Prevention of reading and spelling deficits by training phonological awareness and letter- sound-correspondencies in kindergarten Peter Marx Department of Psychology, Universität Würzburg, Germany
Mar 26, 2015
Prevention of reading and spelling deficits by training phonological
awareness and letter-sound-correspondencies in kindergarten
Peter Marx
Department of Psychology,Universität Würzburg, Germany
Overview1) Background: precursors of literacy acquisition
2) Phonological awareness training in kindergarten
3) Practical problems (some of which could be German- or Germany-specific)
4) Classic evaluation results from the 1990ies
5) Preschool prediction of reading difficulties - who should participate in the training?
6) New evaluation results with language-impaired children and children with migration background
Introductory remarks: German(y)-specific
• German children do not receive any formal reading instruction before they enter school (at the age of 6).
• Reading instruction in first grade: phonics-based
• In the 1990ies, German kindergarten teachers often refused to introduce letters.
• The German orthography is quite shallow, as far as reading is concerned: Letter-sound-correspondences are more consistent for German than for English.
• In Germany spelling is quite important (unfortunately).
phonology ability to decode
Only a small part of the picture…
…but a central part!
Background: precursors of literacy acquisition
• Children acquire skills needed for literacy acquisition prior to formal reading instruction.
• Skills proven to be important prerequisites for reading mainly belong to the language domain:
Phonological processing (Wagner & Torgesen, 1987)– phonological awareness– phonological working memory– access to the long term store (speed)
Phonological Awarenessinsight into the sound structure of the language
• phonological awareness
ability to differentiate or to segment larger units (words, syllables) or to identify rhymes (usually acquired before school entry)
• phonemic awareness
ability to identify and to discriminate smaller units (sounds) in spoken words (usually acquired during literacy acquisition)
Phonological awareness training for kindergarten children
The Würzburg program(s):
Hören, Lauschen, Lernen 1(Küspert & Schneider, 1999, 2006)
+ Hören, Lauschen, Lernen II
(Plume & Schneider, 2004)
The Würzburg program(s):
Hearing, Listening, Learning 1(training of phonological and phonemic awareness)
+ Hearing, Listening, Learning II
(training of letter-sound-correspondences)
The Würzburg program(s):
Hearing, Listening, Learning 1(training of phonological and phonemic awareness)
adaptation of the Lundberg program (Lundberg, Frost & Petersen, 1988)
+ Hearing, Listening, Learning II
(training of letter-sound-correspondences)
Hören, Lauschen, Lernen 1+2
last year of kindergarten (e.g. January - June)
20 weeks, 15 minutes per day
groups of 4 - 8 children
conducted by kindergarten teachers
Hören, Lauschen, Lernen 1+21) Listening games
2) Rhymes
3) Sentences and words
4) Syllables
5) Identification of the initial phoneme
6) Phoneme blending and phoneme analysis
7) Letter-Sound-Correspondences
Hören, Lauschen, Lernen 2: Letter-Training (Plume & Schneider, 2004)
• To be combined with the phonological training
• The children are to learn the correspondences of letters and sounds
• Introduction of the 12 most commonly used letters (regarding first grade texts)
• The children don´t have to write the letters
• Phonological linkage hypothesis (Hatcher, Hulme & Ellis, 1994)
Practical problems
• How can program application in thousands of kindergartens be properly supervised? (5th edition; total print run of about 90.000)
• Only words with regular letter-sound-correspondences should be used in the training (?)
• Organisational problems (no specifically trained teachers, no additional teachers available)
• Not all children attend kindergarten
• Daily training is necessary to guarantee success
Evaluation studies
Evaluation studies have to deal with several problems, e.g.
