0% found this document useful (0 votes)
681 views41 pages

Literature Review of Phonemic Awareness

1) Phonemic awareness is the ability to focus on and manipulate the individual sounds (phonemes) in spoken words. It is an important skill for learning to read. 2) There are stages of phonemic awareness from simple tasks like rhyming to more complex tasks like phoneme manipulation. Explicit instruction is important for teaching phonemic awareness. 3) Developing phonemic awareness helps children learn letter-sound correspondences and supports their understanding of the alphabetic principle, which is important for reading. It predicts later reading success.

Uploaded by

api-547823322
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
681 views41 pages

Literature Review of Phonemic Awareness

1) Phonemic awareness is the ability to focus on and manipulate the individual sounds (phonemes) in spoken words. It is an important skill for learning to read. 2) There are stages of phonemic awareness from simple tasks like rhyming to more complex tasks like phoneme manipulation. Explicit instruction is important for teaching phonemic awareness. 3) Developing phonemic awareness helps children learn letter-sound correspondences and supports their understanding of the alphabetic principle, which is important for reading. It predicts later reading success.

Uploaded by

api-547823322
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 41

1

PHONEMIC AWARENESS

Phonemic Awareness

Katelyn Mello

Department of Special Education, Keene State College

EDUCSP 655: Research and Teaching in Special Education

Dr. Neeper

December 14, 2021


2
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Literature Review

Many children struggle to read and reading failure has long-term consequences on self-

confidence and a student’s motivation to learn (Armbruster et al., 2001). To avoid reading

failure, teachers must support students and provide reading instruction early. There are five

essential areas of reading instruction which are phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension,

and phonemic awareness (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD],

2000). Phonemic awareness is part of phonological awareness a larger area of metalinguistic

awareness and can be used to predict how well children will learn to read (Chapman, 2003;

Share et al., 1984). Those who can identify letter sounds and read basic words in kindergarten

and first grade are likely to perform better in reading later on (Hosp et al., 2007). Since the

English spelling system is based on phonemes represented by graphemes, those who have

developed phonemic awareness can more easily recognize unfamiliar words in print (Learning

Point Associates, 2004).

Overview of Phonemic Awareness and High-Quality Reading Instruction

Phonemic awareness can be described as the ability to focus and manipulate phonemes in

spoken words (NICHD, 2000; Pullen & Lloyd, 2007). Phonemes are the smallest units of spoken

language and English has about 41 phonemes (Chappell et al., 2009; NICHD, 2000). Phonemes

are represented by graphemes which are units of written language (i.e., the alphabet) in the

spelling of words (Venesky, 1970, 1999). While teaching students how graphemes represent

speech, phonemic awareness focuses on the sounds in words to increase decoding and reading

skills enhancing students’ ability to read (Blachman et al., 2000). As students’ progress through

the stages of phonemic awareness they learn how to segment and blend words (Chapman, 2003).
3
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
There are stages of phonemic awareness that begin with the simplest tasks (i.e., rhyme

production, phoneme isolation, blending phonemes, segmenting phonemes) and move to more

advanced tasks (i.e., phoneme additions, phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution) and can be

demonstrated through different classroom activities (Kardaleska & Karovska-Ristovska, 2018;

Schatchneider et al., 1999). As students’ progress to more advanced tasks, it may indicate their

improvement in phonemic awareness abilities (Schatchneider et al., 1999). Some of the easiest

skills are rhyme production, both creating and recognizing rhymes (Adams, 1990; Kardaleska &

Karovska-Ristovska, 2018). Segmenting phonemes and blending phonemes are skills learned

next and the most difficult tasks are segmenting the phonemes of spoken words and manipulating

phonemes to create new words (Adams, 1990; Kardaleska & Karovska-Ristovska, 2018;

Schatchneider et al., 1999). These skills prepare students to then use their abilities to manipulate

sounds to be able to read and spell words (Griffith & Olson, 1992).

Phonemic awareness is a skill all reading and general education teachers should

understand to be able to teach proficiently (Adams et al., 1998; McMahan et al., 2019). It can be

used to predict how well students will learn to read which can be valuable for teachers to know

(Share et al., 1984). There is strong evidence of the effects of small group reading interventions

on the literacy and reading outcomes of students experiencing reading difficulties (Coyne et al.,

2018). Once phonemic awareness has been assessed, teachers are able to differentiate instruction

or provide interventions to meet students’ needs (Ehri et al., 2001; McMahan et al., 2019). To do

so, teachers should utilize explicit instruction. Explicit instruction is a structured system of

teaching where scaffolding is used to support students through the learning process (Archer &

Hughes, 2011). There are 16 elements that are part of the explicit instruction approach that

teachers can utilize to provide instructional supports (Simmons et al., 1995; Swanson, 2001).
4
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Teachers can start using explicit instruction by selecting content to present in a logical order that

is broken down into manageable sections based on students’ cognitive abilities (e.g., student’s

working memory, attention, prior knowledge) (Archer & Hughes, 2011). Teachers should deliver

the content in clear descriptive ways while providing a demonstration of the skill. After

demonstrating the skill, students should be guided through practice with high teacher

involvement and timely feedback. As students begin to master the skill, the teacher's support

should be removed to allow for mastery of the skill independently (Archer & Hughes, 2011).

Importance and Benefits of Phonemic Awareness

As young readers in kindergarten and first grade begin to understand and develop their

phonemic awareness, those who are proficient at letter-sound correspondence are capable of

reading basic words (Hosp et al., 2007). To be able to read basic words, teachers should teach

students phonemic awareness so they can both blend and segment phonemes to form words

(Chapman, 2003). As a key concept in early reading programs, learning phonemic awareness

increases later reading achievement (Cunningham, 1989; Foorman et al., 1998; Lundberg et al.,

1988). Berg and Stegelman (2003) determined that those who have a hard time reading at first,

have an even harder time trying to catch up to their peers; thus, understanding early literacy

skills such as phonemic awareness and the alphabetic principle is important from the start.

