1 / 26

By Mara Hampton Thesis Chair : Tina K. Veale Ph.D. CCC-SLP

Visual Phonics and Phonological Awareness Interventions: Stability of Gains in Language and Literacy. By Mara Hampton Thesis Chair : Tina K. Veale Ph.D. CCC-SLP. Phonological Awareness. Less Complex. More Complex. Phonological Awareness and Literacy Development.

patrick-barrett
Télécharger la présentation

By Mara Hampton Thesis Chair : Tina K. Veale Ph.D. CCC-SLP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Visual Phonics and Phonological Awareness Interventions: Stability of Gains in Language and Literacy By Mara Hampton Thesis Chair : Tina K. Veale Ph.D. CCC-SLP

  2. Phonological Awareness Less Complex More Complex

  3. Phonological Awareness and Literacy Development • Building block of literacy (National Reading Panel, 2000; Gillon, 2000) • Predictor of future reading success (Wagner, Torgesen, and Rashotte 1994) • Greater improvement in reading abilities with phonological awareness training (Hatcher, Hulme, and Ellis 1994)

  4. Phonological Awareness and Language • Hansen (2003) and Megli (2004): • 10-week small group phonological awareness training program • 20-minute intervals, twice a week • Activities included syllable blending & segmenting, rhyme recognition & production, phoneme recognition, etc. • Significant gains in expressive & receptive language skills were demonstrated • Dyke (2008): • Replicated intervention methods used in Hansen (2003) and Megli (2004) studies. • Measured only auditory comprehension • Significant gains in auditory comprehension of typically developing preschoolers

  5. See-the-Sound Visual Phonics (Visual Phonics) • Multisensory strategy that represents all of the sounds of English with a hand-shape cue and corresponding written symbol • Hand and symbol cue for each sound • Provides visual, tactile, & kinesthetic information about phonemes • Not a communication system, but rather an instructional tool

  6. Visual Phonics and Phonological Awareness • Narr (2008) examined the relationship of phonological awareness and decoding skills in 10 students who were deaf or hard-of- hearing. • Visual Phonics was incorporated during the phonemic awareness and phonic aspects of the reading process. • Participants were able to use phonological information to make rhyme judgments and to decode

  7. Visual Phonics and Language Impairment • Dyke (2009) • 25 preschool children with speech and/or language deficits • 2 experimental groups (PA only; PA + VP; 1 control group • 10 week small group phonological awareness intervention • Activities included rhyme production & recognition, syllable segmenting & blending, & beginning sound awareness. • Results: Auditory comprehension, expressive language, language content and language structure improved significantly in both experimental groups, but not in the control group.

  8. Visual Phonics and Literacy • Gergits (2010) • 25 preschool children with speech and/or language delay • 2 experimental groups (PA only; PA + VP); 1 control group • 10 week small group phonological awareness intervention • Activities included rhyme production & recognition, syllable segmenting & blending, & beginning sound awareness. • Results: No significant difference between groups in literacy skill acquisition. Trend toward more gains in PA + VP group.

  9. Phonological Awareness Supplemented by Visual Phonics

  10. Research Questions • After a six month lapse, to what extent do speech-language impaired preschoolers maintain gains in language and literacy from treatment with phonological awareness? • After a six month lapse, to what extent do speech-language impaired preschoolers maintain gains in language and literacy from treatment with phonological awareness supplemented by visual phonics? • After a six month lapse, is there a difference noted between the phonological awareness intervention vs. the phonological awareness intervention supplemented by visual phonics upon language and literacy abilities?

  11. Subjects • 10 of the 25 subjects were available • Speech and/or language delay based on results of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool, 2nd Edition (CELF-P:2) and Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation, 2nd Edition (GFTA-2) • No significant academic concerns • Normal hearing and visual acuity • Students of two central Illinois at-risk early childhood programs • Experimental groups • Group 1: Phonological awareness intervention (N=2) • Group 2: Phonological awareness intervention in conjunction with visual phonics (N=6). • Control group • Nontreatment group (N=2)

  12. Subjects

  13. Methodology • Previous studies utilized pretest-posttest control group design. Current study utilized a time series design. • The following language and literacy tests were administered approximately 6 months after completion of the previous study: • Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language, 3rd Edition • Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Preschool, 2nd Edition • Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening –Pre-Kindergarten • Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening-Kindergarten • Testing conducted by 1 licensed SLP or 1 of 2 supervised undergraduate students in CDS

  14. Data Analysis • CELF-P:2 core language scores and TACL-3 quotient scores were used to compare the overall change in language abilities and receptive language of the experimental and control groups. • PALS total percentage correct scores were used to compare the overall change in literacy abilities of the experimental and control groups. • Performance was evaluated using descriptive statistics and inspection of tabled data.