• Children from the control group might– enter school with lower levels of phonological
awareness– but receive additional training at school
• Ethical problem: children at risk as control group
Meta-analyis: phonological awareness training (Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999)
effects on phon. awareness
effects on reading
n N d n N d
all training studies 36 3092 1,04 34 2751 0,44
purely phonological trainings
11 1563 1,19 8 1238 0,18
letters included in the training
6 467 1,74 7 492 0,66
n: number of studies; N: number of children; d: effect size
Würzburg studies
• Schneider, Küspert, Roth, Visé & H. Marx (1997): unselected kindergarten children, purely phonological training, 2 studies
• Schneider, Roth & Ennemoser (2000): identification of children at risk (BISC), training of letter-sound-corr. included in the phon. awareness training
• Schneider, Weber, P. Marx (2001 – 2006): unselected kindergarten groups, focus on children with migration background and on language impaired children; only the combined training was used
Identification of the first phonem
012
3456
78
pretest posttest
training group
control group
Schneider, Küspert, Roth, Visé & H. Marx (1997)
Schneider, Küspert, Roth, Visé & H. Marx (1997)
Spelling, 2nd grade (DRT 2), words correct
5
10
15
20
25
30
training group
control group
d = .54
Schneider, Küspert, Roth, Visé & H. Marx (1997)
Reading, 2nd Grade (WLLP), raw score
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
training group
control group
d = .26
Children at risk for later reading deficits
• Bielefeld Screening (BISC) for the identification of children at risk for later reading deficits
• Prognostic validity of the screening
• Training effects for children at risk?
phonological awareness
rapid naming
phonological short term memory
regulation of visual attention
Bielefeld Screening (BISC) for the identification of children at risk for later reading deficits
(Jansen, Mannhaupt, H. Marx & Skowronek, 1999, 2002)
Bielefeld Screening
phonological awareness rhyme detection syllable segmentation sound categorization (syllables: „au“-to) sound blending
rapid naming
phonological short term memory
regulation of visual attention
Bielefeld study (Jansen et al., 1999)
• N = 153
• The BISC (4 month before school entry) detected 73 % of the children with reading/spelling deficits at the end of Grade 2 (sensitivity).
• 56 % of the children „at risk“ had reading/spelling deficits 2 years later (prediction hit rate).
P. Marx & Weber (2006)
Untrained cohort
Tests N
May 2001 kindergarten screening (BISC) 174
School entry 2001
June 2002 end of Grade 1 reading/spelling 161
June 2003 end of Grade 2 reading/spelling. 156
June 2004 end of Grade 3 reading/spelling. 152
June 2005 end of Grade 4 reading/spelling. 152
Kindergarten predictionof spelling deficits at the end of grade 2
Sensitivity: 43 %
Specifity: 83 %
RATZ-Index: 29 %
Spelling (WRT 2+)
Sum< PR 10 > PR 10
Screening„at risk“ 6 (20%) 24 30
„no risk“ 8 (6%) 118 126
Sum 14 142 156
Selection of children at risk for later reading/spelling deficits by the screening?
Training only for children at risk: More than half of the children with later reading/spelling deficits would be excluded from the training.
Training for all children: Children really in need for the intervention might not be assisted sufficiently.
The kindergarten teachers/educators providing the screening are sensitized for the issue of phonological awareness / phonological processing.
Time schedule of the third Würzburg study I(Schneider, Roth, & Ennemoser, 2000)
Time schedule
Potential training groups(n = 726)
Control group(n = 146)
1995Oct/Nov
Bielefeld Screening(n = 208 „children at risk“)
-
Nov/Dec Pretest
1996 Jan –
Phon. awareness training(n = 82)
Phon. awareness + letter-sound
training(n = 77)
RegularKindergarten program
April –
June
Letter-sound-training(n = 49)
Unselected control group
(n = 146)
July Posttest
Sep School entry
segmentation into phonemes
0
1
2
3
4
5
pretest posttest
pure phon.
combined
letter-sound
control
Pretests and posttests in kindergarten
Time schedule of the third Würzburg study II(Schneider, Roth, & Ennemoser, 2000)
Sep 1996 School entry
Oct/Nov 1996 Metalinguistic transfer test (follow-up)(at the beginning of Grade 1)
June 1997 reading and spelling test (at the end of Grade 1)
(n = 59) (n = 54) (n = 36) (n = 121)
May/June 1998 reading and spelling test (at the end of Grade 2)
(n = 54) (n = 48) (n = 36) (n = 115)
June/July 1999 reading and spelling test (at the end of Grade 3)
(n = 50) (n = 52) (n = 30) (n = 109)
spelling, 3rd grade, DRT 3, raw sore
15
20
25
30
35
40
pure phon.
