CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

1

They Say You Can Do Phonemic Awareness Instruction “In the Dark”, But Should You? A

Critical Evaluation of the Trend Toward Advanced Phonemic Awareness Training

Nathan H. Clemens

, Emily J. Solari

, Devin M. Kearns

3

Department of Special Education, University of Missouri

6

Michigan’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports Technical Assistance Center, Michigan

Department of Education

Melissa V. Stalega https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2329-5772

We thank Tiffany Hogan for her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The

authors have no known conflicts of interest.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nathan Clemens, SZB 4.714N 1

University Station D5300, Austin, TX 78712. Email: nathan.cleme[email protected].edu.

Updated December 21, 2021. This paper is currently undergoing peer review and will be revised

across the process. This paper is not the final copy of record and may not exactly replicate the

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

2

Abstract

Purpose: A trend has emerged across schools in the United States in which phonemic awareness

is viewed as much more than a component of beginning reading instruction. This perspective

argues that “phonemic proficiency”, evidenced by mastery with skills such as phoneme elision or

has influenced state policies on reading instruction.

Method: This paper evaluated the empirical and theoretical basis for advanced phonemic

awareness training.

Results and Conclusion: Although promoted as evidence-based, proficiency on so-called

advanced phonemic skills is not more strongly related to reading or more discriminative of

difficulties than other phoneme-level skills, not necessary for skilled reading, and is more likely

development do not align with the claims. We conclude with implications for policy-makers and

educators, and discuss how experimental research could address open questions about phonemic

awareness instruction.

Keywords: phonemic awareness, word reading, instruction, intervention

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

3

They Say You Can Do Phonemic Awareness Instruction “In the Dark”, but Should You? A

Critical Evaluation of the Trend Toward Advanced Phonemic Awareness Training

The importance of phonological awareness in learning to read is one of the most well-

established findings across all of language and literacy research (e.g., Melby-Lervag et al., 2012;

words into syllables, and increases in sophistication to include the perception of the smallest

units of speech (i.e., phonemes) in words. Phonemic awareness –the ability to isolate, segment,

blend, and manipulate phonemes – is believed to facilitate a child’s ability to link speech sounds

to printed letters and letter combinations, thereby forming the basis for word reading and

spelling. In addition to elucidating its role in reading development, research has revealed the

importance of instruction in phonemic awareness for students in the early stages of reading

instruction, has implications for early identification of risk for reading difficulties (e.g., Good et

al., 2001; Melby-Lervag et al., 2012). Second, it is important to teach children to recognize the

sound structure of words, link those sounds to letters (i.e., the alphabetic principle), and segment

and blend sounds as part of print-based instruction that teaches students to read and spell words

(e.g., National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000; Foorman et al., 2016; Torgesen, 2004). Much like

how a catalyst increases the rate of a biochemical reaction, phonemic awareness increases the

rate at which decoding skills are acquired.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

4

Perspectives have recently emerged that view phonemic awareness as not just a skill that

facilitates word reading, but as a specific foci of instruction that should extend well beyond the

first two years of school. These perspectives, exemplified in popular programs and

recommendations (Heggerty & VanHekken, 2020; Kilpatrick, 2015, 2018, 2020; Kilpatrick &

often presented using oral exercises without print (Heggerty & VanHekken, 2020). Instruction is

aimed at developing students’ proficiency with oral phoneme manipulation tasks that are

considered to represent the most sophisticated end of the phonemic skill continuum. Tasks

viewed as “more challenging” (Kilpatrick & O’Brien, 2019) or requiring “advanced” phonemic

awareness include phoneme elision (i.e., phoneme deletion, “say ‘cat’ without /k/”), phoneme

replacement (e.g., “say ‘cat’. Now change the /k/ to /p/”) including medial sounds or sounds in

segmentation (e.g., “tell me each sound you hear in ‘cat’”) or phoneme blending (e.g., “what

word do these sounds make: /k/-/a/-/t/”). We refer to this type of instruction and related

recommendations as advanced phonemic awareness training, given the way it has been referred

to by educators across the United States.

