Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82

Low intensity phonological awareness training

in a preschool classroom for children with
communication impairments
Sandra P. Lainga,*, Wendy Espelandb
a
The University of Alabama, 7 Stadium Drive, Rowand Johnson Building, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0242, USA
b
Summit Park Elementary School, Baltimore, MD, USA

Received 28 August 2003; received in revised form 24 March 2004; accepted 27 March 2004

Abstract

Phonological awareness is a term that refers to one’s knowledge of the sound structure of spoken
language. Children who understand that sounds in language represent the letters used in reading and
writing typically learn to read more easily than children who do not. Children with language and/or
speech impairments often demonstrate a lack of phonological awareness. Thus, it is important to
identify problems in phonological awareness and to implement intervention programs early. The
purpose of this study was to determine if a low intensity, classroom phonological awareness program
improved phonological awareness skills for preschool children with language and/or speech
impairments. Results suggested that children made significant gains in phonological awareness
after participating in the intervention.
Learning outcomes: As a result of this activity, the reader will be able to: (1) identify components of
phonological awareness program; (2) evaluate effectiveness of phonological awareness intervention.
# 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Phonological awareness; Intervention; Assessment

Phonological awareness is ‘‘the conscious awareness that words are made up of

segments of our own speech that are represented with letters in an alphabetic orthography’’
(Moats, 2000, p. 234). Young children who demonstrate this awareness typically learn to
read more easily and quickly than children who do not (Adams, 1990; Liberman &
Liberman, 1990; Mann & Liberman, 1984; Stanovich, 1991; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987;

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1-205-348-7131; fax: þ1-205-348-1845.
E-mail addresses: slaing@cd.as.ua.edu, drslaing@comcast.net (S.P. Laing).

0021-9924/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.03.009
66 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82

Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Phonological awareness is established when children identify
and produce rhymes, match sounds in words, and break words into sound units. Because
some children do not demonstrate phonological awareness, a large body of research has
investigated the efficacy of phonological awareness training and its impact on early reading
ability. This research has demonstrated that phonological awareness intervention programs
are successful in training phonological awareness skills in children developing typically
which in turn improves their ability to learn to read (Blachman, Tangel, Ball, Black, &
McGraw, 1999; Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte,
1994).
Many children with language and/or speech/phonological impairments demonstrate a
lack of phonological awareness. Thus, it is important to identify potential problems in
phonological awareness in this at-risk group of children and to implement appropriate
intervention programs early on. A child demonstrates language impairment when he or she
has difficulty understanding or using sounds, words, sentences, and/or making his or her
needs and wants known. A child demonstrates an expressive phonological impairment
when he or she has difficulty producing the sounds of the language (articulation problem)
or in understanding or applying the rule systems within a language (phonological
impairment) by which phonemes are sequenced to make words (Moats, 2000, p. 234).
A problem with articulation or phonology makes speech difficult to understand.
A limited number of investigations have demonstrated that children with language and/or
expressive phonological impairments may benefit from explicit training in phonological
awareness skills (Gillon, 2000; van Kleeck, Gillam, & McFadden, 1998). In a representative
study, van Kleeck et al. (1998) treated 16 preschool children with speech and or language
impairments with phonological awareness training in small groups for 15 min twice each
week for a period of 24 weeks. The children in the training groups were heterogeneous with
respect to type and degree of communication disorders; some had both speech and language
impairments, some had only language impairments, and one had a speech impairment only.
Phonological awareness lessons were designed to fit into the classroom curriculum and
occurred in activity centers in the children’s classroom with groups of three or four children
at a time. Training focused on rhyming and phoneme awareness activities such as
identifying and matching initial and final sounds, blending sounds, and phoneme segmenta-
tion. Pre- and post-training measures included tests of rhyme identification, rhyme
production, phoneme judgment and correction, initial sound identification, generating
initial sounds, and identifying initial and final sounds. All of the children made significant
improvements in rhyming and phoneme awareness ability between pretest and posttest
dates. In addition, results suggested that children with the poorest phoneme awareness
ability prior to treatment made the greatest gains in this skill after treatment.
In a similar study, Gillon (2000) examined the effects of phonological awareness
intervention on the phonological awareness, reading, and expressive phonological abilities
of 61 children with spoken language and/or expressive phonological impairments (SLI/
EPI). Children with SLI/EPI were divided into three intervention groups: a group that
received phonological awareness intervention, a group that received traditional interven-
tion, and a minimal intervention control group. A control group of 30 children developing
typically formed the final group. Both previous to and following the phonological
awareness intervention program all children were administered speech production,
 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82 67

