The six studies found concerning the effect of pure phonemic awareness training (without phonics) on reading comprehension gave a positive but modest overall effect size in favor of phonemic awareness training. Four studies had small samples, two showed no or very small effect sizes, and one inconsistent results. Three involved languages other than English. Such results do not support the popular movement for universal phonemic awareness training.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BradleyL.BryantP. (1983) Categorizing sounds and learning to read—a causal condition. Nature, 301, 419–421.
2.
DefiorS.TudelaP. (1994) Effect of phonological training on reading and writing acquisition. Reading and Writing, 6, 299–320.
3.
HatcherP.HelmC.EllisA. (1994) Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41–57.
4.
JohnstonD. (1995) DSTAT: Software for the meta-analytic review of research literatures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
KozminskyL.KozminskyE. (1995) The effects of early phonological awareness training on reading success. Learning and Instruction, 5, 187–201.
6.
LieA. (1991) Effects of a training program for stimulating skills in word analysis in first grade children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 234–250.
7.
NATIONAL READING PANEL. (2000) Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
8.
TroiaG. (1999) Phonological awareness intervention research: A critical review of the experimental methodology. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 28–52.
9.
WeinerS. (1994) Effects of phonemic awareness training on low- and middle-achieving first graders’ phonemic awareness and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 277–300.
10.
WolfE. (1986) Meta-analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