Supporting the Alphabetic Principle

As students learn phonemic awareness it can support their understanding of the

alphabetic principle (Manyak, 2008). In the English language, students must have an

understanding of letter-sound relationships as they begin to deepen their knowledge of the

alphabetic principle (Pullen & Lloyd, 2007). Teachers must help students learn the alphabetic

principle to support their reading and decoding skills which can be enhanced by phonemic
5
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
awareness (Blachman et al., 2000). Learning the alphabetic principle early is important in

learning to read languages that are based on an alphabet (Wagner et al., 1994).

When letters are incorporated into phonemic awareness instruction, the instruction

qualifies as phonics. Phonemic awareness lessons that teach students letter-sound

correspondence and to blend those sounds qualifies as synthetic phonics (NICHD, 2000). Part of

phonemic awareness is teaching students to segment words into phonemes and to use the

grapheme that represents the phoneme. This instruction is a form of phonics where students learn

to spell words phonemically (NICHD, 2000). Teaching phonics using letter-sound

correspondence was around before it became recognized as part of phonemic awareness

instruction (Balmuth, 1982; Chall, 1967). A key component to teaching students to read includes

using phonemic awareness instruction in phonics and alphabetic principle training (NICHD,

2000).

As students receive training in phonemic awareness, it increases their abilities to read and

spell words (Ball & Blachman, 1991). The more students are taught phonemic awareness using

explicit instruction, the better maintenance they have of the skill (Ukrainetz et al., 2009). As

phonemic awareness skills are maintained these students are less likely to have a hard time

decoding words later in school (Carson et al., 2013). Phonemic awareness early intervention may

lessen the gap of at-risk readers through enhancing students reading and spelling; thus, training

in phonemic awareness is very important (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Carson et al., 2013;

Ukrainetz, et al., 2009).

Possible Barriers and Challenges to Teaching and Learning

Learning phonemic awareness supports students in learning to read because the English

writing system is alphabetic, but it is not easy to learn (NICHD, 2000). Spoken language is
6
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
seamless; this means there are no pauses in speech signaling when one phoneme ends, and

another begins. Phonemes are blended into each other and coarticulated so when a student hears

a word, they hear it as one, rather than the individual sounds that make up the word (NICHD,

2000). Although words in English have a certain spelling using graphemes that have

corresponding phonemes, for students to distinguish separate phonemes while pronouncing

words to then match them to graphemes is difficult (Ehri, 1998; NICHD, 2000). One reason it is

difficult is that according to Ehri (1997) learning the alphabetic principle is not done in

seclusion. To learn the alphabetic principle, students learn to spell and read at the same time

because the processes are tightly interconnected. This challenges students since both tasks in

English have multiple rules to follow and remember (Ehri, 1997).

Reading problems and the acquisition of phonemic awareness may also be affected by

strephosymbolia (i.e., twisted symbols) and a lack of brain hemisphere dominance. A lack of

brain hemisphere dominance causes the brain to attempt to process information in both

hemispheres which results in mirror images (i.e., letter reversals) (Ritchey & Geoke, 2006). It is

challenging for students to distinguish the difference among letters with close similarities, in

both the visual and auditory domains, and then to attribute meanings to those (Gascon &

Goodglass, 1970; Nelson & Warrington, 1980). Student’s, in the past, have learned the

unimportance of spatial orientation (e.g., when you have a spoon no matter how you turn it, it is

still a spoon). With letters, the spatial orientation matters because when you flip a p it is now a b

or q, which presents confusion (Adams, 1990).

Children struggle to identify letters consistently and automatically in the alphabet by

sight and make the connection between the letter, its name, and the sound it creates (DiLorenzo,

et al., 2011). When students have trouble with this initial connection, reading words in isolation
7
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
and context becomes difficult. These students lack alphabetic principle knowledge and how to

apply the knowledge to their reading (NICHD, 2000). Learning the alphabetic principle and

being able to apply it to reading is difficult due to the vast amount of information that must be

remembered; there are 40 sounds for 52 symbols and sounds can be formed by the combination

of the symbols (Ehri et al., 1984).

The way the alphabetic principle is taught may be another barrier to a student’s learning.

The English language uses a system in which letters and their corresponding sounds are

completely random; the visual symbol of the letter does not suggest the name of it or the sound it

creates (Ehri et al., 1984). Although the sound of the letter does not suggest its name, teachers

often teach letters by first focusing on the letter name and then teaching the letter sound because

they believe the letter name helps students remember the sound. The issue is that not all letters

offer clues about their names which may hinder the student's ability to understand letter-sound

correspondence (DiLorenzo et al., 2011).

Data Collection Overview

Collecting data on a student’s phonemic awareness abilities is the best predictor of their

success with reading acquisition (Yopp, 1995). While gathering data about students' predicted

success, the assessment of phonemic awareness helps teachers to determine how to differentiate

instruction or what intervention to provide if necessary (Ehri et al., 2001). There are three main

assessments used to collect data on phonemic awareness. These include (a) phonemic awareness

screeners, (b) benchmark assessments, and (c) progress monitoring assessments.

Screeners

Phonemic awareness screeners are used to determine students with and without

difficulties (January et al., 2016; Kilgus et al., 2014). One common screener used for phonemic
8
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
awareness is the Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST). This assessment takes five to

eight minutes to administer and uses phonological manipulation (Kilpatrick & McInnis, n.d.).