literacy, and phonological awareness measures. Children that received the phonological
awareness intervention were treated in two, 1 h individual sessions per week until a total of
20 h of intervention was completed. Intervention activities covered a broad range of skills
including rhyme, phoneme manipulation of sounds in isolation, phoneme identity,
phoneme segmentation, blending, and activities linking speech to print.
The pre-intervention performance of all children with impairments was significantly
below that of the children with typical speech/language and reading ability. However, after
the intervention program the children that received the phonological awareness interven-
tion made significantly more improvement on the measures of phonological awareness,
reading, and expressive phonology as compared to the other three groups. The findings of
this study suggest that an integrated phonological awareness intervention program had
simultaneous and significantly positive effects on phonological awareness, speech produc-
tion, reading accuracy, and reading comprehension skills of children with language and
expressive phonological impairments. These studies further support the notion that pre-
school children with speech and/or language delays can be trained effectively in phono-
logical awareness skills.
The majority of this research has been conducted using high intensity individualized
instruction, or small group instruction (n  7) over extended periods of time (10–24
weeks). Clearly, a shorter period of contact time is preferable for a number of reasons.
First, preschool children with language and/or expressive phonological impairments
often require intervention services for a number of deficient skills in addition to
phonological awareness abilities (Fahey, 2000). For example, these children often have
social, emotional, sensory, memory, and learning problems that must also be addressed in
comprehensive early intervention programs. A shorter period of contact time for
phonological awareness intervention would allow more time for other deficient abilities
to be targeted.
Second, many speech–language pathologists serving pre-school and school-age children
serve a large number of students with a wide variety of communication disorders (ASHA,
2000). For example, in one survey the average monthly caseload of school-based ASHA-
certified speech–language pathologists was 53 with a range from 15 to 110. Clinicians
reported that they served students with articulation or phonological disorders, learning
disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other disorders/conditions that
affect communication skills. To compensate for large caseloads speech language pathol-
ogists typically provide therapy in small groups. To illustrate, the mean number of
individual sessions provided per month in the school setting is 53 whereas the mean
number of group sessions per month is 84. A shorter period of contact time for
phonological awareness intervention would permit speech–language pathologists to con-
tinue to serve large numbers of children and include phonological awareness intervention
programs.
Third, speech–language pathologists are increasingly called on to provide services in the
regular classroom environment as education moves toward full inclusion of children with
special needs (ASHA, 1993; Elksnin & Capilouto, 1994; Roller, Rodriguez, Warner, &
Lindahl, 1992). There is strong support for speech–language pathologists to collaborate
with classroom teachers in providing classroom based integrative intervention (Brandel,
1992; Christiansen & Luckett, 1990; Coufal, 1993; Elksnin, 1997; Merritt & Culatta, 1998;
68 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82

O’Shea & O’Shea, 1997; Paul, 1995). When speech–language pathologists were surveyed,
all reported the provision of speech and language services in an inclusive classroom setting
(Elksnin & Capilouto; 1994). Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed reported successful
use of inclusive service delivery in preschool classrooms and 100% reported use of this
approach in elementary classrooms.
Thus, the purpose of the current investigation was to determine if a low intensity, whole
class phonological awareness intervention program conducted over an 8-week period
improved phonological awareness skills for preschool children with language and/or
expressive phonological impairments.

1. Method

1.1. Participants

Participants included 11 children between the ages of 3.6 and 5.6 years (mean
age ¼ 4:3) who were enrolled in preschool programs at The University of Alabama.
Participants included two groups of children: (1) children with language impairments and/
or expressive phonological impairments (n ¼ 6) and (2) children developing typically
(n ¼ 5). Children with language impairments were identified as those children who scored
one or more standard deviations below the mean on a standardized measure of language
proficiency or were diagnosed as language impaired by a certified speech–language
pathologist. Standardized language measures included the Preschool Language Scale-3
(Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 1999) or the Test for Auditory Comprehension of
Language-3 (Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999). Children with expressive phonological impair-
ments were identified as those children whose percent consonants correct (PCC) score was
84% (mild to moderate disorder) or lower as measured using The Goldman–Fristoe Sounds
in Words subtest stimuli (GFTA; Goldman & Fristoe, 1969) and The Computerized
Profiling Program (CPROPH; Long & Fey, 1993).
All of these children scored within one standard deviation of the mean on the Columbia
Mental Maturity Scale (CMMS; Burgemeister, Blum, & Lorge, 1972) which indicated
cognitive abilities within normal limits. It should be noted that there were 11 children with
language and/or expressive phonological impairments that participated in the preschool
program and received the phonological awareness intervention. However, the data from
only six of these children were included in this study resulting in an experimental group of
(n ¼ 6). Children included in the intervention group but excluded from data analysis were
those with concomitant impairments including cognitive, neurological, hearing, or cra-
niofacial disorders.
Children developing typically were randomly selected from The Child Development
Center preschool program at The University of Alabama. These children scored within one
standard deviation of the mean on all standardized tests administered in addition to
obtaining a PCC above 84% (n ¼ 5; mean age ¼ 4:7). Other children at the Child
Development Center were excluded from this study if informed consent forms were
not received from the parent, if the child used English as a second language, if the child
scored below one standard deviation of the mean on a standardized test, or if the child had
 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82 69

