Raising Reading Achievement through Effective Classroom Phonological Awareness Assessment and...

RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 1

Raising Reading Achievement through Effective Classroom Phonological Awareness

Assessment and Instruction

K. Carson (PhD), Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia

Abstract

Classroom educators play a critical role in ensuring young children develop proficient

literacy skills that will support life-long success. Some researchers propose that, among many

variables, the nature of classroom reading practices is a key contributor to the high

prevalence of reading difficulties and inequality in reading outcomes emerging from

classrooms in developed nations. A complex array of linguistic and cognitive skills support

skilled reading acquisition, one of which is phonological awareness (PA). The purpose of this

chapter is to discuss recent advances in PA assessment and instructional practices in the

classroom where teachers, as opposed to researchers, are the implementers of the literacy

curriculum. Specifically, the role of web-based screening and monitoring as a time efficient

aid for predicting reading outcomes will be discussed. In juxtaposition, the refinement of

duration, frequency, and content of classroom PA instruction and the subsequent effect on the

prevalence of reading difficulties and equality in reading outcomes will be evaluated. Barriers

to change will be illuminated and recommendations proposed within the context of a global

need to raise literacy standards for all school-aged children.


The Development of Proficient Readers as a Global Issue

Raising reading achievement and reducing inequality in literacy outcomes is

important for ensuring all children develop a foundation that will support life-long

opportunities. International studies of educational outcomes demonstrate that inequality in

reading achievement is an issue for education systems globally throughout the early and later

schooling years; this then extends into working life. The most recent cycle of the Programme

for International Student Assessment (PISA) identified that up to one-in-five 15-year-old

students across 34 countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD) do not possess the basic literacy skills that support effective participation in society

(OECD, 2010). The 2011 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

demonstrated that 24, 25 and 17 per cent of 10-year-old students in Australia, New Zealand,

and the United Kingdom are not reading at an intermediate level. Of these students, 7, 8 and 5

per cent in the aforementioned countries fail to read at the lowest PIRLS benchmark (Mullis,

Martin, Foy & Drucker, 2012). Common to many developed countries is the profile of high

average reading achievement coupled with large gaps in reading outcomes between higher

and lower performing students (Mullis et al., 2012). It is estimated that the cost of illiteracy to

the global economy is 1.19 trillon USD per annum, with up to one-in-five individuals being

illiterate worldwide (Cree, Kay & Steward, 2012). Poor literacy can lead to limited

employment opportunities, poverty, poorer health status, criminal activity and dependency on

social welfare. These outcomes can be challenged through educational systems that promote

widespread early identification and high-quality instruction in skills known to influence

successful literacy.


Phonological Awareness as a Key Component of Classroom Literacy

Curriculums

The development of literacy competence is perhaps one of the most important skills

children can acquire throughout their schooling career. Five integrated pillars of literacy

success include: phonological awareness (PA), letter-sound knowledge, vocabulary

development, reading fluency, and comprehension strategies (Ehri, Nunes, Willows,

Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001). Of these five pillars, PA is widely recognised

as a valuable indicator of early reading outcomes through its role in supporting early word-

recognition proficiency. In turn, this supports comprehension of written information (Pratt &

Brady, 1988). PA refers to a conscious understanding of different sound units within spoken

words, including syllables (i.e. syllable awareness), onset and rimes (i.e. onset-rime

awareness) and phonemes (i.e. phoneme awareness) (Gillon, 2004). Research indicates that

PA, particularly at the phoneme-level, is one of the single best predictors of skilful literacy

outcomes over and above personal and social variables, such as intelligence and socio-

economic status, of which educators have very little control (Hogan, Catts & Little, 2005;

Rvachew, 2006). Hence, children who enter the classroom with strong phoneme awareness

and letter knowledge progress faster in learning to read (Ehri & Roberts, 2006), navigate the

academic curriculum with greater ease and enjoy a trajectory aimed towards greater

vocational, social, economic, and personal opportunities.

The importance of PA for learning to read is not new and has been extensively

demonstrated through longitudinal, correlational, and training-based studies (Gillon, 2004).