This involves deleting sounds from words, substituting, or reversing sounds in words (Anthony

et al., 2003; Yopp, 1988). After screening all students in a school, those who are at risk are then

provided with an intervention and have their progress monitored frequently (Deno et al., 2009;

Silbreglitt et al., 2016).

Benchmark Assessments

Benchmark assessments are used periodically throughout the year (normally in the fall,

winter, and spring) to evaluate students’ skills relative to longer-term learning goals (Herman et

al., 2010). Benchmark assessments are used for four purposes. This includes communicating

expectations for learning, helping plan curriculum and instruction, monitoring and evaluating

instruction effectiveness, and to predict students’ future performance (Herman et al., 2010).

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) 8th edition includes benchmark

assessments along with goals and cut points for students at risk. Phonemic awareness

benchmarks are typically used from kindergarten to the beginning of second grade and include

First Sound Fluency (FSF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), and Nonsense Word Fluency

(NWF) (University of Oregon, 2021). By the beginning of second grade, if students are meeting

the benchmark goal of 54 correct letter sounds, and 13 whole words read for NWF then the odds

are in their favor of achieving later important reading outcomes (University of Oregon, 2021).

Progress Monitoring

Curriculum-based measures (CBM) are one common type of progress monitoring that is

most often implemented on a weekly schedule (Mellard et al., 2009). To begin progress

monitoring, baseline data must be taken to determine the student’s current level of functioning
9
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
(Foegen, 2006). The use of CBM for phonemic awareness and reading was originally developed

to monitor a student’s progress within the special education curriculum, but over the years had

been expanded to use with many students (Deno, 1985, 2003). The use of CBM with all students

is beneficial because according to Stecker et al. (2005) performance of all students improved

when teachers modified their instruction based on CBM data. When using CBMs within a Multi-

Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) the resulting score can be used as a strong estimate of a

student’s reading achievement (Ardoin et al., 2013; January & Ardoin, 2015; Reschly et al.,

2009). A common CBM used for phonemic awareness is DIBELS, when benchmark scores

indicate the student may be at risk. There are different subtests with DIBELS assessments, and it

is important to choose the correct one depending on the student’s needs (e.g., FSF, NWF, or

PSF) (University of Oregon, 2021). Best practice means that teachers monitor progress on the

skill that the intervention is most focused on, but many students may have multiple indicators of

risk and require progress monitoring using multiple subtests (University of Oregon, 2021).

Components of Research-Based Interventions

Multi-Tiered System of Supports was designed to improve students with and without

disabilities' academic performance (Fuchs et al., 2014). Every student receives tier 1 instruction,

tier 2 instruction is most often delivered in a small group using a validated intervention, and tier

3 uses an intensive intervention model of a small group or one-on-one support (Fuchs et al.,

2014). Typically, an intervention should be implemented for 10 to 20 weeks for 20 to 45 minutes

at least three or four times a week (Fuchs et al., 2012; Fuchs et al., 2014). The goal of MTSS is

to provide students with interventions early, to prevent further academic struggles (Fuchs et al.,

2012).

Taxonomy of Intervention Dimensions


10
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
The Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity can be utilized within RTI to help educators set

up the intensive intervention process and monitor the students’ progress to be able to make

changes as necessary (Fuchs et al., 2017). There are seven dimensions of intensity which are (a)

strength, (b) dosage, (c) alignment, (d) attention to transfer, (e) comprehensiveness, (f)

behavioral support, and (g) individualization (Fuchs et al., 2017). The goal of the Taxonomy of

Intervention is to increase the quality of the intervention used, improve all students’ outcomes,

and help professionals design-intensive intervention programs (Fuchs et al., 2017). After

understanding the dimensions an educator can precisely communicate the reason the specific

intervention is being used a certain way for a student (Fuchs et al., 2017).

Strength. The strength helps teams to understand the level of evidence around expected

results. When looking for evidence about strength the team wants to look for results reported for

students at or below the 20th percentile (Fuchs et al., 2017). When evaluating strength educators

must consider if the intervention was evaluated using the scientifically sound, rigorous

methodology to ensure the outcome of the study can be trusted. Educators must consider the

effect size or visual analysis of the study as an indicator of an intervention’s potential effect.

Dosage. Dosage can be defined as the number of sessions, length or duration of them, or

the number of students in the group. The number of opportunities a student has to respond to

prompts or practice the target skill receives positive feedback, and corrective feedback is most

important because it increases engaged learning opportunities (Fuchs et al., 2017). To maximize

the dosage of an intervention, educators must consider how they are utilizing the time.

Alignment. The third dimension is alignment where educators confirm that the

intervention and students’ need’s match and align with outcomes and expectations that are

meaningful beyond the intervention. Academic considerations of alignment include how well the
11
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
intervention addresses the students’ academic deficits, does not address previously mastered

skills, and focuses on grade-level standards (Fuchs et al., 2017). Behavioral considerations

include how the program addresses school-wide and teacher expectations, student’s skill deficits,

match rewards to student’s preferences, and does not address extraneous skills (Fuchs et al.,

2017).

Attention to Transfer. Attention to transfer focuses on the extent to the intervention's

design and implementation systematically helps students transfer skills, realize the connection

between mastered and related skills, and demonstrate efficacy on standardized measures or

measures of generalization (Fuchs et al., 2017). An intervention transfers more intensively if it

gives many opportunities to practice in different contexts, reinforces skills across contexts, offers

cumulative systematic review, and teachers metacognitive and self-regulation strategies (Fuchs

et al., 2017).

Comprehensiveness. The fifth dimension is comprehensiveness and relates to the extent

explicit instruction principles are incorporated into the intervention’s design and delivery.