Table 1
Inclusionary data for study participants

Child Age (months) CMMS Language PCC Diagnosis

(standard score) (standard score)

1 60 148 130 100 Typical

2 57 130 109 96 Typical
3 54 142 128 93 Typical
4 60 122 109 98 Typical
5 47 124 126 98 Typical
6 53 95 68 96 LI
7 46 96 67 77 LI/EPI
8 57 106 104 90 LI (pragmatic)
9 49 93 67 74 LI/EPI
10 47 108 69 51 LI/EPI
11 54 100 96 54 EPI
Note. LI: language impairment; EPI: expressive phonological impairment; CMMS: Columbia Mental Maturity
Scale; PCC: percent consonants correct.

previously or was currently receiving speech–language services at The University of

Alabama’s Speech and Hearing Center.
The scores for each participant regarding age, CMMS scores, composite language
scores, PCC scores, and general diagnosis are shown in Table 1. As can be seen in this table,
four of the six participants in the experimental group (6, 7, 9, and 10) demonstrated
significant language impairment (>2 S.D. below the mean) characterized by both receptive
and expressive delay. Additionally, four of the participants demonstrated significant
expressive phonological impairment (PCC < 75%) specifically 7, 9, 10, and 11. Partici-
pant 8 did not score below normal limits on a standardized measure of language or
demonstrate significant difficulty in articulation/phonology. However, this participant
displayed considerable pragmatic language impairment characterized by inappropriate
social skills and use of language in social situations.
Comparison of group mean data revealed no significant differences in age between the
children developing typically and those with spoken language and/or expressive phono-
logical impairments. While the cognitive abilities of all children in this study were within
normal limits, the children developing typically scored significantly higher on the CMMS
than did the children with impairments. A pre/post-test design was employed to measure
the effects of the intervention program. The following phonological awareness assessment
measures were used at pre- and post-testing.

1.1.1. Rhyme identification through oddity

Following a procedure used by Maclean, Bryant, and Bradley (1987) and van Kleeck
et al. (1998) each child was shown a series of three pictures and asked to point to the one
picture that did not rhyme with the two others. Before the training began, the researcher
explained to the child what was meant by the term ‘‘rhyme’’. The researcher said, ‘‘Words
that rhyme have the same ending sound like /top/ and /pop/. /Top/ and /pop/ rhyme.’’
Instructions for the task were as follows: ‘‘We’re going to look at some pictures together.
70 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82

I’m going to say the name of each picture. I want you to listen and point to the picture that
does not rhyme with the others.’’ Two training series were administered during which
corrective feedback was given. Ten additional series were presented for scoring for a total
possible score of 10 (see Appendix B). A flip-book of pictures constructed from the
‘‘Matching Rhymes 1’’ and ‘‘Matching Rhymes 2’’ worksheets of the Sounds Abound
Listening, Rhyming, and Reading (Catts & Olsen, 1993) workbook was used to present the
stimulus items.

1.1.2. Rhyme production

Following another procedure used by Maclean et al. (1987) and van Kleeck et al. (1998),
each child was given a series of 10 single-syllable words and asked to generate a word that
rhymed with each after it was spoken by the researcher. Visual support was provided
through the use of a picture to represent each stimulus word. One training item was
administered with corrective feedback provided. Instructions for the training item were as
follows: Let’s play with some more rhyming words. This is a house (showing picture). I can
think of a word that rhymes with house. Mouse! House, mouse; they rhyme! I can think of a
silly word that rhymes with house. Bouse! House, bouse; they rhyme also. Now you tell me
a word that rhymes with house. Each of the 10 testing items were preceded with the
instruction, ‘‘You tell me a word that rhymes with .’’ The testing items spoken by the
researcher included door, cake, pig, tail, bell, sun, book, sock, cat, toe. Ten total points were
possible for this task (see Appendix C).

1.1.3. Categorization
Sound categorization was assessed using a dynamic assessment modified from the Test
of Phonological Awareness (TOPA; Torgesen & Bryant, 1994) as shown in Appendix D
(Laing & Kamhi, 1998). This method used a scaffolding of cues during test adminis-
tration to direct the child to identify words with the same initial sound. A flip-book of
pictures was constructed from the ‘‘Initial Sound Same’’ section of the TOPA stimulus
manual which was used to present the stimulus items. Each task presented a picture
representing a stimulus word and three responses choices. The child was directed to point
to the picture that began with the same sound as the stimulus word. Scoring was based on
a scale of 0 to 4. Four indicated that the child gave the correct response with no prompt
and zero indicated that the child required four prompts to give the correct response. For
example, instructions for the first test item were as follows: ‘‘The first picture is /leg/. The
other pictures are /lamp/, /hand/, /fish/. Point to the picture that begins with the same
sound as /leg/.’’ If the child pointed to the picture of the leg he/she was awarded four
points. If the child pointed to a picture other than the leg the following instructions were
given:
Now listen while I say the name of this first picture. The first picture is /leg/. Say /leg/.
The other pictures are /lamp/, /hand/, /fish/. Now you say the names of the other pictures.
Point to the one that begins with the same sound as /leg/.
If the child pointed to the picture of the leg he/she was awarded three points. If the child
indicated a picture other than the leg successive prompts which increased support were
given to enable the child to identify the correct picture. Ten items were administered for a
total possible score of 40.
 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82 71

