Phonological awareness is
the awareness of the sound structure of the language.
The research on Phonological and
Phonemic Awareness has clearly indicated
that upon entering school, a child's facility with tasks of phonemic
awareness
may be the single most powerful predictor of the success that he or will
experience in learning to read (Adams,
1990).
The research project was
conducted at the John F. Kennedy School in Holbrook.
Holbrook is a small suburban community located south of Boston.
The Kennedy School houses approximately 435 students in prekindergarten
to grade three. The school is
comprised of an integrated preschool, four sessions of half-day kindergarten,
five classes of grades one and three, four classes of grade two and three
special education classrooms. Class
size of the regular education classrooms ranges from 20-26 students.
The number of students enrolled in the special education classrooms is
significantly less. The Kennedy School is a Title I targeted-assistance school.
Title I and Special Education services are delivered through both the
inclusion and pull-out models.
When original research
proposal was submitted, the intended study participants were to be kindergarten
students. However, due to the researcher's district responsibilities
and obligation to provide mentoring and embedded professional development to new
staff members, three first grade students in a self-contained special education
classroom of a new teacher (in need of mentoring) were targeted to participate
in this action research project.
The research subjects were
boys. At the time the action research project began, they were 6-7
to 6-8 years old. Each of the boys
had experienced a great deal of difficulty in kindergarten.
They all lacked language skills, lacked proficiency with tasks of
phonological and phonemic awareness, had minimal knowledge of letter names and
sounds and had developed “acting out” behaviors that commonly result from
being unable to participate at an academic level comparable to that of peers.
In September of 2002, the three students were enrolled in a district special education program known as V.I.P. (Very Individualized Program). In this self-contained, multi-age classroom, the students participated in a full day program staffed by a teacher and an instructional aide (4:1 student-teacher ratio). Their individual prescriptive learning programs were tailored to address both their academic and behavioral needs.
The works of Adams et al, (1998); Cunningham et al, (1998); Goswami, (2000); Griffith & Olson, (1992), Moustafa, (1997); and Yopp & Yopp, (2000) advocate that children's phonological and phonemic awareness skills can be developed by exposure to and participation in language and literacy rich environments where they are exposed to nursery rhymes, songs, chants, finger plays, sound and word games, and predictable texts that contain rhyme, rhythm and repetition.
This action
research project on rhyme sought to explore two alternating treatments designed
to enhance the ability of young children's proficiency with rhyme production
through engagement in interactive and social activities that were both
purposeful and deliberate (Yopp & Yopp, 2000).
An Alternating Treatment
Design was utilized. Treatments A
and B were the independent variables.
Treatment
A –
Students and teacher engaged in shared reading of nursery rhymes, poems, chants,
songs, or rhyming books. Particular
attention was paid to the rhyming words in each.
Treatment
B –
Students and teacher worked with rhyming words from the classroom-reading
program by playing games.
(Note: The original proposal involved engaging in rhyming activities
with the classroom word wall; however, due to the physical constraints of the
classroom, one was not available.)
The dependent variable was
the students' ability to produce auditorily, rhyming words either real or
nonsense following the treatments.
Treatments A and B were administered on different days. At the conclusion of each session, each student was individually asked to detect rhyme with five pairs of words and produce a rhyming word for five additional words. Students were administered the two assessments privately. The results for rhyme detection, rhyme production, and a total score were graphed.
At the beginning of the
action research project, the targeted students were administered the Phonological
Awareness Assessment Instrument (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler,
2001). Six subtests comprise this
group assessment:
1.
Detecting Rhymes
2.
Counting Syllables
3.
Matching Initial Sounds
4.
Counting Phonemes
5.
Comparing Word Lengths
6.
Representing Phonemes with Letters
A maximum score of five
points can be attained on each subtest, or a total of 30 points for the entire
test. On the rhyming portion of the test, Students A and T scored
one point. Student B scored zero.