Academic considerations reflect the extent the intervention incorporates explicit instruction (e.g.,

explanations in simple, direct language, models efficient strategies, systematic cumulative

review) (Fuchs et al., 2017). Behavioral considerations include the extent to which the

intervention includes a plan (e.g., teaching behavior, fading supports, monitoring fidelity,

communicating with parents).

Academic and Behavior Support. Academic and behavior supports are dimension six.

Intensive behavioral interventions should be integrated with or aligned with academic instruction

and include academic support in the design and delivery (Fuchs et al., 2017). Similarly, intensive
12
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
academic interventions should include supports for inappropriate or non-productive learning

behaviors (Fuchs et al., 2017).

Individualization. Individualization is the last dimension and is the extent that an

intervention can be individualized for a student not responding as expected (Fuchs et al., 2017).

This depends on the use of a data-based process for systematically adjusting the intervention

over time. When evaluating an intervention, educators must consider the extent to which the

intervention can intensify and individualize using DBI.

How to Intensify and Individualize an Intervention using Taxonomy

A small percentage of students may need additional intensification to meet goals. If a

student or most students are not responding a hypothesis for why the intervention hasn’t been

successful should be created (Fuchs et al., 2017). The hypothesis should identify appropriate

adaptions within the dimensions of Taxonomy of Intervention. Once intensification strategies are

selected there should be documentation of the approaches over time (Fuchs et al., 2017).

Overview of the Intervention

An intervention that can be used to build phonemic awareness is Elkonin Boxes which

build into Word Boxes. Elkonin (1963) created this activity to support students learning in

phoneme segmentation. The use of Elkonin Boxes to support phonemic awareness has been

effective for students with and without disabilities to improve their phoneme segmentation, word

recognition, and spelling (Joseph, 2002; Keesey et al., 2015). The boxes can be used to practice

sounds within words which improves students’ phonemic awareness and decoding skills (Joseph,

2000a). Elkonin boxes can also be used on a mobile device, but both the paper and electronic

versions of Elkonin Boxes led to increased phonemic awareness skills for three struggling

readers in first grade (Larabee et al., 2014). The goal of Elkonin Boxes is to initially teach that
13
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
words are made up of sounds and the boxes help students to break words into their individual

sounds. This intervention is intended for students who struggle with the most basic foundations

of reading. Since the intervention focuses on teaching phonemic awareness it is an acquisition

intervention (Joseph, 2000a). As students become proficient at phoneme segmentation using

Elkonin Boxes, the intervention may transition into Word Boxes.

Word boxes are an extension of Elkonin boxes and are used to help students make the

connection between phonological and orthographic features of words (Clay, 1993). According to

Clay (1993) Word Boxes are a multisensory technique that can be taught in phases for students

who struggle with phonological awareness. These phases must be understood to begin using

Word Boxes. The first phase is segmenting sounds where words are slowly articulated as

counters are moved into each box as the sound is said (Ross & Joseph, 2019). The second phase

is the letter-sound correspondence phase where instead of moving counter students are moving

the letters into the box it corresponds with and the last phase is spelling where students write the

letter in the box that corresponds with the sound (Ross & Joesph, 2019).

To begin using Word Boxes target words must be identified for instruction (Ross &

Joseph, 2019). The target word chosen should be in the student’s speaking vocabulary, but not

yet in their reading vocabulary (Joseph, 2002). Other target words may be those with predictable

decoding and spelling patterns (i.e., vowel-consonant words, consonant-vowel-consonant words,

consonant-consonant-vowel-consonant words) (Joseph, 1998; Larabee et al., 2014). Once the

target words are identified, the Word Boxes are created by drawing a rectangle and creating the

number of boxes needed to represent each letter-sound correspondence (Joseph, 2002).

Depending on the skill (i.e., phoneme segmentation, letter-sound correspondence, or spelling)


14
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
being addressed will determine which phase of Word Boxes the intervention should start with

(Ross & Joseph, 2019).

The use of Word Boxes has been proven effective to improve students’ phonemic

awareness, decoding abilities, and spelling performance (Joseph, 2002; Keesey et al., 2015).

Using Word Boxes supports students’ maintenance of spelling and reading words. The

intervention is effective across all tiers of intervention when modeling how to use Word Boxes,

followed by guided and independent practice with corrective feedback (Ross & Joseph, 2019).

Summary

Overall, phonemic awareness can be defined by the ability to manipulate phonemes in

spoken words. Although there are barriers to learning phonemic awareness, it is a key component

in early reading programs that promotes later reading achievement. As students learn phonemic

awareness, they begin to understand letter-sound relationships (i.e., the alphabetic principle).

There are three main assessments used to collect data on phonemic awareness. These include

phonemic awareness screeners, benchmark assessments, and progress monitoring assessments.

One intervention to support the acquisition of phonemic awareness is Word Boxes that help

students attend to the phonological and orthographic features of words using a visual decoding

framework and a guided interactive procedure.


15
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Methodology

The reading intervention Word Boxes will be implemented with two students to improve

their phonemic awareness. Word Boxes are an extension of Elkonin boxes and are used to help

students make the connection between phonological and orthographic features of words (Clay,

1993). The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of Word Boxes to improve phonemic

awareness. The research question that guided this study was what impact Word Boxes have on a

student’s phonemic awareness abilities?

Setting

The school is located within a rural community of about 23,000 residents in the northeast

region of the United States. In this community, 14.1% of individuals are below the poverty level.

There is also a 2.6% unemployment rate in the community. This community consists of five

elementary schools, one middle school, and two high schools. With a high percentage of families

below the poverty level, the elementary school works with families to provide free or reduced

lunches for those that need them. The school will work with families to accommodate their needs

or support them in finding local services that can help them.

