Student 1: Clark Barrow

Student 2: Julie Mcgill

Student 3: Kelly Murphy

Student 4: Raiza Garcia

____Outline____

- Introduction

• -Segmentation, Not Rhyming, Predicts Early Progress in Learning to Read
• -Sensitivity to Onset and Rhyme Does Predict Young Children's Reading: A Comment on Muter, Hulme, Snowling and Taylor (1997)
• -Segmentation is a Better Predictor of Early Progress in Learning to Read Than is Rhyme
• -Summary

Introduction

In 1990 a book was published that drove many researchers to study the effect of onset and rime as well as phonological awareness as a predictor of reading success. In their book, Phonological Skills and Learning to Read, the authors, Goswami and Bryant (1990), strove to answer two questions. First, is phonological awareness a predictor of reading achievement? Then second, is Onset and Rhyme a predictor of reading success?

The authors Goswami and Bryant (1990) begin by contrasting theories which suggest that phonological awareness is a result of learning to read and those that suggest that phonological awareness is a determinant of reading. The authors reveal that there is little evidence supporting that children rely on letter sounds to help them read. However, there is evidence supporting that children come to read words naturally; they either recognize a pattern or remember its sequence of letters (p. 46). It was also determined that children rely on phonological code in order to produce written words. They also focus on the second kind of theory and show that students are aware of onset and rime before they learn to read and spell. With all this is mind the authors conclude that slow progress in reading and spelling often equal phonological problems (p. 94).

Segmentation, Not Rhyming, Predicts Early Progress in Learning to Read

It appears that Charles Hulme is Usha Goswami's biggest opponent when it comes to predictors of early reading. IN CONTRAST TO GOSWAMI'S FINDINGS, Hulme believes that Phonemic Awareness (phoneme detection) , not onset-rime segmentation predicts early reading and spelling skills. He has co-authored a plethora of articles debating Goswami’s (1990) published findings on onset-rime as an early predictor .- His findings support onset-rime awareness is distinct from phonemic awareness and that both skills make separate contributions to the development of reading and spelling (Hulme & Nation, 1997).

Hulme, Snowling, Smith and Thomas (1994) conducted a study that investigated the information processing demands of Sound Categorization Task created by Bradley and Bryant (1983). Their study suggests that sound categorization task may not be an effective measure of children's sensitivity to the onset and rime segmentation structure of words. Hulme agrees with Goswami and Bryant in that as children begin to learn to read, they become more aware of phonemes. What he finds as an inconsistency is that children’s ability to identify onset-rime units prior to the development of awareness of phonemes. Children are only able to identify onset-rime units through utilization of sound categorization. This process lacks a connection to words in print.

FURTHERMORE, Hulme questions Goswami’s finding that awareness of onset-rime develops early and naturally. If that were true, when children are instructed to segment a word into phonemes, they should respond by segmenting into onset and rime units. Hulmes’ 1998 study failed to find a relationship between onset and rime segmentation and the early stages of reading. Muter, et al. (1998b) Children use the phonemic level of phonological awareness to develop their alphabetic skills. (Morais, 1991), which in turn has a strong relationship between literacy and phonemic segmentation.

After several years of research and trials, Hulme et al. have concluded that interventions designed to teach children to read utilizing phonological skills of segmentation are better predictors of early readers. -It is their findings that - Onset-rime segmentation is not obtainable until children have been introduced to phonemic segmentation. So the question remains, “What comes first? Is it the phoneme or the rime?

Sensitivity to Onset and Rhyme Does Predict Young Children's Reading: A Comment on Muter, Hulme, Snowling and Taylor (1997)

Bryant (1998) made it clear in a rebuttal to Muter, Holme Hulme, Snowling, and Taylor (1997) that onset and rhyme is not the only factor that determines how well a child learns to read. He argues that phoneme segmentation and onset and rhyme do play an important role in children’s reading and spelling development as well. He found valid weaknesses in the study conducted by Muter, Holme Hulme, Snowling, and Taylor (1997) that concluded the unimportance of rhyme.

The Muter et al (1998a) study included a small sample group of thirty-eight 3- to 4-year olds. The directions in the rhyming section of the phonological tasks were ambiguous. The children were told to choose a word that “sounds like” the target word. They did not specify whether to choose a word with the same onset or the same rhyme. The scoring of the tasks involved marking every word the children chose with the same onset incorrect. Bryant believes that this unreliable scoring system is a possible factor for the Muter et al. (1997) questionable conclusion of the low correlations between the children’s rhyme detection scores and their future success in reading and spelling.

