Phonological awareness training plus letter knowledge training has potentially positive effects on preschoolers' early reading/writing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2–q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 In Gettinger (1986), the intervention group significantly outperformed the comparison group on four of five early reading/writing measures, with a study average effect size of 0.89 and improvement index +31. → What Works Clearinghouse 2006 q2 i2 In Roberts and Neal (2004), the writing outcome was not statistically significant but was large enough to be rated substantively important and positive (effect size 0.52). → What Works Clearinghouse 2006 (2)

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2006¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2006). WWC Intervention Report: Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/InterventionReport/376

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

RCT with 72 children; early reading/writing was measured after the skills training during subsequent reading instruction, with effects attributed to the initial PAT+LK skills training. Appendix A3.4 reports effect sizes from 0.53 to 1.25 across training words, transfer words, short vowel, and trials-to-criterion; discrimination (0.66) was not significant.

"Gettinger (1986) reported statistically significant differences favoring the intervention group for four of five measures, and the WWC confirmed the statistical significance of these effects."

What Works Clearinghouse 2006 (2)¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2006). WWC Intervention Report: Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/InterventionReport/376

q2 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r1

RCT with reservations (high attrition) of 33 Hmong- or Spanish-speaking three- and four-year-olds in a half-day state-funded preschool; the writing measure effect size was 0.52 with an improvement index of +20, not statistically significant.

"Roberts and Neal (2004) found no statistically significant differences between the intervention group and the comparison group for a measure of writing; however, the finding was large enough to categorize the effect as substantively important and positive, according to WWC criteria."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Phonological awareness training plus letter knowledge training has positive effects on preschoolers' print knowledge — related
• Phonological awareness training plus letter knowledge training has potentially positive effects on preschoolers' phonological processing — related
• The potentially negative oral language effect of phonological awareness plus letter knowledge training is likely an artifact of the comparison condition, not the intervention — related
• Phonemic Awareness Training Improves Reading — a broader claim this one bears on
• Phonemic segmentation training favored over rhyme/alliteration training on print knowledge, phonological processing, and early reading/writing (Yeh 2003), with substantively important but non-significant differences — related
• Phoneme awareness is a stronger predictor of reading development than rhyme awareness — related
• In Foster et al. (1994), DaisyQuest produced statistically significant positive effects on both phonological processing measures in 4- to 6-year-olds — related
• Phonological Awareness Training has positive effects on phonological processing in preschool children, averaging +27 percentile points — related
• No individual alphabetics outcome reached statistical significance in the WWC analysis — related
• Teaching phonological awareness and print knowledge improved early writing performance with or without early writing instruction — related
• Technology-enhanced stories show no significant additional effect on code-related literacy skills — related
• Early Reading First had positive, statistically significant impacts on children's print and letter knowledge — related
• Dialogic Reading combined with Sound Foundations shows potentially positive effects on print knowledge and early reading/writing but not oral language — related
• Four of six standards-meeting studies showed statistically significant positive effects and two showed substantively important positive effects on phonological processing — related