The school is for students from kindergarten to fifth grade. It consists of three sections of

kindergarten, first, second, third, fourth, and fifth grades. Overall, the school serves about 250

students. The intervention will be implemented in the learning center classroom. The learning

center consists of two tables separated by a divider for two groups to be able to work

simultaneously. These students will be working on one side of the divider at a table that is able to

seat three students plus the teacher with regular seating.

Participants
16
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Student 1 is a seven-year-old and in second grade identified with a developmental delay

and speech and language impairments. The student's greatest struggle comes when they are asked

to recall information. For example, if the student reads a short story (about 3 sentences) with a

visual and then asked comprehension questions their accuracy is about 60%, but the student can

improve their responses if the story is read to them again. A relative strength for this student is

their expressive language skills in comparison to same-age peers. Student 2 is an eight-year-old

and in second grade identified with a developmental delay in the area of cognition and

social/emotional development. The student requires additional instruction in letter identification,

formations, and letter-sound correspondence. The student has a strength in vocabulary and

reading comprehension scoring in the average range on AimsWeb Plus testing.

By second grade these students should be within the acquisition stage of reading. Both

student 1 and student 2 are currently struggling with the acquisitions stage of phonological

awareness and print recognition to match symbols to sounds. They have a skill deficit in

phonological awareness, print recognition (i.e., identifying letter names and sounds given a

word), and word recognition. These students’ target skills in reading include phonological

awareness (i.e., deletion of a phoneme with four sounds and a beginning blend, substitute

beginning phoneme in a word with four sounds and a blend), print recognition (i.e., letter-sound

correspondence), and word recognition of high-frequency words.

Informed Consent

To begin gaining informed consent, there was a principal consent form (see Appendix A)

signed in person to gain permission to implement Word Boxes and work with students in the

school. To gain informed consent from the parents/guardians of the students an initial consent

form (see Appendix B) was emailed to them. This consent form allowed for the collection of file
17
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
information, informal and formal assessments, trying out various curriculum and instructional

techniques, developing a plan for access to general education environments, and writing various

Individualized Education Program (IEP) components. The second consent form (see Appendix

C) was sent to parents/guardians through email for their permission to work with their students

and implement the reading intervention Word Boxes while collecting and confidentially

analyzing data.

Intervention Procedures

The intervention that will be implemented is Word Boxes to improve students’ phonemic

awareness. It will be implemented in a small group in the learning center classroom during the

morning second-grade foundations for 15 to 20 minutes, three days a week. The learning center

consists of two tables separated by a divider for two groups to be able to work simultaneously.

These students will be working at a rectangle table that is able to seat three students plus the

teacher with regular seating.

The Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity was created to help communicate the essential

dimensions of an intervention (Fuchs et al., 2017). Word Boxes will help students attend to the

phonological and orthographic features of words using a visual decoding framework and a

guided interactive procedure. They have an effect size of 0.66 to 1.75 which means they address

the standard well (Ross & Joseph, 2019). For dosage, the intervention will be implemented for

15 to 20 minutes three days a week with two students in the group (Joseph, 2000b). The student

will be given many opportunities to respond as they create words using their Word Boxes. While

implementing Word Boxes the students are able to work at their own pace by presenting the

number of words that work for each student per session (6-10 depending on the student) which

supports the alignment of the intervention.


18
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
To support attention to transfer, students are able to use what they have learned to help

understand unknown words. Word Boxes provides students with the tools necessary to apply a

learned word family to an unfamiliar word (Burns et al., 2017). When implemented correctly,

word boxes can promote the transfer of the skill to reading and writing. Word Boxes uses

explicit instruction elements to enhance the comprehensiveness of the intervention. The teacher

uses scaffolding by beginning with segmenting sounds, then moving to letter-sound matching.

Professionals begin by modeling using the “I do”, “we do”, “you do” approach. To support

students' interests and reinforce their hard work they will earn five minutes at the end of a lesson

where they can choose to color, use puddy, or use their playdough. There are also card games

such as Minecraft Uno that the students enjoy playing. Once a week these games will be used as

reinforcement for the student’s hard work during the lessons. Word Boxes can be individualized

for the student’s level. It will be done in a small group separate setting. The teacher will start by

working on segmenting sounds and move to the use of letters with the word boxes.

The intervention will be implemented with fidelity. The interventionist will utilize a

fidelity implementation checklist (see Appendix D) for Word Boxes and then review the

Taxonomy ratings of dimensions. If the students are not responding to the intervention, the

Taxonomy dimensions should be looked at to determine possible areas that can be intensified. If

the intervention was implemented with fidelity, intensification of specific dimensions will be

considered to create a few high-impact adaptions.

Materials and Procedures

For the Word Box intervention, the teacher will need to have materials prepared ahead of

time. For each student, the teacher will need 9” x 12” dry-erase boards with a drawn rectangle

divided into four boxes (see Appendix E), four colored chips (see Appendix F), tile letters (see
19
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix G), and a list of target words (see Appendix H) for the lesson. To begin the lesson

Word Boxes will be introduced to the students (e.g., today we will be working on Word Boxes to

blend, create, and change words) and the purpose of the activity and why it is being done (e.g.,

Word Boxes will help us to become better readers and so you can sound out and change sounds

to form new words). The expectations during the lesson will then be addressed (e.g., listening

while the teacher is talking, not talking to friends, raising hands) and then the materials will be

distributed to each student.

The teacher will then model the Word Box activity step by step on the teacher’s board.

