Effects of an Extensive Program for Stimulating Phonological Awareness in Preschool

Children
Author(s): Ingvar Lundberg, Jørgen Frost and Ole-Peter Petersen
Source: Reading Research Quarterly , Summer, 1988, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Summer, 1988), pp.
263-284
Published by: International Literacy Association and Wiley

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/748042

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/748042?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley and International Literacy Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Reading Research Quarterly

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ingvar Lundberg
Jbrgen Frost
Ole-Peter Petersen

University of Umeao

Effects of an extensive program for

stimulating phonological awareness in
preschool children
A TRAINING PROGRAM consisting of metalinguistic games and exercises was developed with
the aim of stimulating preschool children to discover and attend to the phonological structure
of language. The program was evaluated in a longitudinal study in which 235 Danish pre-
school children in intact classes had daily training sessions over a period of 8 months. The
children received no reading instruction prior to or during training. Pre- and posttest mea-
sures were also taken from a comparison group of 155 children. Subsequently, the authors
assessed long-term effects of the training on the children's progress in reading and spelling in
first and second grades. The design of the study permitted the authors to assess the specificity
of the training effects. The program had no significant effect on functional linguistic skills,
such as comprehension of oral instructions, or vocabulary. It did not affect the informal learn-
ing of letter names. But it did affect metalinguistic skills: Small but significant effects were
observed on rhyming tasks and on tasks involving word and syllable manipulation. And on
tasks requiring phoneme segmentation, the effect was dramatic. Apparently, phonemic
awareness can be developed among preschool children outside the context of the acquisition
of an alphabetic writing system. However, explicit instruction seems to be required. It was
also demonstrated that preschool training in phonological awareness can have a facilitating
effect on subsequent reading and spelling acquisition. The positive effect persisted until
Grade 2.

Effets d'un programme extensif d'entrainement pour stimuler la conscience

phonologique chez des enfants de niveau prescolaire

DANS LE BUT d'amener des enfants de niveau pr6scolaire a d6couvrir et a faire attention a la
structure phonologique des mots, les auteurs ont 6labor6 un programme d'enseignement
constitu6 d'exercices et de jeux m6talinguistiques. Pour 6valuer le programme ils ont men6
une 6tude longitudinale chez 235 enfants Danois de niveau pr6scolaire n'ayant requ aucun
enseignement de la lecture. Les enfants suivirent le programme d'entrafnement quotidien
pendant 8 mois. Un groupe contr61le de 155 enfants a 6galement subi des evaluations pr6-test
263

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
264 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

et post-test. Ult6rieurement, les auteurs ont 6valu6 les effets a

sur le progres constat6 chez ces enfants au niveau de la lecture
et en deuxieme ann6e. La faqon dont la recherche a t6 61labo
rendre compte de la sp6cificit6 des effets de l'enseignement. Le
effet considerable sur les comp6tences linguistiques fon
comprehension des directives ou du vocabulaire. Le prog
l'apprentissage informel de l'alphabet. N6anmoins, le program
m6talinguistiques: on trouva des effets peu nombreux mais imp
aux exercices avec les rimes et aux exercices de manipulation de
exercices de segmentation de phonemes, I'effet fut dramatique.
phonemique peut se d6velopper chez les pr6-lecteurs, hors du co
m6canismes de d6codage d'une langue 6crite alphab6tique. T
explicite s'avere une condition pr6alable tres importante. Il sem
s'y attendait, I'enseignement de la conscience phon6mique au
l'acquisition de la lecture et de l'6pellation. L'effet positif se fai
ann6e.

Efectos de un programa extensivo de estimulaci6n de alerta fonol6gica en

niiios preescolares

SE DESARROLL6 un programa de entrenamiento consistente en juegos metalinguiisticos y

ejercicios con el fin de estimular a nifios preescolares para descubrir y asistir en su estructura
fonol6gica. El programa fue evaluado en un estudio longitudinal en el que a 235 nifios
daneses preescolares sin previo entrenamiento de lectura se les dieron sesiones diarias de
entrenamiento por un perfodo de 8 meses. Tambi6n se tomaron medidas de pre y post test a
un grupo de comparaci6n de 155 nifios. Subsecuentemente, los autores evaluaron los efectos
a largo plazo del entrenamiento en el progreso en lectura y ortograffa de los nifios en el
primero y segundo grado. El disefio del estudio permiti6 a los autores valorar la especificidad
de los efectos del entrenamiento. El programa no tuvo efecto significativo en las habilidades
lingiifsticas funcionales, tales como comprensi6n de instrucciones o vocabulario. No afect6 el
aprendizaje informal de nombrar letras. Pero si afect6 las habilidades metalingiifsticas:
Efectos pequefios pero significativos fueron observados en las tareas de rimado y en tareas
que involucraban manipulaci6n de palabras y sflabas. Y en tareas que requerfan la
segmentaci6n de los fonemas, el efecto fue dramitico. Aparentemente, el alerta fon6mica
puede ser desarrollado entre los prelectores fuera del contexto de la adquisici6n de un sistema
escrito del alfabeto. Sin embargo, la instrucci6n explicita parece ser un prerequisito crucial.
Tambi6n se demostr6 que, como se esperaba, el entrenamiento de preescolares en el alerta
fon6mica tuvo un efecto facilitador en la adquisici6n de lectura y ortograffa. El efecto positivo
persisti6 hasta el segundo grado.

Wirkungen eines ausfiihrlichen Programms zur Stimulierung phono-

logischer Erkenntnis auf Vorschiiler

EIN LERNPROGRAMM, aus meta-linguistischen Spielen und Uebungen bestehend, wurde

entwickelt mit dem Ziel, Vorschulkinder anzuregen, die phonologische Struktur der Sprache
zu erkennen und sich damit zu beschiftigen. Dieses Programm wurde in einer
Lingengrad-Studie bewertet, in welcher 235 dinische Vorschiiler ohne jede vorherige
Leseinstruktion 8 Monate lang taglich Lernstunden hatten. Vor- und Nach-TestmaBe wurden
ebenfalls von 155 Kindern einer Vergleichsgruppe genommen. Danach bestimmten die
Autoren langfristige Einfliisse des Lernens auf den Lese- und Schreibfortschritt der Kinder
im ersten und zweiten Schuljahr. Der Entwurf der Studie gestattete den Autoren, die

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stimulating phonological awareness LUNDBERG, FROST, & PETERSEN 265

Spezifitit des Lerneinflusses zu bestimmen. Das Programm zeigte keinen bedeut

EinfluB auf funktionale linguistische Leistungen, wie das Verstehen der Regeln ode
Wortschatz. Es hatte keinen EinfluB auf das informelle Erlernen von Buchstaben. Jedoch
hatte es EinfluB auf meta-linguistische Leistungen: kleine, aber bedeutsame Wirkungen
wurden beobachtet bei Reim-Aufgaben und Aufgaben, die sich mit Wort- und
Silbenmanipulation befaBten. Und bei Aufgaben, die phoneme Segmentation verlangten, war
der EinfluB dramatisch. Anscheinend kann phonemische Erkenntnis bei Vorschiilern
auBerhalb des alphabetischen Schreib-Systems entwickelt werden, wobei jedoch ausfiihrliche
Erklirungen n6tig sind. Es wurde auch gezeigt, daB, wie erwartet, Vorschullernen in
phonemischer Erkenntnis das Erlernen von Lesen und Schreiben erleichtert. Der positive
EinfluB hielt an bis zum zweiten Schuljahr.

and is thus open to alternative interpretations.

