Running

head: PHONOLOGICAL
AWARENESS
PHONOLOGICAL
AWARENESS
TRAINING TRAINING

The Effects of Phonological Awareness Training on Basic Reading Skills in Division II Students
with Reading Disabilities
Kelly DeCoste
University of Calgary

Section
Introduction
Literature Review
Research Questions
Methods
Results & Impact
Clarity of Writing
OVERALL

Mark
2/2
2/2
2/2
5/5
4/4
4/5
19/20

Good Work Kelly.

Please refer to my comments if you require clarity regarding the marking.
If you would like to speak with me regarding you grade, please feel free to contact me directly at
smcolp@ucalgary.ca.

The Effects of Phonological Awareness Training on Basic Reading Skills in Division II Students
with Reading Disabilities
Deficient phonological awareness (PA) skills have been consistently identified in a
majority of students who struggle with reading (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008; Shaywitz, 2003;

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

Wanzek, Dickson, Bursuck, & White, 2000). PA, or an understanding of the linguistic structure
of oral language, encompasses many skills that range from simple (e.g., rhyming) to complex
(e.g., blending phonemes). These skills, particularly those that are most complex, have been
found to be a core component of learning to read (Torgeson, 2000) as children connect sounds to
written symbols and are able to break written words down into their component sounds (Ball &
Blachman, 1991; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008).
Empirical evidence suggests that without effective intervention, young children with
deficient PA skills are at risk for persistent difficulties throughout schooling (Fawcett &
Nicolson, 1995; Lyon, 1995; Torgesen, 2000; Torgesen et al., 1999), and the majority of children
identified with reading difficulties after grade 2 are not likely to close the reading gap with their
peers (Lyon, 1995; Shaywitz et al., 1999; Torgesen, 2000). With numbers upward of 70% of
students still struggling to read in grade 12 (Lyon, 1995), current remediation strategies are not
specific enough, not systematic enough, and not frequent enough to close the reading gap for
these learners (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Lyon, 1995).
Early intervention programs that focus on explicit instruction in PA skills have been
found to be effective in improving PA and basic reading skills in young learners, with
improvements persisting over time (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008;
Wanzek et al., 2000). However, the benefit of these programs for older learners and for those
with the lowest level of achievement has largely been left unexplored (Bhat, Griffin, & Sindelar,
2003; NICHD, 2000). To date, extant research has almost exclusively focused on the importance
of early intervention PA training programs in preventing or lessening reading difficulties
(Gonzalez & Nelson, 2003); however, few studies exist that empirically evaluate the content and
effectiveness of these programs (Otaiba, Puranik, Ziolkowski, & Montgomery, 2009). Moreover,

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

most of these studies did not include children who were at the lowest level of achievement
(Blachman, 1994; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). Thus, existing knowledge of best practices for
older learners and for those with significant reading difficulties is considered particularly
inadequate.
Given that reading disabilities (RD) comprise an estimated 80% of all learning
disabilities (Lyon, 1995), identifying programs that provide effective remediation for this subset
of learners has important implications for general practice. These individuals have inefficient
ways of acquiring and processing information, and so require more intensive, explicit instruction
to learn (Ball & Blachman, 1991). Additionally, these learners are typically older by the time
they display the substantial discrepancy between ability and achievement that is generally
required to meet diagnostic criteria to receive special education services (APA, 2000;
McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008). Thus, for the majority of these learners, early intervention efforts
were not available to potentially lessen their reading difficulties.
The current study seeks to provide empirical support for the effectiveness of the
Lindamood Phonemic Sequencing Program (LiPS; Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998) on PA and
basic reading skills in a group of Division II students with a diagnosed reading disability.
Though PA programs have demonstrated benefits in reading improvements for younger learners,
it is possible that a critical period exists for PA training in improving reading skills (Gonzalez &
Nelson, 2003) and that these programs may not be as effective for older learners. If such is the
case, remediation efforts that focus on PA training programs to improve reading in older learners
should be discontinued. The current study seeks empirical evidence to answer the following five
research questions:
Research Questions

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

1.

