12 / 68
74
ACQ
Volume 11, Number 2 2009
ACQ
uiring knowledge in speech, language and hearing
intensive nature that claim benefits for children’s literacy
development. Pokorni, Worthington, and Jamison (2004)
utilised a comparative group design to compare the benefits
of Fast ForWord (FFW; Scientific Learning Corporation,
1999), Earobics Step 2 (Cognitive Concepts, 1998), and LiPs
(Lindamood Phonemic Sequencing Program; Lindamood
& Lindamood, 1998) to enhance the phonological
awareness, language and reading skills for 7–9 year old
children with language impairment. Twenty children were
randomly assigned to each intervention condition which was
implemented or supervised by a speech pathologist one
hour each day for 20 days. The results indicated that only
children who received Earobics or LiPs showed significant
improvement in phonological awareness post intervention.
However, these children’s improved phonological awareness
skills did not transfer to the reading context. The authors
suggested that training in phonological awareness should
be integrated with activities that help children apply
phonological knowledge to the reading process to gain
maximum benefit from the programs.
Summary
Best practice in the management of children with speech
and language impairment requires speech pathologists to
understand the relationship between spoken and written
language disorders and to apply this understanding in
assessment, intervention, and monitoring practices.
Phonological awareness is one critical area in reading and
spelling acquisition. Speech pathologists need to ensure
they screen this area of development in all children with
speech and language impairment and provide in-depth
assessment and intervention as appropriate to the child’s
individual needs. A checklist for the assessment and
intervention of phonological awareness summarises effective
practices in this area.
phonological awareness instruction has a statistically
significant impact on developing word recognition, reading
comprehension, and spelling (Ehri et al., 2001). This is
one of the most comprehensive analyses of intervention
outcomes in any area of spoken and written language
development and provides robust evidence to support
speech pathologists’ practices of integrating phonological
awareness into interventions for children with speech-
language impairments. Most researchers, however, caution
practitioners that phonological awareness intervention
should be implemented as part of a comprehensive program
in literacy instruction or in early literacy experiences. The
complexities of written language development preclude the
possibility that one narrowly focused type of instruction such
as phonological awareness can lead to successful reading
and writing for all children. Rather, phonological awareness
intervention must be seen in perspective with a host of
other language experiences such as shared book reading,
alphabetic instruction, storytelling, and involvement in
meaningful reading and writing activities that all help to foster
written language acquisition.
Intervention planning
A range of factors need to be considered in planning
phonological awareness programs. The importance of
program content is highlighted by conflicting findings in
the literature related to the effectiveness of phonological
awareness interventions. For example, Nancollis, Lawrie,
and Dodd (2005) found that a school-based phonological
awareness intervention focused on teaching young children
rhyme and syllable awareness (with no integration of
letter knowledge) was effective in developing children’s
rhyming skills, but had little long-term benefit for reading
development. In contrast, Gillon’s (2005) phonological
awareness intervention that facilitated preschool children’s
awareness at the phoneme level and integrated letter
knowledge had positive long-term effects for speech,
reading and spelling development in children with speech
impairment. Research findings suggest that intervention
planning should consider the following aspects (see Gillon,
2004 for details):
•
Phonological awareness intervention should be integrated
with letter sound knowledge training and include activities
to transfer phonological awareness knowledge to
decoding and encoding written words.
•
Phonological awareness intervention should focus on the
development of skills at the phoneme level.
•
A range of phoneme analysis and synthesis activities
should be incorporated with particular attention given to
phoneme segmentation and blending skills for school-
aged children.
•
A direct instructional approach to phonological awareness
intervention has greater benefits for reading development
than an indirect approach.
•
Flexibility in program implementation is required to ensure
individual needs are met.
•
An intensive individual or small-group model of service
delivery is necessary for children with severe phonological
processing deficits.
Best practice in the intervention of children with
phonological awareness difficulties should demonstrate
consideration of these factors.
Commercial programs
Recent research has explored the effectiveness of
commercial phonological awareness programs of an
Summary checklist: Assessment and intervention of
phonological awareness
Assessment
1. Administer a formal test of phonological awareness skills
appropriate to the child’s age:
a. 4–5 years (e.g., syllable, rhyme awareness, and phoneme
identity)
b. 5 years and older: more complex phoneme level skills (e.g.,
phoneme blending, segmentation, manipulation).
2. Evaluate other phonological processing skills, particularly in older
children (e.g., phonological memory and rapid naming evaluation).
3. Assess letter-sound knowledge.
4. Observe the child’s use of phonology in the reading and spelling
process.
5. Consider phonological awareness assessment findings alongside
other areas of spoken language related to written language ability.
6. Collect baseline data of phonological awareness and letter
knowledge prior to intervention to evaluate intervention
effectiveness.
7. Gather information about the home literacy environment with
parents/carers as appropriate to a child’s situation (e.g., parent
questionnaire)
8. Collaborate with the class teacher/early childhood educators and
other relevant school, educational, or health professionals in the
assessment process.