from greater attention to lan-
opportunities to practice with that particular letter). guage instruction in preschool contexts. In particular,
Furthermore, teachers should assess children’s founda- children need opportunities to learn new vocabulary
tional understanding of the difference between letters words and concepts, to learn synonyms for known con-
and nonletters (e.g., other shapes, numerals) and provide cept labels, and to use new language in natural, function-
instruction in this preliminary capability where needed. ally relevant situations. A growing body of intervention
Likewise, the difficulty of letter identification and dis- and developmental research supports the importance and
crimination activities can be modified by controlling the capacity of teachers to enhance their students’ word
number of other letters included, by reducing task com- knowledge. Rich language environments and exposure to
plexity (e.g., matching to sample is simpler than select- book reading are needed but may be insufficient for many
ing from several options), and by being sure that children children without explicit, intentional vocabulary instruc-
with visual and motor impairments are given appropri- tion (Coyne, Simmons, Kame’enui, & Stoolmiller, 2004;
ately modified letter models to manipulate. Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002). Evidence-based
Vocabulary is another key skill area that appears to methods of vocabulary instruction within a book reading
have the possibility of increasing children’s phonological context include dialogic reading (Lonigan, Anthony,
awareness ability. Results of some intriguing studies Bloomfield, Dyer, & Samwel, 1999; Whitehurst et al.,
suggest the possibility that the larger a child’s vocabulary 1994) and explicit embedded and repeated vocabulary
becomes, particularly with more words that may share instruction (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Coyne, McCoach,
sound components, the more likely a child is to cogni- & Kapp, 2007), although of these, only dialogic reading
tively grasp the concept that words are made up of sound has been evaluated with a preschool-age group.
components, the key insight needed for growth in phono-
logical awareness and later phonemic decoding skill
(e.g., Metsala and Walley, 1998; Walley, Metsala, & Conclusions
Garlock, 2003). Results from a recent intervention study,
in fact, indicated that those children exposed to an inter- Whereas major educational organizations such as the
vention component focused on oral language but not one International Reading Association and the National
focused on phonological awareness nonetheless demon- Association for the Education of Young Children
strated modest but significant growth in their phonologi- (NAEYC, 1998, 2006) have dramatically altered their
cal skills (Lonigan, 2007b). Even outside of intervention positions regarding the need for, and appropriateness of,
contexts, rich language environments and accelerated teacher-initiated phonological awareness instruction
vocabulary development at home indeed may be one of with preschool children in the past several years,
the reasons that some children appear to develop phono- teachers in the field have lagged behind in their actual
logical awareness capabilities in the absence of specific incorporation of such instruction, as have the observa-
instruction and, conversely, may be one of the key fac- tional tools many research studies and organizations use
tors behind the gap seen in early phonological awareness to evaluate teachers and classroom environments (e.g.,
for children from less enriching homes. Many children Dickinson, 2002). It is likely that many preschool
14 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

teachers are lacking in clear pedagogical understanding questions: A response to Torgesen, Wagner, and Rashotte. Journal
of the relevant constructs as well as lacking in appropri- of Learning Disabilities, 27, 287–291.
Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). What’s in a name: Children’s name writing
ate curricular materials and, perhaps, motivation to
and literacy acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34,
change (McCutchen & Berninger, 1999). Of some 342–367.
promise, the new educational and performance standards Bowey, J. A. (1995). Socioeconomic status differences in preschool
recently developed by most states do include reference to phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement.
phonological awareness abilities (e.g., Florida Department Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 476–487.
of Education, 2005; Oklahoma Department of Human Bracken, S. S., & Fischel, J. E. (2006). Assessment of preschool
classroom practices: Application of Q-sort methodology. Early
Services, 2006) and may be the lever that promotes Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 417–430.
greater teacher awareness of and pedagogical develop- Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate
ment in teaching these important skills. The research and practice in early childhood programs (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC:
instructional strategies summarized in this article can National Association for the Education of Young Children.
serve as one more tool for teachers and early childhood Burgess, S. R., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Bidirectional relations of
phonological sensitivity and prereading abilities: Evidence from a
administrators in their efforts to provide all children with
preschool sample. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70,
effective, meaningful, and robust preschool educational 117–141.
experiences that continue to fit the framework of devel- Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program
opmentally appropriate practice while simultaneously to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of
working to close the educational gap. Educational Psychology, 83, 451–455.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (1997). Direct instruc-
tion reading (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
References Carroll, J. M. (2004). Letter knowledge precipitates phoneme seg-
mentation, but not phoneme invariance. Journal of Research in
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about Reading, 27, 212-225.
print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carroll, J. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2001). The effects of global simi-
Adams, M. J., Foorman, B., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). larity between stimuli on children’s judgment of rime and alliter-
Phonemic awareness in young children. Baltimore: Brookes. ation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 327–342.