The
Phonological Awareness Assessment Instrument
Pretest
|
Student |
Detecting Rhymes |
Counting Syllables |
Matching Initial Sounds |
Counting Phonemes |
Comparing Word Length |
Representing Phonemes With Letters |
Total |
|
A |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
|
B |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
T |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
Additionally, each student was individually administered the rhyme
subtests, detection and production of The
Phonological Awareness Test (Robertson and Salter, 1997).
Table 2 shows the results of their performance on that test.
The
Phonological Awareness Test
Rhyme
Subtests
Detection
Production
Total
|
Student |
% |
AE |
% |
AE |
% |
AE |
|
A |
12 |
5-1 |
B |
B |
8 |
B |
|
B |
12 |
5-1 |
B |
B |
5 |
B |
|
T |
12 |
5-1 |
B |
B |
5 |
B |
AE – age equivalent
B – below norms
The teacher-researcher
worked with the students eight times following the alternating treatment design
from November 25, 2002 to February 13, 2003.
Thirty-minute sessions were conducted in a somewhat secluded and quiet
area of the multi-age special education classroom.
Each treatment was administered four times.
Schedule
of Alternating Treatments
|
Date |
Treatment |
Activity |
|
11/25/02 |
A |
'Twas
the Night Before Thanksgiving |
|
12/2/02 |
B |
Concentration
Short A |
|
12/16/02 |
A |
The
Night Before Christmas |
|
1/6/03 |
A |
Stopping
By Woods on a Snowy Evening and Snow |
|
1/13/03 |
B |
Rhyme
Game 1st Prize |
|
2/3/03 |
A |
Rhyme
Through Movement Big Fat Hen |
|
2/10/03 |
B |
Short
O Concentration |
|
2/13/03 |
B |
Picture
Rhyme Concentration |
Each of the
students involved in the action research project responded well to the
teacher-researcher. They thrived on positive attention from an additional adult
in the classroom. They were
cooperative and well behaved during each session and received stickers for their
appropriate behavior.
The teacher-researcher was
careful to maintain a sense of consistency with each intervention.
At the beginning of each lesson the students' attention was directed
toward the concept of rhyme detection and production through oral language play.
Students were provided with clear expectations that at the conclusion of
each lesson they would be administered an assessment that would require them to
detect and produce rhyme.
The rhyming books used in
Treatment A included 'Twas the Night
Before Thanksgiving by
Dav Pilkey, The Night Before Christmas
by Clement C. Moore, Stopping By Woods on
a Snowy Evening by Robert Frost, and Big
Fat Hen, the traditional rhyme, illustrated by Keith Baker.
The materials used for
Treatment B included three teacher-made concentration games and the 1st
Prize Rhyming Game from Wiley Blevin's book Phonemic Awareness
Activities for Early Reading Success.
Complete lesson plans; assessments, and list of resources can be found in the appendices.
Detail
of Assessments of Student Progress
A triangulated approach to
the data collection was utilized. Data
collection instruments included student assessments for rhyme detection and
rhyme production (administered immediately following each intervention
treatment), observation checklist (completed by teacher-researcher following
each intervention treatment), and a student survey.
Copies of each can be found in the appendices.
By February 13th,
(the eighth treatment, which was the fourth administration of Treatment B)
results of the individual posttests for Rhyme Production and Total Score
indicated that student achievement for Student B and Student T was greater
following Treatment B (Rhyming Word Games) as opposed to Treatment A (engagement
in the shared reading of nursery rhymes, poems, chants, songs, or rhyming
books). Additionally, information
recorded on the Observation Checklist indicated a higher level of student
engagement and enthusiasm for Treatment B (rhyming word games) activities.
Examination of data
collected on student A showed that he achieved a mean score in Rhyme Detection
of 3.25 following Treatment A and a mean score of 5.0 following Treatment B.
On the Rhyme Production assessments, Student A achieved a mean score of
4.75 following both treatments. The
mean of Student A's Total Score for Rhyme Detection and Rhyme Production was
9.5 following Treatment A and 9.75 following Treatment B.