Practically alllanguage
and use spoken children
during thelearn
first to understand According to Ehri (1979), the correlation can
years of life. Although young children speak in be interpreted in at least as many ways as the
words, syllables, and phonemes, they do not following: Learning to read may be a prerequi-
seem to have much conscious control over these site for becoming aware of phonological struc-
units of language. Thus, many preschool chil-tures. Or, alternatively, linguistic awareness
may be a prerequisite for reading acquisition.
dren lack the ability to manipulate linguistic units
consciously in tasks requiring them to segment, A weaker interpretation is that reading acquisi-
compare, count, or delete such units. Particu-tion facilitates the development of linguistic
larly difficult are tasks requiring manipulation awareness,
of or else that linguistic awareness is a
phonemes (see Kolinsky, 1986, for an example, facilitator of reading acquisition. Linguistic
and Lundberg, 1978, for a review). Due to theawareness can also be regarded as a possible
complex nature of the acoustic signal, which of- consequence of becoming literate, or literacy
fers no simple physical criterion for the segmen-may be a consequence of linguistic awareness.
tation of phonemes (Liberman, Cooper, Finally, linguistic awareness and success in
Shankweiler, & Studdert-Kennedy, 1967), chil- reading acquisition may both be related to a
dren may find it difficult to acquire awareness ofthird, unknown factor, with no direct link be-
the phonological structure of speech. tween linguistic awareness and reading. In this
There is now a substantial body of evidence case, the correlation is spurious.
indicating that phonological awareness is a crit- Longitudinal studies, in which phonologi-
ical skill in the acquisition of reading (e.g.,cal awareness has been assessed in kindergarten
Ehri, 1979; Leong, 1986; Liberman, 1982; and the progress of reading acquisition has then
Lundberg, Olofsson, & Wall, 1980; Stanovich,been measured in school (e.g., Lundberg et al.,
1986; Torn6us, 1984; Tunmer, 1986). Learning 1980), have to some extent helped to clarify the
to read within an alphabetic system presupposesissue and have indicated that phonological
the capacity for explicit analysis of speech in awareness may be necessary but not sufficient
terms of phonemes. When a skill proves to be offor the acquisition of reading. The practical im-
such importance, the question naturally arises plication of a causal link of this kind would be
whether it is possible to improve that skill bythat early training in phonological awareness
training. Even more interesting is the question skills should lead to improvement in reading.
of whether an improvement in metaphonologi- Thus, Mattingly (1984) expresses "a plea for
cal skills has a positive effect on reading andlinguistic stimulation above and beyond speak-
spelling acquisition. However, most of the evi-ing and listening during preschool years: story
dence to date of the critical importance of pho-telling, word games, rhymes and riddles, and
nological awareness in reading is correlational,the like."

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
266 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

It has been demonstrated that instructional before the children had any formal reading in-
programs that incorporate phonemic trainingstruction, we have attempted to establish the
are more effective (e.g., Wallach & Wallach, causality in a less confounded setting.
1976; Williams, 1980). However, because such The limited focus on tasks involving rhyme
training has been an integral part of reading in- and alliteration in the Bradley and Bryant study
struction, it has been difficult to assess the puremay also have constrained its potential for gen-
effect of phonological awareness outside the eralization. The long-term effects on reading
context of formal reading instruction. It is only were also rather small: from a policy point of
with the landmark study of Bradley and Bryant view, perhaps too small to justify changes in
(1983) that the issue has been clarified. They current preschool curricula. The Olofsson and
studied the relationship between phonological Lundberg studies (1983, 1985) evaluated a con-
skills and reading acquisition with a combinedsiderably broader repertoire of phonological
longitudinal and experimental training designskills. However, because the training period was
that permitted a clear interpretation of the rather short, and because the training groups in-
causal direction. The longitudinal part involvedcluded only a few intact preschool classes, of-
some 400 children, who were followed over a fering a serious risk of confounding with
period of 4 years. The training study includedteacher factors, there were limitations to the
65 children who were 6 years old when a 2-year generalizability of the results.
period of phonological training started. One In the present article, we report a large lon-
subgroup of these children was trained in tasks gitudinal study in which some 400 children
in which they were to identify the odd one out were followed from kindergarten to Grade 2.
(e.g., in the four items bun, hut, gun, sun). ItOur intention was to overcome some of the limi-
could be demonstrated that early ability to han- tations of the earlier studies. The amount of
dle such tasks strongly predicted later reading training was more extensive than in earlier stud-
achievement, and that the training had a positiveies, and the scope of the metalinguistic training
effect on reading acquisition. Another study program was broader, comprising a gradual se-
(Olofsson & Lundberg, 1983) demonstratedries of exercises eventually leading to segmenta-
that it was possible to increase phonological tion and synthesis of phonemes. To evaluate the
awareness among preschool children by a rela-specific effects of the metalinguistic training,
tively short training period, of 6-8 weeks. Con-we also included a wider range of measures
tent, Morais, Alegria, and Bertelson (1982)than was used in earlier studies. Another feature
even found training effects after only four ses-
of the present study was our explicit effort to
avoid confounding with reading ability and
sions of training. And a later study by Olofsson
and Lundberg (1985) reported some-although reading instruction. A general problem con-
subtle-effects of such preschool training on nected with studies on phonological awareness
subsequent reading and spelling performance in
among preschool children has been the lack of
school. Although recent, sound research de-control for possible influences of early reading
signs such as those of Bradley and Bryant, Con- ability.
tent and associates, and Olofsson and Lundberg In Denmark, where this study was done,
have yielded important results, there is still children do not start school until the age of 7,
room for increased clarity. which means that the nonreading preschool
For example, one limitation of Bradley andchild has reached a more advanced stage of gen-
Bryant's training study was that phonemiceral cognitive development here than in educa-
awareness was taught while the children weretional systems where children start school
learning to read. In such a context, it is a bit earlier. Moreover, according to a long tradition
difficult to interpret the effectiveness of thein Denmark, preschool children are seldom
training program, because it interacts in an un-subjected to informal literacy socialization by
known way with the very teaching of reading.parents or older peers. Only in rare and excep-
By providing phonemic awareness training tional cases are childen able to read at the kin-

