Today, I’m diving deep into the intricate world of phonemic awareness—a topic I’m sure many of you are keenly interested in. Phonemic awareness is a foundational skill that has a domino effect on a child’s journey into reading and writing. Drawing on an array of research papers, this post aims to synthesize what the academic world has uncovered about this fascinating subject. From targeted phonemic instruction to its role in broader literacy, you’ll find some compelling insights that can shape how you approach teaching this crucial skill.
Before we jump in, you might also want to check some of my other resources that further explore phonemic awareness. Have a look at my “What is Phonemic Awareness?” post if you’re new to the topic. If you’re wondering why you should even care about phonemic awareness, my post on “Reasons Why Phonemic Awareness is Important” should offer some food for thought.
Phonemic Awareness: Annotated bibliography
Here is a collection of key research papers on phonemic awareness:
- Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3516004
This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of systematic phonics instruction compared to unsystematic or no-phonics instruction in learning to read. With 66 treatment-control comparisons from 38 experiments, the study found that systematic phonics instruction yielded a moderate overall effect on reading (d = 0.41). Effects persisted even after instruction ended. The benefits were particularly noticeable when phonics instruction began early, and it improved decoding, word reading, text comprehension, and spelling. However, it wasn’t as effective for low-achieving readers with cognitive limitations. The takeaway? Systematic phonics should be part of any literacy program, especially for younger students and those at risk for reading disability.
- 2. Manyak, P. C. (2008). Phonemes in Use: Multiple Activities for a Critical Process. The Reading Teacher, 61(8), 659–662. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20204646
Manyak’s paper delves into the complexities of phonemic awareness, particularly focusing on the intricacies of phoneme manipulation. The paper challenges the conventional understanding that phonemes are discrete sounds, arguing that in natural speech, they commingle. The paper highlights the effectiveness of instruction that helps children attend to “vocal gestures,” or the mouth positions when pronouncing phonemes. Manyak also stresses the importance of activities that combine phoneme segmenting and blending with letter-sound instruction, based on his hands-on experience in Wyoming classrooms. The paper offers practical advice and activities, suggesting that a multi-faceted approach to phonemic awareness is the most effective in helping students with both reading and spelling.
- 3. Freebody, P., & Byrne, B. (1988). Word-Reading Strategies in Elementary School Children: Relations to Comprehension, Reading Time, and Phonemic Awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 441–453. https://www.jstor.org/stable/747642?
This study explores the different word-reading strategies in second and third graders, categorizing them into four clusters based on their performance in reading irregular and nonsense words. Interestingly, the strategies have a direct impact on the kids’ reading comprehension skills by Grade 3. For example, students relying on word-specific associations may do well up to Grade 2 but fall short in comprehension skills by Grade 3. On the other hand, those skilled in decoding nonsense words (Phoenicians) show improved comprehension as they move up the grade levels. This makes a compelling case for the importance of introducing decoding skills early on.
- 4. McCarthy, P. A. (2008). Using Sound Boxes Systematically to Develop Phonemic Awareness. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 346–349. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27699698
McCarthy’s article emphasizes the critical role phonological awareness plays in the acquisition of reading and spelling skills. It introduces ‘sound boxes’ or Elkonin boxes as a tactile method to help children understand the phonemes in words. As kids push tokens into boxes corresponding to each phoneme they hear, they gradually develop a better understanding of sound units. McCarthy even provides a system to organize and deliver this type of instruction consistently, adding a much-needed structure to what’s often considered a flexible teaching approach.
- 5. Snider, V. E. (1997). The Relationship between Phonemic Awareness and Later Reading Achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 203–211. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27542094
Snider’s paper features two longitudinal studies that tie phonemic awareness in kindergarten to reading achievements in later grades. It showed a significant correlation between phonemic awareness and 2nd-grade reading scores. However, the study also points out that kids in the lowest quartile in terms of phonemic awareness are not a homogeneous group and should not be typecast as future underachievers in reading. Snider argues that early identification is key to providing tailored instruction but cautions against using it as a basis for retention or labeling learning disabilities.
- 6. McGee, L. M., & Ukrainetz, T. A. (2009). Using Scaffolding to Teach Phonemic Awareness in Preschool and Kindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 599–603. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20464470
This paper essentially highlights how crucial early literacy instruction is for youngsters, and not just in phonemic awareness but also in other areas like encouraging writing and reading aloud. What I found particularly interesting was that although teachers were given plenty of activity suggestions in published curricula, there was a gaping hole when it came to techniques for providing feedback. That’s an area where I’ve always felt scaffolding could be a game-changer. Scaffolding allows for individualized support, so it’s no wonder the researchers found it useful for teaching phonemic awareness. Providing instant, constructive feedback can empower teachers to correct mistakes on the fly, which is essential in the developmental years.
