Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

The effects of syllable instruction on phonemic awareness in preschoolers

Teresa A. Ukrainetz ∗ , Janae J. Nuspl, Kimberly Wilkerson, Sarah Rose Beddes
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Purpose: Preschooler instruction for speech sound awareness typically teaches a progression of speech
Received 2 February 2009 units from sentences to phonemes, ending at simple first phoneme activities. This study investigates the
Received in revised form 13 April 2010 effects of teaching advanced tasks of phoneme blending and segmenting with and without the larger
Accepted 21 April 2010
speech unit of the syllable.
Method: Thirty-nine 4–5-year-old typically developing children received twice-weekly small-group
Keywords:
instruction in three conditions: two weeks of syllable tasks then four weeks of multiple phoneme tasks
Phonemic awareness
(SP), four weeks of multiple phoneme tasks only (MP), or an active control condition of first phoneme
Phonological awareness
Preschool instruction
instruction (FP).
Results: The conditions SP and MP showed large significant gains on blending and segmenting and no sig-
nificant differences on first phoneme isolating compared to the FP condition. A comparison of SP and MP
did not show significant differences on phoneme blending and segmenting, but SP showed significantly
more confusion during early sessions of phoneme instruction.
Conclusion: This preliminary evidence suggests that preschoolers can improve understanding of phoneme
blending and segmenting, without first being taught syllable blending and segmenting, and with no nega-
tive effects on first sound awareness. These findings support a more efficient way of teaching preschoolers
awareness of the individual sounds of speech. Replication with a larger sample, including children at-risk
for literacy difficulties, is recommended before firm conclusions should be drawn.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Phonemic awareness, one of the central components of read-
ing and writing in alphabetic print systems, is often arrived at
through teaching a presumed developmental order from the larger
units of words and syllables to the smallest units of phonemes
(Gillon, 2006; Phillips, Clancy-Menchetti, & Lonigan, 2008; Schuele
& Boudreau, 2008). The challenging tasks of blending and seg-
menting words into their component phonemes are typically left
until kindergarten, to be taught concurrently with formal reading
instruction. There is considerable evidence that such an instruc-
tional progression improves phonemic awareness and contributes
to better word reading and spelling (e.g., Brady, Fowler, Stone, &
Winbury, 1994; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988). However, it
is important to know whether such comprehensive instruction is
necessary or whether there are more efficient ways of arriving at
the critical level of awareness of the phoneme. In addition, with
increasing literacy expectations in preschool, empirical evidence
is needed on the effects of instruction in advanced tasks, such
as phoneme segmenting and blending. This study examines how
∗ Corresponding author at: The Division of Communication Disorders, Dept. 3311,
1000 E. University Ave., University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, United States.
Tel.: +1 307 766 5576; fax: +1 307 766 6829.
E-mail address: tukraine@uwyo.edu (T.A. Ukrainetz).
preschoolers fare in acquiring understanding of phoneme blend-
ing and segmenting, and whether one stage in comprehensive
instruction, that of syllable awareness, provides added benefit in
the development of phonemic awareness.
1. Phonemic and phonological awareness
Phonemic awareness is the understanding that spoken words
can be separated and manipulated as minimally contrastive sound
units (e.g., bone into/b/-/o/-/n/). This awareness is one of the
strongest predictors of performance in word reading and spelling
(e.g., Hoien, Lundberg, Stanovich, & Bjaalid, 1995; Stanovich, 2000).
It is needed for children to recognize the alphabetic principle and
to sound out printed words (Torgesen, Al Otaiba, & Grek, 2005).
A large body of research evidence shows the beneficial effects of
programs that teach phonemic awareness on phonemic awareness
itself, and on word reading and spelling for children of a range of
abilities and ages (see Ehri et al., 2001; National Institute on Child
Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000). Direct instruction
in phoneme manipulation is considered an essential part of reading
instruction in kindergarten, especially for children at risk for read-
ing difficulties (Torgesen et al., 2005; Vaughn, Wanzek, Woodruff,
& Linan-Thompson, 2008).

