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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2006 · 1 of 2 entries checked against their sources (automated) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In Yeh (2003), findings favored the phonemic segmentation group over the rhyme/alliteration group on all phonological processing measures, with an average improvement index of +20 percentile points (range +9 to +33), not statistically significant but substantively important. → What Works Clearinghouse 2006 q2 i? In Yeh (2003), print knowledge (+33 percentile points) and early reading/writing (+26 percentile points) also favored the phonemic segmentation group, not statistically significant but substantively important. → 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. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

q2 · i? · causal · r?

Yeh (2003), an RCT with 44 low-income four- to five-year-old Head Start children in Boston, compared phonemic segmentation training with rhyme/alliteration training. The report states "The findings favored the phonemic segmentation group over the rhyme/alliteration group for all measures."

"The average improvement index for phonological processing is +20 percentile points, with a range of +9 to +33 percentile points across findings."

What Works Clearinghouse 2006 (2)¶

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

q2 · i? · review · r3

Yeh (2003) print knowledge finding from a letter-sound matching measure; the early reading/writing improvement index was +26 percentile points for oral reading. Differences were "not statistically significant (as calculated by the WWC)" but substantively important.

"The improvement index for print knowledge is +33 percentile points for the one print knowledge outcome in this study."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Alphabet Knowledge and Print Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it
• Phonological Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Phonological awareness training plus letter knowledge training has potentially positive effects on preschoolers' early reading/writing — related
• Phoneme awareness is a stronger predictor of reading development than rhyme awareness — a broader claim this one bears on
• Phonological awareness training plus letter knowledge training has potentially positive effects on preschoolers' phonological processing — related
• Sound box training favored over sound sort training on phonological processing (Maslanka & Joseph 2002), with substantively important but non-significant differences averaging +11 percentile points — related
• Phonemic Awareness Training Improves Reading — related
• Phonological Awareness Training has positive effects on phonological processing in preschool children, averaging +27 percentile points — related
• Four of six standards-meeting studies showed statistically significant positive effects and two showed substantively important positive effects on phonological processing — related
• Alphabetics improvement-index findings for Waterford Early Reading Program™ were inconsistent across outcomes, ranging from –26 to +37 percentile points — related
• An 11-week teacher-delivered phonological awareness intervention significantly improves kindergarten children's phoneme segmentation, letter knowledge, reading, and invented spelling — related
• Early Reading First had positive, statistically significant impacts on children's print and letter knowledge — related