Does the LiPS program contribute to higher levels of PA skills in Division II

2.

students enrolled in a Learning and Literacy (L&L) program?

Does the LiPS program contribute to higher levels of word recognition skills in

3.

Division II students enrolled in an L&L program?

Does the LiPS program contribute to higher levels of phonetic decoding skills in

4.

Division II students enrolled in an L&L program?

Does the LiPS program contribute to higher levels of word recognition fluency in

5.

Division II students enrolled in an L&L program?

Does the LiPS program contribute to higher levels of phonetic decoding fluency
in Division II students enrolled in an L&L program?

Null Hypotheses
The present study proposes the following five null hypotheses:
H01:

Following the 12-week period during which the LiPS program was administered

for 30 minutes per school day, mean gain scores for phonological awareness skills, as
measured by the Phonological Awareness subtest of the Kaufman Test of Educational
Achievement, Second edition (KTEA-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004), will not be
significantly different between participants in the intervention and comparison groups.
H02:

Following the 12-week period during which the LiPS program was administered

for 30 minutes per school day, mean gain scores for word recognition skills, as measured
by the Letter and Word Recognition subtest of the KTEA-II, will not be significantly
different between participants in the intervention and comparison groups.
H03:

Following the 12-week period during which the LiPS program was administered

for 30 minutes per school day, mean gain scores for phonetic decoding skills, as
measured by the Nonsense Word Decoding subtest of the KTEA-II, will not be
significantly different between participants in the intervention and comparison groups.

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

H04:

Following the 12-week period during which the LiPS program was administered

for 30 minutes per school day, mean gain scores for word recognition fluency, as
measured by the Word Recognition Fluency subtest of the KTEA-II, will not be
significantly different between participants in the intervention and comparison groups.
H05:

Following the 12-week period during which the LiPS program was administered

for 30 minutes per school day, mean gain scores for phonetic decoding fluency, as
measured by the Decoding Fluency subtest of the KTEA-II, will not be significantly
different between participants in the intervention and comparison groups.
Method
Study Design
The current study was designed to measure achievement effects following a 12-week
implementation of the LiPS program in selected Division II L&L classes (grades four to six).
Using baseline data collected at the beginning of this study, and data collected at the end of the
12-week intervention phase, empirical evidence will be used to determine whether there is a
relationship between the LiPS program and PA and basic reading skills. This study will use a
repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) design to measure participants
gains in skills as measured by performance on five selected subtests of the KTEA-II across the
12-week time period.
Participants
Cluster sampling will be used to randomly select four L&L classes at each Division II
level for participation in this study. Stratified sampling will then be used to randomly divide
classes of each grade level into treatment and comparison groups. Thus, treatment and
comparison groups will be comprised of students from two classes at each grade level.

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

The Calgary Board of Education (CBE) offers the L&L Program in five English-speaking
schools at the Division II (grades 4-6) level. Students with a diagnosed learning disability are
enrolled in the program, but receive programming that is fully blended within regular classroom
programming. Thus, though L&L students are integrated with non-L&L students in the
classroom, only those enrolled in the program and with a diagnosed reading disability (RD) will
be eligible for participation in this study.
Instruments
Baseline and post-intervention data for PA and basic reading skill achievement will be
gathered using selected subtests from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second
edition (KTEA-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). The KTEA-II was selected because it is a normreferenced measure that includes subtests that assess reading-related skills that have been linked
to early reading development (Vladescu, 2007). The diagnostic design of the KTEA-II permits
separate examination of phonological awareness, word and phonetic decoding skills, and word
and phonetic fluency skills. Additionally, the two alternate forms included in this test kit allow
growth to be monitored over a short period of time without risking practice effects.
The KTEA-II was normed on 3000 examinees aged 4.5 through 25 years, and was similar
to the 2001 U.S. Bureau of the Census data (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). Internal consistency
coefficients, alternate form reliability, test-retest reliability, and interrater reliability are
considered acceptable (i.e. coefficients above .90), though correlations for some subtests were
below .90 (Vladescu, 2007). Moderate to high correlations have been found between most
subtests and composites, suggesting that the KTEA-II possesses adequate construct validity.
Data have supported concurrent validity with information gained from standardized tests of
achievement like the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Third edition (WJ-III ACH;