They will begin by selecting a word and articulating it to the students. As the teacher slowly

articulates the word (e.g., “m-a-n”) they will place the counters sequentially in the respective

sections of the box. Using the same target word, the students will complete the Word Box

activity using the same word as demonstrated with the teacher. To do so, the teacher will ask the

students to take out their counters and place them beneath each section of the divided box. As the

teacher slowly articulates the word (e.g., “m-a-n”) the students will place the counters

sequentially in the respective sections of the box. Once each box has a counter the student will

say the word slowly as they point to the box with the corresponding sound. The teacher will give

corrective feedback as needed. This procedure will be completed once more for practice. If the

student needs more support, then with the teacher, using a new word they will segment it into its

sounds. If the students can accurately complete segmenting of sounds with the teacher, they will

try the next word on their own. The teacher will give students a new word and on their own, have

the students articulate the word and place the counters sequentially in the respective box as they

say each sound.


20
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
The teacher will then have the students get out their letters. The teacher will select a new

target word and model the Word Box activity step by step on the teacher’s board. First, the

teacher will model, tapping each box as they say each sound. Then choose the correct letter

corresponding with the sound it will be placed in a box from left to right as each sound is said.

Once the word is said, the teacher will remove the first sound, to determine what word or

nonword is left. Using the same target word, the students will complete the Word Box activity

using the same word as demonstrated with the teacher. The students will begin by tapping each

box as the sound is said. Then they will chorally articulate the word slowly as they place the

letters in the appropriate sections of the box. The students will then remove the first sound to

determine what word or nonword is left. This will be repeated for practice once more. If the

student needs more support, using a new word they will segment a word with the teacher again.

If the students are accurately segmenting using the letters with the teacher, the teacher will have

them try the next word on their own. The teacher will give the students a new word and on their

own, the students articulate the word and first tap the box while saying the sound and then put

the letters in the box while saying the sound. Once each box has a letter the student will say the

word slowly as they point to the box with the corresponding sound. After articulating the word,

the student will remove the first letter and read the new word or nonword that is left. The

students will continue to receive new words to segment with the letters until each word on the

word list has been practiced.

Data Collection

Different types of data will need to be collected for both student 1 and student 2. Both

students were given an initial screener/benchmark assessment in September 2021, using the

Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST) (see Appendix I). This assessment helped to
21
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
determine where students are with their phonemic awareness and gave benchmark data for the

beginning of the year. Both students’ benchmark assessments show deficits at the basic phoneme

level. The PAST will be implemented every six weeks to determine if the students are making

progress at the basic phoneme level.

Baseline Data

Baseline data will be collected from previous assessments given (i.e., PAST) along with

nonsense word fluency and teacher-made assessment data. For nonsense word fluency, the initial

baseline will need to be taken using at least three data points to determine students’ current

performance. The students have already completed the PAST once in September, but further data

will need to be gathered on their current abilities to delete and segment phonemes with four

phonemes and a blend. There will need to be three data points on the student’s current

Progress Monitoring Data

Progress monitoring data will be completed using teacher-made assessments of basic

phonemes (see Appendix J). These assessments will have students deleting and substituting

phonemes of words with four phonemes and a blend. These assessments will be given to students

on a weekly schedule to determine their progress. Both students will also be progress monitored

using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) curriculum-based measures

for non-sense word fluency (see Appendix K) as well. After beginning the intervention, progress

monitoring will occur on a weekly schedule to see the effects of the intervention on the student’s

ability to read nonsense words.

Maintenance, Generalization, and Fidelity Data

The PAST will be used to collect maintenance data of phonemic awareness skills at the

basic syllable and onset-rime levels. The PAST was given once in September, and the students
22
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
were able to show proficiency at the basic syllable and onset-rime levels. To ensure the students

are maintaining these skills, the PAST will be given every six weeks. Generalization data will be

taken through student observations every three weeks. A student observation will be completed

while the students are reading during their intervention time. Fidelity data will need to be

collected throughout the intervention implementation. During every intervention implementation

of Word Boxes, a fidelity checklist will be completed. The fidelity checklist will help to ensure

the intervention is being implemented the way it was intended.

Data Analysis

The data collected will be organized through calculations and graphs. The PAST

assessment will be calculated. Each section on the PAST (i.e., basic syllable, onset-rime, and

basic phoneme) is calculated by determining how many questions the student answered correctly

and how many answers were automatic, meaning they did not pause and have to think for a

moment. The end goal is for the students to answer nine out of ten questions correctly at the

basic phoneme level with nine out of ten answers automatic by Spring 2022 benchmark. The

students will be making progress if during Winter 2022 benchmark they score higher than their

September 2021 benchmark scores.

Progress Monitoring Data

The progress monitoring data (i.e., DIBELS nonsense word fluency and teacher-made

basic phoneme assessments) will be organized with graphs using figures created on Excel to

display the students’ progress. After collecting baseline data using these assessments, the data

points will be graphed within the figure to determine the student’s current performance level.

Once the current performance of each assessment is determined, each figure will include a goal

line on the graph. The first goal is for the students to be able to substitute and delete phonemes to
23
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
given words with beginning/ending consonant blends and digraphs to form new words with 90%

accuracy on 2/2 opportunities as measured by the weekly teacher made assessments. The second

goal is the students will be able to blend given nonwords with 54 correct letter sounds per minute

with accuracy on 2/2 opportunities as measured by weekly nonsense word fluency assessments.

As assessments are completed on a weekly basis, those data points will be graphed within the

figure, and a trend line can be determined. The trend line shows the projection if they are on the

right course to achieving their goal. If the students meet the goal, a new goal will be determined

based on the scope and sequence of the intervention. For Word Boxes, the scope and sequence

include spelling the word by writing each letter-sound correspondence in the word. If the student

is not making progress, fidelity data will be checked to determine if the intervention is being

implemented with fidelity. If it is, then the Taxonomy of Intervention will be utilized to intensify

one of the dimensions, therefore strengthening the intervention.