  15. CELF-P:2 Core Language Standard Scores Group 1: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain= 7.5 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 gain=3.0 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain= 10.5 pts Group 2: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=28.1 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 drop=14.3 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=13.8 pts Control Group: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=4 pts; posttest 1 to posttest 2 gain=12 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=16 pts.

  16. TACL-3 Quotient Scores Group 1: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain= 3.5 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 drop=1.0 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain= 2.5 pts Group 2: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=9.5 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 drop=6.7 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=2.8 pts Control Group: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=2 pts; posttest 1 to posttest 2 drop=4.5 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=2.5 pts.

  17. PALS AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF CORRECTNESS Group 1: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain= 17.1 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 gain=7.1 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain= 24.4 pts Group 2: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=25.2 pts; Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 drop=27.5 pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=52.7 pts Control Group: Pretest to Posttest 1 gain=8.4 pts; posttest 1 to posttest 2 gain=32.6pts. Pretest to Posttest 2 gain=41 pts.

  18. Summary of Results • Subjects made substantial gains in language abilities following 10 weeks of PA or PA + VP intervention. Six months later, language gains attained at PT1 were not retained. • Subjects made greater gains in early literacy skills following 10 weeks of PA + VP intervention only. Subjects in this group continued to make greater gains over the next 6 months, as well. Subjects in the other groups made gains; however, they were not as large.

  19. Clinical Implications • Children with speech-language deficits did not retain language gains realized following 10 weeks of PA or PA + VP intervention. • 10 week intervention not adequate amount of time for lasting language changes. • Children in VP + PA group relied on hand shape cues, but did not develop an internal representation of the sounds. • Children with speech-language deficits improved early literacy skills after 10 weeks of PA + VP intervention, and continued to see gains 6 months later. Children who received PA intervention without VP did not make as large gains. • VP may have more impact on early literacy skills than language skills. • Changes may be realized over time rather than immediately.

  20. Clinical Implications • Speech-language pathologists should play an active role in phonological awareness intervention. • Consider the timing, duration, and intensity of intervention.

  21. Strengths and Limitations • A control group was incorporated to determine if changes in core language, receptive language, and early literacy skill development could be attributed to the interventions. • Only a small number of participants from the previous study were available for testing, potentially compromising the reliability of these results. • Amount of PA intervention incorporated into subjects’ preschool curricula was not controlled and may have influenced measurements.

  22. Future Research • Further exploration of the use of VP to develop language and literacy skills in a speech- language impaired population. • Longer intervention time periods • Study subject with language impairment without speech involvement • Extend intervention into the classroom and/or home

  23. References • Bird, J., Bishop, D.V.M, & Freeman, N.H. (1995). Phonological awareness and literacy development in children with expressive phonological impairments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 446-462. • Dyke, J. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention with preschool children: Changes in receptive language abilities. Unpublished honor's thesis; Eastern Illinois University; Charleston , Illinois. • Dyke, J. (2010). The application of visual phonics and phonological awareness interventions to address language impairment in preschool children. Unpublished master’s thesis; Eastern Illinois University; Charleston, Illinois. • Gergits, E. (2010). Using visual phonics and phonological awareness interventions for language impaired preschoolers. Unpublished master’s thesis; Eastern Illinois University; Charleston, Illinois. • Gillon, G. (2000). The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 126-141. • Hansen, D. (2003). Changes in language abilities of preschool children following phonological awareness training. Unpublished master’s thesis; Western Illinois University; Macomb, Illinois. • Hatcher, P.J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A.W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41-57.

  24. References • Megli, M. (2004). Phonological awareness training: Augmenting speech and language. Unpublished master’s thesis; Western Illinois University; Macomb, Illinois. • Montgomery, J. (2008). Dave krupke: What exactly is visual phonics? Communication Disorders Quarterly, 29, 177-182. doi:10.1177/1525740108318413 • Narr, R. F. (2008) Phonological awareness and decoding in deaf/ hard-of-hearing students who use visual phonics. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10, 1-12. • National Institute of Child Health and Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. • Raitano,N.A., Pennington, B. F.,Tunick, B. F.,Boada,R., & Shriberg, L. D. (2004). Pre-literacy skills of subgroups of children with speech sound disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 821–835. • Rvachew, S., Ohberg, A., Grawburg, M., & Heyding, J. (2003). Phonological awareness and phonemic perception in 4-year-old children with delayed expressive phonology skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 463–471. Doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2003/092)

  25. References • Schuele, C.M., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond the basics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 3-20. • Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. • Stark, R., Bernstein, L., Condion, R., Bender, M., Tallal, P., & Catts, H. (1984). Four year follow-up study of language impaired children. Annals of dyslexia, 34, 49-68. • van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R.B., & McFadden, T.U. (1998). A study of classroom-based phonological awareness training for preschoolers with speech and/or language disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 65-76. • Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New Evidence of Bidirectional Causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.

  26. Questions

More Related