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Second
edition (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2001), as well as from standardized intelligence tests including the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Third edition (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991) and the
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities Third edition (WJ-III COG; Woodcock et al.,
2001). The four-factor model of this test (reading, written language, math, oral language) was
supported with confirmatory factor analyses (Vladescu, 2007).
Vladescu (2007) raised concerns about the technical adequacy of this test, particularly the
oral language section. However, he found that data obtained from older examinees (grades 2-12)
was sufficiently reliable. As the current study is not concerned with making eligibility decisions
for special education services, but rather with changes in performance over time, the KTEA-II
was deemed to possess adequate psychometric properties for the purposes of this study.
Five subtests from the KTEA-II were selected to measure PA and basic reading skills in
this study: Phonological Awareness, Letter and Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding,
Word Recognition Fluency, and Decoding Fluency. The Phonological Awareness subtest
measures the examinees ability to provide rhyming words for words given by the examiner,
identify words that do not rhyme, and match pictures based on the final sound of presented
stimulus pictures. They are further required to blend word parts, segment words, repeat words
and delete given word segments. Thus, this subtest was selected as a measure of PA skills. Basic
word reading skills will be measured using the Letter and Word Recognition subtest, where the
examinee is required to point to the letters named by the examiner, point to letters corresponding
to sounds given by the examiner, give letter sounds, and read words. Similarly, phonetic
decoding skills will be measured using the Nonsense Word Decoding subtest, which assesses the
ability to pronounce nonsense words. The Word Recognition Fluency subtest requires the

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

examinee to read words aloud as quickly as they can during a given time period and thus
provides a measure of basic word recognition fluency, while the Decoding Fluency subtest will
provide a measure of phonetic decoding efficiency (fluency).
The LiPS program promotes phonemic awareness skills while facilitating the application
of these skills to spelling, reading, and speech (Pokorni, Worthington, & Jamison, 2004). Using
a multisensory design, the LiPS program teaches students to use oral-motor movements to attach
to sounds that phonemes make within words and will be used with the treatment group during the
intervention phase of this study. Teachers of the treatment group classes will be trained on the
administration of the LiPS program and will provide daily 30-minute instruction for the duration
of the 12-week intervention phase of this study.
Procedure
Informed consent and screening. The University of Calgarys Research Ethics Board
granted approval for this study, and approval was also gained from the administrators of the
Calgary Board of Education, and from participating school administrators. Parents or guardians
provided written informed consent, and participating students provided written informed assent.
A review of the psychoeducational reports in potential participants cumulative files was
carried out to ensure inclusion criteria were met. In addition to requiring a diagnosed RD and
enrollment in an L&L classroom, students who had been assessed using the KTEA-II within the
last year were excluded from participation to rule out practice effects.
Study phases. Baseline data of each participants PA and basic reading skills will be
gathered using the five selected subtests from the KTEA-II (Phonological Awareness, Letter and
Word Recognition, Word Recognition Fluency, Nonsense Word Decoding, Decoding Fluency).
The intervention phase will follow, where teachers of the treatment group classes will provide