combined
letter-sound
control
Results: Grade 3
percentage of children with spelling problems(PR 25 in the spelling test DRT 2)
Results: Grade 2
pure phon. training
combined training
letter-sound-training
control group
(unselected)
n 54 48 36 115
Probands with PR 25
11 (20%)
3(6%)
8(22%)
9(8%)
percentage of children with spelling problems(PR 25 in the spelling test DRT 3)
Results: Grade 3
pure phon. training
combined training
letter-sound-training
control group
(unselected)
n 50 52 30 109
Probands with PR 25
11 (22%)
11(21%)
7(23%)
14(13%)
What are the characteristics of those children who have trouble with literacy acquisition despite participation in the combined training before school entry?
• Theoretically, children may develop reading and spelling problems
– because their phonological/phonemic awareness was not sufficiently improved by the training, or because there was only a short-term effect, but no effect in the long run
– because their reading/spelling problems are caused by other factors (e.g. more general language deficits)
Background
W. Schneider, J. Weber, P. Marx (2001–2006)
• Sample: 606 children in the last year of kindergarten, consisting of– 499 children from regular kindergartens– 107 children from kindergarten groups from
schools for children with special needs in the domain of language • training group: N=56• control group: N=51
Method
• Regular kindergartens: 411 of the 499 trained children participated in the reading and spelling tests at the end of first Grade
– 305 children with German as mother tongue (77,0%)
– 33 bilingual children (8,3%)– 58 children with German as second language
(GSL, 14,6%)
Time schedule
Sept - Dec 2002 Pretests (kindergarten)
Dec 2002 - June 2003 Training (kindergarten)
June - July 2003 Posttests (kindergarten)
Nov 2003 Follow-up (grade 1)
May - July 2004 Reading and spelling (grade 1)
May - July 2005 Reading and spelling (grade 2)
Language subgroups:phonological awareness
(large units: syllables, rhymes)
10
15
20
25
30
pretest posttest
GermanGSLbilingual
Language subgroups:phonemic awareness
(small units: phonemes)
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
pretest posttest
GermanGSLbilingual
Correlation phonemic awareness (posttest) – spelling
spelling 1. grade spelling 2. grade
German .48 .43
bilingual .46 .42
GSL .51 .38
Spelling deficits in the subgroups
spelling (< PR 25) Sum
mother tongue
German 35 11,8 % 297
bilingual 2 6,3 % 32
GSL 11 21,2 % 52
Sum 49 12,4 % 395
Reading comprehension deficits
LuV2 (< PR 10)Reading compreh.
Sum
mother tongue
German 30 10,1 % 297
bilingual 1 3,1 % 32
GSL 13 25,0 % 52
Sum 45 11,4 % 395
Special education sample
• 107 children from kindergarten groups from schools for children with special needs in the domain of language
• training group: N=56• control group: N=51
Short-term effects of the training:phonemic awareness (p < .05)
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
pretest posttest
trainingcontrol
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
pretest posttest
training
control
training (reg.Kindergarten)
Short-term effects of the training:phonemic awareness (p < .05)
Special education sample:Phonemic awareness in first Grade
10
15
20
25
30
follow-up grade 1
trainingcontrol
(n.s.)
Special education sample:Spelling in first Grade
10
15
20
25
30
spelling grade 1
trainingcontrol
(n.s.)
10
15
20
25
30
spelling grade 1
trainingcontrol
Only children still receiving special education: Spelling in first Grade
(n.s.)
5
15
25
35
spelling grade 2
trainingcontrol
Only children still receiving special education:Spelling in second Grade
(p < .05, but…)
Conclusion• Children with a migration background (GSL) and
children with language deficits benefit from the training of phononological awareness (immediate effect).
• Immediate effects regarding the most difficult tasks are somewhat smaller for these children.
• There seems to be a similar relation between phonemic awareness and spelling for GSL children and for children with German as their mother tongue.
• We could not show transfer effects on reading and spelling for the children with language deficits.
Discussion• Effects of phonological training (combined with the
introduction of letter-sound-correspondences) are well established,
but further starting points for prevention should not be neglected, e.g.– print exposure via family / early storybook reading– broader language intervention
• Universal or selective prevention?• Identification of children at risk?• Compatibility with reading instruction in first Grade?