An investigation of treatment scheduling for phonemic awareness with kindergartners who are at risk for reading difficulties.

Purpose: This study examined 2 schedules of treatment for phonemic awareness. Method: Forty-one 5- to 6-year-old kindergartners, including 22 English learners, with low letter-name and first-sound knowledge received 11 hr of phonemic awareness treatment: concentrated (CP, 3x/wk to December), dispers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools Vol. 40; no. 1; pp. 86 - 101
Autores principales: Ukrainetz TA, Ross CL, Harm HM
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Jan2009
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Purpose: This study examined 2 schedules of treatment for phonemic awareness. Method: Forty-one 5- to 6-year-old kindergartners, including 22 English learners, with low letter-name and first-sound knowledge received 11 hr of phonemic awareness treatment: concentrated (CP, 3x/wk to December), dispersed (DP, 1x/wk to March), and dispersed vocabulary control (CON). Results: English learners performed similarly to native English speakers. Participants with moderate deficits in letter-names and first sounds showed significant benefits after both treatment conditions. Three times the intensity had no additional effect on phonemic awareness. CP continued to increase significantly during the no-treatment interval. In March, CP and DP were significantly greater than CON, but the 2 conditions did not differ other than with a minor DP advantage on last sounds. By May, there were no significant differences among the 3 conditions in meeting grade-level expectations for phoneme segmenting. Conclusion: For phonemic awareness, over the course of a school year, with concomitant classroom instruction, the gains made from short, intense treatment were similar to thosemade from continuous weekly treatment. At-risk kindergartners with moderate deficits benefited more than those with mild deficits. Children, particularly those with mild deficits, may improve substantially with only classroom instruction and incidental self-regulatory gains from treatment for another area.