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.
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 2
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.
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 3
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 4
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 5
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-
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 6
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 7
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 8
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 9
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?
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 10
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.
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 11
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 12
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,
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 13
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 14
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.
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 15
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.
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 16
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 17
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
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 18
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 19
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
RAISING READING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS 20
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).
Top Related