When conceptualising PA research within a response to intervention framework (RTI; see

Rudebusch, 2008), much evidence exists to support teachers in implementing PA at Tiers 2

(i.e. small group targeted instruction) and 3 (i.e. one-to-one instruction); yet the scientific

integration of PA at Tier 1 (i.e. core classroom curriculums), where contextual barriers such


as time demands and paucity of educators’ own knowledge may limit the effectiveness of PA,

is not well understood. How can teachers still screen and monitor PA, while managing a

plethora of competing priorities in the classroom? What content, duration and frequency of

instruction will give the best results for literacy outcomes? The follow sections discuss recent

advances in PA assessment and instructional practices at the classroom level to provide

educators with scientifically driven strategies for identifying and supporting at-risk readers.

Effective Classroom Phonological Awareness Assessment Using Technology

The employment of data-driven instruction to accelerate students’ PA knowledge and,

by extension reading capabilities, is reliant on robust classroom assessment practices.

Research indicates that measurement of PA at the phoneme-level, paired with letter

knowledge, provides the best insight into how well children will learn to read and spell (Ehri

et al., 2001). Numerous multi- and uni-variate tools are available to educators to measure the

PA capabilities of students in their classrooms. These tools vary in terms of purpose (i.e.

screening or diagnostic), administration time, content assessed and modality of presentation

(i.e. paper- or computer-based) (for a review see Carson, Boustead & Gillon, in press).

However, very few instruments specifically focus on universal screening and monitoring at

the phoneme-level using technology available in the classroom.

The technology revolution has influenced many aspects of life, including how

education is assessed and delivered in the classroom. In Australia, the Digital Education

Revolution programme provided at least one computer per student across the states and

territories (Australian Government, 2009), while in America almost all public schools have

computers that are internet-enabled, with 87 per cent of educators using web-based software

to store assessment data to inform educational planning (U.S. Department of Education,

2010). Many of these systems support educators in the storage, management and

interpretation of assessment information, where educators complete a paper-based assessment


and then input information into an online data system. Examples of these include

AIMSWEb© and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Very few

tools explicitly measure PA using technology as the medium in which test items are

presented. The benefits of using web-based technology for test item presentation include: 1)

increased time efficiency by removing the need for educators to present, score and interpret

results for every child; 2) low cost once established, due to the removal of ongoing expenses

associated with purchasing test booklets; 3) minimal training, thereby supporting educators

with limited knowledge in this area; 4) increased student motivation; and 5) use of existing

technology-based resources in the classroom (Martin, 2008; Singleton, Thomas & Leedale,

1996).

Research in New Zealand and Australia is capitalising on technology in the classroom

by investigating the utility of web-based screening and monitoring systems that measure PA

in children aged four to seven years, and are time efficient, teacher-friendly and freely

available to educators. In a pilot investigation conducted by Carson, Gillon & Boustead

(2011), thirty-three New Zealand children aged between four years and 10 months to five

years and zero months, completed PA and letter knowledge (LK) tasks delivered by either a

computer program or in paper-based format with an educator. Using a cross-over research

design, sixteen children received the paper-based PA tasks first, followed two weeks later by

the computer-based version; the remaining seventeen children received the same assessments

but in the reverse order. Computer-based administration involved the software presenting all

audio instructions, images on a screen and scoring of results. Paper-based administration

required the educator to provide verbal instructions, record responses in real time and then

interpret results. Tasks were identical between modalities. Results showed that administration

of PA and LK tasks using a computer program was 30 per cent faster than paper-based

administration. In addition, no significant differences between paper-based and computer-


based scores were identified, indicating that regardless of the modality, educators can feel

confident they will obtain similar scores.