- 7. Kozminsky, L., & Kozminsky, E.(1995). The effects of early phonological awareness training on reading success. Learning and Instruction, 5(3), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(95)00004-M.
This longitudinal study does a superb job of showing not only the predictive but also the causal relationships between early phonological awareness and reading success. Having a well-structured, eight-month PA training program in kindergarten can significantly influence PA skills and subsequent reading comprehension scores. It goes to show that early interventions do matter and can set the stage for later academic success.
- 8. Krashen, S. (1999). Training in Phonemic Awareness: Greater on Tests of Phonemic Awareness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 412-416. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1999.89.2.412
Krashen’s paper delves into policy implications, and the debate around whether phonemic awareness needs to be taught directly. While many advocate for this approach, Krashen suggests that the effects of training are greater on tests measuring phonemic awareness than on those measuring reading comprehension. This raises a fascinating question: Are we measuring what we’re teaching or the actual skill’s transfer to reading?
- 9. Griffith, P. L., & Olson, M. W. (1992). Phonemic Awareness Helps Beginning Readers Break the Code. The Reading Teacher, 45(7), 516–523. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200912
This paper reminds me of my classroom observations where kids could verbalize sounds effortlessly but had difficulty when they were asked to segment or blend these sounds during reading or writing. Phonemes are abstract units of language that don’t carry intrinsic meaning, which can make them challenging to teach. This paper drives home the point that phonemic awareness isn’t just about knowing the sounds but understanding how these sounds fit into the larger context of language and literacy.
- 10. Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2000). Supporting Phonemic Awareness Development in the Classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 130–143. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204888
This paper emphasizes the importance of phonemic awareness in early literacy and suggests a variety of playful activities to teach this skill. The authors argue that these activities should be easily incorporated into existing literacy programs and tailored to the specific needs of students. They caution against a rigid, step-by-step approach to phonemic awareness instruction, arguing that children don’t necessarily need to master one skill before moving on to the next. Instead, teachers should be flexible and adapt activities to the individual needs of students. The paper also stresses that phonemic awareness should be part of a more comprehensive literacy program, which also includes vocabulary, comprehension, and writing skills. Teachers are urged to create linguistically rich environments where language is both studied and used for various purposes.
- 11. Bradley, L., Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read—a causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–421.https://doi.org/10.1038/301419a0
Bradley and Bryant’s study reveals a strong link between a child’s ability to categorize sounds and their subsequent success in reading and writing. Children who struggle with reading often have difficulty recognizing rhyme and alliteration, placing them at a disadvantage even when compared to younger peers who read at the same level. The paper suggests that experiences with sounds and rhymes before formal schooling could significantly affect a child’s literacy development later on. The large-scale project they undertook supports this hypothesis, implicating that phonemic awareness isn’t just an academic exercise but a foundational skill that can set the trajectory for a child’s entire academic life.
- 12. Defior, S., Tudela, P. Effect of phonological training on reading and writing acquisition. Read Writ 6, 299–320 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027087
Defior and Tudela’s study focuses on the impact of phonological training on first-year primary school students’ reading and writing skills. Five groups, matched on various criteria like age, IQ, and existing reading abilities, participated in twenty training sessions over six months. Four of these groups received different types of phonological training, while the fifth group acted as a control. The researchers found that the groups which underwent phonological activities using manipulative materials demonstrated significant improvements in both reading and writing. I’ve often found that tactile learning methods, like manipulatives, really engage kids, and this research backs up that intuition. It’s especially important because it doesn’t just point to phonological training as beneficial, but it also gives a nod to the how—that manipulative materials can be a game-changer.
- 13. Blachman, B.A., Ball, E.W., Black, R.S. et al. Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms. Read Writ 6, 1–18 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027275
This study investigated the effectiveness of phoneme awareness training in low-income, inner-city kindergarten classrooms. Both the treatment and control groups were similar in terms of demographics and existing skill levels. After an 11-week intervention, the children who received the phoneme awareness training significantly outperformed those in the control group across various measures, including phoneme segmentation and letter knowledge. Given my own experience in diverse classrooms, this paper sings to me. It highlights that effective instruction in phonological awareness can significantly close the literacy gap, even in challenging socio-economic conditions.
- 14. Krashen, S. (2001). Does “Pure” Phonemic Awareness Training Affect Reading Comprehension? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93(2), 356-358. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2001.93.2.356
Krashen’s research takes a bit of a contrarian view, suggesting that while phonemic awareness training has a positive effect on reading comprehension, the effect size is modest. The study reviews six other studies and finds that the impact of phonemic awareness training without the inclusion of phonics is not overwhelmingly convincing. This hits a chord with me. While I’ve seen phonemic awareness activities really liven up a classroom, it’s often those that integrate multiple literacy skills, like phonics and vocabulary, that seem to offer the most bang for the educational buck.