The core of the argument is that “phonemic proficiency” (i.e., well-developed phonemic

segmentation skills, best reflected by performance on challenging phoneme-level tasks such as

phoneme deletion and manipulation; Kilpatrick, 2020; Kilpatrick & O’Brien, 2019) is necessary

for establishing links between letter strings and pronunciations (i.e., orthographic mapping), and

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

5

that an absence of such proficiency explains difficulties progressing beyond beginning stages of

word-reading (Kilpatrick, 2019a,b). These perspectives and recommendations have been

disseminated as being evidence-based and consistent with the “science of reading,” and may be

being used by states in the US for crafting policy on reading instruction and evaluating reading

field. Scholars have argued that advanced phonemic awareness training is inconsistent with

reading research, and related recommendations lack evidence (Brown et al., 2021; Shanahan,

2021). Additional examination of the current research base is needed to reconcile these divergent

perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the validity of recommendations for advanced

phonemic awareness training, and the phonemic proficiency hypothesis, from empirical and

awareness instruction to learn to read and spell words. We do, however, question the evidentiary

basis for spending instructional time on advanced phonemic manipulation skills beyond

segmentation and blending, implementing phonemic awareness instruction outside of print for

students that have learned print-based skills, and the claim that these skills are important for

reading proficiency or remediating word-reading difficulties.

We are particularly concerned about what might be omitted in the classroom while oral-

only advanced phonemic awareness exercises are taking place, as well as the instructional

implications if teachers view phonemic awareness as a central objective of reading instruction.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

6

Limited time and resources demand a prioritization of activities that are most beneficial to

students’ acquisition of reading skills. Given the limited window for early intervention and

prevention (Torgesen, 2004) and the “tyranny of time” (Kame’enui, 1993), it is necessary to

question the validity of the phonemic proficiency hypothesis and the use of 10 to 15 min per day

month, 36-54 hours per year) on advanced phonemic awareness training that could have been

used for explicit instruction and supported practice opportunities to read and spell, could

represent, at minimum, a tremendous missed opportunity for children.

Theoretical and Empirical Bases for Specific Phonemic Awareness Instruction and

Phonemic Proficiency

Across the remainder of this paper, we examine whether evidence and theory support

instruction, including (a) the uniqueness and separability of “advanced” phonemic awareness

skills from other phoneme-level skills, (b) that performance on advanced phonemic manipulation

tasks discriminates skilled from struggling readers; (c) that phonemic proficiency is necessary for

proficient reading; (d) that advanced phonemic awareness plays a causal role in reading

development rather than simply being a consequence of it; (e) that specific, advanced phonemic

awareness training results in improved reading outcomes over approaches without such a focus,

and (f) the extent to which advanced phonemic awareness training aligns with theories of reading

acquisition that have been used to promote the idea.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

7

Awareness Skills?

Phonemic proficiency perspectives carry an assumption that successfully completing

advanced phonemic manipulation tasks (i.e., phoneme deletion, replacement, reversal) represents

represents an important assessment target for evaluating reading difficulties and planning

instruction. To examine this assumption, studies can be considered that have investigated the

dimensionality of phonemic processing and separability of performance on specific types of

tasks.

Factor analytic studies have found that performance on a range of phonemic awareness

tasks, including first-sound comparison, phoneme segmentation, phoneme blending, phoneme

deletion does not appear to be indicative of a skill set unique from phoneme-level processing

more generally. To be clear, these results do not suggest an absence of a continuum of skill

complexity in phonemic awareness. Rather, factor-analytic findings indicate that completing

phoneme-level tasks, regardless of complexity, are best viewed as part of a single skill, and that

performance on so-called “advanced” tasks are not a meaningfully distinct skill set.