0885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.04.006
 T.A. Ukrainetz et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60
Phonemic awareness falls within the larger umbrella of phono-
logical awareness. Phonology is the science of speech sounds
(Merriam Webster, 1993). Phonological awareness involves both
the smallest unit of the phoneme and larger units of onset-rime
(e.g., b-atter and spl-atter) and syllables (e.g., ba-na-na and bigg-er).
In addition, the term phonological has been applied to tasks that
require understanding of meaning, such as counting the words in a
spoken sentence and dividing compound words into root words.
It has even been applied to tasks involving identifying environ-
mental sounds, which are familiar non-speech sounds, such as
door knocks and bird tweets. Sometimes, it has even erroneously
included letter-sound awareness (e.g., Robertson & Salter, 1997).
To further the confusion, the label of phonemic has been applied to
the teaching of phonological awareness. For example, in Ehri et al.’s
(2001) report of the beneficial effects of sound awareness instruc-
tion, the term phonemic was used and phonemic outcomes were
analyzed, but the meta-analysis included studies that taught larger
units of sound such as syllables, words, and non-speech sound
events.
The phonemic versus phonological distinction is a critical issue
for this study and will be addressed further. Given that preschool
instruction is predominantly phonological rather than phonemic,
and phonological subsumes phonemic, this report refers to all vari-
eties of sound awareness instruction as phonological awareness
instruction, regardless of how cited published reports originally
identified it.
2. Phonological awareness instruction
Phonological awareness instruction has involved several
approaches. These approaches differ on scope and sequence of
sound unit instruction. One approach is comprehensive, sequen-
tial instruction. One skill is taught at a time, beginning with large
units of sound and progressing to smaller units. Some comprehen-
sive approaches skip steps, such as not teaching environmental
sounds, but all teach some tasks involving units bigger than the
phoneme. This comprehensive approach has support from con-
trolled group research studies (e.g., Brady et al., 1994; DeBaryshe &
Gorecki, 2007; Lundberg et al., 1988).
Other approaches initiate instruction directly at the phoneme
level, without prior instruction in larger units of sound. The pro-
cedure may be sequential, starting with distinctively different
phonemes that can be seen on the lips (e.g., /b/,/s/), and moving
to less salient phonemes, such as vowels or consonants present
in clusters (e.g., /str/). Instruction moves from manipulating indi-
vidual phonemes to segmenting phonemes in short words to
segmenting progressively longer words. This sequential phoneme-
only approach has empirical support from controlled group studies
(e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992).
An alternate phoneme-only approach involves a less-structured,
simultaneous ordering in which different phoneme tasks and
different word shapes are addressed together within a lesson.
Learning support is provided through differential scaffolding (e.g.,
more help for more difficult tasks) embedded in bookread-
ing and shared writing activities (McFadden, 1998; Richgels,
Poremba, & McGee, 1996; Ukrainetz, 2006a). This approach also
has support from controlled group research studies (Ukrainetz,
Cooney, Dyer, Kysar, & Harris, 2000; Ukrainetz, Ross, & Harm,
2009).
In preschool, although the importance is recognized, phonolog-
ical awareness instruction of any kind is not yet commonly present
(Phillips et al., 2008). This lack of attention is not surprising con-
sidering that, just over 10 years ago, the 1998 position statement
issued by the International Reading Association and the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (IRA/NAEYC) rec-
51
ommended simply engaging children in “listening to patterned,
predictable texts while enjoying the feel of reading and lan-
guage” (p. 4). The instructional climate has since shifted toward
more formal literacy lessons and higher expectations, including for
phonemic awareness (Phillips et al., 2008).
Despite the diversity of possible instructional approaches, if
preschool instruction is present, some form of comprehensive
instruction appears dominant. State standards include attention
to counting words and syllables (e.g., Wyoming Department of
Education, 2003). Expert articles address teaching word, syllable,
and rhyme, as well as phoneme skills (e.g., Gillon, 2006; Phillips et
al., 2008; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). Manualized curricula detail
how to teach awareness of non-speech sounds, words, syllables,
rhymes, and phonemes (e.g., Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler,
1998; Notari-Syverson, O-Connor, & Vadasy, 1998). Preschool web-
sites promote this comprehensive instruction (e.g., http://www.
teachers.net/lessons/posts; http://www.ehow.com; http://www.
teacherquicksource.com/preschool). Norm-referenced phonologi-
cal awareness tests include units larger than the phoneme, such as
rhyme, syllable, and compound word or sentence (e.g., Robertson
& Salter, 1997; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999).
The expert literature has taken an uncritical stance in support of
comprehensive instruction. For example, in their report on features
of successful phonological awareness instruction for preschoolers,
Phillips et al. (2008) recognize that speech units are not acquired
fully sequentially, that not all speech units are necessary for acquir-
ing phonemic awareness, that phoneme segmenting takes time to
teach systematically and supportively, and that not all speech units
merit equal teaching time. Despite these considerations, Phillips
et al. do not even raise the possibility of focusing exclusively at
the phoneme level. Instead, they recommend a flexible sequen-
tial order of comprehensive instruction from sentences through to
phonemes.
3. Syllable awareness as an entry into phoneme awareness
and reading
This study focuses on the benefits of syllable awareness. The syl-
lable is the largest purely phonological unit. Clapping and marching
to syllables in a rhythmic beat is more entertaining for young
children than the awkward parsing of a word into its compo-
nent phonemes. Syllables are more pronounceable than many
phonemes and often align with morphological units (e.g., na-tion-
al). Awareness of syllables has been found to be part of a single
overarching phonological awareness factor, along with phoneme
and rhyme awareness (Anthony et al., 2002; Wagner, Torgesen, &
Rashotte, 1994). Syllable and phoneme competencies may not even
be separable on tests, as in the Comprehensive Test of Phonological
Processing (Wagner et al., 1999), where a single score on a sound
deletion task is obtained by combining performance on syllable and
phoneme items.
Although syllables are part of phonological awareness, syllable
awareness appears to operate separately from phoneme awareness
and to contribute little to reading. Hoien et al. (1995) found little
relationship between syllable and phoneme awareness (correla-
tions of .1–.2) for kindergartners and first graders. Wood and Terrell
(1998) showed that good and poor readers did not significantly
differ on syllable segmentation. First grade syllable awareness
explains less than 1% of unique variance in word decoding (Engen
& Hoien, 2002; Hoien et al., 1995). Even for later reading, chunk-
ing into syllabic units often results in only partial word decoding
which is associated with poorer reading performance (McGuiness,
1997). Thus, syllables, while being part of phonological awareness,
do not appear to be important in developing phonemic awareness
or word reading.
52 T.A. Ukrainetz et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60
4. Development of phonemic awareness
One of the arguments for comprehensive instruction is that it
reflects the developmental order of growing awareness from larger
to smaller units of speech (e.g., Gillon, 2006; Phillips et al., 2008;
Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). However, careful examination of the
evidence suggests that the developmental ordering of phonological
awareness accomplishments is much less linear and fixed than has
been generally believed.
Young preschoolers can demonstrate phonemic awareness
without direct instructions. Half of 3-year-olds can achieve begin-
ning phoneme isolation and alliteration (Chaney, 1992; Maclean,
Bryant, & Bradley, 1987), and a third of 4-year-olds can match by
first phoneme (Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony, & Barker, 1998). Fox and
Routh (1975) found that segmenting sentences into words, words
into syllables, and syllables into phonemes all showed similar steep
growth trajectories between 3 and 4 years. With instruction, these
phoneme achievements have been accelerated, with first sound
matching expected for graduating preschoolers (McGee, 2005) and
segmenting words into phonemes expected by the end of kinder-
garten (Good, Simmons, Kame’enui, Kaminski, & Wallin, 2002).
A factor that has complicated understandings of the develop-
mental progression is that tasks vary in cognitive and memory
demands. For example, comparing only two pictured words for first
sound matches is much easier than comparing one word to an array
of three words. Segmenting the sounds in a very simple word like
me may be achieved before a task of matching phonemes from a
multiple non-pictured word array. Child-friendly instructions and
materials can reveal the competencies of 3-year-olds. When tasks
are kept equivalent in cognitive and memory demands, there is very
little ordering within this multidimensional domain, with overlaps
in achievements among rhyme, syllable, and phonemes (Anthony
et al., 2002; Anthony, Lonigan, Driscoll, Phillips, & Burgess, 2003;
Fox & Routh, 1975; Yopp, 1988).
The developmental order of acquisition of phonological aware-
ness is, in fact, not very ordered. Phoneme awareness emerges as
early as awareness of larger units of speech. Developmental order,
then, does not justify teaching comprehensively over teaching a
selective focus on phonemes.
5. Phoneme-only versus more comprehensive instruction
There is research support for both comprehensive and
phoneme-only instruction. However, no studies could be located
that directly compared the two approaches. Alternative evidence
can be gained from a post hoc comparison of controlled studies.
A comprehensive-approach study is that of Lundberg et al.
(1988). Lundberg et al. taught eight months of daily 15-min whole
class lesson that sequentially addressed the full array of sound
units, from non-speech sounds to segmenting phonemes. Results
for phoneme segmenting compared to the no-treatment condition
showed a significant moderate effect size (d = 0.69). This training
progression was replicated with a similar effect size in an 18-week
version by Brady et al. (1994).
In contrast, Ball and Blachman (1988) taught only at the
phoneme level, in a sequential approach for seven weeks in four
20-min a week small-group sessions. The segmentation condi-
tion showed significantly better phoneme segmenting and word
reading skills with large effect sizes (d = 1.85, d = 1.67) compared
to the no-treatment control and to the language/letter treatment.
Ukrainetz et al. (2000) taught phoneme isolating and segmenting
in three 30-min sessions per week for seven weeks, with sound
talk embedded in shared book and writing activities. Large effect
sizes were obtained for segmentation compared to no-treatment
controls (d = 1.37).
These studies suggest that, at least for kindergartners, it is
more efficient to begin instruction at the phoneme level than
teach a full array of sounds. For preschoolers, the comprehen-
sive approach might still provide a better entry into phonemic
awareness. Ukrainetz (2008) conducted a systematic review of the
literature for preschoolers on teaching awareness of phonemes ver-
sus the full array of sounds. Only ten studies were located that
involved peer-reviewed reports of group controlled comparisons.
None of the studies taught non-speech sound identification or sen-
tence manipulation. Five studies included attention to rhyme and
syllable. Five preschool studies taught only at the phoneme level.
The largest gains were obtained for instruction in simple phoneme