1.2. Test administration

Graduate students in speech–language pathology employed by The University of

Alabama as research assistants, two certified speech–language pathologists, or the primary
investigator administered the standardized measures (CMMS, GFTA, generalized lan-
guage testing). The experimental measures of phonological awareness (rhyming and
categorization) were exclusively administered by the second author. The rhyme production
measure was administered prior to and at the completion of the fall semester before the
phonological awareness intervention program to serve as a comparison for the intervention
condition. Measures of rhyme production, rhyme identification and categorization abilities
were also obtained prior to and at the completion of the Spring semester phonological
awareness intervention program to determine the effect of the experimental intervention on
phonological awareness abilities.
The testing plan for each child is depicted in Appendix E. Fall pre-testing included the
CMMS, a generalized language test, the GFTA, and the criterion-referenced measure of
rhyme production. Fall pre-testing sessions were approximately 20 min each and were
conducted as follows for each child: (1) CMMS, (2) generalized language test, (3) GFTA
and, (4) rhyme Production. Winter pre/post-testing and Spring post-testing included the
criterion-referenced measures of rhyme identification, rhyme production and categoriza-
tion. These sessions were approximately 20 min each and were conducted as follows for
each child: (1) rhyme identification and rhyme production and (2) sound categorization.

1.3. Phonological awareness intervention

The University of Alabama Speech and Hearing Center serves preschool children with
speech and language impairments using a traditional approach to therapy. The traditional
intervention program consisted of three classes per week of 2 h each. During these 6 h, each
child received three 30-min individual therapy sessions for a total of 1.5 h to target specific
speech and language goals. The individual and classroom sessions were implemented by
undergraduate Speech Language Pathology students under the direct supervision of two
certified Speech Language Pathologists employed as clinical supervisors. This program
consisted of a theme-based approach to language and expressive phonological development.
The children with spoken language impairments and/or expressive phonological impair-
ments received their traditional classroom program and individual therapy during the Fall
semester. Clinicians did not introduce phonological awareness goals during the course of
the traditional therapy condition. During the Spring semester these children participated in
a low intensity, short term, whole class, phonological awareness intervention program for a
period of 8 weeks as designed by the investigators. The group phonological awareness
activities concurrently focused on rhyme identification, rhyme production, sound categor-
ization, letter identification, and letter-sound correspondence (see Appendix F for sample
lesson plans). The overall preschool program remained the same with the exception of the
inclusion of phonological awareness activities provided during the regularly scheduled
group language activities, two times per week, 15-min per session, for a total of 30 min
weekly. All children enrolled in the preschool program received phonological awareness
intervention.
72 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82

Throughout the Fall and Spring semesters typically developing children participated in
their regular classroom program at The University of Alabama Child Development Center.
This program consisted of five classes per week of 4 h each. It was implemented by two
trained Early Childhood Education teachers who were assisted by University students
enrolled in the Early Childhood Education program. The classroom curricular focus was on
promoting optimal physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development through
hands-on, center-based experiences. Specific goals for the children included fostering
an understanding of one’s self and a feeling of self worth, nurturing physical well-being,
stimulating intellectual development, and developing the capacity to interact appropriately
with both children and adults. The children developing typically did not receive phono-
logical awareness intervention and served as a comparison group.

2. Results

2.1. Rhyme production

2.1.1. Fall to winter comparison

Children developing typically and those with language and/or expressive phonological
impairments were administered the rhyme production measure in the fall and winter to
serve as a comparison for the phonological awareness intervention program conducted
from the winter to spring. The rhyme production task required children to generate a
word that rhymed with each of 10 single-syllable words after the words were spoken by
the investigator and pictorially represented. Table 2 shows the means and standard
deviations for performance on rhyme production during the fall and winter testing
sessions. Recall that phonological awareness intervention was not conducted during this
time span. There was no significant difference in performance across testing times on the
basis of a Wilcoxen signed-ranks test: z ¼ 0:730, P ¼ 0:47. None of the children made
significant improvements in rhyme production ability from the fall to the winter testing
sessions.