Alliance for Childhood. 2006. A call to action on the education of Castiglioni-Spalten, M. L., & Ehri, L. C. (2003). Phonemic awareness
young children. Retrieved August 5, 2007, from http://www instruction: Contribution of articulatory segmentation to novice
.allianceforchildhood.net/pdf_files/call_action_education.pdf beginners reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7,
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are 25–52.
unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the litera- Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999).
ture. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316. Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from
Anthony, J. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2004). The nature of phonological a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies in Reading, 3,
sensitivity: Converging evidence from four studies of preschool 331–361.
and early-grade school children. Journal of Educational Chaney, C. (1994). Language development, metalinguistic awareness,
Psychology, 96, 43–55. and emergent literacy skills of 3-year-old children in relation to
Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., social class. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 371–394.
& Cantor, B. G. (2002). Structure of preschool phonological sensi- Cowart, J. B., Carnine, D. W., & Becker, W. C. (1976). The effects of
tivity: Overlapping sensitivity to rhyme, words, syllables, and signals on child behaviors during DISTAR instruction (University
phonemes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 65–92. of Oregon Follow Through Project Technical Report 76-1,
Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., & Appendix B, pp. 55–85).
Burgess, S. R. (2003). Preschool phonological sensitivity: A Coyne, M. D., McCoach, B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary inter-
quasi-parallel progression of word structure units and cognitive vention for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruc-
operations. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 470–487. tion to embedded instruction and incidental exposure. Learning
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing low-income Disability Quarterly, 30, 74–88.
children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., & Stoolmiller, M.
instruction. Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251–271. (2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook readings: An
Bedrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2006). Tools of the mind: The examination of differential effects. Exceptionality, 12, 145–162.
Vygotskian approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). New Culatta, B., Kovarsky, D., Theadore, G., Franklin, A., & Timler, A.
York: Prentice Hall. (2003). Quantitative and qualitative documentation of early liter-
Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: acy instruction. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, DC: 12, 172–188.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Shifting images of developmentally appro-
Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia priate practices as seen through different lenses. Educational
and specific language impairment: Same or different? Researcher, 31, 26–32.
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 858–886. Dickinson, D. K., & Brady, J. (2005). Toward effective support for
Blachman, B. (1994). What we have learned from longitudinal stud- language and literacy through professional development: A
ies of phonological processing and reading and some unanswered decade of experiences and data. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck
 Phillips et al. / Preschool Phonological Awareness Instruction 15

(Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional develop- Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L., & Swank, P. R.
ment (pp. 141–170). Baltimore: Brookes. (1997). Predicting cognitive-language and social growth curves
Dorr, R. E. (1999). The effect of task type and language vernacular from early maternal behaviors in children at varying degrees of
on rhyming in kindergarten, first, and second graders. biological risk. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1040–1053.
Unpublished dissertation. Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Smith, K. E., Assel, M. A., & Gunnewig,
Ehri, L. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and S. B. (2006). Enhancing early literacy skills for preschool
implications for teaching. In R. Stainthorp & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), children: Bringing a professional development model to scale.
Learning and teaching reading (pp. 7–28). London: British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 306–324.
Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II. Lane, H. B., Pullen, P. C., Eisele, M. R., & Jordan, L. (2002).
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub- Preventing reading failure: Phonological awareness assessment
Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruc- and instruction. Preventing School Failure, 46(3), 101–111.
tion helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Lonigan, C. J. (2003). Development and promotion of emergent liter-
Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, acy skills in preschool children at risk of reading difficulties. In B.
250–287. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties:
Ehri, L. C., & Roberts, T. (2006). The roots of learning to read and Bringing science to scale (pp. 23–50). Timonium, MD: York.
write: Acquisition of letters and phonemic awareness. In S. Lonigan, C. J. (2004a, August). Evaluation of components of a pre-
Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy literacy intervention with children at risk. Paper presented at the
research (Vol. 2, pp. 113–131). New York: Guilford. annual convention of the American Psychological Association,
Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation: Preschoolers at risk. New York: Honolulu, HI.
Knopf. Lonigan, C. J. (2004b). Emergent literacy skills and family literacy.
Evans, M. A., Shaw, D., & Bell, M. (2000). Home literacy activities In B. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook on family literacy: Research and
and their influence on early literacy skills. Canadian Journal of services (pp. 57–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Experimental Psychology, 54, 65–75. Lonigan, C. J. (2007a). Development of the components of phonolog-
Florida Department of Education. (2005). Voluntary prekindergarten ical awareness across the preschool year. Unpublished
education standards. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www manuscript.
.fldoe.org/earlylearning/perform.asp Lonigan, C. J. (2007b). Vocabulary development and the development
Foorman, B. R., Chen, D., Carlson, C., Moats, L., Francis, K. D., & of phonological awareness skills in preschool children. In R. K.