Maintenance, Generalization, and Fidelity Data

Maintenance data will be calculated and graphed using Excel. This information will be

gathered using the PAST assessment that is being implemented every six weeks. To determine

the student’s maintenance of previously taught phonemic awareness skills, the basic syllable, and

onset-rime levels data will be graphed. The students completed this assessment during

September 2021 and were proficient at these skills. To ensure they are maintaining the skills,

during Winter 2022 benchmark and Spring 2022 benchmark the students will need to score the

same or better than in September 2021. Generalization data will be shared within a narrative. The

narrative will review if the students were able to take the learned skills and apply them to

reading. Observations will be taken every three weeks of the student’s reading abilities. Fidelity
24
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
data will be graphed. The graph will show the percentage fidelity was completed and the number

of total sessions for the Word Box intervention.

Summary

Word Boxes is a reading intervention that will be implemented with two students in a

rural community. The two students participating in the intervention are seven-year-old boys in

second grade who are identified with a developmental delay. To gain consent from the

parents/guardians of the students, two forms were sent via email outlining their student’s

participation. The intervention will be implemented in a small group in the learning center

classroom during the morning second-grade foundations for 15 to 20 minutes, three days a week.

The data collected throughout the intervention will include benchmark data, baseline data,

progress monitoring, and maintenance through various assessments. The data will then be

analyzed with calculations and graphs to determine how the students are responding to the Word

Box intervention.
25
PHONEMIC AWARENESS

References

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic Awareness in
Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum.

Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., and Burgess, S. R. (2003).
Phonological sensitivity: A quasi-parallel progression of word structure units and
cognitive operations. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 470-487.

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Ardoin, S. P., Eckert, T. L., Christ, T. J., White, M. J., Morena, L. S., January, S.-A. A., & Hine,
J. F. (2013). Examining variance in reading comprehension among developing
readers: Words in context (Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading) versus words
out of context (Word Lists). School Psychology Review, 42(3), 243–261.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087472

Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., Osborn, J., National Inst. for Literacy, W. D., National Inst. of Child
Health and Human Development, N. B., MD., Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, E. W. D., & Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement,
A. A. M. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching
children to read. Kindergarten through Grade 3.

Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten
make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading
Research Quarterly, 26(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.26.1.3

Berg, M., & Stegelman, T. (2003). The critical role of phonological and phonemic awareness in
reading success: a model for early literacy in rural schools. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 22(4), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F875687050302200407

Blachman, B. A., Ball, E.W., Black, R., & Tangel, D.M. (2000). Road to the code: A
phonological awareness program for young children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes

Burns, M. K., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Rathvon, N. (2017). Effective school interventions:


Evidence-based strategies for improving student outcomes (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

Carson, K. L., Gillon, G. T., Boustead, T. M., Nippold, M., & Troia, G. (2013). Classroom
phonological awareness instruction and literacy outcomes in the first year of
26
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
school. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools,  44(2), 147–160.
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0061)

Chapman, M. L. (2003). Phonemic awareness: Clarifying what we know. Literacy Teaching


and Learning,  7(1–2), 91–114.

Chappell, J. C., Stephens, T. L., Kinnison, L., & Pettigrew, J. D. (2009). Educational
diagnosticians' understanding of phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and
reading fluency. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(1), 24-33.

Clay, M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

Coyne, M. D., Oldham, A., Dougherty, S. M., Leonard, K., Koriakin, T., Gage, N. A., Burns, D.,
& Gillis, M. (2018). Evaluating the effects of supplemental reading intervention within
an MTSS or RTI reading reform initiative using a regression discontinuity
design. Exceptional Children, 84(4), 350–367.

Cunningham, A. E. (1989). Phonemic awareness: The development of early reading


competency. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 471–472.
https://doi.org/10.2307/747608

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional


Children, 52, 219–232. doi:10.1177/0014402985 05200303

Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special


Education, 37, 184–192. doi:10.1177/002246690303 70030801

Deno, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Lembke, E. S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S. A., Windram, H., &
Stachel, N. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology
in the Schools, 46, 44–55. doi:10.1002/pits.20353

DiLorenzo, K., Rody, C., Bucholz, J., & Brady, M. (2011). Teaching letter-sound connections
with picture mnemonics: Itchy’s alphabet and early decoding. Preventing School
Failure,  55(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903286763

Ehri, L. C., Deffner, N. D., & Wilce, L. S. (1984). Pictorial mnemonics for phonics. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 880–893.

Ehri, L. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In C. A.
Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice
across languages. (pp. 237–269). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential to learning to read words in


English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy. (pp.
3–40). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
27
PHONEMIC AWARENESS

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), 250.
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2

Elkonin, D. B. (1963). The psychology of mastering the elements of reading. In B. Simon & J.
Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology in the U.S.S.R. (pp. 165-179). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.

Foegen, A. (2006). Evaluating instructional effectiveness: Tools and strategies for monitoring
student progress. In M. Montague & A. K. Jitendra (Eds.), Teaching mathematics to
middle school students with learning difficulties. (pp. 108–132). Guilford Press.

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role
of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.37

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. (2011). Using CBM
for progress monitoring in reading. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to
multi-level prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.
doi:10.1177/001440291207800301

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. R. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it
important? Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13–18.
doi:10.1177/0040059914522966

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Malone, A. S. (2017). The taxonomy of intervention
intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 35–43.