2.1.2. Winter to spring comparison

Table 2 illustrates the means and standard deviations for the rhyme production task
administered in the winter and spring for both groups of children. Recall that the children

Table 2
Means and standard deviations for the rhyme production task

Fall Winter Spring

Typical (n ¼ 5)
Mean 9.2 9.8 10.0
S.D. 1.3 0.44 0.0
Impaired (n ¼ 6)
Mean 0.8 1.6 7.5
S.D. 1.7 3.2 3.8
 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82 73

Table 3
Means and standard deviations for the rhyme identification task

Winter Spring

Typical (n ¼ 5)
Mean 9.6 10.0
S.D. 0.5 0.0
Impaired (n ¼ 6)
Mean 3.7 7.7
S.D. 1.5 2.5

developing typically received no phonological awareness training while the children with
impairments received training after the winter testing sessions were complete. A Wilcoxen
signed-ranks test revealed a statistically significant difference in rhyme production abilities
across testing times (z ¼ 2:20, P ¼ 0:028). As can be seen in Table 2, the children who
did not receive intervention performed similarly across testing times at ceiling levels (9.2,
9.8, and 10). The children in the impaired group answered fewer than 50% of the rhyme
production items in the fall (M ¼ 0:8) and winter (M ¼ 1:6) testing times and greater than
70% in the spring (M ¼ 7:5). Thus, the significant finding can be attributed to the improved
performance of the children with impairments and to the implementation of the phono-
logical awareness program.

2.1.3. Rhyme identification

The means and standard deviations for the rhyme identification task administered in the
winter and spring for both groups of children are shown in Table 3. The rhyme
identification task required children to point to the one picture that did not rhyme with
two others in a series of three pictures. A Wilcoxen signed-ranks test revealed a statistically
significant difference in rhyme identification abilities across testing times (z ¼ 2:72,
P ¼ 0:007). As can be seen in Table 3, the typically developing children scored similarly
across testing times performing at ceiling levels (9.6, 10). The children in the impaired
group answered around 50% of the rhyme identification items in the winter testing
(M ¼ 3:7) and greater than 70% in the spring (M ¼ 7:7). As with results for rhyme
production, the significant finding for rhyme identification can be attributed to the
improved performance of the children with impairments.

2.1.4. Sound categorization

The means and standard deviations for performance on the dynamic sound categoriza-
tion measure administered in the winter and spring for both groups of children are shown in
Table 4. The dynamic sound categorization measure required children to identify words
with the same initial sound using a scaffolding of cues. Scores could range from a
minimum of 0 to a maximum of 40 on this measure. A Wilcoxen signed-ranks test revealed
a statistically significant difference in sound categorization abilities across testing times
(z ¼ 2:20, P ¼ 0:028). As can be seen in Table 4, the typically developing children
performed at ceiling levels in the winter and in the spring (35.6, 37.8). The children in the
74 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82

Table 4
Means and standard deviations for the sound categorization task

Winter Spring

Typical (n ¼ 5)
Mean 35.6 37.8
S.D. 2.8 2.4
Impaired (n ¼ 6)
Mean 22.8 31.7
S.D. 2.8 3.7

impaired group scored a mean of 22.8 in the winter and a mean of 31.7 in the spring, a
significant increase in performance.

3. Discussion

The findings of the current study supported earlier research which showed that
phonological awareness training directly contributed to gains in phonological awareness
for children with language and/or expressive phonological impairments. There were no
significant improvements in rhyme production for children with impairments prior to
initiation of the phonological awareness intervention program (fall to winter compar-
ison). However, the children with language and/or expressive phonological impairments
made significant gains in this ability after receiving the phonological awareness
intervention program. These findings supported the assertion that phonological aware-
ness intervention provided in the context of the classroom can directly improve
phonological awareness skills in children with speech and/or language delays (van
Kleeck et al., 1998).
In addition, the results of this study provide additional evidence for the notion that
phonological awareness skills are independent of intelligence (Moats, 2000, p. 9). Recall
that children in the control group demonstrated significantly higher scores on the CMMS
than did the children in the experimental group. Despite this difference, children in the
experimental group improved their phonological awareness skills so that they were
indiscriminable from those of children in the control group.
Perhaps the most important finding of the current study was that improvements in
phonological awareness abilities were accomplished in two 15-min weekly group sessions
for a total of 8 weeks. Results of the current investigation suggested that a low intensity,
short term, whole class, phonological awareness intervention program that concurrently
focused on letter identification, sound correspondence, rhyming, and categorization skills
resulted in significantly improved phonological awareness abilities for children with
language and/or expressive phonological impairments. Differences that existed between
children with impairments and children developing typically on measures of phonological
awareness at the outset of the study were no longer apparent after implementation of the
phonological awareness intervention program.
 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82 75