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stimulating phonological awareness LUNDBERG, FROST, & PETERSEN 267

dergarten level. Most children know a few Method

letters, but the alphabetic code is still a mystery
to them. This relatively pure situation Subjects
permits
unconfounded evaluation of a metalinguistic
The experimental group consisted of 235
training program in kindergarten, and children,
thus may 134 boys and 101 girls. They were at-
allow us to challenge the notion that metalin-
tending 12 different kindergarten classes on the
guistic skills are only a consequence of reading
island of Bornholm, Denmark. When the inves-
instruction (e.g., Valtin, 1984). tigation started, at the end of August 1985, they
To evaluate the specificity of the effect
were, onof average, 6 years old. The 155 children
metalinguistic training, we also included
in themea-
control group (75 boys and 80 girls) were
sures of general language competence. Thus,
attending 10 different kindergarten classes in
we predicted that the training effectsJutland,
wouldDenmark.
be Care was taken to find con-
restricted to the enhancement of metalinguistic
trol children with the same socioeconomic
skills, whereas general language functions
background as the experimental children (lower
would not be affected. We expected that, within
middle-class and working class, from rural ar-
the metalinguistic domain, performance
eas andon
relatively small villages and towns).
tasks involving phonemic analysis and The
synthesis
experimental group and the control group
would benefit most from training, because
were pho-
maximally separated in geographic dis-
nemic units are the least available linguistic
tance (Bornholm is a fairly isolated island in the
segments and thus the least likely to most
develop
eastern part of Denmark, whereas Jutland
spontaneously (see Byrne, 1986). is the most western region). This measure was
In a second part of the study, we followed
taken in order to avoid possible informal dis-
the children during their first school years, and of the metalinguistic games to the
semination
assessed the long-term effects of metalinguistic
control classes. Because Denmark has a homo-
training on their progress in reading and spell-
geneous school system, even at the kindergarten
ing. level, and a fairly homogeneous population in
The main questions asked in the present the various semirural parts, the geographical
study were as follows: separation was not likely to create other critical
differences between the experimental group and
1. Can phonological awareness be devel- the control group. Obviously, a strict random
oped by training before reading in- assignment of children to treatment and non-
struction starts? treatment conditions is not feasible in a field ex-

2. What is actually learned during the periment. The present solution was considered
metalinguistic training? to be reasonable, given the constraints imposed
3. Is the training effect lasting, and does by reality.
it transfer to new metalinguistic
tasks? Design
4. Does the preschool training facilitate In the beginning of the preschool year, all
reading and spelling acquisition in children in both groups were pretested with a
school? number of linguistic and metalinguistic tasks.
5. How specific is the training effect?Over the rest of the school year, from early Sep-
Does it affect aspects of general lan-tember to the end of May, children in the exper-
guage competence, or only skills in- imental group were given a training program
volved in phonemic analysis and comprising daily sessions of 15-20 minutes of
synthesis? metalinguistic exercises and games. The control
group followed the regular preschool program,
which in Denmark emphasizes social and aes-
thetic aspects of development and rather delib-

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
268 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

erately avoids formal cognitive were

and carefully
linguistic introduced by clappin
training, including early readingfirst to the syllables
instruction. By in the child
the end of May, both groups werenames, posttested
and then to other multisyllab
the immediate
with the same instruments as were used at pre- environment. Dancing
ing, andtraining
testing. The effects of metalinguistic walking in pace with variou
were assessed by comparingintonation
the changes in
patterns were other exer
scores from pretest to posttest were for the two
common during this period. Ev
plastic
groups. A third assessment of the levelmarkers
of pho-were used as concrete
tations
nological awareness (transfer test) wasof syllables.
made at A typical game
the beginning of Grade 1. Some synthesis
7 months on after this level was one in
the start of school, reading and"troll"
spelling with a peculiar way of speakin
ability
were measured, as well as mathematics
tended to skills.give the children various pr
Finally, the reading and spelling
whenassessments
he told them what to expect, h
were repeated in the middle of the
Grade words
2. All intest-
fragments, syllable-by
ing-both individual and group-was
Each child done hadby to figure out what the
specially trained examiners who were school
ally meant to offer.
psychologists, speech therapists, or reading
In the middle of the third month, p
specialists. were introduced, but now only in in
tion. Great care was taken to work first with
Training program vowels and continuant consonants, although
The training program included stops were
daily sometimes
ses- unavoidable when the
sions of metalinguistic games names
and of the children were part of the game. In
exercises,
such casesto
with the aim of guiding the children an iterating
discover technique was used; for
and attend to the phonological example,
structure when theof tasklan-was to identify the ini-
guage. The teachers involvedtial phoneme
were of Tom, the examiner said "TT-
carefully
prepared to handle the program. TTT-om."
FirstWhen they stop consonants became more
par-
ticipated in an inservice course frequent
in which in the we exercises,
pre- voiceless and voicing
sented the theoretical backgroundconsonantsas were kept well
well as apart in the sequence
videotaped examples of training of training
sessions. events.TheNot until the fifth month
year before the project started were
wasphonemes within words introduced, with
a full-scale
pilot year in which games andslow progression
exercises were from VC (vowel-consonant)
tried out under conditions highlyand CV words to more
equivalent tocomplex words. Finally,
those of the main study. During in the
thatlast year,
month ofthe the training period, some
teachers developed and refined prosodic
the skillsgames neces-
were played.
sary to follow the instructions and Games and exercises
handle the introduced early in
exercises smoothly. the training period were to some extent main-
The program was carefully tained over the rest
structured inof the period. Thus, games
on a number oftiming,
terms of difficulty, length, frequency, the levels described above were
and sequencing. Each week of going on more
the or less in parallel by the end of
8-month
training period was preplanned. the The
period,program
which required a lot of careful plan-
started with easy listening gamesning and
that timing. One reason for continuing the
included
games in this
nonverbal as well as verbal sounds. Away was to minimize the risk of
period
of rhyming games followed,recency using effects at the posttesting stage. In our
nursery
rhymes, rhymed stories, and gamesearlier research
for rhyme(Olofsson & Lundberg, 1983),
production. Sentences and words the importance
were of clear structure and time plan-
intro-
duced a couple of weeks later ningby means
had been of
demonstrated. The detailed struc-
games and exercises focusing on turesegmentation
of the present extension of the earlier
of sentences into word units and training program is described
investigation of in a Danish report
word length. In the second month,(Amtorp, Frost, & Troest, 1985).
syllables

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stimulating phonological awareness LUNDBERG, FROST, & PETERSEN 269

Many of the games included activities de-

Children's performance was evaluated on a 5-
signed for the children's enjoyment such
point as
scale with rather straightforward scoring
rules.
looking at pictures, motor activities, dancing,
singing, and noncompetitive social activities. In
most cases, the whole group of 15-20 children Vocabulary. This test consisted of 22 pic-
participated together. The progress of the tures
pro-(colored drawings) of common objects-
gram was slow, to ensure that all children, such as a train, a flower, a pig, and so on. In
even
those with a minimum of metalinguistic talent, the test, we took into account the level
scoring
could manage the games with a feeling of of suc-
precision with which the objects were de-
scribed. Thus, for example, the response goose
cess. According to responses to a questionnaire
was assigned a higher score than bird.
given after the investigation, children, parents,
and teachers were all very pleased with the Metaphonological tests. This part of the as-
training program. sessment included 7 subtests. In the rhyme test,
the child was presented with a set of three sim-
Preschool measures ple pictures and was asked to point out the pic-
ture that rhymed with the word given orally by
The following tests were given as pretests,
the examiner. The total number of tasks was 21.
in September of the preschool year before train-
ing was started, and were given again as post- The second subtest involved segmentation of
tests in May. sentences into words. The examiner presented a
sentence orally and asked the child to mark each
Prereading ability. The test was designed
word in the sentence with a plastic marker. One
as a very quick and rather crude screening de-
sentence with 5 monosyllabic words and one
vice organized in four hierarchical steps. At the
sentence with 7 multisyllabic words were used.
first level, five simple 2- or 3-letter words were
The third subtest was syllable synthesis. The ex-
presented, typed in upper case. The next level
aminer presented a word syllable-by-syllable
included three simple 3-word sentences, also in
with an intersyllable interval of 2 sec, for exam-
upper case. At the third level, a 7-word sen-
ple, he-li-cop-ter. Each syllable was marked
tence with high-frequency words was presented.
The final level was an 11-word sentence with a with a plastic marker put in front of the child
subordinate clause in lower case. The child's from left to right, to give the child a concrete
representation and thus relieve some of the
reading level was scored from 0 to 4, where 0
memory load. The examiner asked the child to
designated failure at the very first level, and 4
repeat each syllable. With guidance from the se-
points required success on all four steps.
quence of syllables, the child was then re-
Letter knowledge. For this task, we re-
quested to figure out the content of a picture
corded the number of letters the child recog- turned face down. A successful synthesis of the
nized from a set of randomly presented upper- syllables yielded the correct word, which the
and lowercase letters.
examiner confirmed by turning the picture up.
Language comprehension. Controlled ob-The test included 3 multisyllabic words. In the
servation of children's ability to follow direc-next test, syllable segmentation, the child and
tions in drawing figures (KTI) is a widely usedthe examiner changed roles. Now the child had
procedure in Denmark for assessing languagethe picture available and presented the word to
understanding and conceptual and motor devel-the examiner syllable-by-syllable, and the ex-
opment among preschool children and schoolaminer had to figure out what was on the hidden
beginners. Basically, the task is to follow verbalpicture. This test also comprised 3 words.
directions for drawing simple figures on a sheet In the fifth subtest, deletion of initial pho-
of letter-sized (A4) paper divided into 8 sepa- neme, the child was asked first to identify the
rate sectors from the midpoint, such as direc-initial sound of the word depicted in a line
tions to "draw three triangles of different sizes,drawing. Then the child was asked to give the
where the smallest should be in the middle." remaining part of the word when the initial