Establishing the predictive validity and reliability of web-based methods of screening

and monitoring PA, in addition to time efficiency, is also critical for the accurate

identification of children at risk for reading impairment. In a longitudinal follow-on

investigation involving ninety-five five-year-old children, Carson et al. (in press) identified

that web-based measurement of rhyme oddity and initial phoneme identity at school entry

predicted end-of-year reading accuracy at six years of age with 92 per cent accuracy. When a

larger array of age-appropriate PA tasks were introduced mid-way through the first year at

school, including final phoneme identity, phoneme blending and segmentation and phoneme

deletion, accuracy in predicting reading outcomes increased to 94 per cent. Of twenty-one

children with spoken-language impairment, twenty were accurately identified as being at risk

for reading problems. This suggests that web-based screening and monitoring demonstrates

enough sensitivity to differentiate between stronger and at-risk reading trajectories while

being time-efficient in the classroom.

Providing educators with web-based tools to support on-entry identification of risk for

reading impairment is a start; however, screening and monitoring of children in the early

childhood years is a much more promising objective in terms of long-term equity of

educational outcomes. Children who commence school with lower PA knowledge perform up

to three year levels below their peers after approximately five years of schooling (Torgesen,

Wagner & Rashotte, 1994); a gap that could be potentially closed before formal schooling

began. However, pinpointing exactly how early web-based screening and monitoring of PA

can be reliably and validity implemented as a predictor of later reading outcomes is yet to be

thoroughly investigated. Previously, scientists have postulated that generating reliable and

valid results is more challenging the earlier an assessment tool is administered to young


children. For example, using a computer and paper-based rhyme awareness subscale from the

PALS assessment, Barnes (2010) identified that 12 per cent of five-year-old children required

assistance to use the mouse or follow instructions, whereas almost half of preschool children

(i.e. five years of age) required assistance. A modality effect was identified for preschool

children, in that paper-based testing was easier than computer-based assessment. In contrast,

Carson et al. (2011) identified equivalency between computer and paper-based modalities for

preschool children aged four years and 10 months. Establishing equivalency between

computer- and paper-based modalities is important for ensuring that administration in one

modality does not advantage or disadvantage a child’s performance, or make comparisons

between children’s test scores less reliable due to administration-modality effects. Currently,

children are submerged in text-savvy home, school and social environments where access to

laptops, tablets, and smartboards is becoming normalised. Is it possible that web-based

screening and monitoring of PA skills can be conducted earlier without threats to the validity

and reliability of the assessment measure?

Pioneering research in Australia is currently investigating how early web-based

screening and monitoring methods for PA can be used for the timely identification of risk for

reading deficit, by expanding on the web-based tasks developed in New Zealand. The South

Australian Phonological Awareness Database (SAPAD; see Figure 1) is a web-based

instrument encompassing eleven tasks designed to measure PA, LK and early reading skills.

The instrument is currently being trialled with over 100 Australian children aged four years

and zero months, in addition to a smaller cohort of three and a half year olds, to identify

whether reliable results between computer and paper-based modalities can be achieved prior

to four years and ten months of age. Preliminary results indicate that cross-modality

consistency across early PA tasks is poor at three and a half years of age (r =0.32), but much

more consist by four years and zero months (r =0.75) (SAPAD, 2013). Progress in PA and


reading-based skills will be tracked using the SAPAD until seven years of age to identify

whether administration of time efficient web-based screening and monitoring in the early

childhood years provides predictive insight into reading ability before school entry; thereby

opening the door for students at risk for reading impairment to enter school on a levelled

playing field.

Figure 1. South Australian Phonological Awareness Database (SAPAD).

As mentioned, few instruments exist for educators to specifically measure PA at the

phoneme-level via a technology-based medium. However, it is important to acknowledge two

software programs that are available to schools to measure a large number of educational

domains, including PA. These include the Cognitive Profiling System (CoPS) (Singleton et al,

1996) and the Performance Indicators in Primary School (PIPS) (Tymms, 1999). The CoPS

identifies risk for learning difficulties by measuring skills such as visual, spatial, verbal and

auditory sequential memory, PA and auditory discrimination. A rhyme-matching task and an

initial phoneme-matching task are used to measure PA; however, more complex phoneme-

level skills, such as blending and segmenting are not evaluated. Likewise, the PIPS measures


key skills in the domains of reading and maths, with PA being evaluated using a rhyming

task. Although CoPS and PIPS capitalise on technology, the measurement of PA knowledge

is at the surface level (i.e. rhyming), as opposed to detailed information on identifying,

blending, segmenting, deleting and manipulating at the level of PA most predictive of future

reading success: the phoneme-level (Ehri et al., 2001).