It is more typical for phonological awareness intervention programs to be implemented

over a longer period of time in intensive, individual, or small group settings (Ball &
Blachman, 1991; Bryant, 1983; Cunningham, 1990; Gillon, 2000; Lundberg, Frost, &
Peterson, 1988; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992; van Kleeck et al., 1998; Warrick,
Rubin, & Rowe-Walsh, 1993). For example, Gillon (2000) showed that children with
language impairments who were significantly delayed in phonological awareness abilities
prior to training reached performance levels similar to children who were developing
typically after intensive phonological awareness intervention. The children in Gillon
(2000) ranged in age from 5.6 to 7.6 years (mean ¼ 6:1 years) and received two 1-h
sessions per week over 10 weeks for a total of 20 h of phonological awareness intervention.
Similarly, children in van Kleeck et al. (1998) received two 15-min sessions per week over
a period of 24 weeks. The current investigation demonstrated that similar results were
achieved in a much shorter, less intensive program in a large group setting.
Anecdotally, it was apparent that the children in the current study enjoyed the
intervention activities. Parents and teachers reported that the children spontaneously used
the rhyming skills they were taught both at home and in school although no statistical
analyses were conducted to corroborate these statements. The speech–language pathol-
ogists that taught the target preschool class were so impressed by the improvements in the
children’s phonological awareness abilities after the intervention program that they
reported plans to continue incorporating 15-min twice-weekly phonological awareness
activities into their group language ‘‘circle time’’. The intervention design was easily
implemented and could be replicated either by speech–language pathologists, clinicians in
training, or classroom teachers.
While the results of this study were encouraging there were several limitations that
should be discussed. The most significant limitation involves the small number of children
who participated in the intervention program (n ¼ 6 target children; n ¼ 11 children in
classroom). The results would have been more generalizable if the program had been
implemented in a number of preschool classrooms serving children with language and/or
expressive phonological impairments and in inclusive classroom settings.
In addition, the small number of students who participated in this study makes
generalization of the findings difficult. It is recommended that this study be replicated
with larger numbers of participants before findings are generalized to the larger population.
One final limitation involved a lack of follow-up data on the literacy skills of children
who participated in the project. Nevertheless, based on others’ findings (Brady et al., 1994;
Gillon, 2000; Warrick et al., 1993), it could be predicted that beginning literacy skills
would have improved post-intervention and that the children would have learned to read
more readily than if they had not received the intervention.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express appreciation to Debra McCrary, Pat Tulloss, and the
graduate assistants who participated in evaluation and data collection for this project. We
would especially like to thank the parents and children enrolled in the phonological
awareness intervention program.
76 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82

Appendix A. Continuing education questions

1. Which of the following is a measure of phonological awareness?

a. letter-sound correspondence
b. segmenting words into sounds
c. reading nonwords
d. naming letters
e. group repetition of letter identification
2. An example of rhyme identification through oddity is:
a. point to the one picture that does not rhyme
b. think of a word that rhymes with house
c. say the name of each picture
d. identify words with the same initial sound
e. tell me how many sounds are in the word
3. An example of a rhyme production task is:
a. point to the one picture that does not rhyme
b. think of a word that rhymes with house
c. say the name of each picture
d. identify words with the same initial sound
e. tell me how many sounds are in the word
4. An example of a sound categorization task is:
a. point to the one picture that does not rhyme
b. think of a word that rhymes with house
c. say the name of each picture
d. identify words with the same initial sound
e. tell me how many sounds are in the word
5. A phonological awareness program should:
a. improve reading ability
b. improve sound categorization skill
c. improve expressive articulation skill
d. improve expressive language skill
e. improve social language skill

Appendix B. Rhyme identification through oddity task

B.1. Directions

Words that rhyme have the same ending sounding sound like /top/ and /pop/. /Top/ and /
pop/ rhyme. We’re going to look at some pictures together. I’m going to say the name of each
picture. I want you to listen and point to the picture that does not rhyme with the others.
 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82 77

B.2. Training/testing items

Tasks Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3

Training items Sun One Sled
Ring Ball Wing
Testing items
1 Bat Snow Rat
2 Wheel Seal Cake
3 Gate Corn Plate
4 Can Man Sail
5 Top Shell Mop
6 Rain Chain Box
7 Lamp Stamp Bee
8 Nail Sock Jail
9 Clown Crown Top
10 Tail Clock Whale

Appendix C. Rhyme production task

C.1. Directions

Let’s play with some more rhyming words. This is a house (show picture). I can think of
a word that rhymes with house. Mouse! House, mouse; they rhyme! I can think of a silly
word that rhymes with house. Bouse! House, bouse; they rhyme also. Now you tell me a
word that rhymes with house.

C.2. Testing items

You tell me a word that rhymes with (while showing picture):

1. Door
2. Cake
3. Pig
4. Tail
5. Bell
6. Sun
7. Book
8. Sock
9. Cat
10. Toe
78 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82

Appendix D. Dynamic assessment of phonological awareness (Subtest I. Initial

sound-same)

D.1. Training items

(1) Put your finger on the apple. Look at the first picture. The first picture is a BAT. Now
look at the other three pictures: HORN, BED, CUP. Point to the one picture that
begins with the same sound as BAT (pause). You should have pointed to BED
because BAT and BED begin with the same sound, /b/.
(2) Now put your finger on the ice cream cone. The first picture is CAR. The other
pictures are CAKE, RICE, BOX. Point to the one picture that begins with the same
sound as CAR (pause). You should have pointed to CAKE because CAR and CAKE
begin with the same sound, /k/.
(3) Now put your finger on the elephant. The first picture is GATE. The other pictures are
PIG, COW, GUN. Point to the one picture that begins with the same sound as GATE
(pause). You should have pointed to GUN because GATE and GUN begin with the
same sound, /g/.