- 15. Cunningham, A.E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50(3), PP. 429-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(90)90079-N
Cunningham’s study dives into the method of phonemic awareness instruction, contrasting a “skill and drill” approach with a more reflective, “metalevel” approach. The study found that both methods improved reading achievement in kindergarten and first-grade students. However, first-graders who engaged in reflective discussions about the value and application of phonemic awareness performed significantly better than those in the “skill and drill” group. I love this, as it echoes my own beliefs in the classroom. It’s not just about teaching the what but also the why. Getting kids to think about why phonemic awareness is important in the bigger picture of reading can make a lasting impact.
- 16. Davidson, M., & Jenkins, J. R. (1994). Effects of Phonemic Processes on Word Reading and Spelling. The Journal of Educational Research, 87(3), 148–157. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27541912
Davidson & Jenkins (1994) delved into how specific phonemic processes like blending and segmenting contribute to early word reading and spelling. They assigned 40 kindergarten kids to four different groups: blending, segmenting, a combo of both, and a control group with no phonemic instruction. Each group was then tested on phonemic generalizations and their ability to read and spell. The findings were intriguing—kids excelled at the specific phonemic tasks they were taught but fumbled on those they weren’t. Most notably, the segmenting and combo groups significantly outperformed the others in word reading and spelling tasks. This study underscored the value of targeted phonemic interventions in spelling and reading.
- 17. McGuinness, D., McGuinness, C., & Donohue, J. (1995). Phonological Training and the Alphabet Principle: Evidence for Reciprocal Causality. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 830–852. https://doi.org/10.2307/748200
McGuinness et al. (1995) constructed a predictive reading battery and identified the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC) as the strongest predictor of reading and decoding skills. Ninety-four first-graders were part of this study, and 42 of them were trained in structured phonological reading methods. When compared to a control group trained in whole-language-plus-phonics, these kids showed significant improvements. The study emphasized that while phonological awareness was crucial, it wasn’t the be-all and end-all for reading success. Every now and then, I’ve noticed kids who excel in phonological awareness but still struggle in other aspects of reading, and this study sort of explains why that can happen.
- 18. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic Awareness Instruction Helps Children Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. http://www.jstor.org/stable/748111
Ehri et al.’s 2001 meta-analysis is a treasure trove for anyone interested in the impacts of Phonemic Awareness (PA) instruction. Aggregating data from 52 studies, they found that PA instruction has a strong, statistically significant impact on reading and spelling—across a variety of conditions and demographics. This isn’t just for “ideal” students; it helps those who are at-risk, have disabilities, or come from various socioeconomic backgrounds. The instruction was particularly effective when taught with letters and in small groups. You know, I’ve had a similar experience; small group settings do seem to facilitate better phonemic awareness training, likely due to the more personalized attention.
- 19. Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic Abilities and Beginning Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(2), 134–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/747799
The 1988 study by Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale investigated the role of metalinguistic abilities in early reading. They administered a series of tests to 118 first graders, followed by reading achievement tests at the end of first and second grades. They found that children’s low-level metalinguistic skills were influenced by their level of ‘operativity,’ or concrete operational thought. In essence, metalinguistic abilities enabled children to understand the complex relationship between written and spoken language. This study adds another layer to the reading puzzle by highlighting how phonological and syntactic awareness are more pivotal than pragmatic awareness in initial reading stages.
Final thoughts
As you have probably noticed, a common theme that emerges from the cited studies above is that targeted instruction in phonemic skills like blending and segmenting is invaluable in developing early literacy skills. Davidson & Jenkins (1994) drove this point home by showing that kindergarteners trained in specific phonemic processes outperformed their peers in both reading and spelling. McGuinness et al. (1995) took it a step further, suggesting that phonological awareness, as measured by the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test, is a strong predictor of reading proficiency, although not the sole determinant.
Then comes Ehri et al.’s 2001 meta-analysis, which synthesizes data across 52 studies to overwhelmingly support the efficacy of Phonemic Awareness (PA) instruction. The results showed significant gains in reading and spelling, not just for ‘ideal’ candidates but across a range of student types including at-risk and disabled readers. The impact was particularly potent when instruction was paired with letters and conducted in small groups.
Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale’s 1988 study rounds it out by emphasizing the role of metalinguistic abilities. These skills, particularly phonological and syntactic awareness, are critical not just for decoding words but for understanding the inherent structure between written and spoken language.
So, what’s the takeaway? Phonemic awareness is a critical, but not singular, component of learning to read and spell. Its instruction should be specific, targeted, and ideally done in small group settings. While it’s necessary, it’s part of a larger literacy landscape that also involves metalinguistic skills and other cognitive processes.