Fletcher, J. M. (2003). The necessity of the alphabetic principle to Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary
phonemic awareness instruction. Reading and Writing, 16, acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 15–31).
289–324. New York: Guilford.
Foy, J. G., & Mann, V. (2006). Changes in letter sound knowledge are Lonigan, C. J., Anthony, J. L., Bloomfield, B., Dyer, S. M., &
associated with development of phonological awareness in pre- Samwel, C. (1999). Effects of two preschool shared reading inter-
school children. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 143–161. ventions on the emergent literacy skills of children from low-
Frost, J. (2001). Differences in reading development among Danish income families. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 306–322.
beginning-readers with high versus low phonemic awareness on Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development
entering grade one. Reading and Writing, 14, 615–642. of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children:
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study.
experiences of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596–613.
Hecht, S. A., Burgess, S. R., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. L., & Barker, T. A. (1998).
Rashotte, C. A. (2000). Explaining social class differences in Development of phonological sensitivity in two- to five-year-old
growth of reading skills from beginning kindergarten through children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 294–311.
fourth-grade: The role of phonological awareness, rate of access, Lonigan, C. J., Dyer, S. M., & Anthony, J. L. (1996, April). The influ-
and print knowledge. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary ence of the home literacy environment on the development of lit-
Journal, 12, 99–127. eracy skills in children from diverse racial and economic
Heroman, C., & Jones, C. (2004). Literacy: The Creative Curriculum backgrounds. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
approach. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies. American Educational Research Association, New York.
Hoff, E. (2003). Causes and consequences of SES-related differences Lonigan, C. J., Farver, J. M., Menchetti, J., Phillips, B. M., &
in parent-to-child speech. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley Chamberlain, S. E. (2005, April). Impacting the development of
(Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development children’s emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of
(pp. 147–160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. a literacy-focused curriculum. Paper presented at the biennial
Hohmann, M., & Weikert, D. P. (2002). Young children in action: A meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
manual for preschool educators (Rev. ed.) Ypsilanti, MI: Atlanta, GA.
High/Scope. Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., & Menchetti, J. C. (2006, July).
Johnston, R. S., Anderson, M., & Holligan, C. (1996). Knowledge of Impact of preschool literacy curricula: Results of a randomized
the alphabet and explicit awareness of phonemes in prereaders: trial. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the
The nature of the relationship. Reading and Writing: An Scientific Study of Reading, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 217–234. Canada.
Justice, L. M., Pence, K., Bowles, R. B., & Wiggins, A. (2006). An Lonigan, C. J., Schatschneider, C., Westberg, L., & the National Early
investigation of four hypotheses concerning the order by which 4- Literacy Panel. (in press-a). Impact of code-focused interventions
year-old children learn the alphabet letters. Early Childhood on young children’s early literacy skills: Report of the National
Research Quarterly, 21, 374–389. Early Literacy Panel. Louisville, KY: Author.
16 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

Lonigan, C. J., Schatschneider, C., Westberg, L., & the National Early Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary
Literacy Panel. (in press-b). Results of the National Early Literacy acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to sto-
Panel research synthesis: Identification of children’s skills and ries: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of
abilities linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling. Educational Psychology, 94(1), 23–33.
Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Louisville, KY: Phillips, B. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2005). Social correlates of emer-
Author. gent literacy. In C. Hulme & M. Snowling (Eds.), The science
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O. P. (1988). The effects of an of reading: A handbook (pp. 173–187). Malden, MA:
extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in Blackwell.
preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284. Phillips, B. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2007, July). Variations in home lit-
Majsterek, D. J., Shorr, D. N., & Erion, V. L. (2000). Promoting early eracy environments: A cluster analytic view of an early childhood
literacy through rhyme detection activities during Head Start sample. Paper presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Society
circle-time. Child Study Journal, 30, 143–151. for the Scientific Study of Reading, Prague, Czech Republic.
McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V. W., (1999). Those who know, teach Phillips, B. M., Lonigan, C. J., & Graham, L. (2006, July). Now I
well: Helping teachers master literacy-related subject-matter know my ABCs: Alphabetic order and first name predict letter
knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14(4), knowledge development in young children. Paper presented at the
215–226. 13th annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Metsala, J., & Walley, A. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and seg- Reading, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
mental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phone- Phillips, B. M., Menchetti, J. M., Lonigan, C. J., & Farver, J. (2007).
mic awareness and early reading ability. In J. Metsala & Observation of literacy practices in preschool classrooms.
