Research Design

Summary

A young child's home environment as well as methods of classroom reading instruction both have powerful influence on his/her phonological development.  Phonological awareness is measured by tasks that require a child to reflect on or to manipulate the component sounds of spoken words.  There is a developmental progression from phonological awareness of “large” segments or units of phonology (syllables, onset and rimes) to phonological awareness of “small” segments or units (phonemes).  “The developmental process of making phonological knowledge explicit seems to be much easier for syllables, onsets, and rimes than it does for phonemes.” (Goswami, 2001). 

Early linguistic routines such as nursery rhymes are but one vehicle for fostering phonological awareness. There is a link between a child's phonological awareness and his/her progress in learning to read; students who perform well on tasks of phonological awareness are those students who have had language and literacy rich backgrounds (Goswami, 2000).  Goswami and others (Bryant, P. E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L., & Crossland, J. (1990), Griffith & Olson (1992),  Maclean, M., Bryant, P. & Bradley, L. (1987),  Richgels, Poremba & McGee (1996), Yopp (1995), Yopp and Yopp (2000),  advocate exposure to quality language models; reciting nursery rhymes, singing songs, playing rhyming games.  Goswami (2001) argues that engaging in the reading and shared reading of books with rhyme, rhythm, and predictable text are the very means by which a child begins to develop a mental lexicon as well as the capacity to attend to sound and print, and later to map sound to print and print to sound.

Moustafa & Maldonao-Colon (1999) advocate the whole-to-part teaching of phonics through the use of rich, engaging children's literature, poetry and songs.  They advocate the use of shared reading as a starting point as it is through shared reading and intensive attention to print that students begin to develop the ability to make phonic generalizations.  Yopp and Yopp (2000), further recommend that pieces of children's literature be used to engage and instruct students with various types of sound manipulation activities (matching, isolation, substitution, blending, segmentation, and deletion) for syllables, onset-rime, and phonemes.

Use of children's books that play with speech sounds through rhyme, alliteration, assonance, and phonemic manipulation is one of the easiest and most accessible ways to improve children's sensitivity to the phonemes that make up our language (Yopp, 1995).  Richgels, Poremba & McGee (1996), state that proficiency in phonemic awareness is critical to successful reading, writing and spelling achievement.  Providing students with opportunities to practice linguistic awareness and attend to print in a manner that is meaningful, motivating, and engaging should be an integral part of any early literacy program.

Problem

Does a student's phonemic awareness – specifically rhyming ability, improve when instruction involves using words in context through Shared Reading experiences, rather than using words in isolation?

Method

• Materials:  Rhyming books, nursery rhymes, List of Rimes (Cunningham 2000), Informal Sound Assessment, Informal Rhyming Assessment, Individual Rhyming Words Picture Sort

1. Population:  Primary – age children who are students in a K-6 suburban school in a middle-income community in southeast Massachusetts. 
   1. Subjects:  three grade one students, ages 6.4,  6.5 , and  6.7 .  The 6.7 age child is the focus of this research.  Students were randomly chosen from a group of 21 students who met the criteria for the study out of  a total enrollment of 113 first grade students currently placed in 4 classrooms.
2. Project Design:  A-B-A-B Design with two treatments.  The first and third treatment phases are condition A – Words in Isolation. The second and fourth treatment phases are condition B – Shared Reading. Instructional interventions are contrasted – Rhyming words in isolation (A) versus Rhyming words using Shared Reading.(B).  The A-B-A-B design “permits the most powerful demonstration of experimental control because it requires the repeated introductions and withdrawl of an intervention strategy (Tawney & Gast,. 1984).

3. Planned outcomes:  Student's rhyming ability will improve when instruction involves using words in context through Shared Reading experiences, rather than using words in isolation.
4. Time Line:  Students will be administered pre-assessment measures followed by eight weeks of intervention. Post-assessment measures will then be administered.  

Baseline

 The following measures were used in initial selection of students to be considered for this study.

• California Achievement Test (CAT) results from May 2002 (students' Kindergarten year).One subtest: 
  • Sounds (beginning and ending)
• Classroom teacher from Kindergarten year (2001-2002) recommendation
• Classroom teacher from first grade year (2002-2003) recommendation
• Informal sound assessment – beginning, ending, medial vowel, ending sounds
• Rhyming Assessment / Rubric
• Individual rhyming words picture sort

California Achievement Test (CAT)  Kindergarten students were administered the CAT in May 2002.  Students who scored in the 40^th  percentile or below on the Sounds subtest were considered for this study.  The Sounds subtest measures the student's ability to identify beginning and ending sounds presented orally.