The data
collected from Student B showed that he achieved a mean score of 3.25 on the
Rhyme Detection Assessments following Treatment A and a mean score of 2.75
following Treatment B. On the
assessments of Rhyme Production Student B achieved a mean score of 1.6 for
Treatment A and a mean score of 3.25 for Treatment B.
Examination of the mean scores of student B's assessments for Total
Rhyme was 4.25 for Treatment A and 6.25 for Treatment B.
The scores for Student B are listed in the tables below.
The mean score of Student T's assessments for Rhyme Production and Total Rhyme clearly indicate that he responded better to the word games of Treatment B. His mean score for Rhyme Production for Treatment B was 3.25 as opposed to 1.5 for Treatment A. Student T achieved a mean score of 4.5 for Total Rhyme with Treatment A and a mean score of 6.5 for Treatment B. In the assessments for Rhyme Detection Student T achieved a mean score of 3.5 for Treatment A and a mean score of 3.25 for Treatment B. The scores for Student B are indicated in tables below.
On the Rhyme Detection assessment the group's mean score for Treatment A was 3.8 while the group's mean score for Treatment B was 3.2. However, on the Assessments of Rhyme Production and Total Rhyme, the mean scores for Treatment B exceeded those of Treatment A. On the assessment of Rhyme Production, students achieved a group mean score of 3.8 following Treatment B and a group mean score of only 2.5 following Treatment A. On the Total Rhyme Assessment the group mean score of Treatment B-7.5, exceeded the group mean score of Treatment A-6.08. The group means are displayed on the table below.
The Observation Checklist
and the Student Survey Form provided the teacher-researcher with additional
information on which to reflect for each intervention.
Data collected from the Observation Checklist indicated that students
were more engaged and demonstrated greater enthusiasm for Treatment B.
The Observation Checklist
for both treatments consisted of three statements that rated the students'
attention to the task and enthusiasm on a scale of one to five.
Additionally, there was a place for the teacher-researcher to record
anecdotal notes. The mean scores from the Observation Checklist indicate that
students were more engaged and enthusiastic during Treatment B: Rhyming Word
Games.
Students' scores for each lesson as well as their
mean scores and the group mean scores are displayed in the tables below.
|
Student |
11/25/02
|
12/16/02
|
1/6/03
|
2/3/03
|
Mean
Score |
|
Student
A |
7 |
9 |
7 |
12 |
8.75 |
|
Student
B |
5 |
6 |
4 |
12 |
6.75 |
|
Student
T |
6 |
7 |
7 |
11 |
7.75 |
|
Group |
18 |
22 |
18 |
35 |
7.75 |
Observation
Checklist: Treatment B
Student
|
12/2/02 |
1/13/03 |
2/10/03 |
2/13/03 |
Mean
Score
|
|
Student
A |
12 |
14 |
12 |
15 |
13.25 |
|
Student
B |
11 |
14 |
13 |
15 |
13.25 |
|
Student
T |
8 |
12 |
12 |
15 |
12.75 |
|
Group |
31 |
40 |
57 |
45 |
12.75 |
|
Treatment
A |
7.75 |
|
Treatment
B |
12.75 |
Finally,
Student B and Student T were surveyed as to which treatment they preferred,
Treatment A, engaging in shared readings of rhyming books, poems, songs, and
chants or Treatment B, playing rhyming word games.
Both boys indicated a preference for Treatment B.
Student A moved before having an opportunity to complete this survey.
Student
|
Treatment
A
|
Treatment
B
|
|
Student
B |
4 |
5 |
|
Student
T |
6 |
8 |
|
Group
Mean |
5 |
8.5 |
At the outset of this action research project, the teacher-researcher expected that the students would respond more favorably to Treatment A: Engagement in shared readings of nursery rhyme, poems, chants, songs, or rhyming books.
The results of this action
research project are limited to the performance of the three participants in
this study. Anecdotal notes by the
researcher indicate that the three students enjoyed participating in explicit
learning activities of Treatment B that they perceived to be games rather than
“classroom work”.