Effective Integration of Phonological Awareness into the Classroom Curriculum

Over the last three decades, a growing body of research has demonstrated that early

systematic and explicit phoneme awareness instruction supports emergent and conventional

reading performance (McGee & Ukrainetz, 2009). Much research has focused on the

provision of PA instruction by researchers or qualified specialists (i.e. speech-language

pathologists) demonstrating the efficacy of instruction for specific groups of vulnerable

readers (e.g. spoken-language impairment, lower socio-economic background, down

syndrome) at Tier 2 and 3 of the RTI model. Fewer studies have focused on the effectiveness

of instruction on reading and spelling outcomes for all students, when teachers integrate PA

into an existing curriculum at Tier 1, where extraneous variable may restrain the benefits of

PA in the classroom. Of the small number of classroom-based investigations by researchers

such as: Carson, Gillon and Boustead (2013); Shapiro and Solity (2008); Justice, McGinty,

Cabell, Kilday, Knighton and Huffman (2010); Fuchs et al. (2001); and McIntosh, Crosbie,

Holm, Dodd and Thomas (2007), there is much variation in the duration, frequency and

content of PA instruction and the resultant effect on both immediate and sustained reading

outcomes. This is problematic in that when planning effective PA instruction, educators are

faced with questions such as: what duration and frequency of PA instruction is most effective

for generating improved literacy standards? What sub-skills should be prioritised? When

should students be recommended for Tier 2 support?


Aggregation of classroom-based PA literature suggests that a significant reduction in

the prevalence of reading difficulties and sustained reading improvements can be achieved

for both typically developing and at-risk readers using a delivery framework that is: short in

duration (i.e. less than one academic year); high in intensity (i.e. > 2 hours of instruction per

week); and phoneme-focused (i.e. focused on developing phoneme awareness and the link

between PA and print). High intensity and phoneme-focused classroom instruction is linked

to greater sustainability of improved reading outcomes over shorter or longer periods of time,

compared to classroom programmes that are low in intensity and focused on a broad range of

PA skills (i.e., syllable, onset-rime, and phoneme-level skills) (see Carson et al., 2013 for a

review). Using a high intensity and phoneme-focused programme can result in as much as a

20 per cent reduction in the prevalence of classroom reading difficulties (e.g. Carson et al.,

2013; Shapiro & Solity, 2008). These results suggest that teachers should prioritise PA

instruction at the phoneme-level as children enter school, and consider high frequency

sessions over a short period of time (i.e. initially one term). This should be in conjunction

with routine monitoring of PA, reading and spelling progression to identify which children

are not making progress relative to their peers, and who would benefit from more intensive

small group or one-to-one PA support at Tiers 2 and 3 of the RTI model. Table 1 draws on

two recent examples of PA implementation frameworks at Tier 1 that educators can employ

in their classrooms.


Table 1

Examples of PA frameworks teachers can use in the classroom

Author Framework & Impact on Sustained Reading Outcomes

Tier 1

Carson, et al.

(2013)

Framework: School entry classroom-wide 4 x 30 minute sessions over 10

weeks explicitly focused on phoneme-level skills and the link to print.

Outcomes: Sustained improvements in reading accuracy and

comprehension 5 months after the programme’s conclusion. A 20%

reduction in the prevalence of reading difficulties achieved.

Shapiro &

Solity (2008)

Framework: School entry classroom-wide 3 x 12 minute sessions daily

over two years including a focus on phoneme-level skills and the link to

print.

Outcomes: Sustained improvements in reading one year after the

programme’s conclusion. A 20% reduction in the prevalence of reading

difficulties achieved.