Other studies have examined differential relations of phonemic awareness task

performance to word-reading. With first and second graders, Kilpatrick (2012) administered tests

of word reading and the Blending Words, Segmenting Words, and Elision subtests of the

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

8

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Wagner et al., 1999). Correlations among the

phonological awareness and word reading subtests ranged from .31 to .67 (all were statistically

significant). Correlations with the Segmentation subtests were relatively lower, and in stepwise

regression models, Segmentation often did not account for unique variance in predicting word

understanding a students’ phonemic processing skills. However, correlations between the

Blending subtest (considered “basic” under phonemic proficiency perspective) and word reading

were equivalent or stronger in magnitude compared to the Elision subtest, and both the Blending

and Elision subtests remained statistically significant in all regression models predicting word

reading. Additionally, the score range on the Segmentation subtest was lower compared to the

Blending and Elision tests, which may have explained its lower relations to word reading.

Casting additional doubt on the uniqueness of phonemic manipulation tasks, Choi et al.

(2017) analyzed students’ (ages 4 to 19) errors on rhyming, sound matching, phoneme blending,

phoneme segmenting, and deleting measures. A principal components analysis found that student

errors were best summarized by two error-type factors: A “basic” factor involving errors on

blending, rhyming, and sound matching tasks, and an “advanced” factor involving errors on

phoneme segmenting and phoneme deletion. The basic and advanced factors explained a sizable

portion of variance in students’ scores on tests of reading, writing, and oral language, with the

advanced error factor accounting for slightly more variance. However, contrary to phoneme

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

9

proficiency perspectives, students exhibited more errors in phonemic segmentation than in

phoneme deletion. Phoneme deletion did not appear to require greater sophistication in phonemic

processing than phonemic segmentation.

Does Performance on Advanced Phonemic Awareness Tasks Discriminate Good and Poor

Kilpatrick, 2019a,b, 2020). Hence, it is assumed that stronger and weaker word readers can be

better differentiated by assessments that involve more advanced phonemic manipulation tasks

(phoneme deletion or replacement), compared to measures that are viewed as more “basic” such

as phoneme segmenting or blending.

Melby-Lervag et al. (2012) meta-analyzed 235 studies on the relation of phonological

awareness to reading skills, and distinguished four types of phonemic processing tasks:

rhyming measures as distinct from the phoneme processing tasks. Results of the meta-analysis

indicated that students with word-reading difficulties performed more poorly on tests involving

phoneme-level processing compared to age-matched control students without reading

difficulties, with a large and statistically significant effect (d = -1.37). However, there were no

statistically significant effects for the type of phonemic processing test used; the effects were

similar across composite syllable and phoneme, deletion, spoonerisms, and segmentation/

detection/blending measures.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

A characteristic of advanced phonemic awareness training programs is an emphasis on

oral-only instruction, rather than explicitly teaching segmenting, blending, and manipulation of

phonemes connected to letters within words. What makes the rise of this perspective so

perplexing is the long-standing evidence that reading outcomes are stronger when phonemic

resulted in better reading outcomes compared to phonological awareness training alone. The

NRP report (2000) observed effect sizes for interventions that integrated phonemic awareness

activities with print (d = 0.67 for reading and 0.61 for spelling) were almost twice as large as

phonemic awareness training without letters (d = 0.38 for reading and 0.34 for spelling). The

panel unambiguously concluded, “Methods that teach children to manipulate phonemes with

letters are more effective than methods limiting manipulation to spoken units” (p. 2-41).

adding, deletion, and substitution in the same lesson. In contrast, the NRP (2000) found that

interventions that taught one or two phonemic skills (d = 0.71 to 0.79 for reading outcomes and d

= 0.74 to 0.87 for spelling outcomes) were more effective than those that taught three or more

skills (d = 0.27 for reading outcomes and d = 0.23 for spelling). Additionally, interventions that

focused on blending and segmenting had larger effects (d = 0.67 for reading outcomes and d =

0.79 for spelling) than those focused on other phonemic skills (d = 0.27 for reading outcomes

and d = 0.23 for spelling).

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

Advanced phonemic awareness training has been promoted with claims that it results in

superior reading outcomes to interventions without this emphasis. Kilpatrick (2020) stated

“Studies that involved phonemic manipulation tasks, which allow for an assessment and training

of phonemic proficiency, consistently demonstrate substantially higher standard score point

represent the strongest outcomes in the word reading intervention literature” (p. 202-203).