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
270 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

sound was deleted. This part was

in the also
attempt a com-
to give unambiguous, or uncon-
mon word. There were 8 words
founded,
of answers
increasing
to our questions. For exam-
length, from two to five phonemes.
ple, it could bePhoneme
the case that we are dealing with
some nonspecific
segmentation was the sixth subtest. The intellectual
child factor instead of a
was asked to divide simple more
words into
specialized pho-.
linguistic ability.
nemes and to mark each phoneme with test.
Mathematics a plastic
As a further control mea-
marker. To relieve memory load,
sure, the
mainly to words
answer the question of generality
were represented with lineof drawings.
effects, we gave aEight
group test of mathematics
words were used: 3 CV (consonant-vowel) or of first grade. This
some 7 months after the start
VC, 3 CVC, 1 CVCV, and 1 CCVC. Finally,
test has been the
used widely in Denmark. The max-
seventh subtest was synthesisimum of score
phonemes. The
was 48 points.
examiner presented a word phoneme-by-pho-
Reading test. The reading test (OS 400)
neme, as the child carefully observed his or her
mouth. The child was asked to select from two was given as a group test 7 months after the start
of first grade. By then, most children were ex-
pictures the one that represented the word.
pected to be able to decode some simple words.
Eight words were used, of the same types as
The test has proved its validity as a measure of
those in the phoneme segmentation task.
decoding ability, and its high reliability, in sev-
eral earlier investigations (e.g., Lundberg,
School measures
Olofsson, & Wall, 1980). It consists of 400
words presented in columns. To the right of
Metaphonological transfer tests. Another
each word, four alternative pictures are given,
set of metaphonological tests was group-admin-
one of which is the correct representation of the
istered right after the start of first grade. About
3 months had elapsed since the posttests, in-
word. Reading performance is expressed as the
cluding a long summer vacation. The first number
test of correct responses during a period of
consisted of a rhyme task, in which the child
15 minutes. This test was given to the children
was requested to draw lines between those again
de- in Grade 2, about 7 months after the
picted objects which rhymed when you pro- Grade 1 testing.
nounced the names of them. The second subtest
Spelling test. The spelling test was a list of
was initial sound analysis, in which the child 28 words that was dictated orally by the exam-
was to draw lines between objects with the sameiner. During dictation, each word was contex-
initial sounds. In the third subtest, word lengthtualized by giving a sentence frame. The words
analysis, the child was asked to mark the objectwere selected from a pool of frequently used
whose name had the largest number of sounds,primers in Denmark. The maximum score was
from a set of three pictures. There were also 28 points: 1 point for each word spelled cor-
tests of syllable segmentation, in which therectly. The spelling test was given at about the
child was to mark the number of syllables in de-
same times as the reading test, about 7 months
picted words, and phoneme segmentation, in into Grade 1 and again at the start of Grade 2.
which the child was to mark the number of pho-
nemes in depicted words. The maximum total
combined score on these tasks was 25 points.
None of the tasks had been practiced in the pre- Results
school training program or had occurred in a
similar format in the earlier testing. Table 1 presents an overview of the results.
Raven's test. As an easily administered,The mean score, standard deviation, and num-
nonverbal way of assessing intellectual ability, aber of subjects are given for each measure for
noncolored version of Raven's Progressive Ma-the experimental and control groups, along with
trices was given at the start of first grade. Thisthe level of significance of the difference be-
was regarded as an important control measuretween the means. The number of subjects varies

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stimulating phonological awareness LUNDBERG, FROST, & PETERSEN 271

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and significant differences for experimental an

groups on all assessments

Experimental Control
M SD n M SD n F p

PRESCHOOL TESTS

PRETESTS

Prereading ability (4) 0.02 0.26 235 0.03 0.16 154 > I n.s.
Letter knowledge (28) 3.70 5.34 235 4.39 5.49 154 1.51 n.s.
Language comprehension (5) 3.14 1.02 230 3.12 0.99 154 > 1 n.s.
Vocabulary (66) 42.4 4.11 230 44.2 3.89 43 7.04 .01
Metaphonological tests
Rhyme (21) 15.8 3.93 235 16.1 3.93 155 > 1 n.s.
Word segmentation (2) 0.65 0.52 235 0.60 0.66 155 > 1 n.s.
Syllable synthesis (3) 2.06 1.04 235 1.83 1.10 155 4.53 .05
Syllable segmentation (3) 1.66 1.16 235 1.61 1.18 155 > 1 n.s.
Initial phoneme (8) 0.35 1.14 235 1.15 1.92 155 27.1 .001
Phoneme segmentation (8) 0.49 0.88 235 1.46 1.73 155 52.6 .001
Phoneme synthesis (8) 0.16 0.66 235 0.86 1.56 155 37.4 .001
Total combined
metaphonological (53) 21.1 6.15 235 23.6 7.46 155 12.5 .001
POSTTESTS

Prereading ability (4) 0.14 0.59 228 0.05 0.37 159 2.64 n.s.
Letter knowledge (28) 8.59 7.52 224 9.62 7.80 139 1.55 n.s.
Language comprehension (5) 3.58 0.91 220 3.51 0.85 156 > 1 n.s.
Vocabulary (66) 45.4 3.01 224 - - - - -
Metaphonological tests
Rhyme (21) 19.1 1.66 224 18.3 2.22 159 17.1 .001
Word segmentation (2) 1.10 0.43 224 0.77 0.54 159 44.4 .001
Syllable synthesis (3) 2.79 0.54 224 2.41 0.84 159 28.6 .001
Syllable segmentation (3) 2.57 0.81 224 2.26 0.90 159 11.9 .001
Initial phoneme (8) 4.88 2.96 225 1.81 2.58 159 111.6 .001
Phoneme segmentation (8) 3.21 2.27 224 1.73 1.94 159 44.5 .001
Phoneme synthesis (8) 1.84 2.18 224 1.05 1.74 153 13.5 .001
Total combined
metaphonological (53) 35.5 7.30 224 28.1 7.55 159 94.9 .001
SCHOOL TESTS
GRADE 1