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

reading intervention using the LiPS program for 30 minutes per school day for 12 weeks.
Conversely, teachers of the comparison group classes will provide their regular reading
intervention efforts for 30 minutes per day. Treatment group teachers will be trained on the
administration of the LiPS program prior to the commencement of this study, and all teachers
will provide reading intervention at the same time of day for the duration of the study. At the end
of the 12 weeks, participants achievement on each of the five subtests will again be measured,
using the alternate form of the KTEA-II.
Results
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics. Overall mean and standard deviations for pre- and postintervention scores, and mean change in scores will be calculated for the intervention and
comparison groups. This will permit examination of the scores to see if the mean or standard
deviation of one group is larger than the other, though not statistically different (as determined by
inferential statistics). An insignificant difference in mean scores could indicate that replication
of the study with a larger sample may result in a significant difference being found. In addition
to overall group means, means will also be computed based on grade level to see if differences
exist within specific grades. Additionally, minimum and maximum scores on the subtests (preand post-intervention) will be reported.
Inferential statistics. Inferential analyses will be conducted using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and the significance level will be set at the .05 level for
all tests. As natural clustering can affect correlations, a MANOVA will be used to determine
whether there are significant differences in the five pre-test scores (dependent variables) based
on school and grade (independent variables). A 3 x 2 repeated measures MANOVA, with

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

10

experimental group as the IV (and significant variables identified in the MANOVA as

covariates), will then be used to explore changes in mean test scores. For both analyses, posthoc tests will be used to determine which group means significantly differ from others.
Expected Findings
With the explicit, intensive instruction in PA skills that the LiPS program provides, results
are expected to show that this intervention contributes to higher PA achievement scores in
Division II L&L students as measured by the Phonological Awareness subtest of the KTEA-II.
The interaction between intervention and time is expected to be significant. PA skills for
treatment and comparison groups are not predicted to differ significantly at Time 1 (preintervention), and scores are not predicted to differ based on school or grade. Conversely, PA
skills are predicted to be significantly different at Time 2 (post-intervention), with statistically
significantly higher achievement in PA skills for participants in the treatment group as compared
to those in the comparison group.
Similarly, with the direct application of PA skills to reading that the LiPS program
provides, it is expected that participants in the treatment group will display increased basic
reading skills at the conclusion of this study, as measured by the four subtests of decoding and
fluency (Letter and Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding, Word Recognition Fluency,
Decoding Fluency). While no significant differences will be found at Time 1, statistically
significantly higher achievement in basic reading skills will be found for participants who
received the LiPS intervention as compared to those in the comparison group.
Discussion
Potential Impact

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

11

Typical special education classes have shown minimal reading gains in older students
with RD (Torgesen, 2000). Thus, empirical studies are necessary to identify remediation
methods that are effective for improving reading skills in this subset of learners. If the results of
this study show reading gains for students with RD through intervention using the LiPS training
program, further studies can be conducted outside of the L&L classes, and with a larger agerange, to determine whether its effectiveness generalizes outside of the L&L population. Further,
a follow-up study with these same students (or separate long-term studies) can provide evidence
to support the implementation of the LiPS program based on the long-term gains it produces.
This study is a preliminary attempt to gain empirical evidence supporting the
effectiveness of the LiPS program in a group of Division II students with a diagnosed RD.
Deficits in PA skills underlie reading difficulties for a majority of students, and empirical
evidence supports the efficacy of early intervention efforts that target PA skills in improving
basic reading skills. However, a similar research base focused on older learners and those with
significant reading difficulties is currently insufficient. It is possible that a critical period for the
benefit of PA training exists, and that older students may not display the same reading benefits as
do their younger counterparts. Empirical studies are required to evaluate the effectiveness of
proposed remediation programs for older learners with RD to ensure they yield the desired
results, namely improved basic reading skills.
Existing research suggests that there is an effect of individual differences on the
effectiveness of an intervention program (Otaiba et al., 2009). Thus, it is not likely that the LiPS
intervention program will be effective for all participants in the current treatment group.
However, if this program is not effective in improving the basic reading skills of any participant
in this narrow sample, recommendations to avoid its use with similar populations can be made,