Informal sound assessment  This measure required that the student identify the beginning sound of 19 words presented orally and write that letter down, followed by 15 words to identify the ending sound.  For the purpose of this study the subject's scores falling in the 50^th percentile or below on the ending sounds subtest was considered.  This measure was given as a preassessment measure prior to the study and as a post assessment measure following completion of the interventions.

Informal Rhyming Assessment (The Rhyming Assessment/Rubric)  This measure reflects a student's ability to rhyme – their knowledge of an onset and a rime. Student was given 15 stimulus words and asked to supply a rhyming word, followed by 5 phrases which required completion with a rhyming word (e.g. “I see a bug on the ___ ). Students who scored in the 50^th percentile or below were considered.  This measure was given as a preassessment measure prior to the study and as a post assessment measure following completion of the interventions.

Individual rhyming words picture sort  Student was presented with a total of 20 rhyming picture cards; 5 rhyming picture cards were used as stimulus cards and 15 rhyming picture cars were used as response cards (3 for each stimulus card.)

Two practice items were presented:  subjects were presented with 4 picture cards and asked to name the pictures (these served as response cards).  They were then presented with 2 additional picture cards, which served as stimulus cards.  The two stimulus cards were placed on the worktable in a vertical position in front of the student.  The student was asked to find two picture cards (response cards) that rhymed with each stimulus card.  Practice trials were followed by correction, explanation, and readministration (up to three times) if the student was unable to produce a correct response, the student was provided with the answer.

Students were then presented with 15 picture cards and asked to name the picture.  If the student named the card incorrectly or was unable to name the picture the student was told the appropriate name.  Students were then presented with 5 additional picture cards which served as stimulus cards, and asked to identify the pictures.  The cards were then placed on the worktable in a vertical position in front of the student.  Students were told to sort the cards that rhymed with each stimulus card.  Upon completion of the task the subjects would have 5 rows of 4 picture cards each (1 stimulus card and three response cards).  Students were asked to verbalize the names of the pictures while they sorted them as a means of ensuring that the students named the cards correctly. (e.g. if a subject called a “pail” a “bucket,” the student was told, “That is a pail.”  Students who scored in the 50^th percentile or below were considered for participation in this study. This measure was given as a preassessment measure prior to the study and as a post assessment measure following completion of the interventions.

Findings

Twenty one students met the criteria for being considered for this study.  Three students were randomly chosen to participate in the group.  One of those students was randomly chosen to be the subject of this study.

The student's score on the Sounds pretest of the California Achievement Test administered in May 2002 (his Kindergarten year) fell in the  40^th percentile. This score indicated he exhibited difficulty identifying beginning and ending sounds at the time of administration.  On the Informal Sound Assessment, he was able to name 10/ 19  beginning sounds, and 0/13 ending sounds. The student was clearly experiencing difficulty with sound recognition in both positions, it was more evident for ending sounds. 

When presented with the Informal Rhyming Assessment, his immediate response was “I don't know how to rhyme, I don't like rhyming”.  He was able to supply one rhyming word for a word presented in isolation, and one rhyming word to complete a stimulus phrase. The student's score on the Individual Rhyming Words Picture Sort was 4/15.     During administration of the test, he frequently asked for the names of the pictures to be reidentified, and often verbalized “This is too hard,” yet persevered until the task was   completed.     

The student was also informally interviewed.  He reported that he was not read to on a regular basis at home, “Sometimes maybe Mom will read me a book,” “No, not every night, just sometimes.”  He said he did not have a favorite book.  When asked to name any nursery rhymes he may be familiar with he said “I don't know what that is”.  He was then read “Mary had a Little Lamb,” “Hickory Dickory Dock,” and “Twinkle Twinkle little Star.”  He demonstrated little recognition for these rhymes; “Maybe I knew the ‘star one a long time ago, but I forgot.”  He did verbalize, “I wish I can learn to read like my brothers; they can read really good!”

Intervention

Weeks 1 – 2

During the first two weeks of intervention (A phase,) students were presented a series of pre-selected words containing rimes from the “list of rimes”. Students were asked to generate words that rhymed with those stimulus words.  Student responses were written on large chart paper.  Correct responses were written in large print in a list form, incorrect responses were jotted down in small print on the side of the chart in the order the response was given.