Metaphonological tests
Rhyme (5) 4.96 0.24 210 4.55 0.94 103 33.7 .001
Syllable segmentation (6) 5.75 0.76 210 5.30 1.06 103 11.4 .001
Initial phoneme (5) 4.07 1.35 210 2.42 1.97 103 80.7 .001
Phoneme segmentation (9) 3.67 1.35 210 2.22 1.75 103 38.1 .001
Word length (5) 2.93 1.40 210 2.34 1.26 103 14.5 .001
Total combined
metaphonological (30) 21.4 3.69 210 16.8 4.27 103 84.5 .001
Raven's (21) 9.93 4.16 200 11.2 4.29 55 4.0 (.10)
Mathematics (48) 40.6 7.50 187 42.3 5.66 148 5.2 .05
Reading (400) 55.7 44.3 211 47.9 38.1 149 3.2 ( .10)
Spelling (28) 10.6 7.16 187 6.73 5.78 152 27.5 .001

GRADE 2

Reading (400) 124.7 74.9 185 104.4 71.1 135 6.2 .01
Spelling (28) 15.5 8.21 187 11.7 8.15 139 17.2 .001
Note. Maximum score is given in parentheses after each task.

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
272 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

somewhat over the different assessments. At

4.4 (SD = 5.5). Atthe
posttest, the average num-
preschool level, the number ber of had
subjects
increased was
to 8.6 for the experimental
fairly stable, with one obviousgroup, and to 9.6
exception. Thefor the control group. The
vocabulary test was taken by only a subsample
differences between the groups were not signifi-
of the control group at pretest. cant
Moreover, due to there was a significant
(p > .10). However,
limited resources, this test could
sexnot be taken
difference at knowledge. On the pre-
in letter
posttest by any subject in the control
test, girls group.
on averageAt knew 4.7 letters, whereas
the school level, both groupsthe
suffered
boys knew from
only 3.3, F(1, 389) = 7.45, p <
some attrition, partly because of
.01. migration and still held at posttest:
The sex difference
partly because some new teachers
Now the were notan average of 10.9 letters
girls knew
willing to participate. A check and the boys,
of the 7.5 letters, F(1, 360) = 18.06, p
preschool
< .001. A
results of the dropouts did not reveal low-bound
any signif- estimate of the reliability
of the letter
icant differences from the remaining knowledge
children. It test can be obtained
is also notable that only 55 children
from the from the
test/retest correlation (over an interval
control group participated in the Raven's
of more test- for the control group,
than 8 months)
ing; intelligence testing is stillwhere
regarded with
no intervention took place. Here, the
strong suspicion. pretest/posttest correlation was .76.
Language comprehension (following direc-
Preschool measures
tions). On the pretest, the mean score happened
Prereading ability. At the pretest level,to be 3.1 for both groups. On the posttest, the
means had increased to 3.6 for the experimental
only 1 out of 235 children in the experimental
group was able to read. She obtained a score group
of and 3.5 for the control group. The differ-
4, which was a clear indication that she had ence
bro- between groups on the posttest was not sig-
nificant (p > .10). Girls obtained significantly
ken the code and had advanced to a rather fluent
decoding level. All remaining children scoredhigher scores than boys: pretest, 3.3 versus 3.0,
F(1, 382) = 9.74; posttest, 3.7 versus 3.4,
0. Among the 150 children in the control group,
only 2 showed any sign of reading ability, F(1,
and 374) = 11.30; p < .01 for both compari-
sons. The pretest/posttest correlation for the
they each scored only 1 point on the test. Thus,
it can safely be concluded that the training control
pro- group (reliability estimate) was .67.
gram started before the children were able to Vocabulary. The vocabulary test was given
read.
to the experimental group and part of the con-
At the posttest level, 15 children in the trol
ex- group at the pretest level. At the posttest
perimental group showed some reading ability session, however, only the experimental group
(8 children scored 1 point, 2 scored 2 points,was2given the vocabulary test (because of unex-
scored 3 points, and 3 children now scored 4 limitation of resources at that time). At
pected
points). The control group, however, had only 2
pretest, the experimental group obtained a mean
children with signs of reading ability (both score of 42.4 (SD = 4.1), and the control group
scored 2 points). Altogether, 17 children, ora mean score of 44.2 (SD = 3.9). The dif-
had
4% of the total number of children, had any ference between groups was significant, F(1,
sign of reading ability (1 point or more) at 271)
the = 7.04, p < .01. No significant sex dif-
posttest stage. Of these children, 8 were boys
ference was observed on this test (p > .10). The
and 9 were girls. The higher proportion of read-
pretest/posttest correlation for the experimental
ers in the experimental group might be one of was .56.
group
the effects of the training program.
Metaphonological tests. As a preliminary
step in the data analysis, the various meta-
Letter knowledge. At pretest, the average
number of letters known by the children inphonological
the subtests were linearly combined
experimental group was 3.7 (SD = 5.3). Theto establish a total score to indicate the general
children in the control group scored a mean of of metaphonological skills. At the pretest
level

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stimulating phonological awareness LUNDBERG, FROST, & PETERSEN 273

Figure 1
Pretest to posttest scores on letter knowledge
for both groups

25 - EXPER I MENT
-5-- CONTROL

i20-

PRE POST

PRE POST

Figure 2
Pretest to posttest scores on language compre-
hension task for both groups

c3--- EXPERIMENT
- --G CONTROL

< 3-

0 !
PRE POST

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
274 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

level, the control group (M = 23.6) was slightly

Comparing the progress of two gro
ahead of the experimental group pretest(M to = 21.1). can be extremely
posttest
According to a one-way analysis if the of variance
starting level differs, especiall
(ANOVA), this difference wasperimental
significant, F(1,initially scores high
group
388) = 12.51, p < .001. As wecontrol
will see below,
group. In such a case, one m
assume a after
this pattern was dramatically reversed properthe interval scale or at
training period. The total combined
rectionscore did
procedures of dubious value
not yield any significant sex Alegria,
difference. The & d'Alimonte, 1986
Morais,
pretest/posttest correlation for&theLundberg, 1985). Fortunately, thi
control group
(reliability estimate) was .70. did not occur in the present study. I
the experimental group and the con
Evaluation of training effectswere equivalent at the pretest level,
One of the general aims of thecontrol
present group
study outperformed the ex
group.
was to assess the extent to which it is possible to
Letter knowledge and language
enhance the development of metaphonological
skills by training in kindergarten outside
hension. the
In Figures 1 and 2, the cha
context of formal reading instruction. More for the experimen
pretest to posttest
specific was the question of the trol groupsof
selectivity is the
illustrated for letter
treatment effect. By comparing the average
and language comprehension, respec
change in scores from pretest to can be seen,
posttest forthe
theresults for the two
trained and untrained groups on similar,
very the various
with no significant dif
eitherof
tests, we hoped to assess the impact pretest or posttest level. Quit
training.