Gascon, G., & Goodglass, H. (1970). Reading retardation and the information content of stimuli
in paired associate learning. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous
System and Behavior, 6(4), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(70)80006-5

Griffith, P. L., & Olson, M. W. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break the
code. Reading Teacher, 45(7), 516.

Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., & Dietel, R. (2010). Benchmark assessments for improved
learning (AACC Policy Brief). Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to
curriculum-based measurement. Practical intervention in the schools series. Guilford
Publications.
28
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
January, S.-A. A., & Ardoin, S. P. (2015). Technical adequacy and acceptability of curriculum-
based measurement and the measures of academic progress. Assessment for Effective
Intervention, 41(1), 3–15. doi:10.1177/1534508415579095

January, S.-A. A., Ardoin, S. P., Christ, T. J., Eckert, T. L., & White, M. J. (2016). Evaluating
the interpretations and use of curriculum-based measurement in reading and word lists for
universal screening in first and second grade. School Psychology Review, 45, 310–326.
doi:10.17105/ SPR45-3.310-326

Joseph, L. M. (1998). Word boxes help children with learning disabilities identify and spell
words. Reading Teacher, 52, 348–356.

Joseph, L. M. (2000a). Developing first graders’ phonemic awareness, word identification and
spelling: A comparison of two contemporary phonic instructional approaches. Reading
Research and Instruction, 39(2), 160–169. doi:10.1080/19388070009558318

Joseph, L. M. (2000b). Using word boxes as a large group phonics approach in a first grade
classroom. Reading Horizons, 41, 117–127.

Joseph, L. M. (2002). Facilitating word recognition and spelling using word boxes and word
sort phonic procedures. School Psychology Review, 31(1), 122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086146

Kardaleska, L., & Karovska - Ristovska, A. (2018). Revisiting the view of phonological and
phonemic awareness as early predictors in reading difficulties. Vizione, 29, 23–30.

Keesey, S. Konrad, M. & Joseph, L. M. (2015) Word boxes improve phonemic awareness, letter-
sound correspondences, and spelling skills of at risk kindergartners. Remedial and
Special Education, 36, 167-180.

Kilgus, S. P., Methe, S. A., Maggin, D. M., & Tomasula, J. L. (2014). Curriculum-based
measurement of oral reading (R-CBM): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of
evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology, 52,
377– 405. doi:10.1016/j. jsp.2014.06.002

Kilpatrick, D.A., & McInnis, P.J. (n.d.). The phonological awareness screening test (PAST):
An initial report.

Larabee, K., Burns, M., & McComas, J. (2014). Effects of an iPad-sup- ported phonics
intervention on decoding performance and time on- task. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 23(4), 449–469. doi:10.1007/ s10864-014-9214-8

Learning Point Associates. (2004). A closer look at the five essential components of effective
reading instruction: A review of scientifically based reading research for teachers.
Naperville: IL. Author.
29
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O.-P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating
phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3),
263–284. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.23.3.1

Manyak, P. C. (2008). Phonemes in use: Multiple activities for a critical process. Reading
Teacher, 61(8), 659-662. doi:10.1598/RT.61.8.8

McMahan, K. M., Oslund, E. L., & Odegard, T. N. (2019). Characterizing the knowledge of
educators receiving training in systematic literacy instruction. Annals of
Dyslexia,  69(1), 21–33.

Mellard, D. F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to intervention screening and
progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 24(4), 186–195. doi:10.1111/j.1540- 5826.2009.00292.x

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the national
reading panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports
of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

Nelson, H. E., & Warrington, E. K. (1980). An investigation of memory functions in dyslexic


children. British Journal of Psychology, 71(4), 487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8295.1980.tb01762.x

Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. D. (2009). Curriculum-based
measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the
correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001

Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2006). Orton-gillingham and orton-gillingham-based reading


instruction: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 171–183.

Ross, K. M., & Joseph, L. M. (2019). Effects of word boxes on improving students’ basic
literacy skills: A literature review. Preventing School Failure, 63(1), 43–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2018.1480006

Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences
in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1309–1324.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1309

Silbreglitt, B., Parker, D., & Muyskens, P. (2016). Assessment: Periodic assessment to monitor
progress. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of
response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support.,
2nd ed. (pp. 271–291). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4899-7568-3_16
30
PHONEMIC AWARENESS

Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. P. (1995). Effects of explicit
teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and low-
performing students in regular classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 95(5), 387–
408. https://doi.org/10.1086/461851

Swanson, H. L. (2001). Searching for the best model for instructing students with learning
disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children,  34(2), 1.
https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v34i2.6785

Ukrainetz TA, Ross CL, & Harm HM. (2009). An investigation of treatment scheduling for
phonemic awareness with kindergartners who are at risk for reading
difficulties. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 40(1), 86–100.
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0077)

University of Oregon (2021). 8th Edition of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS): Administration and Scoring Guide, 2021 Edition. Eugene, OR: Author.

Venezky, R. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.

Venezky, R. (1999). The American way of spelling. New York: Guilford Press.

Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological


processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional. Developmental Psychology, 30(1),
73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73

Yopp, H. K. (1995). A test for assessing phonemic awareness in young children. Reading


Teacher, 49(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.49.1.3
31
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix A
Intervention Principal Consent Form
32
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix B
Initial Parent Consent Form Emailed
33
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix C
Intervention Parent Consent form
34
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix D
Word Box Fidelity Checklist
35
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix E
Word Box White Board
36
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix F
Counters for Phoneme Segmentation
37
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix G
Letters for Phoneme Segmentation
38
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix H
Sample Word Lists
39
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix I
PAST Data Collection Tool
40
PHONEMIC AWARENESS

Appendix J
Teacher Created Data Collection Tool
41
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix K
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Tool

You might also like