Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction.

Abstract

This study tested the efficacy of supplemental phonics instruction for 84 low-skilled language minority (LM) kindergarteners and 64 non-LM kindergarteners at 10 urban public schools. Paraeducators were trained to provide the 18-week (January-May) intervention. Students performing in the bottom half of their classroom language group (LM and non-LM) were randomly assigned either to individual supplemental instruction (treatment) or to classroom instruction only (control). Irrespective of their language status, treatment students (n ϭ 67) significantly outperformed controls (n ϭ 81) at posttest in alphabetics, word reading, spelling, passage reading fluency, and comprehension (average treatment d ϭ 0.83); nevertheless, LM students tended to have lower posttest performance than non-LM students (average LM d ϭ Ϫ0.30) and were significantly less responsive to treatment on word reading. When we examined the contribution of classroom phonics time to student outcomes, we found that the treatment effect on spelling was greater for students in lower phonics classrooms, whereas the treatment effect on comprehension was greater for those in higher phonics classrooms. Finally, when we examined LM students alone, we found that pretest English receptive vocabulary positively predicted most posttests and interacted with treatment only on phonological awareness. In general, pretest vocabulary did not moderate kindergarten LM treatment response.

Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th–10th grades.

“…There are randomized intervention trials that support the independence of decoding (e.g., Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999; Vadasy & Sanders, 2010; Wolff, 2011) and of oral language to reading comprehension. Direct effects of vocabulary instruction show moderate effects on norm-referenced vocabulary tests but small transfer effects to reading comprehension (Elleman, Lindo, Morphy, & Compton, 2009).…”

Programa Multissensorial/Fônico: efeitos em pré-escolares em risco de apresentarem dificuldades de alfabetização

“…Nesse sentido, os resultados obtidos parecem corroborar estudos que evidenciaram a melhora no desempenho das habilidades de consciência fonológica, leitura e escrita, mediante intervenção de base fônica, em amostras de alunos com propensão para apresentarem dificuldades de aprendizagem, devido a um repertório inicial reduzido em termos de conhecimentos sobre a escrita e baixo nível de habilidades metalinguísticas (Vellutino et. al, 2006;Vedasy & Sanders, 2010;Labat et al, 2014;Neumann, 2014).…”

“…Pesquisas interventivas realizadas nas últimas décadas baseadas no desenvolvimento de habilidades metafonológicas têm demonstrado os benefícios da intervenção precoce para se evitar possíveis dificuldades no processo de aprendizagem de leitura e escrita (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2003;Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006;Capovilla, 2007b;Lonigan & Shanahan, 2010;Vedasy & Sanders, 2010;Fadini & Capellini, 2011) e também para minimizar dificuldades relacionadas à dislexia (Vellutino et al, 2006;Fukuda & Capellini, 2011). Outras pesquisas apontam para os benefícios dos métodos multissensorial (Seabra & Dias, 2011;Azevedo et al, 2008;Azevedo & Ribeiro, 2009) e fônico (Justino & Barrera, 2012;Morais et al, 2013) para crianças que apresentam dificuldades de aprendizagem.…”

Differential Phonological Awareness Skills in Children with Classic Galactosemia: A Descriptive Study of Four Cases

“…Proactive interventions designed to facilitate the maturation of PA in at-risk children have shown to be efficacious with at-risk groups of children (Nelson et al 2005;Adnams et al 2007;Vadasy and Sanders 2010;Collet et al 2012). With 75 % of the children with GAL investigated in this study presenting with diminished PA skills, a means of identifying which children with GAL require proactive support would be beneficial.…”

“…Further, proactive intervention programmes aimed at nurturing the maturation of PA (Morrow 2007) have been implemented with successful outcomes for at-risk populations such as children with Down syndrome (Lemons and Fuchs 2010), speech impairment (Al Otaiba et al 2009), specific language impairment (Collet et al 2012), minority language speakers (Vadasy and Sanders 2010), foetal alcohol spectrum disorders (Adnams et al 2007), and emotionally disturbed children (Nelson et al 2005).…”