Figure 3
Pretest to posttest total scores for all meta-
phonological tasks combined for both groups

0 -
13 - EXPERIMENT

5 - - CONTROL

25 -

z 20-

15

PRE POST
PRE POST

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stimulating phonological awareness LUNDBERG, FROST, & PETERSEN 275

4a) are located above or far above the diagonal,

the performance level for both groups increased
whereas the control cases (Figure 4b) are closer
over the period of 9 months. A 2 x 2 repeated-
measures ANOVA with group (experimental to the
vs. diagonal and quite often below it. We can
control) and test (pretest vs. posttest) as varia-
also see that the marked improvement in the ex-
bles showed a main effect only of test for perimental
letter group has occurred over the whole
knowledge, F(1, 355) = 280.2, and for lan- range of abilities.
guage comprehension, F(1, 362) = 80.1,
Components of metaphonological skills.
p < .0001 for both. The group by test interac-
There were 7 metalinguistic tests, and the sim-
tion effect was not significant, F < 1.0 for
ple linear sum of points over the subtests may
both. Apparently, the metalinguistic training
hide an underlying heterogeneity. In order to re-
program had no specific effect on functional
veal more subtle effects of the training, the fac-
language use, as measured by the comprehen-
torial structure of the metalinguistic tests should
sion test, nor did it seem to encourage the ex-
be investigated.
perimental children to learn more letters by
themselves.
Lewkowicz (1980), Backman (1983), and
Stanovich, Cunningham, and Cramer (1984)
Prereading ability. As far as prereading is have all pointed out that different metaphono-
concerned, we have already noted a differencelogical tasks may differ in cognitive require-
between the number of children who, by the ments, which could lead to divergence in the
end of the preschool year, showed signs of spon-results obtained from different studies. Stanovich
taneously acquired reading ability. Moreet al. (1984) analyzed the intercorrelations be-
children in the experimental group did so. How-tween 10 different types of metaphonological
ever, the proportion of children who showed tasks. The result indicated a strong common fac-
signs of reading ability was extremely low in tor accounting for almost half of the total vari-
both groups, although the experimental childrenance in the variables. However, the three
outnumbered the control children.
rhyme-related tasks had low loadings on that fac-
Metaphonological tasks. The training ef-tor and seemed to tap a different component of
fect was most dramatically demonstrated on themetalinguistic ability.
metaphonological tests. Figure 3 illustrates the In the present analysis, we applied a confir-
change in the total combined score for the twomatory factor analysis with the LISREL VI
groups. Fortunately, according to a univariate technique (Jbreskog & Sbrbom, 1984). It
ANOVA, the control group significantly outper-seemed reasonable to assume that the tasks re-
formed the experimental group at the pretestquiring phoneme manipulation (initial pho-
level, F(1, 388) = 12.51, p < .001. At the neme, phoneme segmentation, and phoneme
posttest level, the relationship was reversed.
synthesis) are all indicators of the same under-
Now the experimental group had a far higherlying factor (phonemic awareness). Segmenta-
mean score, F(1, 381) = 94.90, p < .0001. tion of sentences into words, analyzing words
Thus, we can safely conclude that there was a into syllables, and syllable synthesis require the
substantial treatment effect without being com-handling of linguistic segments that are more
mitted to doubtful correction procedures to jus-salient-more directly perceivable-and thus
tify the conclusion. more easily available than phonemes. We there-
An alternative way of illustrating the treat- fore assumed the existence of a separate, al-
ment effect on the total combined metaphono- though correlated, factor representing this
logical score is given in Figures 4a and 4b. linguistic level. The rhyme recognition tasks,
Here, each individual score on the posttest ishowever, seemed to require a slightly different
plotted against the corresponding score on the mode of operation (see Lundberg, 1978;
pretest. Points above the diagonal thus indicateStanovich et al., 1984), with less cognitive
improvement. As can be seen, all except 1 ofload. This conceptualization of the structure of
the 224 cases in the experimental group (Figure metalinguistic tasks was subjected to statistical

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 276 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

Figure 4a
Individual results for total combined meta-
phonological scores for experimental group
(Posttest results, on the y-axis, are plotted against pretest results, on
the x-axis. Points above the diagonal indicate positive change;
points on the diagonal, no change.)

EXPERIMENT

56

1 1

1 1 1 1
48 1 2 1 121 1
3 1 1 11
23 21 1 1
P 3 11 1 1
0 1 1 13 11 2 22 1
S 40 1 1 1111 1 1
T 1 1 1 111 21 11 1 1
T 1 1 1 232 11 4331 342
E 1 11 1 11 2 31 24
S 2 21 21 5 3 11 1 1
T 32 1 21 1 11
2 1 8 1314 1215
S 1 11 1 221 1 2 1
U 1 11 1
M 1 111 3 3 1 1 1
M 24
A 1 11
R 1 1
Y 1 11

16

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56

PRETEST SUMMARY

testing with LISREL. The rhyme task was not to justify a subdivision of the metalinguistic
included in this analysis, because we had onlytasks when we further evaluate the treatment ef-
one subtest concerned with rhyming. With the fects in order to locate the most trainable di-
mension.
remaining 6 subtests, we obtained a nice confir-
mation of the model, as can be seen in Figure 5. Figures 6, 7, and 8 present the results with
The fit of the model is extremely strong, as indi-
this subdivision of tasks. As can be seen, by far
cated by the chi-square value, the adjusted the most dramatic effect is located at the pho-
goodness-of-fit index, and the root mean square
neme level (using a combined score from the
residual. Thus, the result of the analysis seems
three tasks involving phonemes). There was a

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Stimulating phonological awareness LUNDBERG, FROST, & PETERSEN 277

Figure 4b
Individual results for total combined
metaphonological scores for control group
(Posttest results, on the y-axis, are plotted against pretest results, on
the x-axis. Points above the diagonal indicate positive change;
points on the diagonal, no change.)

56

48

P 11
0 1 1
S 1 1
T 40 11
T 1 111
E 12 1 112 1 1
S 11
T 1 1 1 11 1112 211
32 1 1 1 1
S 1 1 1 1 2221
U 312 2 21 1
M 1 1 1
M 1 1 12 2221 413 1 2
A 24 1 1 2 1 1
R 2 1 111 11 I11 1 11
Y 3112 132 21
1
2 11
16 1 1
1

0 1

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56

PRETEST SUMMARY

large Group x Test interaction effect, F(1, 359) We can now conclude that metaphonologi-
= 215.4, p < .0001. Although the correspond- cal training over an extensive period of time at
ing effects on word and syllable manipulation
preschool level has a positive but selective ef-
(using a combined score for the three word fect.
and It does not seem to promote general lan-
guage comprehension. It does not seem to
syllable tasks) and on rhyme recognition
(rhyme task) are more modest, there was still a the tendency to learn letters informally. It
affect
significant Group x Test interaction effect,
does affect metaphonological skills, in particu-
F(1, 373) = 7.22 and F(1, 373) = 7.82, re- lar those skills requiring the manipulation of
spectively; p < .01 for both. phonemes.