Segmentation is a Better Predictor of Early Progress in Learning to Read Than is Rhyme

Bryant (1997) does make a valid argument against the methods used by Muter, Hulme, Snowling, and Taylor (1997). In this argument, Bryant says the findings do not reflect accurate scores based on methods to measure correct and incorrect responses. Bryant says Muter et al. did not count correct responses for children’s selection of words with the same onset when the children were following instructions. In response to Bryant, Muter et al. give clarification to their instructions and defend their position.

Hulme, Muter, and Snowling (1998) dispute Bryant’s (1997) claim that their conclusions were flawed because children’s responses were not correctly scored. This dispute concerns children’s interpretation of instructions. The instructions include “rhymes with or sounds like” (Hulme et. al., p. 39) and according to Hulme et al., the children did make correct responses. Hulme et al. defend their method of scoring by stating ‘“rhymes with’ and ‘rhymes with or sounds like’ a target word produces identical patterns of responses” (p. 39).

Hulme et at. (1998) continue by stating their position in their study is to increase awareness of many phonological skills affecting “individual differences in learning to read” (p. 39) and that “rime skills are weaker as predictors of reading skills than are phoneme skills” (p. 41). Sensitivity to onset-rime divisions is important in children’s early stages of learning to read and Hulme et al. clearly point this out in their original study. In fairness, Hulme et al. give credit to Bryant’s researcher abilities and credit him for being at the forefront of research in this area.

Hulme et al. (1998) reiterate how their original study included “three practice trials in the rhyme detection task” (p. 41) and if the children did not respond correctly, they received corrective feedback. Furthermore, Hulme et al. conducted a study to analyze children’s rhyme detection. This study included two matched groups to check differences in “rhymes with” and “rhymes with or sounds like” (p. 41). The children of this group were “matched very closely for chronological age” (p. 41). Their t-test shows no differences between the two groups’ ability to distinguish between “rhymes with” and “rhymes with or sounds like” (t(56) = -0.1, NS). Furthermore, Hulme et al. claim the results of this study are actually opposite to Bryant’s claims.

In another test of students’ phonological abilities, 826 students were tested by the Phonological Abilities Test and the results show, when controlled for maturation, that “phoneme awareness are better predictors of reading skill than are measure of rime awareness” (Hulme et al., 1998). This study was different from their original study as their study was longitudinal and this study was concurrent.

Hulme et al.’s (1998) conclusion confirms their statement that “phonemic skills were better predictors of reading than rhyme skills” (p. 44). These findings also correlate draw a parallel with findings by Snider (1997) who found in tests measuring primary students’ word analysis and reading comprehension, phonemic segmentation was a significant predictor (r(49) = .230, p < .001). See Table 1 for correlations of subtests in Snider's study. Furthermore, Hulme et al. see Bryant’s point concerning the title of their article, which is Segmentation, Not Rhyming, Predicts Early Progress in Learning to Read and agree a softer title such as Segmentation is a Better Predictor of Early Progress in Learning to Read Than is Rhyme would have been “more accurate” (Hulme et al., p. 40).

Bryant (1997) makes a valid argument against the methods used by Muter, Hulme, Snowling, and Taylor (1997). In this argument, Bryant says the findings do not reflect accurate scores based on methods to measure correct and incorrect responses. This disagreement about specific parts of each other’s research methodology between these research teams in the 1990s boldly underscores the importance of identifying early predictors of reading achievement.

Sensitivity to phonemic awareness and onset-rime divisions are important in children’s early stages of learning to read. Hulme et al.’s (1998) study showed “rime skills are weaker as predictors of reading skills than are phoneme skills” (p. 41). Furthermore, this study also showed no differences between two study groups’ abilities to distinguish between rhymes with and rhymes with or sounds like, which opposed Bryant’s claim. Similar findings (Hulme & Nation, 1997) revealed phoneme awareness as a better predictor of reading skills than measures of rime awareness; these findings reaffirm an earlier and similar statement made by Hulme et al. and similar to Snider’s (1997) work.

Snider (1997) found that in tests measuring primary students’ word analysis and reading comprehension, phonemic segmentation was a significant predictor of reading achievement. Table 1 compares the subtests of Snider’s study. Although the regression analysis does not show overwhelming relationships, it does show that phonemic segmentation is statistically significant at the .01 alpha level for word analysis and statistically significant at the .001 alpha level for reading comprehension; rhyme supply is not statistically significant at either level for either word analysis or reading comprehension.