tasks, compared to instruction that included rhyme and syllable, or
that included advanced phoneme tasks.
Only two instructional studies were located that inform prac-
tice specifically on syllable instruction. Cary and Verhaeghe (1994)
demonstrated that teaching syllable segmentation and deletion to
kindergartners resulted in no significant improvement in phoneme
segmentation and deletion. Direct instruction in phonemes was
required to gain improvement in phoneme awareness. In a retro-
spective study by Nancollis, Lawri, and Dodd (2005), preschoolers
were taught rhyme identification, syllable segmentation, and first
sound isolation. Two years later, the treatment group showed
moderately better rhyme and non-word spelling, but phoneme
segmentation was significantly worse than the comparison group.
6. The current study
Both comprehensive instruction and phoneme-only instruction
are effective routes into phonemic awareness. Teaching recom-
mendations and practices support comprehensive instruction,
although evidence suggests that phoneme-only instruction is a
more efficient approach. However, firm conclusions about relative
efficiency cannot be made due to the lack of research that directly
compares teaching approaches.
A common step in comprehensive instruction is teaching sylla-
ble awareness. The syllable is a unit of speech that is easily learned
by preschoolers. Syllable blending and segmenting are considered
part of the skills involved in reading and an entry into the more
challenging task of phoneme blending and segmenting. However,
there is little evidence in support and some evidence against these
expectations. Syllable instruction may have no beneficial role in
developing phonemic awareness, may take valuable time away
from phoneme instruction, and may even confuse children as they
shift from syllables to phonemes.
This study provides a preliminary direct comparison of
phoneme awareness instruction with and without prior lessons
in syllable awareness for a small sample of typically achieving
preschoolers. In addition, although recommendations are begin-
ning to include teaching phoneme blending and segmenting, there
is little empirical evidence on preschoolers’ response to such
instruction—or how time spent on them may affect progress on
the first phoneme skills critical at entry to kindergarten. Thus, this
study also examines the effects of teaching advanced phoneme
awareness skills. The research questions in this study were as fol-
lows:
1. Will phoneme blending and segmenting instruction result in
improved phoneme blending and segmenting?
2. What is the effect of syllable awareness instruction on phoneme
blending and segmenting?
3. Is there learning confusion from syllable awareness instruction
early in phoneme awareness instruction?
4. What is the effect of phoneme blending and segmenting instruc-
tion on first phoneme isolating?
 T.A. Ukrainetz et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60
The first hypothesis was that typically achieving preschoolers
could make significant gains, although not master, these advanced
tasks. A positive response was a pre-condition to answer the syl-
lable question—if these preschoolers could not learn phoneme
blending and segmenting, then the effect of syllable instruction
would not be apparent. For the next two questions, the hypotheses
were that prior syllable instruction would provide no additional
benefit in phoneme awareness, and children would be confused in
the early part of phoneme instruction. Phoneme blending and seg-
menting were analyzed separately because phoneme segmenting
was expected to be more difficult to learn than blending, and syl-
lable manipulation activities might be particularly detrimental to
phoneme segmenting. The final hypothesis was that time spent on
advanced tasks would not negatively affect first phoneme aware-
ness compared to first phoneme-only instruction.
7. Method
7.1. Design
This study employed a group experimental design with typically
developing 4–5-year-olds in three conditions: syllable plus multi-
ple phoneme tasks (SP), multiple phoneme tasks without syllables
(MP), and first phoneme tasks only (FP). The participant sample
was limited to typically achieving children who could be expected
to make reasonable learning gains in a short instructional period.
The outcome measures were immediate performance on phoneme
tasks.
The study was conducted in May and June of 2005 and 2007.
Each data collection period was eight weeks. Children were pre-
tested in the week prior to SP commencing syllable instruction.
After two weeks of syllable instruction, SP participants were tested
on syllable performance and those who met criterion proceeded
into phoneme treatment. All conditions then commenced phoneme
instruction. The SP and MP conditions received four weeks of
instruction. For the FP condition, after two weeks, the participants
who met criterion on first phonemes received no further instruc-
tion in the remaining two weeks. Post-testing occurred in the week
immediately following SP and MP instruction.
7.2. Participants
Thirty-nine preschoolers (mean age = 5;1, range = 4;0–5;11)
participated. The participants had typically developing language
skills, as indicated by norm-referenced test scores and teacher
report. They were eligible to start kindergarten the following
August. No demographic data were collected, but the children were
observed to be almost all white with English as a first language.
The study took place in two childcare centers in a middle-class
neighborhood in the small college town of Laramie, Wyoming. The
childcare centers each had an enrollment of about 100 infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers, and provided after-school care. From
informal observation, literacy instruction was carried out infre-
quently and unsystematically. The teachers reported sometimes
teaching what letters looked like and what sounds they make. Occa-
sionally the teachers read a rhyming book to the class and asked
which words rhymed, blended the syllables of a child’s name, or
asked children what words started with certain sounds.
7.3. Procedure
7.3.1. Recruitment
The teachers handed out letters to parents explaining the study
purpose, procedures, and eligibility. The investigators were avail-
able to answer questions in the childcare centers at the beginning
and end of several days. Of the 47 children with parental consent, 2
53
did not meet the language eligibility standard. Their parents were
counseled about sources of speech-language support. One child
was too young to start kindergarten that fall. Five participants had
scheduling difficulties or left the preschool prior to post-testing.
This resulted in 39 participants.
7.3.2. Testing measures
The testing measures examined language, letters, and phoneme
and syllable awareness. The Test of Early Language Development
(TELD, Hresko, Reid, & Hammill, 1999) was administered for eli-
gibility and balancing conditions. The eligibility requirement was
a total TELD standard score of 84 (14 percentile). The TELD was
administered following the standardized procedures at pre-testing.
The TELD is normed on 2217 children, including those with dis-
abilities, demographically stratified from 35 states. There is an
expressive and a receptive scale that sample vocabulary, concepts,
and sentence structure. The TELD manual reports high test–retest
and inter-rater reliability (r = .94, r = .99). For validity, the TELD
reports no differentiation of children by race/ethnicity, but differ-
entiation by age and by disability compared to normative groups.
Letter name knowledge was evaluated at pre-testing with the
Clay Letter Name Recognition Screening (Clay, 1979) for balancing
conditions. Upper case letters were presented on a single sheet, not
in alphabetical order. One line of letters was revealed at a time, with
the tester indicating which letter to identify.
The primary outcome measure of phoneme awareness was
raw score performance on the Phonological Awareness Test (PAT,
Robertson & Salter, 1997). Three subtests were used at pre-
and post-testing: first phoneme isolating, phoneme blending, and
phoneme segmenting. Two PAT syllable awareness subtests were
also administered for descriptive purposes. Each subtest consisted
of 10 items. The PAT was administered and scored according to
standardized procedures, except that the phoneme subtests were
administered before the syllable subtests.
The PAT is a norm-referenced test of phonological awareness
and letter-sound knowledge. The PAT is normed on demograph-
ically stratified 1235 children, with children with disabilities
excluded. The PAT manual reports moderate to high test–retest reli-
ability (r = .61–.95) for the relevant subtests and ages. For validity,
the PAT reports age differentiation for each item, and significant
differences for at an alpha level of .05 or better between “randomly
selected subjects from the normative population” and a matched
sample of those “at-risk for reading” (p. 52).
In addition to the standard scoring procedure, a partially correct
scoring procedure was applied to the phoneme segmenting subtest.
Partial scoring is used in other assessment measures (e.g., Good et
al., 2002). This version was developed for this study. One point was
awarded for each phoneme the child correctly segmented, so long
as at least two segments were present (e.g., fat as /f/-/at/ was 1 point,
but /f/ was 0). One point was deducted for each phoneme insertion
or position reversal (e.g., liver: /l/-/I/-/l/-/ver/ was 1 point). The total
possible was 36 points.
A secondary measure of outcome performance was the degree
of confusion evidenced by children early in the phoneme instruc-
tion. The first two phoneme instruction sessions were videotaped
for the MP and SP participants. These videotapes were examined
for occasions in which a child showed task confusion between syl-
lables and phonemes. One point was awarded each time a child: (a)
was asked for the first sound to a word and instead gave the first syl-
lable; (b) was asked to segment a word into phonemes and instead
segmented the word into syllables; and (c) was asked what had
been learned that day and said syllables or the big sounds instead
of the little sounds or just sounds in words.
To determine whether participants had mastered syllable
awareness in the four syllable instruction sessions prior to initiating
the phoneme phase of instruction, a criterion probe was adminis-
54 T.A. Ukrainetz et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60
Table 1
Participant characteristics for each condition and the total sample.
SP
Participants 15
Boys 8 8
Age in months 59.1 (6.2)
TELD standard score 101.9 (8.7)
Letter names 18.9 (10.1)
Obtained in 2005 8 7
Obtained in 2007 7 5
Note: SP = syllable plus phoneme, MP = multiple phoneme tasks, FP = first phoneme-only; no significant differences on balancing variables of age, language, or letters (p > .29).
tered during the second and the fourth syllable sessions. This probe
was a word list modeled on the items in the PAT syllable segmenting
subtest. Any children who scored less than 5/10 at midpoint were
given additional instruction. Children who scored 7/10 or less at the
final session did not proceed into the phoneme phase of instruction.
FP instruction was planned for eight sessions, but was modified
while in progress due to the high number of children mastering
first sound isolating within two sessions. A criterion test, mod-
eled on the PAT first sound isolating subtest was administered after
the fourth treatment session. Participants who achieved 10/10 cor-
rect graduated from treatment after that session, then waited two
weeks for post-testing.
7.3.3. Testing procedure
The testers were trained in two phases. First, the testers who
were also instructors (and graduate students in speech-language
pathology) practiced with supervision from the first author (a
speech-language pathologist and professor). The instructors then
trained the research assistants (undergraduate students in speech-
language pathology). All the testers practiced administration and
scoring on each other and on pilot children from the university
preschool.
Instructors and research assistants conducted the pre-testing.
To avoid bias from knowing which children had received
which instruction, only the research assistants carried out the
post-testing. The 20–30 min testing sessions were administered
individually in quiet areas of the childcare centers. Scoring was
done on-line, but all the testing sessions were audiotaped as a
backup and for reliability checks.
7.3.4. Testing reliability
To determine testing reliability in this study, a balanced selec-
tion across the testers of 10 (26%) of the audiotaped pre- and
post-testing sessions were independently re-scored. The point-to-
point inter-rater agreement on the fully correct items from the PAT
was 96%. The word-to-word inter-rater reliability for the partial
credit segmenting scores was 99%. For syllable-phoneme confu-
sions during instruction, a random selection of 18 (20%) of the
first two phoneme sessions was coded. There were approximately
30–40 child responses per session. The two scorers agreed 100%
on phoneme responses. Of the 21 syllable responses, 83% were
identified by both scorers.
7.3.5. Condition assignment
After testing, participants were assigned to one of three condi-
tions through a combination of balancing and group randomizing
on language, letter knowledge, and age. For the initial balancing, a
standard score of 100 or above on the TELD received 1 point, and
a score below that received 2 points. Children who knew 13 or
more letters received 1 point, and those with fewer than 13 were
given 2 points. The points were then averaged. Four children aver-
aged 1 point, eight children averaged 1.5, and 4 children averaged
2. Within each point level, children were randomly assigned to SP
MP FP Total
12 12 39
3 19
62.7 (6.5) 61.3 (4.5) 60.9 (5.9)
96.8 (8.2) 100.8 (9.1) 100.0 (8.7)
16.4 (10.1) 18.8 (10.4) 18.1 (9.6)
0 15
12 24
and MP. One participant did not complete the study, resulting in 8
MP and 7 SP participants.
In 2007, age was additionally considered in the balancing pro-
cedure, along with the addition of the FP condition. A coded list
was used to devise three groups with similar means on age, lan-
guage, and letters. The three groups were randomly assigned to
the three treatment conditions. Four participants were lost after the
2007 condition assignment. The resultant total sample was 39 with
15 SP, 12 MP, and 12 FP participants (Table 1). A factorial ANOVA
showed no significant differences among the three conditions on
the balancing variables of age, language, or letters (p > .29 for all
comparisons).
7.3.6. Treatment procedure
Instruction was provided by three instructors (the second, third,
and fourth authors). The instructors were trained by the first author.
The training consisted of observing demonstrations, viewing video-
tapes, role-playing, and teaching pilot children from the university
preschool.
Treatment conditions and instructors were crossed, so each
condition was taught by two instructors, preventing an instruc-
tor effect. The children were taught mainly in pairs with some
individual make-up sessions. The members of the pairs varied but
never crossed conditions (i.e., an SP child was not paired with an
MP child). The number and type of activities used were consistent
across participants within a condition. Instruction sessions were
25–30 min long twice a week in isolated areas of the childcare
centers.
Instruction involved the quality features of explicit attention to
skills, with repeated opportunities for learning and practice, and
systematic learning support (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008; Torgesen
et al., 2005; Ukrainetz, 2006a). The focus was kept on speech
sound awareness and tangential conversations were kept to a min-
imum. The children were asked to report the instructional target
(e.g., What did you learn today? The small sounds in words) at the
beginning and end of every session. Children were taught through
scaffolding (McGee & Ukrainetz, 2009; Ukrainetz, 2006a). Interac-
tive scaffolds included modeling, stressing a sound, repeating an
item, and simplifying to onset-rime segments for blending. Regu-
latory scaffolds included obtaining eye contact, telling a child to
listen just before the question, and asking a child what he is learn-
ing in the sessions. Scaffolding was matched to task difficulty and
child need.
Syllable instruction. Participants in the SP condition were taught
syllable blending and segmenting for two weeks (four sessions)
prior to commencing phoneme awareness instruction. The children
were taught the word “syllables,” which were described as the “big
sounds in words.” Each session, a name activity (i.e., counting syl-
lables in child and family names) and two to three other activities
were conducted. Activities included moving blocks to represent
syllables, clapping to syllables, and guessing words from syllable
segments, using materials like picture cards, plastic food, and the
food words in The Very Hungry Caterpillar (Carle, 1969).
 T.A. Ukrainetz et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60
The children mastered syllable segmenting within two sessions,
with only one child scoring 5 or less. The instructor judged that this
child understood syllable segmenting but was not good at clapping.
As a result, more clapping was used for all the children. All the
children met the criterion and proceeded into phoneme instruction.
Syllable-phoneme transition. The requirements of the syllable
and phoneme phases of instruction were maximally contrasted. No
literature was located that informed on conducting this transition.
Transition features included:
• Explicitly telling the children that expectations had changed from
syllables or big sounds to little sounds, and giving examples of
each.
• Eliciting only syllable responses in the syllable phase and
phoneme responses in the phoneme phase.
• Immediately correcting responses in both phases (e.g., No, we are
doing small sounds now. Let’s do it again).
• Providing different terms for the two speech units (“syllables” or
“big sounds” versus “little sounds”).
• Emphasizing different structural scaffolds (hand clapping in the
syllable phase versus finger extending in the phoneme phase).
• Using different phonotactic shapes (primarily multisyllabic dur-
ing the syllable phase syllable versus primarily monosyllabic in
the phoneme phase).
Multiple phoneme instruction. For the four weeks of SP and
MP phoneme instruction, the three tasks of phoneme isolating,
blending, and segmenting were addressed in every session. Two
activity sequences were alternated. Each session began with a
name activity, in which the children’s names or other names were
used for isolating, blending, or segmenting. Then in one sequence,
three card/object activities followed, with one focused on each of
isolating, blending, or segmenting. The activities were simple enter-
taining activities from preschool manualized curricula, such as
matching games, word guessing games, and sound counting games
using pictures and objects (Adams et al., 1998; Notari-Syverson et
al., 1998). The alternate sequence involved sharing a verse followed
by one to two card/object activities. The sound talk embedded
in rhyming books was based on McFadden (1998) and Ukrainetz
(2006a). It consisted of identifying rhyming words, isolating the
first phonemes in the word pairs, segmenting the phonemes in
each word with a finger extended for each sound, and then com-
paring word lengths. Then phonemes of another rhyming word
were presented for the children to blend and identify. This occurred
approximately every second page of a portion of the book.
First phoneme instruction. The FP condition addressed only first
phoneme tasks, including generating, isolating, and matching. The
instructors carried out three to four activities in each session,
addressing phoneme isolating, pairs matching, phoneme gener-
ating, or matching from a multi-word array. For the card/object
activities, the tasks and sounds were organized in order of increas-
ing instructional difficulty (e.g., /m/ is easier to show with the
mouth than /r/). The first two weeks involved generating and iso-
lating fricatives (e.g., /s/, /sh/), stops (e.g., /b/, /t/) and affricates (e.g.,
/dz/, /ch/). In the third and fourth weeks, clusters (e.g., /sp/, /kl/), liq-
uids, glides, and vowels (e.g., /l/, /w/, /a/) were added. In the fourth
week, first sounds were identified for rhyming words in a verse
book in addition to the activities. This sequence was completed for
only four participants because eight participants met the two-week
graduation criterion of 10/10 on first phoneme isolating.
7.3.7. Treatment fidelity
For treatment fidelity, 30 sessions were sampled from the video-
taped records of the syllable session 2 and sessions 1, 2, 7, and 8 of
phoneme instruction. The sessions were randomly sampled across
three conditions, three instructors, two childcare centers, and two
55
data collection periods. All the sessions provided an explicit focus
on phonemic awareness, not on letters or other topics. The instruc-
tors interacted supportively and positively with the children. They
provided clear behavioral expectations and support. Response and
linguistic scaffolds were provided to move children toward success.
The variety of tasks and activities were tallied across the 30 ses-
sions. For the seven syllable sessions, the instructors conducted
syllable blending and segmenting tasks and no phoneme tasks. The
rare phoneme responses were corrected to syllables. Most of the
focus was on syllable segmenting. There was a skill preview (i.e.,
What are we learning?), a name activity, a book, and two card/object
activities in every session, but skill review (i.e., What did we learn
today?) occurred for only two of the seven sessions.
For the 19 multiple phoneme sessions, the instructors con-
ducted only phoneme tasks and corrected every syllable (and letter)
response. All three tasks of isolating, blending, and segmenting
occurred in every session reviewed, but phoneme segmenting was
a primary activity focus in four of the ten early sessions and either
isolating or blending was not focused on in six of the nine late ses-
sions. All the sessions started with a skill preview, then had a name
activity. The activity and book plan was followed in 16 sessions.
Two sessions had an extra activity and one had only an extended
book interaction with no card/object activity.
For the four first phoneme sessions, the instructors conducted
only first phoneme tasks of isolating, matching, and generating.
These sessions were all early sessions, due to a camera malfunc-
tion for the few late sessions that occurred (most participants had
graduated). The phoneme types (e.g., stops versus glides) were con-
trolled in the card/object activities, but a variety of phoneme types
occurred in the name activity. One early session involved a verse
book and the phoneme types were not controlled there. All the first
phoneme sessions showed a skill preview, a name activity, three
card/object activities, and a skill review.
8. Results
The immediate effects of syllable and advanced phoneme
awareness instruction were tested through three conditions: syl-
lable plus multiple phoneme tasks (SP), multiple phoneme tasks
(MP), and first phoneme tasks only (FP). The outcome measures
were phoneme blending, phoneme segmenting (fully and partially
correct), syllable-phoneme confusions, and phoneme isolating.
Effect sizes were calculated as Cohen’s standardized mean differ-
ence (d) for pairwise comparisons and eta-squared (2 ) for multiple
comparisons. Values greater than 0.80 for d and 0.14 for 2 were
considered large (Cohen, 1977).
8.1. Phoneme blending with and without prior syllable
instruction
This first analysis determined both whether preschoolers could
learn the advanced task of phoneme blending, and whether prior
syllable instruction affected blending performance. Performance in
MP and FP was compared to performance associated with more
conventional FP instruction (Table 2). Mean gains on phoneme
blending were 4.0 and 3.2 words for SP and MP respectively, and 1.2
words for FP. A repeated-measures ANOVA on two testing times and
three conditions for phoneme blending was conducted. The main
effect for condition was not significant, F(2, 36) = 2.35, p = .11. The
main effect for time and the time-by-condition interaction effect
were significant: F(1, 36) = 82.02, p < .01, 2 = 0.69; F(2, 36) = 7.44,
p < .01, 2 = 0.29.
Related sample t-tests were used to examine which conditions
showed significant improvement from pre- to post-test (Fig. 1).
With a Bonferroni correction to an alpha level of .02 for three
56 T.A. Ukrainetz et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60

Table 2
Phoneme awareness performance by condition.

Task Max Time SP, n = 15 MP, n = 12 FP, n = 12 Total, n = 39

Blend 10 Pre 0.7 (1.0) 2.5 (3.0) 1.7 (2.3) 1.6 (2.2)
Post 4.7 (2.1) 5.9 (3.2) 2.8 (3.2) 4.5 (3.0)
Gain 4.0 (1.9)* 3.4 (2.3)* 1.2 (1.7) 2.9 (2.3)

Segment 10 Pre 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (1.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.8)
Post 1.0 (1.3) 2.4 (2.6) 0.3 (0.6) 1.2 (1.9)
Gain 1.0 (1.3)* 1.9 (2.0)* 0.3 (0.6) 1.1 (1.5)

Partial segment 36 Pre 0.0 (0) 3.8 (8.2) 0.5 (0.8) 1.3 (4.7)
Post 7.8 (6.8) 11.1 (10.8) 3.1 (4.7) 7.4 (8.2)
Gain 7.8 (6.8)* 7.3 (7.0)* 2.6 (4.0) 6.0 (6.5)

Isolate 10 Pre 2.9 (4.0) 3.6 (3.8) 4.8 (4.3) 3.7 (4.0)
Post 7.0 (3.1) 8.0 (2.1) 7.0 (3.1) 7.6 (3.1)
Gain 4.1 (3.6)* 4.4 (3.3)* 3.1 (3.0)* 3.9 (3.3)

Note: SP = syllable plus phoneme, MP = multiple phoneme tasks, FP = first phoneme-

only; means with standard deviations in ( ), Max = maximum points per task. Fig. 2. Mean performance on phoneme segmenting for three conditions: syllable
*
Significant at Bonferroni-corrected probability of p < .02. plus phoneme (SP), multiple phoneme (MP), first phoneme (FP).

comparisons, results showed significant pre- to post-test differ- on segmenting were not significant, t(25) = 1.45, p = .16, d = 0.59.
ences for SP and MP on phoneme blending, t(14) = 8.37, p < .01, For partial segmenting, mean gains of 7.8, 7.3, and 2.6 points
d = 2.1; t(11) = 5.11, p < .01, d = 1.47. FP gains were not significant, were demonstrated for SP, MP, and FP, respectively. A repeated-
t(11) = 2.38, p = .04, d = 0.71. To answer the question of whether measures ANOVA was conducted on testing time and condition for
SP provided an advantage over MP, SP and MP gains were com- partial segmenting. The main effect for condition was not signifi-
pared. Differences between SP and MP on blending gains were not cant, F(2, 36) = 3.19, p = .05, 2 = 0.15. The main effect for time was
significant, t(25) = 0.72, p = .47, d = 0.29. significant, F(1, 25) = 31.49, p < .001, d = 2.33. The time-by-condition
interaction effect was not significant, F(2, 25) = 0.04, p = .83, d = 0.08.
Related sample t-tests were used to examine which condi-
8.2. Phoneme segmenting with and without prior syllable
tions showed significant improvement from pre- to post-test on
instruction
partial phoneme segmenting. SP and MP gains were significant:
t(14) = 4.42, p < .01, d = 1.15; MP, t(11) = 3.57, p < .01, d = 1.04. FP seg-
This analysis determined both whether preschoolers could
menting gains were not significant at ˛ = .02, t(11) = 2.24, p = .05,
learn phoneme segmenting and whether prior syllable instruction
d = 0.65.
affected performance. Mean gains for phoneme segmenting were
1.0 words for SP, 1.9 words for MP, and 0.3 words for FP (see Table 2).
8.3. Learning confusion between syllables and phonemes
A repeated-measures ANOVA on two testing times and three con-
ditions for phoneme segmenting was conducted. The main effect
For the question concerning the effect of prior syllable instruc-
for condition was significant, F(2, 36) = 4.65, p = .02, 2 = 0.19. The
tion on confusion between syllables and phonemes early in
main effect for time and the time-by-condition interaction effect
phoneme instruction, the frequency of syllable responses in the first
were significant: F(1, 36) = 21.74, p < .01, 2 = 0.38; F(2, 36) = 4.23,
two phoneme instruction sessions was compared for SP and MP. FP
p = .02, 2 = 0.19.
was not involved in this comparison. Of the 15 SP participants, 14
Related sample t-tests were used to examine which condi-
made multiple confusions (4–16) and one participant made no con-
tions showed significant improvement from pre- to post-test on
fusions. Of the 12 MP participants, two participants made multiple
phoneme segmenting (Fig. 2). SP and MP gains were significant,
confusions (2 and 7), three made one confusion, and seven made no
t(14) = 2.96, p = .01, d = 0.77; t(11) = 3.36, p = .006, d = 0.95. FP seg-
confusions. MP showed a mean number of 1.0 (S.D. = 2) confusions.
menting gains were not significant, t(11) = 1.39, p = .191, d = 0.50.
SP showed a mean of 9.0 (22.1). A Mann–Whitney U-test showed
To specifically compare performance in SP and MP conditions, a t-
significant differences between SP and MP: U(25) = 12.50, p < .01,
test on gain scores was conducted. Differences between SP and MP
d = 2.21.

8.4. Effect of segmenting and blending instruction on phoneme

isolating

The next research question addressed the effects on first

Fig. 1. Mean performance on phoneme blending for three conditions: syllable plus
phoneme (SP), multiple phoneme (MP), first phoneme (FP).
phoneme awareness of using instructional time on phoneme blend-
ing and segmenting instead of teaching only first sound tasks.
For first phoneme isolating, mean performance increased from
less than 5 points at pre-testing to 7–8 points (see Table 2). The
main effect for condition was not significant, F(2, 36) = 0.71, p = .50,
2 = 0.04. The main effect for time was significant, F(1, 36) = 52.02,
p < .01, 2 = 0.59. The time-by-condition interaction effect was not
significant: F(2, 36) = 0.52, p = .60, 2 = 0.03.
To determine the source of the significant main effect, related
sample t-tests on change from pre- to post-test were run. Results
showed significant differences for SP, MP, and FP, t(14) = 4.38,
p < .01, d = 1.14; t(11) = 4.69, p < .01, d = 1.33; t(11) = 3.56, p < .01,
d = 1.03.
 T.A. Ukrainetz et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60
9. Discussion
9.1. Teaching advanced phonemic awareness to preschoolers
The first question in this study addressed the effect of teach-
ing phoneme blending and segmenting to typically developing
preschoolers. These tasks have been considered developmentally
advanced for young children, although recent recommendations
include them (e.g., Phillips et al., 2008). This study showed that
preschoolers can make reliable gains in advanced phoneme tasks
in a short period of time.
Phoneme blending was well within the range of these
preschoolers. Results showed participants taught to blend and seg-
ment made significant mean gains in phoneme blending with a
large effect size. Of the 27 participants taught phoneme blending
and segmenting, 93% blended two or more words correctly at post-
testing, and 44% showed a fairly robust level of understanding with
six or more words blended correctly.
For phoneme segmenting, the children taught phoneme blend-
ing and segmenting made significant mean gains from pre- to
post-testing, with moderate to large effect sizes. However, the
individual results showed only two of the participants taught
to segment were able to correctly segment six or more words
correctly. However, understanding was emerging, with nine chil-
dren segmenting two or more words correctly at post-testing.
This compared favorably to the children’s inability at pre-testing,
when 37 of the 39 children scored zero correct and the children
declined to respond, repeated the words given, or gave only a first
sound.
Following instruction, the items the children could segment cor-
rectly were most often the three singleton single-syllable words:
off, me, and fat. Some partially correct responses to fairly difficult
words were: brag as /br-a-g/, plop as /pl-aw-p/, plant as /pl/-/ae/-
/nt/, liver as /l␫-v-er/, and seashell as /si/-/ʃ/-/␧l/. To reveal this
emerging understanding, a partial scoring procedure was used.
In this procedure, points were given if any phonemes were seg-
mented correctly from the word remainder, with points deducted
for position errors and missing segments (e.g., the brag and plop
responses above earned 2 points and the others earned 1 point).
With this scoring system, subtle gains in knowledge were revealed.
Of the children taught segmenting (SP and MP conditions), 55%
demonstrated some understanding with 6 or more segments cor-
rect across the 10 test words.
Phoneme blending and segmenting were taught to these young
children in a simultaneous manner, along with more conven-
tional first phoneme activities. A sequential approach may work
well too, but the simultaneous approach provided challenge for
children of differing levels of understanding within a group.
In addition, some children made progress that could not have
occurred in sequential instruction. For example, one study par-
ticipant, who could not do any of the tasks at pre-testing, was
still only able to score two correct on first phoneme isolat-
ing at post-testing. In a sequential approach, instruction would
remain at first phoneme tasks, instead of presenting more diffi-
cult tasks. However, at post-testing, this same participant blended
eight words correctly. Although he could not segment any words
fully correctly, he provided 15 partial phoneme segments. Engag-
ing this child in phoneme isolating, blending, and segmenting
simultaneously allowed the child to learn what made sense to
him.
The current study shows that typically developing preschoolers
can benefit from even a brief period of phoneme blending and seg-
menting instruction. While accomplishments will vary, many can
achieve a robust understanding of phoneme blending and some will
be able to phonemically segment simple words or parts of harder
words.
57
9.2. The benefits and costs of syllable instruction
The central question in this study concerned the effects of
instruction addressing the larger speech unit of the syllable. There
is an expectation that phonemic awareness is best introduced by
segmenting the larger, rhythmic units of syllables before engag-
ing in the awkward units of phonemes (Gillon, 2006; Phillips et al.,
2008; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). The results of this study did not
support this idea.
These results showed that similar improvements in phonemic
awareness could be obtained from phoneme blending and seg-
menting instruction with and without prior syllable instruction.
While the outcomes of the two conditions were not significantly
different, the effect sizes are suggestive that a larger sample size
might reveal subtle differences. Interestingly, the differences are in
opposing directions: the blending effect was slightly stronger for SP
(d = 2.10) than MP (1.47), while the segmenting effect was slightly
stronger for MP (0.95) than SP (0.77).
The design of the study does not allow determination of whether
the possible SP advantage for blending was due to the syllable
component or to the additional two weeks of instruction. How-
ever, it makes sense that syllable blending experience may aid with
phoneme blending. First, the child’s response is the same, to say the
word, whether the instructor provides the component syllables or
phonemes. Second, the two can be combined in a single teaching
episode without conflict. In this study, scaffolding occurred through
decreasing the gap between phonemes then, if necessary, chunk-
ing into onset-rime units (e.g., /d/-/awg/). For multisyllabic words,
chunking the sounds into syllables as a scaffold toward phonemes
might be helpful and not confusing.
The small difference in effect size for segmenting against SP
was consistent with the significant confusion evidenced by these
children after shifting from syllables to phonemes. Almost all the
children (14/15) exposed to syllables first confused syllables and
phonemes multiple times during the early sessions of phoneme
instruction, in contrast to the few children (2/12) who did so with-
out syllable instruction. The SP children tried to segment words
into syllables or imitate the instructor’s phonemes while clapping
a syllable beat. Some of the children disputed the move to small
sounds or becoming silent and non-participatory, as in the follow-
ing sample:
Instructor: Ok, now that we know the first sounds of our
names, should we count all the sounds?
Child 1: Yeah.
= Child 2 quietly watches the instructor and Child 1.
Instructor: Let’s see who has the longest name, okay? We’re
going to do hands up like this.
= Instructor puts a closed fist in the air.
Child 1: How about Jeff or Susan?
Instructor: Ok, we’ll do that in a little bit. Let’s start with our
own names, okay. We’re going to start with Janae.
Okay, ready, hands up like this.
= Children put their elbows on the tables and hands in a fist to get ready.
Instructor: </dz/-/a/-/n/-/ai/>.
= Instructor raises one finger up for each sound. Participants speak chorally.
Child 1: </dza/-/nae/>
Child 2: </dza/-/nae/-/nae/-/nae/> {Repeats the final
syllable when she realizes the instructor is still
counting sounds}
Instructor: Remember we’re doing the little sounds.
= Instructor continues to hold up four fingers.
Instructor: How many sounds?
Child 1: Four {answers faintly, unsure}. I thought you had
two {raises her voice accusingly}?
Instructor: That was two syllables, but we’re doing the little
sounds. These are the little sounds {shows four
fingers}. So I had four little
sounds,/dz/-/a/-/n/-/ae/. Janae, four sounds.
Informal observation indicated that syllable confusion was per-
sistent for several of the children. For example, during the sixth
58 T.A. Ukrainetz et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60
phoneme session, the instructor shared a book that contained
many two-syllable words, such as, “Captain Bammer,” “Sergeant
Chowder,” and “General Border.” Even though syllable instruction
had been fully and explicitly discontinued three weeks previ-
ously, many of the SP children still attempted to segment the
names by syllables instead of phonemes. In addition, in the ear-
lier syllable phase, one of the SP participants had to suppress his
advanced knowledge when, given single-syllable words, he seg-
mented phonemes and had to be corrected to syllables.
It might be argued that the phoneme-syllable confusion in the
phoneme phase was due to inadequate syllable instruction or
knowledge. However, evidence indicated syllable awareness was
robust. The children entered the study with considerable syllable
blending awareness with mean pre-test scores of 6.7 (S.D. = 2.6) out
of 10 points. Incoming segmenting performance was lower, but still
showed emerging knowledge, with a mean pre-test score of 3.9
(2.6). The SP and MP incoming syllable blending and segmenting
were not significantly different (for both, p > .22). The SP children
were taught syllables through activities and procedures presented
in manualized curricula (e.g., Adams et al., 1998; Notari-Syverson
et al., 1998) and instructional articles (Gillon, 2006; Phillips et al.,
2008; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). Treatment fidelity was good.
Every SP participant mastered syllable awareness after the four
instructional sessions.
It could also be argued that poor transition practices were pro-
vided. There is no literature on how best to teach this transition
to young children. Multiple instructional features were developed
that would minimize confusion, such as explicitly and consis-
tently separating the two units of speech, immediately correcting
responses, and primarily using multisyllabic or monosyllabic words
in the two instructional phases. These instructional features were
successful: the confusion was largely temporary, with no signif-
icant differences between SP and MP at post-testing. Thus, the
evidence suggests that, if both speech units are taught, it is difficult
to avoid confusion even with carefully planned instruction.
These results indicate no advantage for the development of
phoneme awareness from prior syllable instruction. There were no
significant differences between the two conditions and much more
initial learning confusion with syllable instruction. This study does
not examine possible later effects on phonemic awareness or read-
ing, but other evidence suggests syllable awareness does not play
a significant role in these either (Engen & Hoien, 2002; Hoien et al.,
1995; McGuiness, 1997; Wood & Terrell, 1998).
9.3. Taking attention away from first phonemes
Instruction limited to first phoneme tasks, such as isolating,
matching, and generating are conventional instructional targets for
preschoolers (McGee, 2005; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). It would
be of concern if teaching advanced skills compromised progress
on these basic skills. The results of this study did not show any
detriment to first phoneme performance from attending to other
phoneme tasks.
Part of the reason that first phoneme performance may have
fared so well across conditions may have been that the children
entered instruction with considerable awareness of first phonemes.
The mean pre-test isolating performance was 3.7, and 12 of the
39 children scored eight or better before instruction commenced.
In addition, first phoneme awareness appeared very teachable,
regardless of approach. The instruction in the FP condition was
abbreviated for the 67% of the participants who mastered the tasks
after only two weeks of instruction. The other two conditions
addressed first phoneme awareness for the full four weeks, but only
as one of three skills. As a result, all three conditions provided very
little instruction in first phoneme tasks. Even so, at post-testing, all
three conditions showed reliable large gains in first phoneme iso-
lating. The mean performance across conditions was 7.6, and 70%
of the children scored eight or better.
The high competence in first phoneme isolating demonstrated
by these preschoolers indicates that very little first phoneme
instruction may be needed for typically developing middle-class
preschoolers. These findings support the idea of moving quickly
beyond first phoneme tasks to embedding them within instruc-
tion directed at the more advanced tasks of phoneme blending and
segmenting.
9.4. Implications for preschool instruction
The findings of this study have clear and direct implications for
preschool instruction in phonemic awareness. Other studies have
shown some success in teaching young children phoneme blending
and segmenting (e.g., Hatcher, Hulme, & Snowling, 2004; Hesketh,
Dima, & Nelson, 2007; Yeh, 2003) but provide few details on the
instruction. This study, along with Ukrainetz et al. (2000), pro-
vides guidance on introducing young children to these advanced
tasks—with the caveat that both these studies involved small sam-
ples of typically developing preschoolers.
Preschool teachers can start teaching phonemic awareness with
first sound tasks: isolating the first phoneme in words (e.g., What is
the first sound in dog?), generating first phoneme words (e.g., What
are words that begin with /d/?), and matching first phonemes (e.g.,
Which of these words start with the same sound, dog, sun, down?).
They can engage in the more difficult task of blending phonemes
into words (e.g., I am going to say the sounds of the food I am holding
behind me, you guess the word, /p/-/ea/-/ch/.). Preschool teachers
can even begin children on the advanced task of phoneme segment-
ing so long as they initially provide maximal support (e.g., Let’s say
the sounds in dog, get your fists ready to count the sounds, every-
one say the sounds with me, /d/ [exaggerated mouth action, eye
contact with children, extend finger], /o/ [extend second finger],
/g/ [extend third finger]).
In this study, these tasks were taught through simple activi-
ties using the objects, books, and writing materials common to any
preschool. Preschool teachers can do the same, teaching through
matching picture cards and guessing the identity of food objects.
Rhyming books provide excellent contexts for talking about sounds
in words (e.g., Let’s listen for the rhyming words. I will read it again,
There was a boy named Fred. He did not want to go to bed. Fred and bed
rhyme. What’s the first sound in Fred? What about bed? Let’s count
the sounds in Fred and bed and see which is longer). This study
did not employ writing activities, but prior studies have done so
successfully (e.g., Ukrainetz et al., 2000, 2009). As children explore
writing, teachers can talk about the sounds in words (e.g., Let’s
write a message about our dog Sam. Sam is hungry. We need to
write Sam, what is the first sound in Sam? Let’s write a letter for
the sound/s/) (Ukrainetz, 2006a, 2006b). In addition, commercial
curricula (e.g., Adams et al., 1998; Notari-Syverson et al., 1998) can
be used as a source of activities. Teachers can move past the envi-
ronmental sounds, words, and syllable activities to go directly into
the phoneme activities presented.
As this study demonstrated, preschoolers can be introduced to
the three tasks of phone isoloating, blending, and segmenting in
activities that combine the tasks (e.g., What is the first sound in
man? Let’s say all the sounds in man), or in different activities within
a single session (e.g., a first sound matching card game followed by a
catching the fish segmenting game). It is not necessary to teach one
skill to mastery before introducing another of these inter-related
skills.
In teaching these skills, supportive instruction is important.
Children need simple instructions, lots of modeling, and a consis-
tent focus on sounds in words (not letters or meanings). Visually
apparent and acoustically distinctive phonemes can be used, such
 T.A. Ukrainetz et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60
as stops (e.g., /b/, /d/) and continuants (e.g., /m/, /s/), rather than
vowels or glides (e.g., /r/, /w/), but ordering is not necessary beyond
the introductory talk that focuses children on sounds rather than
meanings or letters. Cueing techniques, such as emphasizing a tar-
get phoneme in a word (e.g., s-ad), repeating a phoneme (e.g.,
b-b-bed), pointing to the ear to show listening for sounds, or rais-
ing fingers to count sounds, help children learn. A lot of support is
needed initially, with a gradual reduction in cues as competence
increases (see McGee & Ukrainetz, 2009; Ukrainetz, 2006a, 2006b).
9.5. Study limitations and future directions
This study provided useful findings on preschool phoneme
awareness instruction. However, there were a number of limita-
tions and directions for future research. One limitation was the
small sample size. The sample size provided ample power to deter-
mine treatment versus no-treatment differences, but less power for
the more subtle differences expected among alternate treatments.
A concern was that the study was originally designed for a single
year of data collection for two conditions, but was extended over 3
years with a third condition added. Considerable effort was made
to keep the participants and procedures consistent over that time
frame, including training the 2007 instructors from 2005 instruc-
tion videos, balancing instructors across conditions, and balancing
the condition participants across the two time periods. However,
there was likely more variation introduced by this post hoc exten-
sion of the study.
Related to the data collection period issue was that the FP condi-
tion was constituted solely of 2007 participants, in contrast to the
SP and MP conditions, which drew from both time periods. In addi-
tion, the preponderance of girls in the FP condition was a weakness
that might have affected the FP results (although not the SP versus
MP comparisons). Another limitation was in the study design, with
the SP condition receiving two extra weeks of instruction, which
conflated total duration of instruction with contents of instruc-
tion. However, this put the SP condition at an advantage, so the
lack of difference between SP and MP are perhaps more convinc-
ing. Treatment fidelity was satisfactory, but there were divergences
from the plan. The uneven focus on all three tasks of isolating,
blending and segmenting went against the simultaneous instruc-
tion approach plan, but the greater emphasis on the easier tasks
of isolating and blending initially and the harder task of segment-
ing later made sense instructionally. A treatment fidelity weakness
for the FP instruction was that the phoneme types were not fully
controlled in the first phoneme instruction. However, most of the
children mastered phoneme isolating after just four sessions even
with this mix of phoneme types.
The early graduation from the FP condition was a design weak-
ness. The decision was made in the course of treatment as a
response to the children’s early task mastery. Teaching children
skills they already know is not appropriate pedagogy, but as long
as the activities are entertaining, the children could have been kept
reasonably engaged. The full duration of instruction should have
occurred for all the FP participants.
A limitation was the homogeneity of this white middle-class
sample, which limits generalization of these findings to children
of other cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Sim-
ilarly, this study involved only children with typically developing
language. Other children may take longer and need more scaffold-
ing cues to achieve phoneme blending or segmenting. However, it
is not expected that the results would differ in kind: practices that
confuse middle-class or typically achieving children are not likely
to be beneficial for children of other backgrounds or lower language
levels (Johnston, 2006).
The intent of this study was to determine under fairly controlled
conditions the effect of certain instructional variables. As a result,
59
instruction was provided in pairs and singles over a short period
of time. Both the group size and the instructional period preclude
direct application to the regular preschool classroom. However, the
findings concerning what how to teach preschoolers and what they
can learn contributes to understandings of best teaching practices.
Finally, following the children into kindergarten would have
been informative. Kindergarten performance would reveal whether
the early exposure to advanced phoneme tasks produced any
additional lasting benefit. It would be valuable to know whether
children who showed little immediate gain might demonstrate
later benefits. For children at risk for reading difficulties, evidence
suggests that direct instruction is particularly important, because
these children are less likely than their typically achieving peers to
learn phonemic awareness indirectly through reading and writing
experiences (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1993; Hatcher et al., 2004).
10. Conclusion
This preliminary small-sample study showed that typically
developing preschoolers can make sizeable gains in the advanced
tasks of phoneme blending and segmenting without negatively
affecting acquisition of first phoneme isolating. Results indicate
that prior syllable segmenting instruction may not benefit the
acquisition of phoneme awareness and may cause confusion dur-
ing instruction. It appears that preschool phoneme awareness can
begin at the phoneme level without prior syllable instruction and
can include a supportive introduction to phoneme blending and
segmenting. Replication with a larger sample is recommended
before firm conclusions should be drawn. In addition, studies
should be done with children with various risks for literacy success,
such as low socioeconomic status, low language, and linguis-
tic/cultural differences.
References
Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic awareness in
young children: A classroom curriculum. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., & Cantor, B.
G. (2002). Structure of preschool phonological sensitivity: Overlapping sensi-
tivity to rhyme, words, syllables, and phonemes. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 82, 65–92.
Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., & Burgess, S. R. (2003).
Phonological sensitivity: A quasi-parallel progression of word structure units
and cognitive operations. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 470–487.
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training: Effect on
reading readiness. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 208–225.
Brady, S., Fowler, A., Stone, B., & Winbury, N. (1994). Training phonological aware-
ness: A study with inner-city kindergarten children. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 26–59.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phone-
mic awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 104–111.
Carle, E. (1969). The very hungry caterpillar. Omaha, NE: World Publishing.
Chaney, C. (1992). Language development, metalinguistic skills, and print awareness
in 3-year-old children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 485–514.
Clay, M. M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behavior (2nd ed.). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Cary, L., & Verhaeghe, A. (1994). Promoting phonemic analysis ability among
kindergartners: Effects of different training programs. Reading and writing: An
interdisciplinary journal, 6, 251–278.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
DeBaryshe, B. D., & Gorecki, D. M. (2007). An experimental validation of a preschool
emergent literacy curriculum. Early Education and Development, 18, 93–110.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shana-
han, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read:
Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research
Quarterly, 36, 250–287.
Engen, L., & Hoien, T. (2002). Phonological skills and reading comprehension. Reading
and writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 613–631.
Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1975). Analyzing spoken language into words, syllables,
and phonemes: A developmental study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4,
331–342.
Gillon, G. T. (2006). Phonological awareness intervention. In R. J. McCauley, & M. E.
Fey (Eds.), Treatment of language disorders in children (pp. 279–308). Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
60 T.A. Ukrainetz et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 50–60
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., Kaminski, R. A., & Wallin, J. (2002). Summary
of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommen-
dations in kindergarten through third grade (technical report 11). Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon.
Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2004). Explicit phoneme training combined
with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of reading failure.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 338–358.
Hesketh, A., Dima, E., & Nelson, V. (2007). Teaching phoneme awareness to
pre-literate children with speech disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Inter-
national Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42, 251–271.
Hoien, T., Lundberg, I., Stanovich, K. E., & Bjaalid, I. (1995). Components of phono-
logical awareness. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 171–188.
Hresko, W. P., Reid, K. R., & Hammill, D. D. (1999). Test of early language development
(3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Johnston, J. (2006). Thinking about language: Research to practice. Eau Claire, WI:
Thinking Publications.
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. L., & Barker, T. A. (1998). Development
of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 294–311.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Peterson, O. P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program
for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23, 263–284.
Maclean, M., Bryant, B., & Bradley, L. (1987). Rhymes, nursery rhymes, and reading
in early childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 255–281.
McFadden, T. U. (1998). Sounds and stories: Teaching phonemic awareness in print
contexts. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 5–13.
McGee, L. M. (2005, December). The role of wisdom in evidence-based preschool
literacy curriculum. In Paper presented at the Presidential address to the National
Reading Conference San Antonio, TX,
McGee, L. M., & Ukrainetz, T. A. (2009). Using scaffolding to teach phonemic aware-
ness in preschool and kindergarten. Reading Teacher, 62, 599–603.
McGuiness, D. (1997). Decoding strategies as predictors of reading skill: A follow-on
study. Annals of Dyslexia, 47, 117–150.
Merriam Webster, Inc. (1993). Merriam Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.).
Springfield, MA: Author.
Nancollis, A., Lawri, B. A., & Dodd, B. (2005). Phonological awareness intervention and
the acquisition of literacy skills in children from deprived social backgrounds.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 325–335.
National Institute on Child Health and Human Development. (2000). National
Reading Panel—Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruc-
tion (NIH publication no. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services. Retrieved November 30, 2003, from http:www.nichd.nih.gov/
publications/nrp/findings.htm.
Notari-Syverson, A., O-Connor, R. E., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Ladders to literacy: A
preschool activity book. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Phillips, B. M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2008). Successful phonological
awareness instruction with preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 28(1), 3–17.
Richgels, D. J., Poremba, K. J., & McGee, L. M. (1996). Kindergarteners talk about print:
Phonemic awareness in meaningful contexts. The Reading Teacher, 49, 632–642.
Robertson, C., & Salter, W. (1997). The Phonological Awareness Test. East Moline, IL:
Linguisystems.
Schuele, C. M., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond
the basics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 3–20.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and
new frontiers. New York, NY: Guilford.
Torgesen, J. K., Al Otaiba, S., & Grek, M. L. (2005). Assessment and instruction for
phonemic awareness and word recognition skills. In H. W. Catts, & A. G. Kamhi
(Eds.), Language and reading disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 127–156). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Torgesen, J. K., Morgan, S. T., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of phonolog-
ical awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 364–370.
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2006a). Scaffolding young children into phonemic awareness. In
T. A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), Contextualized language intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12
literacy achievement (pp. 429–467). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2006b). Using emergent writing to develop phonemic awareness.
In L. M. Justice (Ed.), Clinical approaches to emergent literacy intervention (pp.
225–259). San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2008). Phonemic awareness instruction for preschoolers: The evi-
dence for pre-phonemic versus phonemic tasks. EBP Briefs, 2, 47–58.
Ukrainetz, T. A., Cooney, M. H., Dyer, S. K., Kysar, A. J., & Harris, T. J. (2000). An
investigation into teaching phonemic awareness through shared reading and
writing. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 331–355.
Ukrainetz, T. A., Ross, C. L., & Harm, H. M. (2009). An investigation of treatment
scheduling for phonemic awareness with kindergartners at risk for reading dif-
ficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 86–100.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2008). Prevention and
early identification of students with reading disabilities. In D. Haager, J. Klingner,
& S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention
(pp. 11–28). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
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.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phono-
logical processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wood, C., & Terrell, C. (1998). Poor readers’ ability to detect speech rhythm
and perceive rapid speech. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16,
397–413.
Wyoming Department of Education. (2003). Early childhood readiness standards.
Cheyenne, WY: Author. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wy.us/SA/standards.
asp.
Yeh, S. S. (2003). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness
to children in Head Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 513–529.
Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading
Research Quarterly, 23, 159–177.