Weeks  3– 4

During the third and fourth week of intervention (B phase,) students participated in Shared Reading using rhyming books and nursery rhymes.  A book or selection was read to the students (the text was always in view of the students).  The book or selection was reread stopping at preselected intervals to identify rhyming words (rhyming pairs) and generate additional rhyming words.  Responses were written in large print in a list form, incorrect responses were jotted down in small print on the side of the chart in the order the response was given.

Weeks 5 – 6

During the fifth and sixth weeks of intervention (second A phase,) the first two weeks of the intervention were repeated. Students were presented a series of pre-selected words containing rimes from the “list of rimes”.  Students were asked to generate words that rhymed with the stimulus words.  Student responses were written on large chart paper.  Correct responses were written in large print in a list form, incorrect responses were jotted down in small print on the side of the chart in the order the response was given.

Weeks 7 – 8

During the seventh and eighth weeks of intervention (second B phase) the second two weeks of the intervention were repeated - Shared Reading using rhyming books and nursery rhymes.  A book or selection was read to the students (the text was always in view of the students).  The book or selection was reread stopping at preselected intervals to identify rhyming words (rhyming pairs) and generate additional rhyming words.  Responses were written in large print in a list form, incorrect responses were jotted down in small print on the side of the chart in the order the response was given.

Analysis

Click on graph to enlarge

The number of responses offered as well as the number of correct responses were recorded and graphed.  Responses offered by the student who is the focus of this study were transcribed. To ensure accuracy and validate results a paraprofessional also evaluated the results prior to the next session.

Examination of the above graph indicates that there is a difference between the student's ability to generate rhyming words in the Shared Reading phases as compared with the Rhyming Words in isolation phases.  His ability to generate rhyming words during the shared Rhyming conditions exceeded his ability to do so during both conditions that involved words in isolation.  Variation is evident between the scores in the two A conditions – words in isolation.  This indicates the student was able to generate more rhyming words in that treatment condition as well.

The student's ability to generate rhyming words did improve using the Shared Reading treatment.  His improved rhyming ability was evidenced during both weeks 3-4, and weeks 7-8.  Improvement of his ability to generate rhyming words for words presented in isolation was also noted during the second A phase – weeks 5-6. This improvement may be due to the influence of  the Shared Reading approach during the second phase (weeks 3-4), as well as having had frequent opportunities to participate in rhyming activities using both approaches.

         At the onset of the study, the student had very limited ability to rhyme, and appeared to not have a firm grasp on the concept rhyming in general.  His responses tended to be words that began with the same letter of the stimulus word (e.g. “can” offered as a word that rhymes with “cat”), or were related to that word in some manner.  (e.g. “water” offered as a word that rhymes with “pail”).  During the first half of the study the student exhibited a very impulsive approach to task.  He was very quick to answer, and in fact during the first Shared Reading intervention, he often offered responses before they were requested. His impulsivity was greatly diminished during the later half of the study. It is important to note that this student demonstrated excellent effort throughout the study.

         He demonstrated a natural curiosity regarding “rhyme” and appeared fascinated with the concept once he began experiencing success.  The student's affect and demeanor were transformed dramatically over the period of the study.  At the onset of the study he appeared confused and discouraged with his limited ability to rhyme, and very often averted is eyes or would tip his head down after answering.  By the end of the third week of the intervention (mid-way through the first Shared Reading intervention) he became much more self-confident, wore a big smile, sat up straighter and verbalized “This is really fun, I like rhyming.”

As the shared reading/rhyming selections were read during the second B phase, the student's responses were very much improved. He paused before he answered, and often subvocalized his answer before saying it aloud. The student made good use of transferring the manner in which the rhyme was presented, and monitored his own answers by repeating the rhyming pair detected in the book. (e.g. rhyming pair from the text was “one/sun”, his responses was “one/run, “run!”). 

          The possibility of multiple-intervention interference must be considered.  The student's improvement in ability to generate rhyming words may be due to some combination of the Shared reading intervention and words in isolation intervention.  Previous to the introduction of the interventions the student had related that he was not familiar with popular nursery rhyms and didn't know how to rhyme – this was further reflected in his informal tests administered prior to this study.  Over the period of the 8 week study the student had exposure to rhyming activities four days a week. 

Conclusions

Shared Reading is an effective strategy to use to improve phonological awareness – specifically rhyme awareness and one's ability to generate rhyming words. Use of whole-to-part sequence instruction provides students a context to which they can relate the abstract sounds. 