We examined the research that Kilpatrick and O’Brien (2019) cited in support of these

claims. Eschewing effect sizes, which they stated, “cannot be consistently relied upon to

determine intervention effectiveness” (p. 182), Kilpatrick and O’Brien used standard score point

gains to classify minimal, moderate, or highly-effective interventions. They concluded that

studies in the highly-effective category consistently represented interventions that implemented

permit inferences that inclusion of advanced phonemic activities were responsible for reading

growth. Most studies were not even designed to investigate that possibility. Six of the studies

(Alexander et al., 2001; Baht et al., 2003; McGuinness et al., 1996; Truch, 1994, 2003, 2004)

involved only a single intervention group (i.e., no control or comparison group) – a

methodologically weak, non-experimental design that provides little basis for causal inference.

This subset was further complicated by two studies (Truch 2003, 2004), both unpublished, that

included secondary analyses of intervention group data from different studies with different

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

measures. One study was not an intervention trial; Simos et al. (2002) compared changes in brain

activation patterns of students with and without reading disabilities following interventions.

Only 4 of the 11 studies were experimental intervention trials (Torgesen et al., 1999,

2001, 2010; Wise et al., 1999). Torgesen et al. (1999) randomly assigned kindergarten students

Audio Discrimination in Depth program (later, Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing), and allotted

approximately 80% of instructional time on word-level skills and 20% on text. It included

learning phoneme articulatory gestures; segmenting and representing phonemes in words using

mouth-form pictures, blocks, and letters; phonemic decoding; decodable texts; high-frequency

words; and fluency building in trade books. The embedded phonics program allotted 43% time to

word-level skills and 57% to text-level activities, and included whole-word activities and games,

groups at post-test in phonological awareness, decoding, and untimed word reading on a

statistically significant basis. There were no differences between groups in reading

comprehension.

Torgesen et al. (2001) observed no differences in reading outcomes (at post-test or 1- and

2-year follow-ups) between two code-focused intervention conditions, one that included greater

emphasis in phoneme articulation and processing skills versus another that focused on text-based

instruction and practice. Both groups benefited and there were no advantages observed for either

treatment.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

Torgesen et al. (2010) randomly assigned students to one of two computer-based

intervention programs, or a BAU control condition. The two computer-based interventions

explicitly taught phonological awareness, decoding, and text-reading, but one included a greater

emphasis on word-level and phonological skills, and the other on text-level skills. Although

or fluency, phonemic decoding accuracy or fluency, spelling, and reading comprehension).

Wise et al. (1999) contrasted three phonics interventions, (a) sound articulation training

(i.e., lip and mouth actions associated with sounds in words but no manipulation of them), (b)

letter-sound manipulation training (manipulating sounds in printed words by swapping or

changing letters, but no practice with articulation), and (c) sound articulation plus manipulation.

The three phonics groups were compared to a BAU control condition. All phonics intervention

on measures of word reading, spelling, or reading comprehension.

In summary, despite advocates’ claims advanced phonemic awareness training results in

superior reading outcomes, available evidence provides no such support. With the exception of

Coyne et al. (2021), no experiments have specifically tested such a hypothesis. Interventions that

emphasized phonemic awareness included multiple components known to be effective, such as

explicit phonics, word-level instruction, and extensive practice (e.g., Torgesen et al., 1999).

Kilpatrick’s reliance on standard score gains as indices of effects is also problematic; they are the

product of much more than the intervention (e.g., core instruction, contextual variables, student

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

maturation), and are not appropriate for determining the effect of specific instructional

components. Rather than indicating an advantage for advanced phonemic awareness training,

research reflects the benefits of explicit phonics instruction and extensive practice reading and

spelling words.