During Treatment A, each of
the students exhibited difficulty focusing on listening to the rhyming texts.
Each text reading involved a picture walk and the making of predictions.
A preliminary reading was done for the purpose of having the students
savor the text and its beautiful language.
A discussion following the first reading attempted to help the students
make text connections and explore the author's use of rhyme.
During the second reading,
the students were encouraged to participate by joining in with the rhyming
words. Despite the scaffolding done to prepare the student's for
this activity, responses were not forthcoming, did not make sense, or did not
rhyme. This was even true for the
poem ”The Night Before Christmas” by Clement C. Moore. None of the students indicated that they had any prior
knowledge of that particular text. Two
of the participants responded best to the Treatment A, Big Fat Hen, which included a kinesthetic component.
Based on observations of the three participants, the teacher-researcher concluded that the students were more successful with Treatment B than Treatment A because they lacked knowledge of story structure and the ability to attend to both story and rhyme simultaneously. Treatment B provided the boys with an opportunity to be narrowly focused on rhyme. Additionally, the competitive attitude they brought to the task that they perceived to be more “fun” than work was highly motivating and is believed to have helped them maintain their focus.
The review of the literature on phonological and phonemic awareness clearly indicates that training students in
phonological awareness tasks involving rhyme, syllables, and onset and rimes, as well as phonemic awareness tasks,
significantly contributes to their reading and spelling achievement. Additionally, the research also indicates that for
students who come to school lacking these skills, explicit, systematic instruction provided in a small group setting may
facilitate the group's acquisition of the understanding of the alphabetic principle and support reading spelling
achievement. Posttest results for the students involved in this action research project seem to confirm these findings.
Posttest results for Student
B on The Phonological Awareness
Assessment Instrument indicate
an improvement from a Total Score of 2 on the pretest to a Total Score of 26 out
of 30 on the posttest.
Student T achieved a Total
Score of 3 on the pretest of Phonological
Awareness Instrument and a Total Score of 24 out of 30 on the posttest.
Results of the posttest show
that both students improved in each of the subtests as well as in their total
score.
The Phonological Awareness
Assessment Instrument
Posttest Results (March 17, 2003)
|
Student |
Detecting Rhymes |
Counting Syllables |
Matching Initial Sounds |
Counting Phonemes |
Comparing Word Length |
Representing Phonemes With Letters |
Total |
|
B |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
7 |
26 |
|
T |
5 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
7 |
24 |
Student B |
|
|
|
|
Pretest |
Posttest |
Rhyme Detection |
0 |
5 |
Total Score |
2 |
26 |
|
Student
T |
|
|
|
|
Pretest
|
Posttest |
|
Rhyme
Detection |
1 |
5 |
Total Score |
3 |
24 |
Both students B and T showed improvement on the rhyming subtests of The Phonological Awareness Test. Student A moved and was not available for the posttesting.
The
Phonological Awareness Test
Rhyming Subtest (March 17, 2003
a:
above norms
b:
below norms
STUDENT
B
Raw
Score
Age Equivalent
Percentile Rank
Standard Score
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Discrimination
8
10
5-1
a
12
60
86
106
Production
0
8
b
5-11
b
23
b
96
Total
8
18
b
6-5
5
28
65 99
STUDENT T
Raw
Score
Age Equivalent
Percentile Rank
Standard Score
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Discrimination
8
9
5-1
5-10
12
23
86
97
Production
0
5
B
B
B
16
B 86
Total
8
14
B
5-2
5
16
65
88
The findings from this Action Research Project are limited to the participants in this study and do not suggest that games replace the use of quality children's literature in an early reading program.
For these three particular students the success they experienced through explicit instruction using rhyming games was a “hook” that was used to encourage and enable them to open the invitation to literacy. It is hoped that the success they have experienced will continue to motivate them and empower them to accept the invitation to literacy with confidence and enthusiasm.
|
|
||