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
278 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

Figure 5
Factor analysis (LISREL) of model of
metaphonological abilities

WORD-

SEGMENTAT I ON

WORD

SYLLABLE .73 AND SYLLABLE

SYNTHESIS AWARENESS
.57

SYLLABLE

ANALYSIS

.z0

INITIAL

PHONEME

PHONEME . 59 PHONEME
SYNTHESIS AWARENESS

PHONEME CHI2 = 2.21 IODF

ANALYSIS AGFI = .990

RMR = .023

Permanence of training effects group, only 6% of the children scor

point,
As can be seen in Table 1, the whereas more than a third (3
experimental
group significantly outperformedcontrol
the children
control performed at this
Such children
group on all metaphonological transfer mea- certainly have a long
sures taken at the beginning of Grade 1. In par-can be considered to
yet before they
ticular, the two tasks requiringken the alphabetic code.
phoneme
segmentation (initial sound analysis and pho-
General measures
neme segmentation) yielded a strong differ-
Raven's test.
ence. Another way of looking at these The difference
results is between the
to focus on extreme cases. Virtually
two groups noon phone-
the Raven's matrices was quite
small, F(1,by
mic segmentation ability is indicated 253)scores
= 4.0, p < .10. Although
of 0 or 1 out of 9 points (the maximum
only sum the difference went
marginally significant,
score on the two tasks). In thein the conservative direction-that is, the con-
experimental

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stimulating phonological awareness LUNDBERG, FROST, & PETERSEN 279

Figure 6
Pretest to posttest scores for rhyme test
for both groups

20.0-
13--- EXPERIMENT

- CONTROL
15.0

z 10.0
cn

S.O-

0.0-
PRE POST

Figure 7
Pretest to posttest combined scores for three
word and syllable segmentation tasks
for both groups

.0 -
E-3 - EXPER I MEN T
6.0 - - CONTROL

z
" S.O-
0 Z.0-

CD 3.0

> 2.0

1.0

0.0-
PRE POST

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 280 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

Figure 8
Pretest to posttest combined scores for three
phonemic segmentation tasks for both groups

10.0 -

9.0- -E EXPERIMENT
- CONTROL
8.0-

z
- 7.0-
o 6.0-
S.O-

UL

> 3.0

2.0-

1.0

0.0-
PRE POST

group inoutperformed
trol group actually mathematics, F(1, 333) = 5.2, th
mental group. However, the
p < .05. The direction of small
this difference sug- nu
control children who
gests that took
the preschool the
training effect was spe- Ra
should be noted. cific to literacy tasks rather than having a
Because one reason for including the Rav- general impact on school-related activities.
en's in the assessment program was to check for
the specificity of the effects, the extent to whichEffects of training on reading and spelling
performance on the Raven's correlates within school
other variables should be informative. In most
cases, the product-moment correlations were As indicated in Table 1, there were signifi-
low and insignificant, with the following excep-cant differences between the experimental
tions: language comprehension (.30 at pretest, group and the control group in both reading and
spelling in Grades 1 and 2, although the differ-
.28 at posttest), vocabulary (. 19 at pretest, .22
ence in reading in Grade I was only marginally
at posttest), letter knowledge (. 15 at pretest, .22
at posttest), syllable synthesis (.23 at posttest),
significant (p < .10). In a 2 x 2 ANOVA of
and the total combined score for phonological reading scores with group and grade as varia-
awareness (.22 at posttest; p < .01 for all). The bles, there was, of course, a strong main effect
generally low correlations suggest that we areof grade, F(1, 318) = 497.9, p < .0001; and
dealing with a specific and relatively pure fac-also a significant effect of group (the experi-
mental group outperformed the control), F(1,
tor, something like a module for operations on
language, which has a weak relation to lan-318) = 5.00, p < .05. There was also a signifi-
guage use itself and to cognitive ability.
cant Group x Grade interaction, F(1, 318) =
5.75, p < .05, which here means that the effect
Mathematics test. Table 1 indicates that the
was even greater at Grade 2 (see Figure 9).
control group outperformed the experimental

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stimulating phonological awareness LUNDBERG, FROST, & PETERSEN 281

Figure 9
Mean number of words correctly read in
Grade 1 and Grade 2 for both groups

WORDS

160 c-O EHPERIMENT

140 - U CONTROL

120

100 -

80

60 -

40 -

20

GRADE 1 GRADE 2

Figure 10
Mean number of words correctly spelled in
Grade 1 and Grade 2 for both groups

WORDS

20 -0 EHPERIMENT
te18 CONTROL
16

14

12-

10-

GRROADE 1 GRROADE 2

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
282 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

Yun-Fei, Hong-Yin,
The slightly higher performance noted on and Bao-Qing (1986) have
the math test for the control children from
demonstrated the Jut-
crucial role of an alphabetic
land was in agreement with earlier script asnational
the basis foras-
developing segmentation
sessments, where Jutland tends skill.
to In outperform
this study, we seem to have found con-
Bornholm on the same reading tradictory
test as evidence:
the one Phonological skill can be
used here. Apparently, the preschool developed outside the context of formal reading
training
for the Bornholm children caused a clear shift instruction. But the contradiction is probably
in this pattern of traditional inferiority as far asmore apparent than real. The crucial factor
literacy was concerned. seems to be explicit instruction, rather than spe-
In the case of spelling, the effect was evencific encounters with the letters of the alphabet.
clearer. The overall difference between the two The design of the present experiment per-
groups was significant, F(1, 301) = 20.9, mitted us to localize the training effect specifi-
p < .0001. There was again, of course, a sig- cally to phonological awareness. Functional
nificant effect of grade, F(1, 301) = 1.3, p < linguistic competence, such as the ability to fol-
.001, but there was no significant Group x low verbal instructions, was not affected by the
Grade interaction effect, F(1, 301) = 0.06, p training program. Neither was the acquisition of
> .10 (see Figure 10). letter knowledge. Within the metalinguistic do-
Another way of demonstrating the impact main, we also observed differential effects. Al-
of metaphonological ability in preschool on though statistically significant, the effects on
later reading and spelling performance is the rhyming and on word and syllable awareness
use of multiple regression analysis. With read- were comparatively modest, whereas the effect
ing performance in Grade 2 as the criterion, on ability to perform phonemic tasks was quite
only two independent variables from the pre- dramatic.
school assessments entered the equation. At the The development of rhyming ability does
first step, the combined performance on the not seem to be strongly dependent on formal
three phonemic tasks at posttest yielded an R of training. Cary, Morais, and Bertelson (1987)
.58. The second step included language com- have observed rhyming and alliteration in an il-
prehension at posttest, and the R increased to literate poet. Rhyming seems to require less
.60. For spelling in Grade 2, only phonemic conscious and deliberate manipulation of seg-
skills entered the equation, for an R of .61. All ments. The attention is more directed to global
remaining independent variables were insignifi- similarity. Morais et al. (1986) suggest the term
cant. Thus, the level of phonemic ability in pre- sensitivity to sound similarity to describe the
school is a powerful predictor of reading and ability involved in solving rhyming tasks.
spelling performance in school. Awareness of words and syllables is evi-
dently also less dependent on systematic in-
struction for its development. As compared to
phonemes, syllables are more accessible units
Discussion
of the speech signal-more isolable, more sali-
ent, and less abstract. In order to attend to sylla-
bles, the child does not have to ignore the
The evidence obtained in the present study
suggests, first, that phonological awarenessnatural
can unity of the articulatory act. A mini-
be developed before reading ability and inde-
mum of guidance, then, should be required for
the child to manipulate them (see Mann, 1986).
pendently of it, and, second, that this phonolog-
ical awareness facilitates subsequent reading Phonemic segments, however, do not seem
acquisition, thus providing unconfounded to be spontaneously available for conscious at-
evi-
dence of a causal link. tention, as was reflected here in the low per-
However, segmentation ability does not formance on the phonemic tasks at pretest by
both groups, and at posttest by the control
seem to develop spontaneously. Morais, Ber-
telson, Cary, and Alegria (1986) and Read,group. The experimental group evidently bene-