PA at a classroom level has demonstrated a reduction in the prevalence of reading

difficulties, thereby helping raise overall reading achievement. Nevertheless, few studies

have specifically examined how the nature and size of gaps in reading outcomes between

typically developing and at-risk cohorts changes as a result of the content within the

classroom reading program. What is the effect on the gap in reading outcomes between

children with typical development (TD) and those at risk for reading difficulties when both

cohorts receive classroom PA? Can some children at risk for reading problems improve to an

age-appropriate level on receipt of PA instruction? Although individual attributes and types

of risk factors will play a key role in answering such questions, one investigation has

identified that the nature and size of gaps in reading outcomes between TD and at-risk


students can profile in at least three different ways, five months following teacher-directed

classroom PA instruction (Carson, 2012). In a quasi-experimental design, ninety-five five-

year-old children, inclusive of 21 children with spoken-language impairment (SLI; a group at

high risk for reading impairment), received their usual reading programme of whole language

and phonics instruction. Thirty-four children, inclusive of seven with SLI, received classroom

PA instruction in addition to their usual programme (i.e. a more balanced reading

programme). End-of-year reading accuracy and comprehension scores revealed that children

with SLI who received classroom PA instruction performed:

1. significantly higher than children with SLI in classrooms that did not explicitly

teach PA skills

2. at an age-appropriate level, and on par with children with TD in classrooms that

did not explicitly teach PA skills

3. significantly lower than children with TD in the same classroom who also received

classroom wide PA instruction.

Inequality typically experienced by a cohort of children at risk for reading difficulties

can be minimised through specifically structured classroom PA instruction, integrated within

a multi-faceted curriculum; this is also beneficial for children with TD.

Given that scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the importance of PA in learning

to read, why are up to one in five students continuing to struggle with the acquisition of basic

literacy skills across developed countries (OECD, 2010)? Among a number of factors, one

prolific barrier to successfully integrating PA into existing curriculums is the paucity of

educators’ own knowledge of skills known to influence reading success. Research

demonstrates that many educators at preschool and school-aged levels lack a sophisticated

knowledge of phonological and linguistic awareness that would allow them to make explicit

links between speech and print during classroom reading instruction (Cunningham, Perry,


Stanovich, & Stanovich, 2004; Moats & Foorman, 2003). The problem likely manifests at a

pre-service teacher education level. For example, in a national survey of Bachelor of

Education programmes, the Australian National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy

(Australian Government, 2005) identified that a majority of teacher education programmes

dedicated less than 10 per cent of compulsory course time to instructing pre-service teachers

on how to teach reading, and half of these programmes spent as little as five per cent of

course time on this critical area. In addition, the inquiry identified that pre-service teachers

had poor understanding of phoneme awareness, phonics, and the alphabetic decoding

strategy. Neither did they feel confident teaching the key skills, such as phonics and spelling,

required to develop literacy competency among young learners. Similarly, Bos, Mather,

Dickson, Podhajski & Chard (2001) demonstrated that only 50 per cent of pre-service and in-

service teachers could correctly answer approximately half of the language survey questions

related to phonological awareness and phonics. These findings are supported by a growing

body of literature demonstrating that many pre-service teachers are graduating from

university without sufficient knowledge in those skills known to improve literacy outcomes

(e.g. Fielding-Barnsley, 2010; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2003).

Given these low levels of teacher knowledge in critical skills that support proficient

literacy acquisition, improvements at the tertiary level—in addition to ongoing professional

learning opportunities—must be pursued. In a recent investigation by Binks (2008), pre-

service teachers who received course work on how to teach reading from lecturers who had

received two years of professional learning on evidenced-based reading practices

demonstrated a significantly greater understanding of basic language constructs and how to

teach these. This was in comparison to pre-service teachers taught by lecturers who did not

receive professional learning on the importance of PA, phonics, reading fluency, and

vocabulary. Beyond the pre-service teacher-level, research demonstrates that educators who


receive coursework in language and literacy, in addition to ongoing mentoring, demonstrate

significant improvements in their translation of knowledge to professional practice, in

comparison to educators receiving coursework alone (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009). If

lowering the prevalence of reading difficulties and achieving greater equality in reading

outcomes is to be achieved, attention needs to be directed towards ensuring teacher education

is focused on producing graduates who are highly competent in skills fundamentally linked to

long-term literacy success.