Approaches to reading instruction and intervention should be evaluated in terms of their

theoretical plausibility (Ellis & Bond, 2016). There are practices that lack experimental evidence

of effectiveness but are accepted because they are consistent with theories and evidence of

reading development, and are unlikely to cause harm. For instance, studies have not

demonstrated a robust effect for vocabulary instruction on students’ generalized reading

comprehension (Elleman et al., 2009), however, it is universally agreed that teaching new

Kilpatrick refers extensively to Ehri’s (2005) phase theory, and Share’s self-teaching

hypothesis (1995), as theoretical bases for his phonemic proficiency hypothesis (see Kilpatrick,

2015, Kilpatrick & O’Brien, 2019). Kilpatrick argues that the ability to segment or blend

phonemes is insufficient for reading proficiency, but that proficient phonemic segmentation

skills, best reflected by tasks that involve phoneme deletion and replacement, provide an

essential (and previously unrecognized) basis for orthographic mapping. The ability to complete

advanced oral phonemic manipulation tasks is thought to be indicative of automaticity with

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

phonemic representations, which “presumably allows students to more easily remember the

words they read” (Kilpatrick & O’Brien, 2019, p. 203).

Ehri’s Phase Theory

Ehri’s (2005, 2020) phase theory describes the predominant skills and knowledge sources

to the point that whole-word spellings are linked to pronunciations and accessed efficiently.

Ehri (2020) emphasized the importance of phonemic segmentation skills, which enables

phonemes to be paired with letters. Letter-sound knowledge and phoneme blending help

beginning readers move from a pre-alphabetic phase (i.e., identifying words based on holistic

visual cues) to a partial alphabetic phase, in which students make use of letter-sound knowledge

to decode (Ehri, 2005, 2020). In progressing from partial alphabetic to full alphabetic and

2020). Ehri’s theory and work do not suggest the need for proficiency with advanced phonemic

manipulation tasks, or instruction in such skills, to facilitate orthographic mapping.

Share’s (1995) self-teaching hypothesis offered an explanation for how readers amass

thousands of spelling-pronunciation linkages without requiring instruction in each one. He

argued that “some basic phonemic awareness” (p. 160) and letter-sound knowledge are “co-

requisites” (p. 161) for the origins of decoding and self-teaching process. In his view,

phonological processing problems experienced by many poor readers are associated with

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

difficulties encoding phonological information, and retaining it in short-term memory to make

accurate blending possible. Readers with difficulty encoding phonological information fail to

build high-quality phonological representations of printed words after reading them—even if

they produce a correct pronunciation.

phonological features. The long e (/i/) sound might be strongly liked to ee—the reader would not

confuse beet with bat. However, both /b/ and /t/ might have only partial representations. The next

encounter with beet will require more effort to pronounce than for a reader with stronger

phonological encoding. Blending is critical under Share’s view, as difficulties with phonological

short-term memory make it hard for the learner to retain correct phonological information. Even

if /bit/ is immediately represented with all the correct phonological components, this information

connectionist model of word-reading acquisition (Foorman, 1994; Harm & Seidenberg, 1999;

Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989) is useful for considering its theoretical plausibility. The

connectionist account posits that readers require strong phonological processing ability to read

words, however, the parallel distributed nature of the model raises concerns about the necessity

developing phonemic proficiency throughout the elementary grades. In the connectionist

account, orthographic and phonological information about words develop in parallel, that is,

learning about both facilitates improvement in the word-reading system. Reading (pronouncing)

a single word increases the quality of (a) the reader’s phonological and orthographic

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

representation of that word and (b) the reader’s phonological and orthographic knowledge of all

words. Because all words are connected in a single system, reading any word improves the

orthographic and phonological quality for every word in the reader’s lexicon. Children who

receive sound-spelling focused reading instruction see improvements in the phonological system

printed words requires the reader to break the word into sublexical orthographic units that map to

phonemic units (Harm et al., 2005). These roles are reciprocal and mutually facilitative, thus

removing the need for phoneme-focused instruction, especially once letter-sounds are learned.