(Note: Table added 2/20/07)

Summary

Goswami and Bryant’s (1990) study was fertile as it created much interest in what factors and strategies helped predict reading achievement. They claim children learn to read words naturally and recognize patterns or sequences of letters; this finding was challenged by Charles Hulme. Hulme refuted Goswami and Bryant’s study and argued that phonemic awareness predicts early reading and spelling skills. However, Hulme’s publication did not go unchallenged. Bryant (1998) responded to Hulme’s work and highlighted what he claimed are valid weaknesses in Hulme’s study. As these researchers continued to investigate early predictors of reading achievement, Hulme, Muter, and Snowling (1998) defended their studies once again and cited a longitudinal study (Hulme et al., 1998) where the correlation between phoneme awareness and reading skills was significant (r(49) = .230, p < .001). There was some compromising when Hulme et al. concurred with Bryant that their (Hulme et al.) article’s title was a little strong when it challenged Bryant. These researchers’ differences bring to the forefront the importance of identifying reading strategies that serve as predictors of reading achievement. These researchers’ differences should encourage a fruitful bounty of additional research.

Goswami and Bryant’s (1990) study was fertile as it created much interest in what factors and strategies help predict reading achievement. Differences between these researchers centered on what is the most valid predictor of reading achievement. Goswami and Bryant argue that children learn to read words naturally and recognize patterns or sequences of letters. However, Hulme argued that phonemic awareness predicts early reading and spelling skills. Hulme, Muter, and Snowling (1998) defended their studies by citing a longitudinal study (Hulme et al., 1998) where the correlation between phoneme awareness and reading skills was statistically significant (r(49) = .230, p < .001). There was some compromising when Hulme et al. concurred with Bryant that their (Hulme et al.) article’s title was a little strong when it challenged Bryant. These researchers’ differences bring to the forefront the importance of identifying reading strategies that serve as predictors of reading achievement. These researchers’ differences should encourage a fruitful bounty of additional research.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read - A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-521.

Goswami, U., & Bryant, P.E. (1990). Phonological Skills and Learning to Read. London: Erlbaum.

Hulme, C., Nation, K. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly. 32(2), 154-167.

Hulme, C., Snowling, M. Smith, A., & Thomas, J. (1994). The effect of phonetic similarity and list length on children's sound categorization performance. Journal of Expermintal Experimental Child Pshchology Psychology, 58, 160-180.

Morais, J. (1991) Constraints on the development of phonemic awareness. In S. Brady & D. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to I.Y. Liberman (pp. 5-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. (1998) Segmentation Does Predict Early Progress in Learning to Read Better than Rhyme: A Reply to Bryant Segmentation does predict early progress in learning to read better than rhyme: A reply to Bryant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71 , 39-44.

Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. & Taylor, S. (1998). Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts early progress in learning to Read. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71, 3-27.

Snider, V. E. (1997). The relationship between phonemic awareness and later reading achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 203.

http://reading.uoregon.edu/index.php “Big Ideas in Reading”

Phonemic Awareness: This page includes links to learn what phonemic awareness is, why it is important, how to teach it, and how to asses your students. This site also includes links to learn about the Alphabetic Principle, Accuracy and Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension.

http://time4learning.com/readingpyramid/awareness.htm “Time 4 Learning” This page is on Phonemic Awareness, Pre Reading Skills, and includes several links for vocabulary, fluency, phonics, and more.

http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content2/phoemic.p.k12.4.html “Kid Source Online” This site talks about how young children develop their ability to speak. Interestingly, it includes references to researchers such as Stanovich, Harris and Hodges, Adams, Yopp, Griffith and Olson, and a few others. I viewed the information as very credible since these researchers were being cited.

http://www.tampareads.com/phonics/phonicsindex.htm This site, “A Gold Mind of Phonics and Phonemic Awareness Worksheets” is just that. Click the links to download worksheets for children of ages kindergarten to 100 years. The age groups are divided into (a) kindergarten – early 1st grade, (b) grade 1, and (c) age 6 – 100 years.

http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/positions_phonemic.html This is “The International Reading Association” and it includes a position statement on phonemic awareness. It begins with a definition of phonemic awareness and in the third paragraph, they make a profound statement, “It must be remembered, however, that phonemic awareness activities are not sufficient to produce good readers.” Click on the “full text – PDF” button to link to “Phonemic Awareness and the Teaching of Reading: A Position Statement from the Board of Directors of the International Reading Association.” Here is the direct link: http://www.reading.org/downloads/positions/ps1025_phonemic.pdf

http://kindergartenthemes.tripod.com/Phonemic%20Awareness.htm “Phonemic Awareness” by Harcourt. This page is dedicated to phonemic awareness based on Dr. Hallie Kay Yopp’s work. It tells what children who are phonemically aware are able to do. Although there is not a lot of information on this page, it has useful links to other topics that could serve as teaching aides.