D.2. Testing items

Put your finger on the (picture). The first picture is (stimulus). The
other pictures are —, , (response choices).
Point to the picture that begins with the same sound as (stimulus).

Picture Stimulus Response choices

1. Apple Leg Lamp hand fish
2. Ice cream cone Fire Hat star foot
3. Elephant Tool Drum tie cup
4. Lollipop Sick Pail two sew
5. Turtle Cake Key doll bell
6. Elephant Girl Bird goat cat
7. Lollipop Mouth Cup bed mud
8. Turtle Duck Arm dog tire
9. Apple Nest Leaf nine mouse
10. Ice cream cone Shell Shine hut face

D.3. Prompts/scoring

Give score of 4 if correct response with no prompt. If the child is unable to respond
correctly on an item, provide the following prompt:
(1) ‘‘Put your finger on the (picture). Now listen while I say the name of this first picture.
The first picture is (stimulus word). Say (stimulus). The other pictures are (have child
 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82 79

say all three words). Point to the one that begins with the same sound as (stimulus)’’.
Give score of 3 if correct response after prompt 1.
(2) ‘‘Put your finger on the picture. Listen while I say this word very slowly. (Say the
stimulus word slowly for the child.) What is the first sound you hear in (stimulus)?
Now listen while I say the other pictures slowly. Listen for the first sound in each of
these words. (Say response choices.) Point to the picture that begins with the same
sound as (stimulus)’’. Give score of 2 if correct response after prompt 2.
(3) ‘‘Put your finger on the picture —. Listen while I say these words very slowly. (Say
stimulus slowly for child.) Say that word for me (stimulus). Now, what is the first
sound you hear in (stimulus)? (If child is incorrect, tell the child the first sound in the
word, and have them repeat it). The first sound in this word is / /. Now listen for the / /
in these words. The other pictures are (say response choices). Now, point to the
picture that begins with the / / sound’’. Give score of 1 if correct response after
prompt 3.
(4) ‘‘Let try together. This word is (stimulus). It begins with the / / sound. Say / /. Now,
the next picture is a (say name of picture). It begins with the / / sound. Say / /.
(Demonstrate other pictures in the same manner.) Now say (stimulus). Say (first
picture). Do they both begin with / /? (Continue with each of the pictures in this
manner)’’.
Give score of 0 if correct response after prompt 4.

Appendix E. Testing plans for each child

Fall semester Winter pre-test/fall Spring semester

2000 pre-test post-test 2001 post-test
CMMS @
Generalized language test @
GFTA @
Rhyme production @ @ @
Rhyme identification @ @
Categorization @ @

Fall pre-testing sessions were conducted as follows for each child:

Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4

CMMS @
Language test @
GFTA @
Rhyme production @
80 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82

Winter pre-/post-testing and spring post-testing sessions were conducted as follows for
each child:

Session 1 Session 2 Session 3

Rhyme production @
Rhyme identification @
Categorization @

Appendix F. An example of phonological awareness activities conducted during 2

weeks

Week 1, Day 1
(1) Clinician modeling of letter identification and sound correspondence of #1
target phoneme
(2) Group repetition of letter identification and sound correspondence of #1 target
phoneme
(3) Clinician reading of short phonology story
(4) Play a rhyme recognition game focusing on the target phoneme in initial
position (adapted ‘‘The Name Game’’ from Sounds Abound (Catts & Olsen,
1993)
(5) Play a rhyme recognition game focusing on the target phoneme in initial
position (adapted ‘‘I’m Thinking of a Word That Sounds Like.. . .’’ from
Sounds Abound)
Week 1, Day 2
(1) Reacquaint children with letter identification and sound correspondence of #1
target phoneme
(2) Children re-tell phonology story
(3) Repeat rhyme recognition game focusing on the target phoneme in initial
position (adapted ‘‘The Name Game’’ from Sounds Abound)
(4) Play a rhyme recognition game focusing on the target phoneme in initial
position (adapted ‘‘The Hungry Thing’’ from Sounds Abound)
Week 2, Day 1
(1) Clinician modeling of letter identification and sound correspondence of #2
target phoneme
(2) Group repetition of letter identification and sound correspondence of #2 target
phoneme
(3) Clinician reading of short phonology story
(4) Play a rhyme recognition game focusing on the target phoneme in initial
position (adapted ‘‘The Name Game’’ from Sounds Abound)
(5) Play a matching initial sounds game
 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82 81

Appendix F. (Continued)

Week 2, Day 2
(1) Reacquaint children with letter identification and sound correspondence of #2
target phoneme
(2) Children re-tell phonology story
(3) Repeat rhyme recognition game focusing on the target phoneme in initial
position (adapted ‘‘The Name Game’’ from Sounds Abound)
(4) Play a rhyme generation game (adapted ‘‘London Bridges’’ from Sounds
Abound)
Note. While phoneme targeted changed weekly, activities were repeated biweekly through week 7. Week 8
activities reviewed skills taught during the first 7 weeks.

