Visual Phonics and Phonological Awareness Interventions: Stability of

Gains in Language and Literacy

By Mara Hampton

Thesis Chair : Tina K. Veale Ph.D. CCC-SLP

Phonological Awareness

Rhyming and song

Sentence segmentation

Syllable segmentation & blending

Onset rime segmentation & blending

Phoneme blending & segmentation

Less Complex

More Complex

Phonological Awareness and Literacy DevelopmentBuilding block of literacy (National Reading Panel,

2000; Gillon, 2000)

Predictor of future reading success (Wagner, Torgesen, and Rashotte 1994)

Greater improvement in reading abilities with phonological awareness training (Hatcher, Hulme, and Ellis 1994)

Phonological Awareness and Language Hansen (2003) and Megli (2004):

10-week small group phonological awareness training program

20-minute intervals, twice a week Activities included syllable blending &

segmenting, rhyme recognition & production, phoneme recognition, etc.

Significant gains in expressive & receptive language skills were demonstrated

Dyke (2008): Replicated intervention methods used in

Hansen (2003) and Megli (2004) studies. Measured only auditory comprehension Significant gains in auditory comprehension

of typically developing preschoolers

See-the-Sound Visual Phonics (Visual Phonics)

Multisensory strategy that represents all of the sounds of English with a hand-shape cue and corresponding written symbol

Hand and symbol cue for each sound

Provides visual, tactile, & kinesthetic information about phonemes

Not a communication system, but rather an instructional tool

Visual Phonics and Phonological Awareness

Narr (2008) examined the relationship of phonological awareness and decoding skills in 10 students who were deaf or hard-of- hearing.

• Visual Phonics was incorporated during the phonemic awareness and phonic aspects of the reading process.

• Participants were able to use phonological information to make rhyme judgments and to decode

Visual Phonics and Language ImpairmentDyke (2009)

• 25 preschool children with speech and/or language deficits

• 2 experimental groups (PA only; PA + VP; 1 control group

• 10 week small group phonological awareness intervention

• Activities included rhyme production & recognition, syllable segmenting & blending, & beginning sound awareness.

• Results: Auditory comprehension, expressive language, language content and language structure improved significantly in both experimental groups, but not in the control group.

Visual Phonics and LiteracyGergits (2010)

• 25 preschool children with speech and/or language delay

• 2 experimental groups (PA only; PA + VP); 1 control group

• 10 week small group phonological awareness intervention

• Activities included rhyme production & recognition, syllable segmenting & blending, & beginning sound awareness.

• Results: No significant difference between groups in literacy skill acquisition. Trend toward more gains in PA + VP group.

Phonological Awareness Supplemented by Visual Phonics

Research Questions1. After a six month lapse, to what extent do speech-language impaired preschoolers maintain gains in language and literacy from treatment with phonological awareness?

2. After a six month lapse, to what extent do speech-language impaired preschoolers maintain gains in language and literacy from treatment with phonological awareness supplemented by visual phonics?

3. After a six month lapse, is there a difference noted between the phonological awareness intervention vs. the phonological awareness intervention supplemented by visual phonics upon language and literacy abilities?

Subjects10 of the 25 subjects were available

Speech and/or language delay based on results of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool, 2nd Edition (CELF-P:2) and Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation, 2nd Edition (GFTA-2)

No significant academic concerns

Normal hearing and visual acuity

Students of two central Illinois at-risk early childhood programs

Experimental groups

• Group 1: Phonological awareness intervention (N=2)

• Group 2: Phonological awareness intervention in conjunction with visual phonics (N=6).

Control group

• Nontreatment group (N=2)

SubjectsGroup 1:

Phonological Awareness

Group 2: Visual Phonics

Group 3: Control

Subject Age Site Subject Age Site Subject Age Site

S-1 4:8 1 S-9 4:11 2 C-3 4:10 1

S-7 5:3 1 S-11 5:7 2 C-7 4:11 2

S-12 5:11 2

S-14 4:10 2

S-16 6:0 2

S-18 5:8 2

MethodologyPrevious studies utilized pretest-posttest control group design. Current study utilized a time series design.

The following language and literacy tests were administered approximately 6 months after completion of the previous study:

• Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language, 3rd Edition

• Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Preschool, 2nd Edition

• Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening –Pre-Kindergarten

• Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening-Kindergarten

Testing conducted by 1 licensed SLP or 1 of 2 supervised undergraduate students in CDS

Data AnalysisCELF-P:2 core language scores and TACL-3 quotient

scores were used to compare the overall change in language abilities and receptive language of the experimental and control groups.

PALS total percentage correct scores were used to compare the overall change in literacy abilities of the experimental and control groups.

Performance was evaluated using descriptive statistics and inspection of tabled data.

CELF-P:2 Core Language Standard Scores

Group 1: PA Group 2: PA+VP Group 3: Control0

20

40

60

80

100

120

68

81.7

69.575.5

109.3

73.578.5

95.5

85.5

PretestPosttest 1Posttest 2

CELF-P

:2 C

ore

Lang S

tandard

Score

s

Group 1: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain= 7.5 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 gain=3.0 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain= 10.5 pts

Group 2: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=28.1 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 drop=14.3 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=13.8 pts

Control Group: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=4 pts; posttest 1 to posttest 2 gain=12 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=16 pts.

TACL-3 Quotient Scores

Group 1: PA Group 2: PA+VP Group 3: Control0

20

40

60

80

100

120

90

100

89.593.5

109.5

91.592.5

102.8

87

PretestPosttest 1Posttest 2

TA

CL:3

Quoti

ent

Score

s

Group 1: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain= 3.5 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 drop=1.0 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain= 2.5 pts

Group 2: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=9.5 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 drop=6.7 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=2.8 pts

Control Group: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=2 pts; posttest 1 to posttest 2 drop=4.5 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=2.5 pts.

PALS AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF CORRECTNESS

Group 1: PA Group 2: PA+VP Group 3: Control0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

7.2

16.5

2.4

24.3

41.7

10.8

31.6

69.2

43.4PretestPosttest 1Posttest 2

PA

LS:

Avera

ge P

erc

enta

ge C

orr

ect

Group 1: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain= 17.1 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 gain=7.1 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain= 24.4 pts

Group 2: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=25.2 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 drop=27.5 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=52.7 pts

Control Group: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=8.4 pts; posttest 1 to posttest 2 gain=32.6pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=41 pts.

Summary of ResultsSubjects made substantial gains in language abilities following

10 weeks of PA or PA + VP intervention. Six months later, language gains attained at PT1 were not retained.

Subjects made greater gains in early literacy skills following 10 weeks of PA + VP intervention only. Subjects in this group continued to make greater gains over the next 6 months, as well. Subjects in the other groups made gains; however, they were not as large.

Clinical ImplicationsChildren with speech-language deficits did not retain language gains realized following 10 weeks of PA or PA + VP intervention.• 10 week intervention not adequate amount of time for

lasting language changes.

• Children in VP + PA group relied on hand shape cues, but did not develop an internal representation of the sounds.

Children with speech-language deficits improved early literacy skills after 10 weeks of PA + VP intervention, and continued to see gains 6 months later. Children who received PA intervention without VP did not make as large gains. • VP may have more impact on early literacy skills than

language skills.

• Changes may be realized over time rather than immediately.

Clinical Implications

Speech-language pathologists should play an active role in phonological awareness intervention.

Consider the timing, duration, and intensity of intervention.

Strengths and Limitations

A control group was incorporated to determine if changes in core language, receptive language, and early literacy skill development could be attributed to the interventions.

Only a small number of participants from the previous study were available for testing, potentially compromising the reliability of these results.

Amount of PA intervention incorporated into subjects’ preschool curricula was not controlled and may have influenced measurements.

Future Research

Further exploration of the use of VP to develop language and literacy skills in a speech- language impaired population.

• Longer intervention time periods

• Study subject with language impairment without speech involvement

• Extend intervention into the classroom and/or home

References Bird, J., Bishop, D.V.M, & Freeman, N.H. (1995). Phonological awareness and literacy

development in children with expressive phonological impairments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 446-462.

Dyke, J. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention with preschool children: Changes in receptive language abilities. Unpublished honor's thesis; Eastern Illinois University; Charleston , Illinois.

Dyke, J. (2010). The application of visual phonics and phonological awareness interventions to address language impairment in preschool children. Unpublished master’s thesis; Eastern Illinois University; Charleston, Illinois.

Gergits, E. (2010). Using visual phonics and phonological awareness interventions for language impaired preschoolers. Unpublished master’s thesis; Eastern Illinois University; Charleston, Illinois.

Gillon, G. (2000). The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 126-141.

Hansen, D. (2003). Changes in language abilities of preschool children following phonological awareness training. Unpublished master’s thesis; Western Illinois University; Macomb, Illinois.

Hatcher, P.J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A.W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41-57.

References Megli, M. (2004). Phonological awareness training: Augmenting speech and

language. Unpublished master’s thesis; Western Illinois University; Macomb, Illinois.

Montgomery, J. (2008). Dave krupke: What exactly is visual phonics? Communication Disorders Quarterly, 29, 177-182. doi:10.1177/1525740108318413

Narr, R. F. (2008) Phonological awareness and decoding in deaf/ hard-of-hearing students who use visual phonics. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10, 1-12.

National Institute of Child Health and 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.

Raitano,N.A., Pennington, B. F.,Tunick, B. F.,Boada,R., & Shriberg, L. D. (2004). Pre-literacy skills of subgroups of children with speech sound disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 821–835.

Rvachew, S., Ohberg, A., Grawburg, M., & Heyding, J. (2003). Phonological awareness and phonemic perception in 4-year-old children with delayed expressive phonology skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 463–471. Doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2003/092)

References Schuele, C.M., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness

intervention: Beyond the basics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 3-20.

Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Stark, R., Bernstein, L., Condion, R., Bender, M., Tallal, P., & Catts, H. (1984). Four year follow-up study of language impaired children. Annals of dyslexia, 34, 49-68.

van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R.B., & McFadden, T.U. (1998). A study of classroom-based phonological awareness training for preschoolers with speech and/or language disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 65-76.

Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New Evidence of Bidirectional Causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.

Questions