Implications of Recent Advances in Classroom PA Research for Teachers

Recent advances in classroom-based PA research posit some important implications

for university, pre-service, and in-service teachers in terms of roles and responsibilities for

raising and equalising reading achievement. The following list indicates how educators can

integrate PA, as one of many important skills, into classroom practice:

1. High-quality pre-service teacher education: pre-service teachers should engage

with coursework that targets basic language constructs known to uphold strong

literacy acquisition, and access opportunities to develop this knowledge in practice.

2. Identification: routine screening and monitoring of PA can predict risk for literacy

difficulties in the classroom, and should include measurement at the phoneme-

level. Technology can assist this progress in time poor classrooms.

3. Prevention through high-quality core curriculum: classroom-wide PA instruction

as part of a core literacy curriculum should be delivered with high intensity,

focused at the phoneme-level, and make links between speech and print.

4. Remediating PA and literacy deficits through tiered interventions: children

showing poor progress in core classroom literacy curriculums should receive small

group or one-to-one support in phoneme awareness, reading, and spelling.


5. Assessment to inform instruction: ongoing assessment for children showing poor

progress in PA, reading and spelling should drive instructional planning and

classroom adjustments.

6. Selection of teaching style: PA instruction should be explicit and systematic.

7. Professional learning: implementation of classroom-wide, small group and one-to-

one PA instruction should be supplemented with professional learning and

collaboration with literacy specialists.

8. Contextualisation within a multi-faceted literacy curriculum: PA should be taught

as part of an integrated and balanced literacy curriculum that includes phonics,

vocabulary, reading fluency, comprehension strategies and text-level analysis.

Conclusion

Developing skilful reading in the early school years is a powerful tool that will

support prosperity in life-long learning, vocational opportunities, social and economic well-

being and participation in society. Science demonstrates that PA, among many skills, is

critical in the early stages of reading acquisition; it enables children to begin use a decoding

strategy when learning to read. Recent advances in PA research demonstrate that educators

can measure this skill in a time efficient way by using web-based technology that can help

predict risk for reading failure during the first year of schooling. Introducing short duration,

high intensity, phoneme-focused PA instruction can also help raise reading achievement and

the minimisation of gaps in early reading performance. Despite such evidence, much work is

needed to ensure that educators themselves are knowledgeable in those foundational skills

proven to jump-start early reading success, before raised reading achievement can be truly

realised for all children across classrooms globally.


References

Australian Government. (2005). Teaching Reading: Report and Recommendations

(National Inquiry into the teaching of literacy). Canberra, Australia: Author.

Australian Government. (2009). National Partnership Agreement on the Digital Education

Revolution. Retrieved from

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education/digital_education_

revolution/national_partnership.pdf

Barnes, S. K. (2010). Using computer-based testing with young children. Paper presented

at the Northeastern Educational Research Association (NERA) Conference.

Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2010/22

Binks, E. S. (2008). An assessment of university instructors and their pre-service

teachers’ knowledge of basic language constructs before and after university

instructor professional development. Retrieved from

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0C

DAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Frepository.tamu.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F

1969.1%2F85925%2FBinks.pdf%3Fsequence...&ei=w6iFUpmKCeaKiQfci4H4Ag&

usg=AFQjCNF9ZnvvrhpXxDNJnaud7iXI8aDiTw&bvm=b

Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B. & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and

knowledge of pre-service and in-service educators about early reading

instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97–120.

Carson, K., Boustead, T. & Gillon, G. (in press). Predicting reading outcomes in the

classroom using a computer-based phonological awareness screening and monitoring

assessment (Com-PASMA). International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology.

doi:10.3109/17549507.2013.855261


Carson, K., Gillon, G. & Boustead, T. (2011). Computer-administered versus paper-

based assessment of school entry phonological awareness ability. Asia Pacific

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 14(2), 85–101.