References

Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
American Speech–Language–Hearing Association. (1993, October). Guidelines for caseload size and
speech–language service delivery in the schools. American Speech–Language–Hearing Association, 35,
33–39.
American Speech–Language–Hearing Association. (2000). Schools survey—Special reports: Caseloads.
[Electronic data tape]. Rockville, MD: American Speech–Language–Hearing Association.
Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early
word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 49–66.
Blachman, B., Tangel, D., Ball, E., Black, R., & McGraw, C. (1999). Developing phonological awareness and
word recognition skills: A two-year intervention with low-income inner-city children. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 239–273.
Brady, S., Fowler, A., Stone, B., & Winbury, N. (1994). Training phonological awareness: A study with inner-
city kindergarten children. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 26–59.
Brandel, D. (1992). Implementing collaborative consultation: Full steam ahead with no prior experience!
Language, Speech and hearing Services in Schools, 23, 367–368.
Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–421.
Burgemeister, B., Blum, L., & Lorge, I. (1972). Columbia Mental Maturity Scale—3rd Edition. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jobanovich, Inc.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language-3. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Catts, H., & Olsen, T. (1993). Sounds abound: Listening, rhyming, and reading. East Moline, IL: Linguisystems.
Christiansen, S. S., & Luckett, C. H. (1990). Getting into the classroom and making it work! Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 20, 110–113.
Coufal, K. L. (1993). Collaborative consultation for speech–language pathologists. Topics in Language
Disorders, 14, 1–14.
Cunningham, A. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experiemntal
Child Psychology, 50, 429–444.
Elksnin, L. K. (1997). Collaborative speech and language services for students with learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 30, 414–426.
Elksnin, L. K., & Capilouto, G. J. (1994). Speech–language pathologists’ perceptions of integrated service
delivery in school settings. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 258–267.
Fahey, K. R. (2000). Language acquisition problems exhibited in classrooms. In K. R. Fahey & D. K. Reid
(Eds.), Language, development, differences, and disorders (pp. 247–296). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
82 S.P. Laing, W. Espeland / Journal of Communication Disorders 38 (2005) 65–82

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.
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (1969). Goldman–Fristoe test of articulation. Circle Pine, MN: American Guidance
Service.
Laing, S., & Kamhi, A. (1998, November). Dynamic assessment of phonological awareness. Paper presented at
the American Speech Hearing and Language Association National Convention, Boston, MA.
Liberman, I., & Liberman, A. (1990). Whole language versus code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their
implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 51–76.
Long, S., & Fey, M. (1993). Computerized profiling program (C-PROPH).
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Peterson, O. (1988). Effects of an intensive program for stimulating phonological
awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284.
Maclean, M., Bryant, P., & Bradley, L. (1987). Rhymes, nursery rhymes, and reading in early childhood.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 255–281.
Mann, V., & Liberman, I. (1984). Phonological awareness and verbal short-term memory. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 17, 592–599.
Merritt, D. D., & Culatta, B. (1998). Language intervention in the classroom. San Diego: Singular.
Moats, L. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.
O’Shea, L., & O’Shea, D. (1997). Collaboration and school reform: A twenty-first century perspective. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 30, 449–462.
Paul, R. (1995). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Assessment and intervention. St. Louis,
MO: Mosby.
Roller, E., Rodriquez, T., Warner, J., & Lindahl, P. (1992). Clinical forum: Implementing collaborative
consultation. Integration of self-contained children with severe speech–language needs into the regular
education classroom. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 365–366.
Stanovich, K. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 418–452). New York: Longman.
Torgesen, J., Morgan, S., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word
learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 364–370.
Torgesen, J., & Bryant, B. (1994). Test of Phonological Awareness. Pro-ed, Austin: Texas.
van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R., & McFadden, T. (1998). A study of classroom based phonological awareness
training for preschoolers with speech and/or language disorders. Language, Speech, and hearing Services in
Schools, 7, 65–76.
Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, D. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness and reading ability: Evidence
from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321–363.
Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of
reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (1994). The development of reading related phonological processing
abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 73–87.
Warrick, N., Rubin, H., & Rowe-Walsh, S. (1993). Phoneme awareness in language delayed children:
Comparative studies and intervention. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 15–173.
Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (1999). Preschool Language Scale-3. Oxford, London: Psychological
Corporation.