Literature Review of Phonemic Awareness
Literature Review of Phonemic Awareness
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Phonemic Awareness
Katelyn Mello
Dr. Neeper
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],
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
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
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).
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.
alphabetic principle (Manyak, 2008). In the English language, students must have an
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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
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;
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).
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.,
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).
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).
design and implementation systematically helps students transfer skills, realize the connection
between mastered and related skills, and demonstrate efficacy on standardized measures or
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).
explicit instruction principles are incorporated into the intervention’s design and delivery.
Academic considerations reflect the extent the intervention incorporates explicit instruction (e.g.,
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,
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
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
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).
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
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
target words are identified, the Word Boxes are created by drawing a rectangle and creating the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
and in second grade identified with a developmental delay in the area of cognition and
formations, and letter-sound correspondence. The student has a strength in vocabulary and
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
of Word Boxes, a fidelity checklist will be completed. The fidelity checklist will help to ensure
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
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
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
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
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)
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.
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., 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.
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
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. (1999). The American way of spelling. New York: Guilford Press.
Appendix J
Teacher Created Data Collection Tool
41
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Appendix K
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Tool