Carson, K. (2012). Efficient and effective classroom phonological awareness practices to

improve reading achievement. (Unpublished doctoral thesis).University of

Canterbury: Christchurch, NZ.

Carson, K., Gillon, G. & Boustead, T. (2013). Classroom phonological awareness

instruction and literacy outcomes in the first year of school. Language, Speech,

and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(2), 147–160.

Cree, A., Kay, A. & Steward, J. (2012). The economic and social cost of illiteracy: A

snapshot of illiteracy in a global context. Final report from the World Literacy

Foundation. Retrieved from

http://www.worldliteracyfoundation.org/The_Economic_&_Social_Cost_of_Illiteracy

.pdf

Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. I. (2004).

Disciplinary knowledge of K–3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in

the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 139–167.

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. &

Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to

read: Evidence from the national reading panel's meta-analysis. Reading

Research Quarterly, 36(3), pp. 250–287; p. 311.

Ehri., L. & Roberts, T. (2006). The roots of learning to read and write: Acquisition of

letters and phonemic awareness. In D. Dickinson & S. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of

early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 113–130). New York: Guilford.

Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2010). Australian pre-service teachers’ knowledge of


phonemic awareness and phonics in the process of learning to read.

Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15(1), 99–110.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N.... O'Connor, R.

(2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized

field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 93(2), 251–267.

Gillon, G. T. (2004). Phonological awareness: From research to practice . NY: Guilford

Press.

Hogan, T. P., Catts, H. W. & Little, T. D. (2005). The relationship between

phonological awareness and reading: Implications for the assessment of

phonological awareness. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36,

285–293.

Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., Cabell, S. Q., Kilday, C. R., Knighton, K. & Huffman,

G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum supplement for preschoolers who

are academically at risk: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing

Services in Schools, 41, 161–178.

Martin, R. (2008). New possibilities and challenges for assessment through the use of

technology. In F. Scheuermann & A. G. Pereira (Eds.), Towards a research

agenda on computer-based assessment (pp. 6–9). Luxembourg: Office for the

Official Publications of the European Communities.

McGee, L. & Ukrainetz, T. (2009). Using scaffolding to teach phonemic awareness in

preschool and kindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 62, 599–603.

McIntosh, B., Crosbie, S., Holm, A., Dodd, B. & Thomas, S. (2007). Enhancing the

phonological awareness and language skills of socially disadvantaged

preschoolers: An interdisciplinary programme. Child Language Teaching and


Therapy, 23(3), 267–286.

Moats, L. C. & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of

language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45.

Mullis, I., Martin, M. O., Foy, P. & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLs 2011 International

Results in Reading. Chestnut Hill, MA, USA: TIMSS & PIRLS International

Study Center.

Neuman, S. B. & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development

and coaching on early language and literacy practices. American Educational

Research Journal, 46(2), 532–566.

OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do—Student Performance

in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I). Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en

Pratt, A. C. & Brady, S. (1988). Relation of phonological awareness to reading

disability in children and adults. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 319–

323.

Rudebusch, J. (2008). The source of RTI: Response to Intervention . East Moline, IL:

LinguiSystems.

Rvachew, S. (2006). Longitudinal predictors of implicit phonological awareness

skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 165–176.

SAPAD. (2013). South Australian Phonological Awareness Database [Online Resource].

Available at: http://sapad.org/

Shapiro, L. R. & Solity, J. (2008). Delivering phonological and phonics training

within whole-class teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 , 597–

620.

Singleton, C. H., Thomas, K. V. & Leedale, R. C. (1996). Lucid CoPS Cognitive


Profiling System. Beverley, East Yorkshire: Lucid Research Ltd.

Spear-Swerling, L. & Brucker, P. O. (2003). Teachers’ acquisition of knowledge

about English word structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 72–103.

Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1994). Longitudinal studies of

phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276–

286.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Educational technology in U.S. public schools: Fall

2008. National Centre for Education Statistics. (NCES 2010-034).

Raising Reading Achievement through Effective Classroom Phonological Awareness Assessment and...

Documents

Transcript of Raising Reading Achievement through Effective Classroom Phonological Awareness Assessment and...