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

12

and an investigation can begin into more effective reading interventions for older students with
RD.
Limitations
In general, results of studies conducted in educational settings are considered limited in
that researchers cannot accurately ascertain whether results are due to the intervention, known or
unknown factors, or a combination of the intervention and other factors. Moreover, when relying
on other individuals to deliver the program, as in the current study, the manner and completeness
of delivery may not be as intended by the researchers, and cannot be fully known to them. It is
also possible that even if the LiPS training program is effective in improving PA and basic
reading skills, the wait to fail model that was required for the RD diagnosis for these
individuals may have had a significant negative effect on their motivation to learn to read, which,
in turn, could have negative effects on their performance.
The current study will use a cluster sampling method to select students enrolled in the
CBEs L&L program classrooms. However, to counter this sampling limitation, a majority of
this population will be utilized to help ensure the sample is representative of the general L&L
student population. The exclusive use of students from L&L classes is a further limitation to this
study. As enrollment in the L&L program is the result of parental choice and classroom
availability, it is possible that students in these classes differ from those enrolled in general
classrooms, and these unknown characteristics may affect the results of the present study.
To help compensate for the limitations of this study, teachers of the treatment group
classes will be thoroughly trained on the proper delivery of the LiPS program, and a comparison
group will be used to rule out maturation effects. Moreover, as traditional remediation efforts
with this population of learners have been associated with little growth (Lyon, 1995), it is

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

13

unlikely that maturation effects will have an influence on the current results. However, further
studies controlling for the above-mentioned limitations will be required to ensure generalizability
of findings.

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

14

References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
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, 24, 49-66. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/747731
Bhat, P., Griffin, C. C., & Sindelar, P. T. (2003). Phonological awareness instruction for middle
school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 73-87.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1593591
Fawcett, A. J. & Nicolson, R. I. (1995). Persistence of phonological awareness deficits in older
children with dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 361-376.
doi: 10.1007/BF01027724
Gonzalez, J. E., & Nelson, R. (2003). Stepping stones to literacy: A prevention-oriented
phonological awareness training program. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 393-398.
doi: 10.1080/10573560390226092
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Lindamood, P. C., & Lindamood, P. D. (1998). Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program
(LiPS). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27. Retrieved
from http://www.springerlink.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/content/120602/
McLoughlin, J. A. & Lewis, R. B. (2005). Assessing Students with Special Needs (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

15

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. (NIH
Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Otaiba, S. A., Puranik, C. S., Ziolkowski, R. A., Montgomery, T. M. (2009). Effectiveness of
early phonological awareness interventions for students with speech or language
impairments. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 107-128. doi: 10.1177
/0022466908314869
Pokorni, J., Worthington, C., & Jamison, P. (2004). Phonological awareness intervention:
Comparison of Fast ForWord, Earobics, and LiPS. Journal of Educational Research, 97,
147157. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/login?url=http://proquest
.umi.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/pqdweb?did=577506881&Fmt=2&clientId=12303&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Schuele, C. M., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond the
basics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 3-20. doi: 10.1044/01611461
Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., Schneider, A. E., Marchione, K. E., Stuebing, K.
K., Francis, D. J., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut
longitudinal study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351-1359. doi: 10.1111/j.14698749.2000.tb00357.x
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual responses in response to early interventions in reading: The
lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15,
55-64. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING

16

/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=58aaab61-f161-48ab-af48-1bffe3316158%40sessionmgr112
&vid=2&hid=126
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E. Lindamood, P., & Galvan, C. (1999).
Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities:
Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 115. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.579
Vladescu, J. C. (2007). Test review: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Second edition
(KTEA-II). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 92-100. doi: 10.1177
/0734282906294708
Wanzek, J., Dickson, S., Bursuck, W. D., & White, J. M. (2000). Teaching phonological
awareness to students at risk for reading failure: An analysis of four instructional
programs. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 15, 226-239. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/detail?sid=7bdbee4e-98cb-4187
-87144eb10934ea4e%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=126&bdata
=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=afh&AN=4709286
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third edition. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2001). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second edition. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL:
Riverside.