In summary, theories of word-reading acquisition acknowledge the importance of

phoneme-level processing for reading acquisition, particularly the ability to segment and blend

The argument for advanced phonemic awareness instruction is also not well-justified on a

broader theoretical basis. The phonological system involves implicit knowledge of the

articulatory features of sounds (e.g., /m/ is a bilabial nasal continuous sound) and the likely

connections among them (e.g., consonant clusters with three sounds almost always begin with

/s/; /s/ rarely precedes /v/ but can; /m/ frequently precedes /p/; /n/ never precedes /k/). The

implicit ability to use that system for functional purposes, like reading, is not the same as having

phonemic awareness skills, however. Phonemic awareness involves explicit knowledge and

manipulation of spoken words’ phonological features. Improving phonemic awareness skills will

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

certainly improve the strength of the phonological system. However, there is currently no

evidentiary or theoretical basis to conclude that advanced phonemic awareness training will

necessarily improve the reader’s implicit knowledge of the phonological structure of the

language better than (a) some other activity that requires phoneme-level processing or (b) word-

that the English phonological structure is not composed of isolated phonemes that are

consistently pronounced the same way. The /t/ sound differs in step (canonical phoneme), top

(aspirated), butter (flap), kitten (glottal stop), bat (incomplete articulation), and train

(phonologically similar to ch). The notion that advanced oral phonemic manipulation activities

enhance mapping letters to sounds is complicated by the inconsistency of phoneme

pronunciation of English.

based on evidence of the superior effects of phonemic awareness combined with print, the

benefit of oral activities likely evaporates once letters become an option for instruction.

Available evidence and perspective indicate this is true for all students, regardless of whether

they are at-risk of reading difficulty (e.g., Bus & van Ijzendoorn, 1999; Fuchs et al., 2001). As

children learn the alphabetic principle, printed letters become anchors for phonemes, and the

basis for which phonemic awareness is relevant for reading and spelling.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

Research is clear that phonemic awareness plays a significant role in learning to read.

Instruction in phonemic awareness benefits reading acquisition, especially when it is integrated

with print. However, evidence and theory do not support the recent trend in advanced phonemic

awareness training. The research to date can be summarized as follows.

“advanced” phonemic manipulation tasks (e.g., phoneme deletion and replacement) does not

appear to be any more strongly related to word reading than the ability to perform other

phoneme-level tasks (e.g., phoneme segmentation and blending). Further, performance on

advanced phonemic awareness measures does not appear to discriminate good from poor readers

better than performance on other phoneme-level tasks.

Current evidence does not indicate that advanced phonemic proficiency is necessary for

children must be able to accomplish advanced phonemic manipulation tasks as prerequisites for

learning to read certain types of words. Research suggests that proficiency with phoneme-level

tasks is, in part, a result of learning to read and spell. Phonemic awareness is certainly involved

in reading development, however the relation is far from perfect. Deficits in phonemic awareness

are a common factor in reading difficulty, but they are one of many. There is no evidence that a

lack of proficiency with advanced phonemic manipulation is a cause of their reading difficulties,

or “missing piece” needed for remediation.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 25-47.

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., ... & Wissel, S.

(2016). Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten

through 3rd Grade. Educator's Practice Guide. NCEE 2016-4008. What Works

Clearinghouse.

Foulin, J. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read?

Reading and Writing, 18(2), 129-155.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Otaiba, S. A., Yen, L., Yang, N. J., ... & O'Connor, R. E.

(2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with

teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 251.

Galuschka, K., Ise, E., Krick, K., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2014). Effectiveness of treatment

Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2020). Meta-

analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal

of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401-427.

Good III, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-

making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills

for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257-288.

of interventions for disabled readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(2), 155-182.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. National Institute of

Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

O’Connor, R. E. (2011). Phoneme awareness and the alphabetic principle. In R.E. O’Connor &

P. Vadasy (Eds), Handbook of reading interventions (pp. 9-26). Guilford Press.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

Suggate, S. P. (2010). Why what we teach depends on when: Grade and reading intervention

modality moderate effect size. Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1556–1579.

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING

CRITIQUE OF ADVANCED PHONEMIC AWARENESS TRAINING