Effects of phonological awareness training upon Onset Rime and Phoneme Segmentation ability of kindergarten children

In this small-n study, six kindergarten students identified as having low phonological awareness skills/average lexical retrieval (LPA/ALR) and low phonological awareness/low lexical retrieval (LPA/LLR) skills participated in a metacognitive/phonological awareness and letter/sound instructional program. The study examined the responsiveness of children categorized as LPA/ALR and LPA/LLR using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (phonological awareness measures of Onset Rime Fluency (ORF) and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)). Six students were provided with phonological awareness and letter/sound instruction. All students were provided with seven weeks of instruction three times a week in segmenting, blending, and procedural and conditional metacognitive knowledge (how, when, and where to apply these skills) and why these skills were important. Also, students were provided with letter/sound instruction for two weeks on a daily basis that included metacognitive/conditional knowledge about this skill. Students were assessed with PSF and ORF measures two times a week for seven weeks during metacognitive phonological awareness training. Students were assessed with PSF and ORF measures two times a week for two weeks during letter/sound training. In order to assess students\u27 ability to maintain phonological awareness skills, students were assessed with PSF and ORF measures three times a week approximately two and five weeks after the instruction was completed. Students participated in four phases in a one-week time-lagged format: (a) A condition (baseline), in which the researcher read stories to students on an individual basis, (b) BC condition, in which they were provided with explicit metacognitive instruction in blending and segmenting skills, (c) D condition, in which they were provided with explicit metacognitive instruction in letter/sound skills, and (d) E condition, in which students were assessed using ORF and PSF measures, and the Comprehensive Phonological Processing Test (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). There were six baselines in this study. Two of the baselines consisted of students with a cognitive profile that indicated low phonological awareness/average lexical retrieval (LPA/ALR). The remaining four baselines consisted of students with a cognitive profile that indicated low phonological awareness/low lexical retrieval (LPA/LLR). The first week of instruction, two students, one student from each cognitive profile, began individual training. The second week of instruction two additional students, one from each profile, began training. The third week of instruction, one student with the LPA/LLR profile began instruction, and the fourth week, one student with the LPA/LLR began instruction. Results indicated that the metacognitive phonological awareness and letter/sound training did not appear to impact students\u27 performance on the ORF and PSF measures. There appeared to be no significant differences between students categorized as LPA/ALR and LPA//LLR, although one LPA/LLR student\u27s performance trend on the PSF measure indicated slower progress compared to the other students. Students\u27 performance on the Phonological Awareness Subtest of the CTOPP indicated that all students performed in the average range at posttest. Five students indicated average performance on the Rapid Naming Subtest of the CTOPP at posttest; however, one student\u27s performance remained unchanged. Also, a comparison of students\u27 performance on the ORF and PSF measures in August with their performance on these measures in January indicated improved performance