Implications

Parents play a key role in developing and supporting their child's literacy and learning.  From their early years children are intrigued by language.  Exposure to nursery rhymes, rhyming text, children's songs and similar linguistic routines stimulates phonological awareness.  A child's early experiences in informal learning environments are critical to fostering proper development.  Familiarity with a skill such as rhyming can easily be fostered through countless daily informal environmental experiences.

Children in early childhood settings would benefit from  daily experiences in a rich linguistic environment.  Rhyming, nursery rhymes, and language games provide children with linguistic activities that help them become aware of features of speech sounds and words.  Although the ability to detect and generate rhyme is only one aspect of phonological development it does play a key role.  Teachers and adults that work with students need to take advantage of countless opportunities throughout the day to foster an awareness and appreciation for language.

Maintaining rhyming word charts from words generated during storytime would be very beneficial for the students. Visual recognition that words with the same vowels and ending letters usually rhyme is an important skill for beginning readers and writers.  Pairing an auditory activity such as rhyming word identification, with the written word – generating word lists is skillful teaching.

The findings of this study are limited to the population at this time, and therefore are not to be generalized.

Definition of Terms:

Onset – the consonants preceding the vowel of a syllable, as str in strip

Rime -  a vowel and any following consonants of a syllable, as /ook/ in brook

Rhyme –  identical or very similar recurring final sounds in words within or, more often, at the end of lines of verse

Shared Reading –   an instructional strategy in which a teacher and students read together.  Typically, a book is read and reread many times.  On the first several readings, the teacher does most of the reading.  As the children become more familiar with the book, they join in and “share” the reading. (Cunningham & Allington,1999).

Sample Assessments

List of Rimes

Informal sound assessment

The Rhyming Assessment/Rubric)

(Click picture for full-size version)

Individual rhyming words picture sort

References

Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991).  “Does phonemic awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling?”  Reading Research Quarterly, 26 (1), 49-66.

Blachman, B.A. (2000.  Phonological awareness.  In. M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & Barr (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Research:  Volume III (pp 483-502).  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bridge, C.A., Winograd, P. N. & Haley, D. (1983).  Using predictable materials vs. preprimars to teach beginning sight words.  The Reading Teacher, 36(9), 884-891.

Bryant, P. E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L., & Crossland, J. (1990).  Rhyme, alliteration, phoneme detection, and learning to read. Developmental Psychology, 26, 429-438.

Cunningham, Patricia M. (2000).  Phonics They Use – Words for Reading and Writing. New York:  Longman.

Cunningham, J.W., Cunningham, P.M., Hoffman, J. V., and Yopp, H. K. (1998).  Phonemic awareness and the teaching of reading:  A position statement from the board of directors of the International Reading Association.  Newark, DE:  International Reading Association.

Cunningham, Patricia M. & Allington, Richard L. (1999).  Classrooms That Work:  They Can All Read and Write.  New York:NY:  Longman Publishers.

Ehri, L., et al (2000).  Phonemic awareness instruction.  Report of the National Reading Panel, 2-9 – 2-86.

Goswami, U. (2001).  Early Phonologicl Development and the Acquisition of Literacy.  In Neuman, Susan B. & Dickinson, David K. Handbook of Early Literacy Research.    (pp. 111-125). New York,NY: Guilford Press.

Goswami, U. (2000).  Phonological and lexical process.  In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.).  Handbook of Reading Research:  Volume III. (pp 251-284).  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Griffith, Priscilla L.& Olson, Mary W. (1992).  Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break the code. The Reading Teacher, 45 (7), 516-523.

Maclean, M., Bryant, P. & Bradley, L. (1987).  Rhymes, nursery rhymes, and reading in early childhood.  Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33(3), 255-281.

Moustafa, M. & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1999).  Whole-to-parts phonics instruction:  Building on what children know to help them know more.  The Reading Teacher, 52 (5) 448-457.

Richels, D. J., Poremba, K.J., & McGee, L. M. (1996).  Kindergarteners talk about print:  Phonemic awareness in meaningful contexts.  The Reading Teacher, 49 (8), 632-641.

Tawney & Gast (1984). Single-subject research in Special Education.  Columbus, OH:  Merrill. as cited in Neuman, Susan B. and Mc Cormick, Sandra (Eds.)  Single-Subject Experimental Research: Applications for Literacy.  Newark, DE:  International Reading Association.

Yopp, H. K. (1995).  Read-Aloud Books for Developing Phonemic Awareness:  An Annotated Bibliography.  The Reading Teacher, 48 (6).

Yopp, H.K. & Yopp, R.H. (2000).  Supporting phonemic awareness development in the classroom.  The Reading Teacher, 54 (2), 130-143.