L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–120). Unpublished manuscript.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Phillips, B. M., & Torgesen, J. T. (2006). Phonemic awareness and
Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content reading: Beyond the growth of initial reading accuracy. In S.
knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
23–45. research (Vol. 2, pp. 101–112). New York: Guilford.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1998). Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). The effec-
Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate prac- tiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers
tices. A joint position statement of the International Reading in multiple grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 119–134.
Association and the National Association for the Education of Raz, I. S., & Bryant, P. (1990). Social background, phonological
Young Children. Washington, DC: Author. awareness and children’s reading. British Journal of
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2006). Developmental Psychology, 8, 209–225.
Standards and criteria for early childhood program accreditation. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive develop-
Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://www.naeyc.org/academy/ ment in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
standards/standard2/standard2E.asp Roth, F. P., Troia, G. A., Worthington, C. K., & Dow, K. A. (2002).
National Center for Early Development and Learning. (2005). Pre- Promoting awareness of sounds in speech: An initial report of an
kindergarten in eleven states: NCEDL’s multi-state study of pre- intervention program for children with speech and language
kindergarten and study of state-wide early education programs impairments. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 535–565.
(SWEEP). Preliminary descriptive report. Retrieved November 4, Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the
2006, from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/pdfs/SWEEP_MS_ development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal
summary_final.pdf study. Child Development, 73, 445–460.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Share, D. L. (2004). Knowing letter names and learning letter sounds:
Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of A causal connection. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
Health and Human Services. 88, 213–233.
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner charac- Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early
teristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy reading development: A model of acquisition and individual dif-
interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities: ferences. Issues in Education: Contributions From Educational
Research and Practice, 18, 255–267. Psychology, 1, 1–57.
Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for children of Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1999). Preventing
poverty: Differential effects of adult mediation and literacy- reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National
enriched play settings on environmental and functional print tasks. Academy Press.
American Educational Research Journal, 30, 95–122. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-
Oklahoma Department of Human Services. (2006). Oklahoma early related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal
learning guidelines. Retrieved July 18, 2007, from structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947.
http://title3.sde.state.ok.us/early/PDF/OklahomaEarlyLearningGu Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Lindamood, P., Rose,
idelinesJune2007.pdf E., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young
Olfman, S. (2003). All work and no play: How educational reforms children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and
are harming our preschoolers. Westport, CT: Praeger. individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational
Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J., & Angell, A. L. (1994). The role of Psychology, 91, 579–593.
literacy environment in the language development of children Treiman, R., & Broderick, V. (1998). What’s in a name: Children’s
from low-income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, knowledge about the letters in their own name. Journal of
9, 427–440. Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 97–116.
 Phillips et al. / Preschool Phonological Awareness Instruction 17

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, Woods, C. S. (1998). The role of rhyme. Montessori Life, 10, 34–36.
T. A., Burgess, S. R., et al. (1997). Changing causal relations Yeh, S. S. (2003). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching
between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading phonemic awareness to children in Head Start. Early Childhood
as children develop from beginning to fluent readers: A five-year Research Quarterly, 18, 513–529.
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 468–479. Zanolli, K., Daggett, J., & Pestine, H. (1995). The influence of the
Walley, A. C., Metsala, J. L., & Garlock, V. M. (2003). Spoken vocabu- pace of teacher attention on preschool children’s engagement.
lary growth: Its role in the development of phoneme awareness and Behavior Modification, 19, 339–356.
early reading ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Zill, N., & Resnick, G. (2006). Emergent literacy of low-income
Journal, 16, 5–20. children in Head Start: Relationships with child and family char-
Webb, M. Y. L., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Kim, S. (2004). A construct acteristics, program factors, and classroom quality. In D. H.
validation study of phonological awareness for children entering Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
prekindergarten. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, research (pp. 347–371). New York: Guilford.
304–319.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007a). Report on Let’s Begin With the Beth M. Phillips, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of
Letter People. Available from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ Educational Psychology and Learning Systems at Florida State
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007b). Report on the Literacy Express University and the Florida Center for Reading Research. Her current
curriculum. Available from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ research interests include early literacy and behavioral development,
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007c). Report on phonological aware- preschool curriculum and instruction, and parental influences on
ness training. Available from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ learning.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007d). Report on phonological aware-
ness training plus letter knowledge training. Available from Jeanine Clancy-Menchetti, PhD, is a research faculty associate at
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ the Florida Center for Reading Research at Florida State University.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007e). Report on sound foundations. She is currently working on several large-scale preschool curricula
Available from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ intervention projects primarily focused on emergent literacy and
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. H., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, social-emotional development.
M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in
daycare and home for children from low-income families. Christopher J. Lonigan, PhD, is a professor of psychology at Florida
Developmental Psychology, 30, 679–689. State University and an associate director of the Florida Center for
Whitehurst, G. J. & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and Reading Research. His areas of expertise include the development,
emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 335–357. assessment, and promotion of preschool early literacy skills.