Commentary by Paul Stewart

This commentary is for the Phonemic Awareness Studies 1990s group. I think your group did a great job of reviewing PA in the 1990’s. I have a couple of suggestions, the first one is you might consider adding the following to your introduction, “As young students enter school they already have had a wide variety of experiences with print and oral language. Many students have been read to since they were born, provided with rhymes and riddles, and even taught basic sight words like "dog", "cat", "mom", and "dad". Yet, students may not have been instructed about the identification of sounds within words. They may have not been shown how to break down words into individual sounds, known as phonemes, and manipulate those specific sounds. The skills to do this, known as phonemic awareness, are vital to successful reading acquisition. Being able to complete phoneme awareness tasks such as segmenting, blending, substituting, categorizing, isolating, and identifying phonemes is not always the easiest for our young learners (Yopp, 1992). Yet, research has shown that the "acquisition of phonemic awareness is highly predictive of success in learning to read-in particular in predicting success in learning to decode" (International Reading Association , 1998).

International Reading Association (IRA). (1998). Position statement: Phonemic awareness and the teaching of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 45(9), 696-703.

The second one is that I think that you need a closing paragraph with your conclusions of the research you did on PA in the 1990s.

End of commentary by Paul Stewart

Commentary by Vanessa Avis

I found your paper to be very interesting especially since I started teaching kindergarten in the heyday of phonemic awareness and had to administered many tests that were supposed to measure students abilities in these skill areas.

My only suggestion is that maybe you could add some of the findings by Joseph Torgesen. He is currently the Director of the Florida Center for Reading Research. It may be interesting to see how his research on phonemic awareness affects instructional practices here in Florida.

Commentary by Sara Mcginnis

You guys did a great job on this assignment. I know how hard it must have been fitting everything into two pages. We had a hard time too with the 80's. I thought it was very well put together and it really flowed. The only suggestions that I have and Paul may have hit them already, would be to have a conclusion paragraph and external links. Just something to sum it all up. The other thing is you may want to check to see if we had to have external links. There has been some confusion on this. Better to be safe!

Great Job!

Commentary by Sara Sewell

Wow! A lot happened in the 1990's. You all did a nice job of condensing the information. My suggestion is about your table; I didn't see one. I am pretty sure that was a requirement for the assignment so you may want to check. I agree with the others about adding a closing paragraph. The article seems to end abruptly and without conclusion. Good work!

Commentary by Carolyn Morin

Great work! A lot happened in PA during that time frame. My suggestion are the same as the others especially about adding a closing paragraph.

Commentary by Christy Nobles

I think that you have made all the suggested changes to the page and I feel that your page more than adequately covers the topic. I agree with the other's in that this was a difficult task to squeeze all of the 1990's into 2 pages. You did this quite well! Job well done!

Commentary by Stacee Jennings

Excellent job everyone! I am impressed with your table. I spent hours trying to get ours in and I still can't do it! I just have a few little editing things for you all to look at. Here they are:

1. In the "Segmentation, Not Rhyming..." section, there is a sentence that reads, "uter, et a. (1998b) Children use the phonemic level of phonological awareness to develop their alphabetic skills. (Morais, 1991), which in turn has a strong relationship between literacy and phonemic segmentation." You may want to look at the formatting of this. The first authors name isn't capitalized and you need to put the "l" in "al." Also, it looks like there are periods where there shouldn't be.

2. You need to add an ending quotation mark on the sentence that reads, And the question remains, “What comes first? Is it the phoneme or the rime? (last paragraph of "Segmentation, Not Rhyming...").

3. You may want to include internal links to some of the testing measures you mentioned. It may just be me, but I would like more explanation on the Sound Categorization Task and the Phonological Abilities Test.

4. Lastly, I think you should mention the National Reading Panel's findings, as I'm sure much of this research was included in their report. The website is National Reading Panel. This would be a good external link to include.

Fantastic job!

Commentary by Amanda Hatten

I found this to be well thought out and organized. I think everyone else has covered all the main points, but the only thing I would add is that you may consider adding another table as a comparison point against the table you have already included. (Maybe with opposing information.) This could make the WIKI more balanced. (I think it's really great, I am just trying to add any suggestion I can think of!)

Commentary by Kathi Crittenden

The introduction is informative, but might be more effective if some of the terms were defined. For example, you could include the definition of phonological awareness in the first sentence. The table was really nice; it was interesting to see the information laid out like that. The summary was also very good, as it seemed to encompass all of the information presented in the paper.