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stimulating phonological awareness LUNDBERG, FROST, & PETERSEN 283

fited considerably from the extensive EHRI,

training.
L.C. (1979). Linguistic insight: Threshold of readin
acquisition.
The effect also seemed to be a lasting one, In T.G. Waller & G.E. MacKinnon (Eds.),
which transferred to new tasks and new for- Reading research: Advances in theory and practice
(Vol. 1, pp. 63-114). New York: Academic Press.
mats, as shown by performance on the mea-
JORESKOG, K.G., & SORBOM, D. (1984). LISREL VI. Moores-
sures given at the beginning of Grade 1. ville, IN: Scientific Software.
With their superior skill in phonemic seg- KOLINSKY, R. (1986). L'emergence des habiletes metalin
guistiques. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 6, 379-
mentation, it seemed reasonable to expect the 404.
experimental children to have a clear advantageLEONG, C.K. (1986). The role of language awareness in
in learning to read and spell in school. This reading proficiency. In G.T. Pavlidis & D.F. Fisher
turned out to be the case. These data offer some(Eds.), Dyslexia: Its neuropsychology and treatment
obvious and promising practical implications (pp. 131-148). London: Wiley.
LEWKOWICZ, N.K. (1980). Phonemic awareness training:
for the prevention and remediation of reading What to teach and how to teach it. Journal of Educa-
failure.
tional Psychology, 72, 686-700.
However, there are certainly unavoidable LIBERMAN, A.M., COOPER, F.S., SHANKWEILER, D.P., &
limitations which should be faced in a field ex- STUDDERT-KENNEDY, M. (1967). Perception of the
speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
periment of the present kind. For example, the
LIBERMAN, i.Y. (1982). A language-oriented view of read-
teacher factor was not under control. Some
ing and its disabilities. In H. Myklebust (Ed.), Progress
teachers might have felt comfortable with their
in learning disabilities (Vol. 5, pp. 81-101). New York:
students' existing phonemic skills and conse-
Grune & Stratton.
LUNDBERG,
quently might have spent less effort in their 1. (1978). Aspects of linguistic awareness re-
lated to reading. In A. Sinclair, R.J. Jarvella, & W.J.M.
teaching as compared with other teachers. Levelt (Eds.), The child's conception of language (pp.
However, such tendencies would have operated83-96). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
against the predicted result, and thus wouldLUNDBERG,
not I., OLOFSSON, A., & WALL, S. (1980). Reading
confound the positive finding obtained here. and spelling skills in the first school years predicted
from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten. Scan-
dinavian Journal of Psychology, 21, 159-173.
REFERENCES MANN, V.A. (1986). Phonological awareness: The role of
ALEGRIA, J., MORAlS, J., & D'ALIMONTE, G. (1986).reading
The devel-
experience. Cognition, 24, 65-92.
opment of speech analysis abilities and reading acquisi-
MATTINGLY, I.G. (1984). Reading, linguistic awareness and
rion in a whole-word setting. (Manuscript submitted languageforacquisition. In J. Downing & R. Valtin (Eds.),
publication.) Language awareness and learning to read (pp. 9-26).
AMTORP, A., FROST, J., & TROEST, K. (1985). Omn Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
sproglig
opinaerksamhed. Ronne, Denmark: Skolepsykologisk MORAIS, J., BERTELSON, P., CARY, L., & ALEGRIA, J. (1986).
radgivning. Literacy training and speech segmentation. Cognition,
BACKMAN, J. (1983). The role of psycholinguistic skills in 24, 45-64.
reading acquisition: A look at early readers. Reading OLOFSSON, A., & LUNDBERG, I. (1983). Can phonemic
Research Quarterly, 18, 466-479. awareness be trained in kindergarten? Scandinavian
BRADLEY, L., & BRYANT, P.E. (1983). Categorizing soundsJournal of Psychology, 24, 35-44.
and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301,
OLOFSSON, ., & LUNDBERG, 1. (1985). Evaluation of long-
419-421. term effects of phonemic awareness training in kinder-
BYRNE, B. (1986, March). Learning to read the first few garten: Illustrations of some methodological problems
items: Evidence of a nonanalytic acquisition procedurein evaluation research. Scandinavian Journal of Psy-
in adults and children. Paper presented at the Confer-chology, 26, 21-34.
ence on Early Reading, Center for Cognitive Science, READ, C., YUN-FEI, Z., HONG-YIN, N., & BAO-QING, D.
University of Texas at Austin. (1986). The ability to manipulate speech sounds d
CARY, L., MORAIS, J., & BERTELSON, P. (1987). The pends on knowing alphabetic writing. Cognition, 2
metaphonological abilities of an illiterate poet: A case 31-44.
study. Paper presented at the second meeting of the Eu-STANOVICH, K.E. (1986). Cognitive processes and the read-
ropean Society for Cognitive Psychology, Madrid. ing problems of learning disabled children: Evaluating
CONTENT, A., MORAIS, J., ALEGRIA, J., & BERTELSON, P. the assumption of specificity. In J. Torgesen & B. Wong
(1982). Accelerating the development of phonetic(Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on
seg-
learning disabilities (pp. 87-131). New York: Academic
mentation skills in kindergartners. Cahiers de Psycho-
logie Cognitive, 2, 259-269. Press.

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
284 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY * Summer 1988 XXIII/3

STANOVICH, K.E., CUNNINGHAM, A., & CRAMER, B. (1984). analysis and phoneme blendin
sis on phoneme
Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten chil-
nal of Educational Psychology, 72, 1-15.
dren: Issues of task comparability. Journal of Experi-
Footnotes
mental Child Psycholog)y 38, 175-190.
TORNtUS, M. (1984). Phonological awareness Weand
gratefully
reading:acknowledge the invaluable help from
A chicken and egg problem? Journalthe ofteachers
Educational
and consultantsoin Bornholm and Jutland who
Psychology,, 76, 1346-1358. participated in this project. Ake Olofsson of the University
TUNMER, W.E. (1986, March). Cognitive andof UmeA assistedfac-
linguistic with the statistical work. Peter Bryant
gave
tors in learning to read. Paper presented atvaluable suggestions in a review of an earlier version
the Confer-
of the manuscript.
ence on Early Reading, Center for Cognitive Science, The project had financial support from
University of Texas at Austin. the local school board of Bornholm and from the Swedish
National Board
WALLACH, M., & WALLACH, L. (1976). Teaching of Education.
all children
to read. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
VALTIN, R. (1984). The development of metalinguistic abili-
ties in children learning to read and write. In J. Downing
& R. Valtin (Eds.), Language awareness and learning to Received August 18, 1987
read (pp. 207-226). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Revision received January 12, 1988
WILLIAMS, J.P. (1980). Teaching decoding with an empha-Accepted February 23, 1988

This content downloaded from

145.236.152.45 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:39:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms