Introduction:
The link between phonological awareness and reading acquisition is well recognised (Watson & Badenhop, 1993). There are a number of components that together comprise phonological awareness. Research into the development of this website has shown few specific phonological awareness intervention programs or techniques available for clinical use. Many clinicians will instead use these components of phonological awareness in conjunction with ‘fun’ and motivating activities with the child (Watson & Badenshop, 1993). This practice is accepted as most appropriate as the development of these components occurs at varying stages of a child’s language development; therefore clinicians are required to target components that the child requires assistance with at particular times during the language development phases
Watson & Badenhop (1993) comment that instruction of phonological awareness skills should commence at the pre-reading level, and go through for as long as necessary; in order to build upon fluent reading skills. Research and literature throughout the past 10 years has seen a wide variety of tasks be developed to teach and assess children’s phonological awareness (Watson & Badenhop, 1993). There is some degree in difference as to what various authors suggest the components to be within phonological awareness, as well as the level of difficulty of each component. Hodson and Edwards (1997) listed the following 10 components that comprise phonological awareness:
Component Explanation:
| Recognition of rhyme |
E.g. Do these words rhyme – fish/dish? Which is the odd one out – fish/dish/ball?
|
| Isolation of a beginning, medial, or final sounds |
E.g., What is the last sound in fish?
|
| Sound segmentation |
E.g., What are the three sounds in fish?
|
| Identifying the number of syllables or sounds in a word |
E.g., How many beats in potato; How many sounds in fish?
|
| Sound-to-word matching |
E.g., Does fish start with /f/? |
| Word-to-word matching |
E.g., Does fish start with the same sound as foot?
|
| Syllable and sound matching |
E.g., What does po-ta-to say? What does f-i-sh say?
|
| Sound deletion |
E.g., Say fish without /f/; Say fish without the first sound.
|
| Specifying which phoneme has been deleted |
E.g., Say meat, now say eat – what sound was left out of the second word?
|
| Sound substitution |
E.g., Say meat; now say it with /f/ instead of /m/.
|
(Hodson & Edwards, 1997, pp.158)
Hodson, B., & Edwards, M. (1997). Perspectives in applied phonology. Maryland: Aspen Publications.
Watson, A., & Badenhop, A. (Ed.) (1993). Prevention of reading failure. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.
Back to top
Treatment options :
Back to top
PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS
i.
Title:
Gillon’s Phonological Awareness Training Program Who:
Gail Gillon in 2000
Population:
Children aged 5-7 were shown to benefit from this program (Gillon, 2000). This program has also shown the potential to benefit children outside the previously identified range. The children targeted within Gillon’s study (2000) were further noted to be either more at risk of future reading delays, have specific language impairments, as well as those typically developing in respect to language.
Explanation:
According to Gillon (2004), the Gillon’s phonological awareness training program is aimed at accelerating phonological awareness skills of reading and spoken language delayed children. Children that have a history of speech language impairment were found to more likely present with reading difficulties, than other children within this population by a factor of 4-5 times (Catts et al, 2001).
Through development of phonological awareness skills, children will better understanding that knowledge into the sound structure of words can assist with efficiently decoding words (Gillon, 2002). The child’s ability to comprehend written text may also then improve, with the ultimate aim of the program being to increase the child’s overall literacy skills incorporating reading accuracy and comprehension as well as spelling (Gillon, 2002).
The program incorporates a wide variety of phonological awareness aspects, in the aim of improving all skills rather than just targeting a specific few. The program is therefore likely to assist children with the development of a wide variety of phonological awareness skills. The skills are improved and developed through the use of activities and games within the clinical or school settings.
Procedure:
This program consists of two parts being as follows, discussed by Gillon (2004):
1. Onset rime level – This level consists of varying rhyming activities e.g. rhyming snap, bingo or rhyming cards. Professionals delivering this program should have the focal point on the integration of speech to print activities within these rhyming tasks.
2. Phoneme level – This level, like the onset rime level, consists of varying activities in relation to phoneme awareness e.g. memory or finding the odd one out. Within the phoneme identifying activities; knowledge of letter names should be integrated. These activities are deemed necessary to assist with the development of skills such as blending sounds, segmenting words into phonemes, identifying sounds as well as describing and actively identifying sound changes. Phonological awareness teaching for school aged children will generally involve increased focus on the phoneme level. In this population, rhyming skills often are not a major focus within prevention.
Gillon (2000) describes the program to place focus within the following main areas (within the onset-rime and/or phoneme levels):
1. Linking speech to print
2. Phoneme identity
3. Phoneme manipulation of sounds in isolation
4. Phoneme segmentation and blending
5. Program adaptations
There are resources such as that of Gillon (2004), that provide ideas for professionals implementing this program of various suitable activities within the onset rime and phoneme levels. There are several other speech and language books that provide ideas for therapy activities within these levels, which can be found from leading educational companies. Therapy activities are further available as part of the Gillon phonological awareness training program kit.
Resources/Training:
The resources required to deliver this program are within the program’s kit, containing various tools and ideas for therapy activities. This kit costs approximately NZ$210, and can only be purchased from New Zealand, with a package and delivery fee being additional to the NZ$210. Demonstration/workshop of the way the program is delivered, either via videorecording or through peers, is likely to be beneficial in order to optimise the effectiveness of the program.
Time Frame:
According to Gillon (2000, 2002), her integrated phonological awareness intervention program was administered twice a week for the duration of 1 hour. Therapy lasted a total of 20 hours over 10 weeks.
Evidence:
The Gillon phonological awareness training program is based on the study conducted by Gillon (2000). This study incorporated 91 New Zealand children ranging from 5-7 years of age. 61 of these children had spoken language impairment, whilst 30 were typically developing. The children with spoken language impairment were assigned to one of three phonological therapy intervention programs. These programs consisted of an integrated phonological awareness program (Gillon phonological awareness training program), a more traditional approach focusing on articulation and language skills, and a minimal intervention control program. Results showed that the children who received phonological awareness intervention (Gillon’s program) made significantly more gains within their reading and phonological awareness compared with the other intervention groups. Gillon (2000) further found that despite overall significant phonological awareness delays prior to training, children who were within the phonological awareness intervention group (Gillon’s program) performed at levels similar to typically developing children in relation to speech and language.
The follow-up study to Gillon (2000) was completed in 2002 by Gillon. This study (2002b) incorporated 20 of the children within the integrated phonological awareness program from Gillon’s (2000) study, along with 20 children from the control group within this same study (Gillon, 2000). They were compared with another 20 typically developing children. This occurred 11 months post original intervention. Results showed that the majority of the children that received the integrated phonological awareness intervention (Gillon’s program) were reading at or above the level of a typical child at the same age, using the measure of word recognition. Furthermore it was evident that children within this group had strengthened abilities in relation to phoneme-grapheme connections within their spelling. Children within the control group, showed little gains in phoneme awareness since the initial study was conducted.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
ii.
Title:
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program (LiPS)
Who:
Patricia Lindamood and Phyllis Lindamood in 1998 (LiPS)
Patricia Lindamood and Charles Lindamood in 1975 (ADD)
Population:
This program is for school aged children with reading difficulties. The program also targets children with dyslexia. In addition, the procedures within the LiPS programs may further be effective across a greater age range, incorporating primary through to an adult level. This however will depend on the individual’s level of development and may require activities to be modified to better suit an older population.
Explanation:
The LiPS program is a modified version of the program formerly known as the ‘Auditory Discrimination in Depth Program (ADD). Gillon (2004) states that The LiPS program uses a multisensory approach to teach its participants the relations between graphemes and phonemes. The main aim of the program is to help children develop their reading and spelling skills. This is achieved through the child’s increased ability to produce judgements about letters and sounds actively and independently, as well as engaging in appropriate self correction techniques. This aim will as a result increase the rate of the child’s skills within the domains of decoding and encoding. Lindamood and Lindamood (1998) comment that research has shown good decoding skills to rely on a high level of phonological awareness, and conversely that good reading skills rely on abilities within the domain of phonological processing. It is therefore important to target these areas in order to consequently improve corresponding skills.
This program stimulates sensory-cognitive processing within literacy development areas (Worthington & Benson, 2006). This type of processing refers to how the human brain uses information gathered from the senses to assist understanding (Worthington & Benson, 2006). This program is seen to be different to many other phonological awareness programs as it incorporates this sensory/motor feedback in conjunction with auditory stimulation. With the use of this feedback and with time, children become increasingly aware of mouth movements required to produce sounds (Lindamood & Lindamood 1998). This awareness assists with verifying sounds within words, increasing their self awareness within speaking, reading and spelling (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998). Furthermore the child’s phoneme awareness is bought to a conscious level (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998). The sensory/motor feedback is an important feature within the program that is lacking and not acknowledged within other similar phonological awareness programs. Procedure:
Lindamood & Lindamood (1998) describe the procedure of the program as following 5 levels. These levels are described below (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998):
1. Setting the climate
Within this level, the climate for learning is established. Children become familiar enough with the learning process so that they become willing to engage themselves in the process.
2. Identification and classification of speech sounds
Within this level, the structure base for how sounds are formulated by the mouth becomes apparent to the child. Children will begin to categorise sounds depending on their similarities and differences within their manner and place. Consonants and vowels will be introduced to the child separately and in intervals. The characteristics of how sounds are formulated by the mouth can be heard, seen and felt through a multisensory experience. Questioning by the professional delivering the program will encourage children to think about the role of the mouth, ear and eye in the discrimination process. Through tasks relating to the discrimination of speech sounds, children will be able to identify, label and classify vowel and consonant sounds. They will further associate the sounds they hear to the multisensory features of that sound.
3. Tracking speech sounds
Within this level, children are introduced to the concept of tracking. Tracking is seen to be important within the context of tracking sounds in sequences as well as with the association of these sequences with sounds and symbols. Primarily, isolated speech sounds are tracked using mouth pictures and coloured blocks to represent different speech sounds. Next, sounds in syllables are tracked within simple syllables (e.g. CVC) then more complex syllables (e.g. CVCC). Changes within syllables and sounds are then tracked, with children being required to actively determine these changes. Tracking of speech sounds assists with spelling (encoding) and reading (decoding).
4. Association of sounds and syllables
Within this level, sound-symbol associations are determined. These spelling and reading activities should concurrently occur with the tracking activities.
5. Spelling and Reading
Within this level, the final goal lies with self correction abilities within speech, as well as self correcting and self generating activities within spelling and reading. In spelling, children develop encoding skills, as they are required to translate speech sound sequences into sequences of letter symbols. In reading, children develop decoding skills, being required to translate letter symbol sequences into sequences of speech sounds.
In comparison to the ADD program, the LiPS program contains more tools to assist with developing the child’s phoneme-sequencing abilities.
The LiPS program manual (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998) recommends two alternative ways to implement the program. Lindamood and Lindamood (1998) discuss that the first method follows a horizontal path, where tasks progress in a left to right direction. This path presents all consonants to the child before moving through to vowel sounds etc. It progresses from simple to complex tasks. The second path is labeled the vertical path. This path progresses from top to bottom, so only three consonants are presented to the child before using tracking, spelling and reading, instead of all the consonants. This path is more suited to developmentally delayed children.
Resources/Training:
Training programs geared at professionals are deemed necessary for the correct delivery and effectiveness of the program (Lindamood & Lindamood 1998; Gillon, 2004). In conjunction with the training program, there is a kit containing necessary materials and a manual to assist in the implementation of the program. This kit costs approximately $498, and can easily be purchased through the Internet.
Time Frame:
The LiPS program is intended to be delivered in an intensive fashion with one-on-one instruction (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998). The LiPS manual (Lindamood & Lindamood 1998) suggests that the program tends to be delivered daily, for the duration of four hours. It further comments that instruction is used, for a minimum of four consecutive weeks. Gillon (2004) further commented that as a result of the programs complex nature, intervention will be lengthy.
Level of Evidence:
Alexander, Anderson, Heilman, Voeller and Torgesen (1991) conducted a study evaluating the effectiveness of the ADD (Auditory Discrimination in Depth Program) in relation to decoding deficits within the dyslexic population. As briefly discussed above, ADD is the previous name given to the LiPS program and is similar in most ways to the LiPS program. The study’s sample consisted of 10 severely dyslexic children ranging from approximately 7;7-12;8 years. The children were treated within a clinic for 38-124 hours. Testing was conducted both pre and post treatment. Results showed there to be a statistically significant increase in analytic decoding and phonological awareness skills. The ADD program has a multisensory component, alike LiPS, and it can be said that this additional factor may have contributed to statistically significant results for increase phonological awareness.
Other supporting evidence has been documented by Pokorni, Worthington and Jamison (2003), who wrote an article looking into the impact of three phonological awareness intervention programs being Earobics, FastForWord and LiPS. They comment that the LiPS program out of all the three programs within the study was the one that has the most published research. 60 children were randomly assigned to one of the three programs. The LiPS program was delivered to a small group of 4 children by an instructor. The children were aged 7;5-9 years and were delayed within their reading abilities. Results showed the LiPS intervention program led to significantly enhanced outcomes as oppose to other programs within the domain of phoneme blending. All three programs did not differ much in the other factors tested. Furthermore, gains were limited within the domain of phonological awareness. The LiPS program was found to be associated with phonological awareness gains 6 weeks post intervention. No program was found to be related with significant transfer to reading or language 6 weeks post intervention.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
iii.
Title:
Earobics
Title:
Earobics
Who:
Jan Wasowicz created the Earobics program in 1997. The publishers of the software are Cognitive Concepts.
Population:
Preschool – Grade 3 (approximately ages 4-7).
Wasowicz (1998) comments that Earobics is seen as a beneficial program for any child who presents with special learning needs. These learning needs may be related to speech and/or language, attention, cognition, processing difficulties, hearing impaired children, dyslexic children, and English second language children (Wasowiz, 1998)
Explanation:
Earobics is a computer program that uses scientifically based techniques to teach children phonological awareness, listening and comprehension skills, and phonics (Cognitive Concepts, 2006). Furthermore, it is known as a phonics and auditory development program that is designed to also improve children’s auditory processing skills (Farnsworth Diehl, 1999).
More specifically, the Earobics computer program contains over 300 levels of instruction with training provided for all sections named above. The theoretical basis of the program is not widely identified within the available literature (Farnsworth, 1999). The ‘theory’ is therefore a mere suggestion, hypothesising that the program encompasses two competing perspectives. These are, as mentioned above, the auditory processing (discrimination, auditory short term and sequential memory, auditory performance with competing signals (Cognitive Concepts, 2006)) and phonological activities (rhyming, sound blending and segmentation, phoneme identification, and phonological manipulation (Cognitive Concepts, 2006)) of development.
The Earobics program consists of two forms:
1. Earobics ®
2. Earobics ® PRO
The most significant difference between these programs is the ability for Earobics ® PRO to be able to collect data (Farnsworth Diehl, 1999). Also, another difference between the programs is the price and the amount of children able to use the software at one time (Farnsworth Diehl, 1999).
Earobics achieves its goal of increasing phonological awareness and auditory processing through the use of stimulating computer activities. Computer software is seen as an effective mode of service delivery due to their easy accessibility, dynamic nature and motivation factors (Cox, 2003). Furthermore, the program is user friendly and easily run through the Windows software. Technical support via a toll free number is also available as of the Farnsworth Diehl (1999) review.
Procedure:
Earobics computer program is divided into three separate programs being the following:
1. Pertaining to developmental ages 4-7.
2. Pertaining to developmental ages 7-10.
3. Pertaining to adolescents.
(Cognitive Concepts, 2006)
For the purpose of this preschool based website, we will focus on Earobics step 1 (for developmental ages 4-7). This program consists of 6 games (being the same games for each of the two types of Earobic programs). They are described as follows (Farnsworth Diehl, 1999):
1. Karloon’s Balloons
The main goal of this game is to increase the child’s ability to use phonological coding within their working memory (Farnsworth, 1999).
Consists of 38 levels (Wasowicz, 1998)
2. C.C. Coal Car Train
The main goal of this game is to increase the child’s ability to correctly and independently identify phonemes within words (Farnsworth, 1999).
Consists of 74 levels (Wasowicz, 1998)
3. Rap-A-Tap-Tap
The main goal is to teach children about segmentation of syllables within words via auditory means (Farnsworth, 1999).
Consists of 6 levels (Wasowicz, 1998)
4. Caterpillar Connection
The main goal is to assist children with the task of actively blending sounds (Farnsworth, 1999).
Consists of 56 levels (Wasowicz, 1998)
5. Rhyme Time
The main goal is developing children’s rhyming skills is relation to awareness and production (Farnsworth, 1999).
Consists of 11 levels (Wasowicz, 1998)
6. Basket Full Eggs
The main goal is within developing the child’s auditory discrimination skills (Farnsworth, 1999).
Consists of 114 levels (Wasowicz, 1998)
Within these games, the children are provided with stimuli, which they are then given approximately 10 seconds to respond to (Farnsworth Diehl, 1999). It is important to note that stimuli can easily be repeated if time runs out. The child must complete all stimuli correctly before they can move onto the next one (Farnsworth Diehl, 1999). Games furthermore can be customised to best suit the child’s needs.
Resources/Training:
Earobics is available via online purchase and costs approximately $59 for home versions, with educators/speech pathologist’s versions costing approximately $299.
There are several other computer programs available such as popular Fast for Words and Cellfield that are also widely advertised.
Time Frame:
The expected time frame for this program is unspecified as children use the program at different times of the day/week (at school, home within the clinical setting). Children will also progress through the level/tasks within the program at varying times depending on their previous skills and level of functioning. For these reasons a time frame is not specified.
Evidence:
Farnsworth Diehl (1999) study was a review of the Earobics software. It analysed 6 games from the program, technical aspects of it, as well as weaknesses and limitations of the software. Results found the Earobics program to be intended as a supplement to intervention of phonological awareness and auditory processing skills rather than a sole intervention program. It was further found that the games ‘basket full of eggs’ and ‘karloon’s balloons’ to follow an auditory processing approach. The games ‘Rap-A-Tap-Tap’, ‘Caterpillar Connection’, ‘C.C. Coal Car’ and ‘Rhyme Time’, followed a phonological awareness approach. Farnworth Diehl further found the games to be based on reinforcement principles rather than developing strategies in relation to leaning ‘the correct way to learn’. Farnsworth Diehl notes that speech pathologists should consider if Earobics contains the most advantageous combinations of instructions, and incorporation to auditory processing and phonological awareness tasks. Once this has been determined, the speech pathologist must use these combinations and tasks at the correct time within the child’s development, for the correct duration of time, and with the right intensity.
Further evidence for Earobics included Pokorni, Worthington & Jamison (2003) is an article looking into the impact of three phonological awareness intervention programs being Earobics, FastForWord and LiPS. The article focuses on level 2 of the Earobics program. The article comments that, to that date there were no published research articles supporting the effectiveness of the program, besides the developers (Cognitive Concepts) statement of the effectiveness of the program. The study incorporated 60 children that were randomly assigned to the three programs. Within the Earobics program, the children completed the computer software. Results found LiPS to improve phoneme blending skills significantly more than the other programs. The Earobics group was found to improve within the domain of phoneme segmentation. It was further found that Earobics was associated with phonological awareness gains 6 weeks post intervention. Overall, the LiPS and Earobics programs were found to be more effective at improving phonological awareness skills than FastForWord.
Wasowicz’s (1998) article describes the Earobics software in relation to its objectives and procedure, with it further critiquing the software. It comments that the acoustic elements on the software can not be reproduced by professionals due to the lack of resources/equipment. Wasowicz mentioned that Earobics is a cheaper version of another popular program called FastForWord. The article found that through internet searching, the efficacy of the Earobics program was not present. The software however claims that research demonstrates that Earobics provides children with the skills required for successful acquisition of pre literacy skills. Wasowicz notes that Earobics requires a considerable amount of adult support, as well as good audio equipment and a quiet environment. The article concludes by commenting that Earobics is an imperative teaching tool for professionals working with children.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
iv.
Title:
The Spalding Method Who:
Romalda Spalding in 1986
Population:
The Spalding method aims to be suitable for students of all ages, whether they be receiving general or special education (Spalding Education International, n.d). Economic status, presence of disabilities, geography and ethnicity should not affect the delivery of this program (Spalding Education International, n.d).
Explanation:
Spalding based her work on the theory and work of Samuel Oroton, a neurologist working within the same field (Farnham-Giggory, n.d). The Spalding method is a multisensory method aiming to develop children’s competency in writing, listening, spelling and reading (Spalding Education International Website, n.d). Furthermore, it involves a total language arts approach.
Farnham-Giggory (n.d) describes that reading is not ‘neurologically prewired’ unlike the process of speaking. Farnham-Diggory continues to describe that for reading, children are usually left to their own devices and many will be unaware as to how the written language actually works (Farnham-Diggory, n.d). Children need to become aware that words are sequences of phonemes, and that different sequences of phonemes are represented by different sequences of letters (Farnham-Giggory, n.d). Children are taught phonemes in isolation, so that when they are required to read, write or spell they recall what they have learnt and correctly identify the phoneme (Farnham-Giggory, n.d). Farnham-Diggory (n.d) additionally describes that it is useful for the child to discover how written language is represented in relation to speech sounds, mechanical aspects of its production, and how it denotes ideas and words.
This program, alike other phonological awareness/literacy based programs aim for the child to use a higher level of thinking to achieve a higher quality of work. Its distinctive factor is its great motivating potential, inspiring children to read (Farnham-Diggory, n.d)
The Spalding Education International Website (n.d) describes that children using The Spalding Method as being likely to develop the following skills:
1. Spelling – phonemic awareness, associated spelling rules, high frequency spelling of words to dictation, handwriting skills.
2. Comprehension – structure of passages, appreciation of literature.
3. Writing – production of different variety of sentences, written text passages.
Procedure:
The exact procedure of the Spalding Method is complex and may be difficult to understand without formal training or reading of Spalding and North’s text (2003). It is briefly described by Farnham-Giggory (n.d) in the follow way:
Children are taught by the trained professional a set of 70 phonograms, which are phoneme-letter units. These phonograms consist of a mixture of single letters e.g. /m/ and combined letter units e.g. /ee/.
Children are taught to make associations between these phonemes, the letters involved in them, the sound they make (which is modelled first by the trained professional) and motor movements involved in the writing of them. The process involving the phonograms can be referred to as SEE, HEAR, SAY, WRITE.
Once the child is familiar with all of the phonograms, spelling instruction will commence.
The Spalding Method has a list of words provided, that are placed within the order of increasing frequency. There are 8 standardised tests that are administered by the trained professional in order to determine where to commence instruction. Farnham-Giggory comments that there needs to be a medium for the child as the spelling of easy words is boring whilst harder words are discouraging. The children are further taught the rules for spelling e.g. the silent /e/.
The way the child is instructed within the spelling section is explicit, making use of the fingers of the hand to represent the sounds involved in the word. The trained educator tells the child a word of which they are to produce the first syllable or sound within it. The children are then required to write the word before the trained educator writes it up on the board. The child will produce the sounds before, during and after the writing process.
‘Spelling words’ are written in a book and will continue to accumulate with every lesson.
After some time using this method/process of phonograms, spelling and writing it is said that reading seems to ‘just begin’.
Resources/Training:
Training courses are seen to be essential for the effective delivery of The Spalding Method. These are available throughout many states in Australia and last for the duration of a number of days. The Writing Road to Reading text (Spalding & North, 2003) is also an essential resource to understand the exact procedure involved within the method. For the correct delivery of the program, the phonogram cards are also essential.
Time Frame:
It is recommended that within the sessions of instruction, only a few phonograms are introduced, rather than bombarding the child with all the phonograms. It was difficult to find the recommended time frame for the duration and frequency of the method’s instruction. It is likely that educators use the program daily, with speech pathologists using it as frequently within their clinical sessions as possible.
Evidence:
The Spalding Method is a relatively new program on the market. Minimal research was found into the efficacy of it in relation to improving reading, listening, writing and spelling. Speech Pathologists and teachers are currently or have already received training into the delivery of the method and are using it within their clinics and schools. Furthermore, the method is wide spread, used within different countries around the world. One piece of evidence found into The Spalding Method’s effectiveness was retrieved from the Spalding International Website. This evidence looked at the results found from Arizona school children who had received The Spalding Method.
The Spalding Education International (2004) report looked at Arizona school students within the grades 2-9. These children are assessed once a year using the Stanford Achievement Test, measuring the child’s reading, maths, language, grammar and comprehension skills. The report compares scores from schools where Spalding is taught to those where it is not. Results compiled through a graph, showed a significant difference between the Spalding schools performance compared to the other national, state and district schools. This improved performance was seen through all the year levels tested.
Back to treatment options Back to top
NARRATIVES
i.
Title:
Event Structures
Who:
Katherine Nelson was the chief founder/researcher of event structures, along with some support from her colleagues within the year 1986.
Population:
Children with developing language.
Explanation:
Paul (2001) describes event structures as organised sets of activities placed within a sequence e.g. buying an item of clothing at a department store, or going to the grocery store. Nelson (1986) describes an event as involving people within purposeful activities. Event structures are therefore articulated as individuals acting on objects whilst interacting with one another (Nelson, 1986).
Event structures are used for developing contexts for verbal routines (Paul, 2001). They have general features and also internal variations, making them both generic as well as pertaining easily identifiable differences. They are organised within a hierarchical structure and progress through a temporal-causal sequence (Carrow-Woolfork, 1988). It can be said that there are smaller related activities embedded within an event (Carrow-Woolfork, 1988). Paul (2001) further comments that event structures incorporate the use of functional scripts, which can focus on varying linguistic and social goals. The focus of scripts within event structures is on the target language rather than the play (Paul, 2001). Carrow-Woolfork (1988) describes that events and scripts are however different. Although they are both represented within the child’s memory, event representations do not necessarily correspond to the script (Carrow-Woolfork, 1988).
Procedure:
Paul (2001) describes the procedure for using event structures in the following way:
1. Choose an event structure that is from the ‘real/present’ world.
2. The clinician will primarily use surrounding props to role-play/act out the event structure, modelling the entire verbal script for the child.
3. The child will then attempt to re-enact the event structure
4. The clinician will provide cloze procedures to elicit larger parts of the script from the child.
5. The child will then be able to act out and produce the verbal script in its entirety.
6. It is then possible for the clinician and the child to ‘swap’ roles and act out the role from a different person’s perspective.
In order for the event representations to be accurately formed, children must have multiple experiences within smaller episodes of the event (Carrow-Woolfork, 1988). Carrow-Woolfork (1988) comment that the representation of the event will gradually change as the child gains increased understanding into episodes within the event. They will further analyse the episodes within the event to succumb to additional abstract cognitive structures (Carrow-Woolfork, 1988). Therefore as the child progresses through the delivery of this technique, they will not only become more aware of the event as a whole, but also smaller/finer details involved within the event
Resources/Training:
No specific resources are required. Props will be required throughout the re-enactment/acting out of the event structure.
Time Frame:
Unspecified
Evidence:
Paul (2001) describes the use of event structures for achieving various goals within e.g. syntax and vocabulary and also narratives (verbal literacy skills). He further describes them in detail as a hybrid method of intervention targeting children who have developing language.
Carrow-Woolfork (1988) comments that event structures are a useful intervention technique when working with pragmatic difficulties. She comments that the representation of event structures is a suitable explanation of the way children learn about language and the world. She further describes that event structures can be used to target specific language behaviours. The child can be exposed to new experiences, new vocabulary, and the development of syntactic structures. More complex language skills can also be developed including problem solving skills, the addition of increasing amounts of information, sharing feelings, planing the future as well as many other skills.
Although no research articles were found into the efficacy and effectiveness of using event structures as a technique within therapy, professional opinion was taken into account. Both Carrow-Woolfork (1988) and Paul (2001) have described event structures as intervention techniques for young children. The procedure involved with using event structures is logical and likely to be effective. It has been left up to the professional to decide whether they wish to use this technique within therapy.
Back to treatment options Back to top
ii.
Title:
Applebee’s Schema
Who:
Arthur Applebee created this technique, with his theory being documented within his book in 1978.
Population:
Applebee (1978) suggests that the development of the structure of narratives begins at approximately 2 years of age. Mature narrative structures are likely to be evident at approximately 5 years of age and be fully completed by the age of 9 years (Warr-Leeper, 1983). This suggests that Applebee’s schema would relate to children between the ages of approximately 2-9. Paul (2001) comments that modifications of Applebee’s schema have been used within research of language and learning disorders in children.
Explanation:
Vygotsky’s (1962) work in concept development according to Applebee (1978) can be a highly suggestive model for narrative form analysis. Using Vygotsky’s (1962) work as a basis, Applebee (1978) derived his own model of narrative development in relation to their structure. Applebee (1978) suggested that this developmental progression through narratives can form the basis for intervention relating to the acquisition of narrative structures.
Warr-Leeper (1983) proposed that Applebee’s schema can be used for the assessment of a child’s current level of narrative functioning, and furthermore as a basis for planning therapy around. Therefore the framework that Applebee (1978) has provided is detailed enough to be of use within the clinical setting. So rather than this being a technique or specific therapy intervention, it is rather a model/framework in which to place intervention therapy of narratives onto.
Procedure:
The stages of narrative development are described below. It is proposed that clinicians, teachers and parents can use this technique of narrative development as a guideline for planning therapy (Warr-Leeper, 1983). This may be done by commencing and discussing a story a stage above that of which the child is currently at, with the child then progressing through the stages of Appllebee’s Schema (Warr-Leeper, 1983).
Stage I – Also known as HEAPS
▫ Children at this level are 2-3 years of age (Paul, 2001).
▫ Applebee’s level was adapted from Vygotsky’s level also named ‘heaps’ (Applebee, 1978).
This level consists of the child describing and labelling objects and events (Warr-Leeper, 1983). Generally, no central themes or organisation is evident (Paul, 2001). No between group relationships are developed through descriptions and labelling, with these relationships tending to be based on immediate thoughts (Warr-Leeper, 1983).
Stage II – Also known as SEQUENCES
Children at this level are 3 years of age (Paul, 2001).
▫ Applebee’s level was adapted from Vygotsky’s level named ‘thinking in complexes’ (Applebee, 1978).
Within this level concrete and factual associations/links begin to be formed (Applebee, 1978).
The child begins to become aware that the story contains unique characteristics e.g. a central theme (Warr-Leeper, 1983). There no associations related to a cause, between events and the sequences of these events (Warr-Leeper, 1983; Applebee, 1978). So, the child is not required to attend to a central theme, but can attend to specific characters etc. within the story (Warr-Leeper, 1983). The child will often describe what a character has done rather than consider a plot (Paul, 2001).
Stage III – Also known as PRIMITIVE NARRATIVES
▫ Children at this level are 4-4 ½ years of age (Paul, 2001).
▫ Applebee’s level was adapted from Vygotsky’s level named ‘’collections’ (Applebee, 1978).
Children begin to realise that events within a story directly relate to
other factors within the story eg. Themes and attributes of characters (Warr-Leeper, 1983). The child sees significant importance within an event or object (Applebee, 1978). Simple inferences begin to be made by the child (Warr-Leeper, 1983). The stories produced contain the story grammar elements of an initiating event, and action/attempt and a consequence (Paul, 2001)
Stage IV – Also known as UNFOCUSED CHAINS
Children at this level are 4 ½ -5 years of age (Paul, 2001).
▫ Applebee’s level was adapted from Vygotsky’s level named ‘chain complex’ (Applebee, 1978).
Within this level, children show a cognitive change in the understanding of relationships between events (Warr-Leeper, 1983). Although there is no real evidence that the child has a conceived idea of an overall plot, they become aware that events lead directly on from each other (Warr-Leeper, 1983; Applebee, 1978). The thoughts that link these events together continue to shift throughout this level (Applebee, 1978).
Stage V – Also known as FOCUSED CHAINS
Children at this level are 4 ½ -5 years of age (Paul, 2001).
▫ Applebee’s level was adapted from Vygotsky’s level named ‘pseudo concepts’ (Applebee, 1978).
The children at this level begin to combine two aspects of the story, being that of how a sequence of events relates to a central core (Warr-Leeper, 1983). The processes of chaining and centring on factors within the story are clearly joined to form a narrative (Applebee, 1978).
Stage VI – Also known as NARRATIVES
▫ Children at this level are 5-7 years of age (Paul, 2001).
▫ Applebee’s level was adapted from Vygotsky’s level named ‘true concepts’ (Applebee, 1978).
Relationships that are causal are introduced within this level. As a result the focused chains will therefore be expanded to incorporate
more information and links. The children become aware that one event will branch from another and in turn consist of new information, with the story ultimately reaching a climax (Warr-Leeper, 1983). Stories now have a main theme, plot and characters (Paul, 2001). Within this narrative stage of development, Stein and Glem (1979) propose the use of their ‘Story Grammar’ structure, where events are linked by a causal and temporal connective (Warr-Leeper, 1983).
Resources/Training:
No resources are required. A sound understanding into the levels of narrative structure is however necessary in order to determine where the child is at. Resources in relation to narrative therapy ideas may be useful to assist with generating ideas.
Time Frame:
The time frame is unspecified and will depend on the child’s progression through the ‘stages of narrative development’. All children are different and will progress through various levels at different ages requiring a unique amount of time on each level.
Level of Evidence:
As Applebee’s schema is a theory rather than a specific intervention technique, research study’s containing subjects were difficult to locate. The theory’s effectiveness or efficacy can further be partially determined by the extent of the author’s (Paul, 2001; Frank, 1990; Warr-Leeper, 1983) to name a few, who support and recognise this theory/method. Applebee’s framework for narrative structure is well known and even taught to students studying to be speech pathologists. As Applebee’s theory was developed from Vygotsky’s concept development work, it can be said that Applebee’s theory has a good basis for which it is developed. It is important to remember that Applebee’s schema is a framework and is not directly used within therapy, but rather a basis for which therapy can be developed from.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
iii.
Title:
Stickwriting
Who:
The earliest article found relating to this technique was written in 1998 by Ukrainetz. Pictography has an extended past, dating back to Paleolithic times.
Population:
Paul (2001) commented that this technique is effective for children within the early narrative stages, as well as those that have language learning disabilities. It is further suitable for children who present with difficulty with literacy and language skills, who are likely to have corresponding difficulties with the mechanics of writing (Ukrainetz, 1998).
Explanation:
Ukraintez (1998) summarised that children who present with language disorders commonly have difficulties within the domain of narratives (Gillam & Johnson, 1992; Liles, 1985, 1987; Graybeal, 1981; MacLachlan & Chapman, 1988; Purcell & Liles, 1992; Merritt & Liles, 1987; Liles & Purcell, 1987). She continues to report that they are often intensified by difficulties within writing abilities (Catts, 1991; Catts, 1993).
Stickwriting aims to help children represent and plan time sequences within stories (Paul, 2001). This technique incorporates a visual representation of the story, assisting with the child’s understanding and progressive thinking of it. The visual images of the story then become visual cues, providing the children with extra support during recall, also helping them to preserve the story in which they have produced (Paul, 2001; Calkins, 1986; Myers, 1983; Ukraintez, 1998). Calkins (1986) and Myers (1983) further comment that using drawing with children is an effective way of stimulating ideas (Ukraintez, 1998).
Procedure:
Stickwriting is suitable within the classroom setting or with individual instruction (Ukrainetz, 1998). Stickwriting is to be used alongside verbal prompting (Paul, 2001). The child is required to progress through the following steps:
1. The clinician will help the child to sequence a story by asking them to draw what happened first. These drawings are called ‘pictographs’ and are similar to stick figures, being that of quick and basic drawing. Ukrainetz (1998) reports that children often become preoccupied with the drawing aspect of the process, however if they are swiftly reminded that the process needs to be quick this timing issue may be eliminated.
2. The clinician will then prompt the child to draw what happened next and so on until all main events within the story have been drawn. There will be a minimum of three scenes (beginning, middle and end), or as many as a dozen scenes (Ukrainetz, 1998).
3. On completion of the story, the child will then read it back to the clinician using the visual cues (pictographs) as prompts to support them. To extend children’s language, depending on their specific language goals, they may be encouraged to elaborate on the pictures, extend the story or discuss specific events, characters etc. (Ukrainetz,1998).
Prolonged use of drawing (stickwriting) as a technique when working with narratives is not recommended. The reason for this is to prevent the child from simply writing about the drawing instead of elaborating and extending on ideas within the pictures (Calkins, 1986).
Resources/Training:
No resources are required besides pencils and paper to produce Stickwriting on to.
Time Frame:
Unspecified.
Evidence:
Paul (2001) stated that research into the technique of Stickwriting has demonstrated its benefits/effectiveness for increasing early narratives in relation to their quality and length. Paul further noted that Stickwriting allows a greater focus on the content of a story compared with that of the mechanics of writing (Paul, 2001).
Ukrainetz (1998) article also describes the process of stickwriting, and states the reason for its success in developing narrative skills. She comments that through the use of temporal and visual representation seen with pictographs, various language goals can be targeted. Throughout her work with these children, she has observed benefits within the facilitation of time sequences occurring when she focuses more on content rather than spelling, resulting in outcome productions of a greater overall quality. Within this article, Ukrainetz has also reported the transcription of children’s retelling of the narratives following this approach. No extensive research study was completed and described within this article. However, Ukrainetz sees this technique as effective and favourable when working with narratives.
Ukrainetz McFadden (1998) was a research study conducted into the effectiveness of pictographs (used within stickwriting), focusing on the way a child represents narratives. The study incorporated 61 children who were between the ages 7;10-9;1. The children were taught pictography, and were then required to draft narratives either through pictographs, writing, or producing ‘good copies’ of their draft. Results showed the pictograph process to be quicker than the other methods. Furthermore, it resulted in an increased length of oral narratives, with improved temporal organisation. Finally, there was no difference between the written good copies of the narratives produced by the children.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
iv.
Title:
Scaffolding
Who:
Scaffolding is used as a metaphor, meaning ‘discourse to aid children with reaching a competence higher than what was previous thought of’. This began in the late 1970s and amplified through the 1980s (Nelson, 2005).
Target population:
Paul (2001) comments that this technique can be adapted to incorporate an extended population of preschoolers. Paul further notes that preschoolers with language learning disabilities are also suited to this technique (Paul, 2001).
Explanation of technique:
Scaffolding is based on Vygotsky's ‘zone of proximal development’ (Morgan, 2005). This indicates that adults pitch their instruction at a level just above what could be achieved by the child if they were alone (Morgan, 2005).
Shames and Anderson (2002) describe scaffolding as being a technique in which an adult provides contextual support to children in order to increase the likelihood of the child’s active participation within language interactions. Scaffolding can more easily be defined as the structuring of a response, similar to providing an outline in which work can be completed on to (Paul, 2001). Shames and Anderson (2002) and Paul (2001) add that scaffolding is a way of modelling language and showing children how interaction style varies. Furthermore, scaffolding is often viewed as a social means of teaching children the central purpose of language intervention that being, control of inner processes (Nelson, 2005).
Nelson (2005) comments that scaffolding should not lead children to producing correct answers. Rather, scaffolding should support the child through providing experience, so that they can accurately and independently produce answers and comments, thus developing enhanced language abilities. Furthermore, scaffolding is intended to assist children with developing independent use of effective skills and strategies rather than becoming dependant on an adult (Nelson, 2005). Via speech pathologists and educators providing there children with scaffolds, they are gradually assisting them to achieve superior levels of communicative and conceptual competencies (Silliman, Bahr, Beasman, and Wilkinson, 2000). Effective scaffolding aims to assist children with reaching a superior level of competency, and in turn independently remain there (Nelson, 2005).
Procedure:
The technique of scaffolding can easily be modified/adapted to better suit the child. The way this is done will depend on the child’s current language status and will change as there is an increase in the amount of language acquired (Shames and Anderson, 2003). Scaffolding can also be modified to suit different goals that the professional has for the child. Shames and Anderson (2003) provide a good example of this, commenting that a main focal point for children with emerging discourse could be on their turn taking skills.
The procedure for scaffolding is grossly described in the following way by Shames and Anderson (2003):
1. A book should be selected which matches the child’s language level. The content of the book should further appeal to the child’s interest and relate in some way to the child’s personal experiences. Scaffolding often begins with children focusing on information that they already know (Nelson, 2005).
2. Professionals will ‘scaffold’ language by showing the child what to pay attention to.
3. This is done by commenting on and pointing to salient features (e.g. objects, events etc.) within the book/language.
4. This could also be done by asking the child questions about the story, letters, or sounds etc. within the book/language. It is important to note that questions within scaffolding are used as guides, rather than ‘tests’ (Nelson, 2005). Professionals may wish to provide their children with feedback into the correctness of their answers, assisting them with identifying missing pieces required for effective problem solving (Nelson, 2005). In addition, professionals may model the process known as ‘thinking aloud’ in the aim of promoting self-talk of their children within problem solving processes (Nelson, 2005).
Based on the work of Bellon & Olgetree (2000), & Justice & Ezell (2002); the following strategies can be used as scaffolding techniques:
- Cloze procedure
- Expansions
- Print referencing
- Pointing
- Binary Choices
- Gesturing
- Cueing
- Comprehension questions
(Liboiron & Soto, 2006)
Nelson (2005) describes the need for educators to use instructional scaffolding forms often in whole group contexts to promote learning in general curriculum. She further commented that comparatively, speech pathologist should use scaffolds that target gaps within language processing abilities directly, often within individual or small group interactions (Nelson, 2005).
Resources/Training:
Scaffolding is seen to be a simple technique that does not require intensive training or lengthy planning. It may however be helpful to complete some additional reading into the procedure or observe peers using this technique.
Time Frame:
The time frame is unspecified as this technique is an ongoing process that can be used for a variety of activities to suit progressive language abilities.
Level of Evidence:
Silliman, Bahr, Beasman, and Wilkinson (2000) completed a research study incorporating 2 children with language learning disabilities and 2 younger children who were typically developing. The study consisted of two research groups, with a special educator delivering the technique to one group, and a general educator to the other group. The sessions lasted approximately 29 minutes and occurred 13 times within the duration of 8 weeks. The children were videotaped whilst they were involved in their emergent literacy groups. Sequences of scaffolding were transcribed and then coded according to the type of scaffold used. The four types of scaffolds used were; offering explanations, modelling, clarifying understanding and requesting verbal participation. Results found that scaffolding emphasised direct instruction rather than analytical thinking in relation to graph phonemic relationships. It was further found that the general educator and special educator used similar scaffolding techniques to cater for the needs of their children, with the technique not being differentiated in any way between the children.
Nelson’s (2005) article discusses the ways in which speech pathologists and educators utilise scaffolding. She describes scaffolding as a technique that allows the speech pathologist to frame cues and systematically select areas that the children present ‘gaps’ in. She further illustrates the procedure of scaffolding. Within this procedure she comments that the children should begin at a level that is familiar to them, the children may then use ‘think aloud’ strategies, and clinicians should provide their children with feedback. She reports that through the use of effective scaffolding, children are being supported in becoming independent in using higher levels of language. She further notes that she often has to remind clinicians to take the scaffolding down, rather then leaving it there. Additionally she found scaffolding to have discourse structures that were identifiable, although not firmly scripted.
Liboiron & Soto (2006) looks at the way an experienced practitioner uses the technique of scaffolding within shared book reading sessions. The subject used had cerebral palsy, used AAC and was aged 11. Liboiron & Soto (2006) discuss scaffolding as a creative, flexible, changing structure. They report that it assists children so that they require less guidance from adults, and places a large amount of importance on the social support of development and learning. The article describes that scaffolding language of children who are significantly delayed within their language abilities, leads to improvements within the production of language as well as the child’s narrative comprehension. Results showed that the majority of scaffolding techniques used by the experienced practitioner resulted in superior levels of semantic complexity (e.g. inference, interpreting, and metalanguage). Liboiron & Soto (2006) also reported that both child and adult contributed at similar levels throughout that shared experience. The results obtained during this study suggest that shared book reading in this context (with the use of scaffolding) can be useful for children using AAC.
It is important to note that scaffolding can be applied to children within many ways and forms and will depend on the teacher/speech pathologist as to the way they wish to use it. Many articles noted the important effect of the development of more mature language forms occurring following scaffolding within storybook reading. However the exact efficacy of scaffolding was difficult to gauge due to its heterogeneous method. There is an abundance of information and professionals who strongly support this technique as evidenced in language texts.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
v.
Title:
Script Therapy
Who:
It is unclear from research as to who was the founder of the use of script therapy.
Population:
Scripts are intended to be used with a younger population of children, however is likely to also be suitable for adults with developmental disabilities. From research, it has been made evident that a lot of the research and information into script therapy lies within books related to developmental disabilities, in particular Autism. Autistic children will often make use of scripts daily to assist them.
Explanation:
Script therapy is described as a way of decreasing the cognitive demands of language training (Olswang & Bain, 1991). Carrow-Woolfork (1988) describes scripts as providing children with specific roles for characters, actions and correct props required.
Scripts involve professionals embedding children’s language training into a framework of a familiar routine (Paul, 2001). So scripts provide children with mental images of the sequences/routines involved within events (Brookshire, 1997). Routines are activities which have specific progressions/lines of action. Once the child learns these routines, they are generally performed mechanically by the child (Graham & Avent, 2004). Graham and Avent (2004) further comment that these routines standardise an individuals life e.g. eating three main meals a day, having a shower, brushing teeth etc. These routines are developed with children, through adult assistance and often through verbal means. Routines can be established within day-to day activities or in games (Paul, 2001). Once the child understands a routine well, and has developed a script for it, then they will be able to predict what may come next at any given point, and may therefore have no need for a physical script, rather it is now ‘tuned’ in their behaviours/thoughts.
Paul (2001) describes play scripts (rather than the general language scripts) to have an important role in developing children’s play skills. Play, of course, is one of the main places were language is developed and grown. Play can have an important role in elaborating pre-existing scripts (Paul, 2001). Within interactions requiring conversation, scripts can be used to organise presented information and plan what may be coming next (Graham & Avent, 2004).
Procedure:
There are many different ways in which scripts can be used e.g. scripts can be used in conjunction with event structures, through play etc. Scripts are usually based on interactions using stories, chants, finger play, songs, poems etc. (Paul, 2001).
According to Paul (2001), there are three different types of scripts that can be used with children. These are:
1. Event scripts e.g. dismissal time at school, lunchtime, coming to class in the morning.
2. Oral scripts e.g. getting help from a teacher, reading aloud, request for clarification.
3. Written scripts e.g. writing in a journal, book reports, creative writing.
Scripts can be used in a variety of ways and take on different structures depending on the population targeted and the type of script used. Paul (2001) discussed a brief procedure of how a script can be carried out within language training. The procedure’s basic and involves the professional exposing the child to the script through modelling and other means (e.g. picture sequences, written account of the script etc.). Paul (2001) recommends that the professional using this technique, then playfully violate/sabotage the routine in the aim of the child correcting the violation
Resources/Training:
Similar to scaffolding, using the technique of scripts does not require intensive training, however may require some additional planning/preparing. There are several books and websites listed below that may be of interest to professionals wanting to effectively utilise this technique within the clinical or school setting.
Time Frame:
The time frame is unspecified. Scripts can be adapted to suit the child’s needs/goals and therefore can be used with a variety of children, at different times of the day, for different lengths of time.
Evidence:
Taylor and Iacono (2003) completed a study incorporating the scripting of play activities in conjunction with modelling of vocabulary and sign. It was a multiple baseline design consisting of a single subject. The subject was 3;6 years of age and had a mild intellectual disability. Results indicated that scripted play activities and modelling resulted in increased levels of symbolic play. The rate of the pretend play behaviours that were exhibited by the subject increased with the introduction of scripts within a context. Furthermore, there were also changes in the types of functional play engaged in.
Charlop-Christy & Kelso (2003) conducted a study looking at the efficacy of a written script/cue card program. The study involved the creation of scripted conversations that were abstract and appropriate for the population within the study. The study incorporated three Autistic boys aged 8, 9, and 10. The boys were taught to respond to questions asked within conversation and in return ask a contextually appropriate question. Results showed the children to initially have decreased amounts of conversational speech. With the therapy implementation, the children began to meet the criteria for the training and were able to respond correctly, no longer requiring the cue/script cards. They further found that the children’s responding within conversations extended to topics that were untrained and to other conversational partners within differing settings.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
READING AND GENERAL LITERACY
i.
Title:
Print Referencing
Who Created it:
Laura Justice and Helen Ezell where well known for promoting and research into the effectiveness of print referencing within storybook reading. The first study found in relation to the correlation between print referencing and early literacy skills was found to have occurred in 2000.
Target population:
This technique is suggested for children at risk of early literacy delay, especially those children with language impairments and those with developmental disabilities (Justice and Ezell, 2004). Overall, it is designed to appeal to the preschool population (Justice and Ezell, 2000; Justice et al, 2002).
Explanation of technique:
Justice and Ezell (2004) describe print referencing as an evidence-based strategy aimed at enhancing young children’s emergent literacy skills. Print referencing is used to assist with the acquisition of written language skills during the emergent literacy period (Justice and Ezell, 2004). There is a metalinguisitc focus on storybook reading interactions. Justice (2005) noted that these storybook reading interactions assist professionals with explicitly and systematically drawing attention to print. Additionally, Badian (2000) states that the knowledge of letter names by children within their preschool age, is a predictor of reading achievement in later schooling years (Justice & Ezell, 2004).
Professionals will use both nonverbal and verbal cues embedded in storybook reading to promote a child’s awareness to print (Justice and Ezell, 2004). This awareness to print incorporates functions, features and forms of written language (Justice and Ezell, 2004). Justice and Ezell (2004) further comment that a child begins to individually attend to print forms through the process of print referencing.
Procedure:
This technique is to be implemented by professionals during story book reading interactions. Cues given to the child throughout reading can be either one or a mixture of both verbal and nonverbal.
Nonverbal cues include:
1. Pointing to print.
2. Tracking print during reading.
(Justice & Ezell, 2004)
Verbal cues include:
1. Commenting on print.
2. Asking questions in relation to print.
3. Requesting information about print.
(Justice & Ezell, 2004)
There are five main literacy topics involved in the delivery procedure for print referencing. The cues discussed above, are used at varying times to assist the child with the development and attainment of these topics. These topics as described by Justice & Ezell (2004, 2000) are:
1. Print concepts – This refers to the child’s numerous amounts of knowledge within the features, forms and functions of print (Clay, 1979; Justice & Ezell, 2001; Justice & Ezell, 2004). Examples of these are listed below:
- Print flows from left to right.
- Print flows from the top to bottom.
- The way in which print is used to convey meaning.
- Names of varying grammatical markers e.g. question marks.
- The way in which a book is read and handled.
(Justice & Ezell, 2004)
2. Alphabet knowledge – This refers to the child’s knowledge of letter names, possessing knowledge within the understanding, and speaking of them. Examples of smaller parts within this greater knowledge are:
- Differences between letters.
- Names of letters (how to say and sound them).
- Exploring connections between words and corresponding letters.
- Discovering features distinctive to certain letters.
(Justice & Ezell, 2004)
3. Concept of word – This refers to the understanding that words are separate units of language (Justice and Ezell, 2004). Roberts (1992) describes that there is an increased understanding into the way print is organised and the way in which the level of a word is linked to speech and print (Justice & Ezell, 1992). Examples of smaller parts within this greater part of knowledge as described by Justice and Ezell (2000) are:
- Differences between the length of words
- Differences between separate words
- Spaces in between words
- Pointing to specific words on the page
4. Word Segmentation – This refers to the child’s ability to segment strings of words into individual word units (Justice and Ezell, 2000). Examples of how this can be achieved through storybook reading, is by asking the child to determine the number of words spoken. Alternatively, the child might determine the second word in the string of words produced by the professional (Justice and Ezell, 2000).
5. Print Recognition – This refers to the child’s ability of identifying contextualised print stimuli occurring in illustrations of storybooks i.e. print occurring within illustrations of the book (Justice and Ezell, 2000). This is achieved through storybook reading where the child is asked to read or attempt to read words that the professional points to (Justice and Ezell, 2000).
Print referencing is recommended to be primarily used in the promotion of a child’s interest in print. Once the child has developed an interest, then multiple focused conversations are used to draw attention to words, print and the attainment of knowledge in relation to the alphabet (as mentioned in the above stages) (Justice and Ezell, 2004). These factors to which the child’s attention is being drawn will relate to the function, form, convention and part-whole relationships to the print within the story (Justice and Ezell, 2004).
Resources/Training:
No training is required for the effective delivery of this technique. There are some useful books and journals listed below, describing the process of print referencing in more detail.
Time Frame:
The time frame is variable on the child’s abilities and rate of progression through tasks and storybooks.
Level of Evidence:
Justice and Ezell (2000) completed a study incorporating 28 parents and their 4 year old children. The subjects were assigned to either the control group or experimental group. A pre-test post-test control group was used in the research design. The method of the study consisted of the parents administering a home based shared reading program, where they were instructed to use print referencing techniques throughout. Within this program, they were required to read 2 books each week, over the duration of 4 weeks. Results showed there to be a significant enhancement in several areas relating to print and word awareness in relation to early literacy skills. This was as a consequence of parents using print referencing techniques with their children. More specifically, these enhancements in print and word awareness related to print concepts, word segmentation and word concepts.
Justice, Weber, Ezell and Bakeman (2002) completed a study incorporating 15 parents and their preschool children (with a mean age of 4; 6). A sequential analysis was used within this study. The main focus of this study was to determine preschoolers’ responsiveness to parental print referencing through a rhyming book. Information collected was from a single shared reading session. Results showed children to respond at the level of 60% to parental print referencing technique. It was further found, compared with comments, that prompts were significantly more likely to elicit a response.
Ezell and Justice (2000) completed a study incorporating 24 female graduate students who were audiologists or speech pathologists. They used print referencing within storybook reading with typically developing 4 year old children. There was both a control group and an experimental group. Those graduates within the experimental group were required to view a video demonstrating the use of comments, requests and questions. A pre-test post-test control group design was used. Results showed the experimental group post-test to use the references of pointing to print, tracking, questions, comments and requests significantly more often than the control group participants did. It was also found that the children working with the graduates, who had viewed the video, significantly produced more verbal utterances in reference to print.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
ii.
Title:
Shared Storybook Reading
Who:
There are a number of researchers and authors who believe that shared storybook reading is an effective strategy for developing emergent literacy skills (Dickinson, 1994; Hornsby, 2000; Dorn, French & Jones, 1998; Lehr & Osborne, 1994). For some time shared story-book reading has existed within the school and home environments, and researchers continue to develop studies to asses and support the effectiveness of this strategy.
Population:
Holdaway (1982; 1990) comment that shared book experiences can be applied to children within their first year of school, with principles of it being able to be applied to older children (Westwood, 2004). Much of the research into this technique has been with preschool children, or early school aged children. This technique is therefore recommended for younger children, however does not suggest that these are the only individuals who may benefit from this technique.
Explanation:
Rasinski & Padak (2000) note that the theory behind shared storybook reading is a whole language approach, with a strong belief that learning to read is a social experience that requires guidance and support (Westwood, 2004). Shared storybook reading provides the child with a balance of challenges and supports in the text whilst encouraging them to participate in reading (Hornsby, 2000).
The process of shared storybook reading aims to assist with the child’s development of concepts in relation to print, phonological awareness, word recognition skills, awareness of syntactical patterns within text, as well as with using contextual cues and various comprehension strategies (Westwood, 2004). Additionally, studies relating to preschool children who are either typically developing or delayed have shown that vocabulary development, conversational development, morpho-syntactic abilities and emergent literacy knowledge may be enhanced through storybook reading (Kaderavek & Justice, 2002). Westwood (2004) comments that when shared storybook reading is skilfully implemented, it represents some main principles of effective teaching, such as attention holding, modelling, demonstration and active participation.
Procedure:
Shared storybook reading can be used within the school setting with educators, within the clinical setting with speech pathologists, or more commonly used within the home with adults/parents.
Different studies and research into the effectiveness of shared storybook reading have yielded different processes or factors/tasks to promote literacy within the shared reading. Often though, this difference is not dramatic.
It is important to note however, that the professional delivering this strategy should have engaging texts for the child. The text should be large enough to share between the two individuals as well as containing many illustrations (Westwood, 2004). Children and the professional/parent working with them may discuss the story before and after it is read (Westwood, 2004). It is important to note that the shared storybook reading experience should be enjoyable for the child and engage them in wanting to share further experiences.
According to Westwood (2004), Holdaway’s (1982; 1990) learning model may be suited to the procedure of shared storybook reading. This learning model is as follows
1. Demonstration (of the reading of the text).
2. Guided participation (throughout the reading processes).
3. Individual reading (reading with no assistance by peers)
4. Performance (children read the storybook aloud to peers)
Hornsby (2000) describes the shared storybook reading procedure in the following way:
1. The texts are read and then reread. Maximum supports are provided to the child. The professional delivering this strategy may primarily read the book in its entirety if they choose to. Along the way, they will be providing children with requests to predict parts within the text.
2. With increased familiarity of the text, professionals demonstrate, and in turn, teach children reading strategies. Strategies to assist these children within relevant problem solving tasks may be completed through the use of masking questions, cloze procedures, pointers, sentence strips, framing and word cards (Dorn et al, 1998).
3. Children will also work at developing a sense the story, by exploring various aspects of it e.g. characters, setting etc.
4. Children take on an increased level of control over their reading, progressively reading more of the story.
5. Through the children explaining reading strategies, they are developing their articulatory skills.
6. Once the child is familiar with the text, they are taught specific skills. These skills relate to word and letter levels which are involved in the reading process.
7. The child should ultimately be able to independently read the storybook aloud, making use of the strategies learned and knowledge base gained.
It is important to note that the level of teacher support is likely to vary depending on the child’s abilities.
Additionally, Klesius and Griffith (1998) comment on behaviours such as the following, that should be incorporated by the adult within shared storybook reading:
- Clarification of information.
- Summarising information.
- Using the technique of scaffolding gauge children’s thinking.
- Extension of vocabulary.
- Drawing the child’s attention to key features within the text.
- Developing a story structure for the child.
(Westwood, 2004)
Westwood (2004) maintains that a shared story-book reading experience must be well though out, regardless of the type of techniques that the adult decides to incorporate. The sessions should be well prepared to be certain that no opportunities are missed within the sharing experience. The process should be natural and smooth flowing, rather than being seen by the child as homework or teaching.
Resources/Training:
No specific resources are required for this strategy expect some engaging books for the child. Parents, who wish to find out more about the shared storybook reading process, should attain additional references into shared storybook reading procedures, to assist them in their strategy delivery.
Time Frame:
There is no general consensus into the amount of time per day that children should engage in shared storybook reading. This task is often completed by many parents throughout the day, where one book in its entirety is read, which is likely to be approximately 20 minutes.
Evidence:
There is an abundance of information and research studies in to the effectiveness of shared storybook reading, with a large focus on mother-child interactions. Much research within this field was found to be in regard to mothers and families with low levels of socioeconomic status. It is important to note that not all children will benefit from shared book reading, depending on various factors such as their enjoyment through the process, the type of book chosen, the pressures placed on the interaction etc.
Roberts, Jurgens, and Burchinal (2005) completed a longitudinal study incorporating 72 African American children aged between 3-5 years and their mothers or primary care givers. The study was based on how four home literacy strategies (shared book reading, the child’s enjoyment of reading, maternal book reading strategies and maternal sensitivity) impacted on the child’s emergent literacy skills. The children’s mothers were interviewed every year from 18months up to 5 years of age. Furthermore, mothers were observed reading to their children, (when the child was 2 years then again at 3 and 4 years). Results showed modest correlations between specific home literacy practices. They found a significant association between maternal sensitivity and maternal use of book reading strategies in relation to increased receptive vocabulary abilities at 3 years of age and again on entry into kindergarten. It was also found that the most consistent and best predictor of a child’s early literacy and language skills lay within the global measures of responsiveness and home environment support.
Hontz Hockenberger, Goldstein and Siriannji Haas (1999) conducted a study looking at mothers’ interactions with their children within shared book reading, and whether this related to increased communicative interactions and/or improved emergent literacy skills. The study incorporated 4 children at risk and 3 children with developmental disabilities. An embedded withdrawal design was used for the evaluation of interactions. Mothers were taught how to comment on literacy aspects within the shared reading interaction. Results suggest that mothers using specific comments to their children during shared reading will aid mother child interactions. Furthermore the shared reading experience seemed to be linked to improved emergent literacy skills.
Morgan (2005) conducted a study examining three mother-child dyads in relation to their shared reading interactions. The study incorporated 3 year old children and their mothers. The mothers were videotaped on 4 different occasions during shared storybook reading interactions. The study found mothers within higher socioeconomic areas to use superior and sophisticated behaviours within interactions. It is also likely that praise positively influenced confidence, picture naming influenced vocabulary understanding, and listening influenced abstract thinking.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
iii. Title:
Guided Reading
Who:
The two individuals who appear to promote guided reading the most are Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinell
Population:
Westwood (2004) states that this strategy is used with children after grades 3 and 4. These children will be in the early stages of literacy development (Kouri, Selle and Reily, 2006). It is a strategy intended to be used with small groups of children (Yola Centre, 2005). Hornsby (2000) indicates that these groups of children tend to be at the same developmental level.
Explanation:
Guided reading is a way of developing a child’s reading strategies and skills, in the ultimate aim that they become independent readers (Hornsby, 2004). Fountas and Pinell (1996) describe these strategies to develop with increasing exposure to text of escalating levels of difficulty. Additionally, the positive influences that feedback strategies can have (like those used with guided reading) have been noted.
Guided reading simply involves the child reading aloud to the professional delivering the strategy whilst the professional provides differing forms of instructional input (Kouri, Selle and Reiley, 2006). Guided reading assists children with comprehending text of various difficulties, as well as with the processing and recalling of salient information within the text (Westwood, 2004). It assists children by providing insights into specific difficulties that they may be having throughout the reading process (Kouri, Selle and Reily, 2006).
Procedure:
The main focus of the guidance provided by professionals within the delivery of guided reading is to assist with the child’s strategic approach used within reading comprehension (Westwood, 2004). Westwood (2004) describes the procedure of guided reading to be separated into three main stages. Within these stages, professionals will read a text with the child and complete various self designed activities. Texts used within guided reading are generally short enough in length to be completed in one session and are generally unfamiliar to the children (Hornsby, 2004). With guidance from the professional delivering the program, the following three stages are gradually completed:
Stage 1: Before Reading
The child is provided with a plan and purpose into the reading of the text. Within stage 1, the professional delivering guided reading may:
- Encourage children to develop questions about the text.
- Discuss with the child any prior knowledge that they have in relation to a topic.
- Ask the child to make predictions about events and characters within the
text.
- Discuss pictures, authors, illustrators, font style etc present on the front page of
the text.
(Westwood, 2004)
Stage 2: During Reading
The child is guided through the reading of the text by the professional who provides them with both supports and challenges, as in the following examples:
- Correct the child when they error on words, lose their place in the text, stop reading, and when they perseverate on words (Kouri, Selle and Reiley, 2006).
- Encourage children to develop questions about the text.
- Use the skills of comparing/similarities and contrasting/differences.
- Begin to critically analyse the text (keeping in mind the child’s level of language
development).
- Develop a list of the main events and ideas within the text.
(Westwood, 2004)
Stage 3: After Reading
The child reflects on their reading, begins to summarise recalled information and will retell it using their own words. This stage is generally led by the professional working with the child, with the child encouraged to actively participate in group discussions. The following factors could be focused on in this stage:
- Evaluate the story and their reading abilities
- Recall the progression of events that occurred within the story.
- Ask the child questions relating to parts of the story, encourage them to use their
personal opinions as well as contentions within the story.
(Westwood, 2004)
Kouri, Selle and Riley (2006) discuss the effectiveness of the type of feedback strategies provided within these guided reading sessions. They compare skills instruction incorporating graph phonemic feedback with a whole language approach incorporating the meaning of text. Within the graph phonemic feedback, prior to reading, professionals segmented ‘oddly’ spelt words into syllables and assisted children with the pronunciation of them. Within the meaning of text feedback strategy, prior to reading, the professional explained the definition of unfamiliar words to the child. They concluded that graph-phonemic cues are more effective for typically developing children. The use of both cues was effective for children with specific language impairment.
Resources/Training:
Resources such as the texts below can be used to assist professionals in understanding guided reading. Westwood (2004), recommend Yopp & Yopp (2001), to be a beneficial reference for providing professionals with ideas for activities that can be used within the three stages of guided reading.
Time Frame:
The timeframe for this strategy is unspecified.
Level of Evidence:
Kouri, Selle and Riley (2006) completed a study incorporating 14 children with specific language impairment and 21 children with typically developing language. These children were in the second and third grades of their schooling. The children were required to read two stories aloud, whilst the examiner used corrective feedback when errors occurred. One of the feedback strategies emphasised the meaning aspect of the text, based on the whole language approach. The other strategy was graph phonemic word decoding strategy, focussing on a skills instruction approach. Prior to reading the children where provided instruction (emphasising either graph phonemic aspects or the meaning) with 5 key words from the texts. Following reading, the children where asked story comprehension questions. Results showed that children provided with the graph phonemic feedback cues, were more likely to correct errors within words they produced. Children with specific language impairment benefited from both strategies. Overall story comprehension was improved with children who received graph phonemic feedback cues.
Schwartz (2005) describes guided reading as being a context of power for beginning reading instruction. The article discusses the guided reading process and how it can be implemented within the classroom. He comments that the teacher’s role within providing children with immediate responses within the process is complicated and requires skill. Schwartz comments that through his experience working with primary educators, he has found them to provide children with rich introductions to books preparing the children to understand the meaning and structure of the story. The discussions that educators take part in after book reading assist with the development of comprehension and word recognition knowledge. He further acknowledges that the combination of guided reading and language text levelled at the right difficulty will permit children to read meaningful books successfully whilst extending their letter and word knowledge and the combination of letters and words to form messages and text.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
iv.
Title:
Dialogic Reading
Who:
David Arnold and Grover Whitehurst
Population:
Dickinson (1994) suggests that this technique is appropriate for children of the ages two and three. It is further commented that the program aims to target children that are currently at risk of future academic failure for whatever reason that may be.
Explanation:
Dialogic reading has been based on research into the positive relationship between improved language skills of preschool children, and other book related activities/programs aiming to develop preschool reading abilities before entry into primary school (Dickinson, 1994). It is structured to increase the rate of language development of 2-3 year olds (Dickinson, 1994). It also aims to stimulate the child’s language skills through this engaging storybook reading program.
Dickinson (1994) states that dialogic reading is based on three main principles. These are according to Dickinson (1994) as follows:
1. Evocative Techniques
These encourage children to be active participants throughout story time.
2. Parental Feedback
Parents will feedback information to the child to encourage their participation and facilitate reading development. They will do this through providing language models, expanding and correcting what the child says as well as praising them.
3. Progressive Change
The professional working with the child will continuously encourage them to ‘press the boundaries’ and support them with eliciting a higher level of language to that which is expected of them. It is therefore based on the idea that the development of language can progresses quicker if boundaries of the proximal region are pressed further than they would be pressed naturally.
Procedure:
Within Dialogic reading, the professional has the role of being an active listener, while the child is the story teller (Whitehurst et al, 1994). This occurs through the reading of a storybook aloud, with the professional asking questions and expanding on what the child says. This is achieved through the division of dialogic reading into two main groups/assignments. Within each assignment, professionals are taught the following factors in relation to the delivery of the program. The professionals are then expected to use what they learn in these assignments with their clients via storybooks.
Assignment 1:
1. Ask the child “What” questions.
2. Follow the child’s answers with new questions.
3. Repeat to the child what they have just said.
4. Provide assistance to the child when they require it.
5. Provide the child with sufficient amounts of praise and encouragement.
6. The adult will follow the interest of the child.
7. The process will be enjoyable.
(Dickinson, 1994)
Assignment 2:
1. Ask the child open-ended questions.
2. Model a slightly more advanced form of what the child says.
3. Ask the open ended questions in relation to pictures within the book.
4. Use repetitions of what the child has said to assist with eliciting an additional response from the child.
5. Expand on the child’s answers or comments. It is important that these expansions are short and simple.
5. The process will continue to from enjoyable.
(Dickinson, 1994)
Resources/Training:
Storybooks will be required as the source of reading.
Time Frame:
The duration recommended for the instruction of this program according to Dickinson (1994), is approximately 10 minutes 5 days a week for the duration of 6 weeks.
Evidence:
The Yola Center (2005) described the effectiveness of dialogic reading. They discussed that the effects of dialogic reading have been proved both statistically and educationally significant for language, relating to grammatical complexity and expressive vocabulary. However these intervention studies consisted of small groups of children rather than a whole class.
Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, and Epstein’s (1994) study was a replicated study of Whitehurst et al (1988) which looked at the great effect dialogic reading had on preschooler’s language development. The main issue arising from Whitehurst et al.’s (1988) study was that the technique was costly. In the study conducted by Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst and Epstein (1994) an instructional videotape package for the teaching of dialogic reading was provided. Mothers within this study were randomly assigned to either receive no training (control), the videotape as training, or direct traditional training. The study incorporated 64 children, aged between 24-34 months, and their mothers. Results of this study correlated with those derived from Whitehurst (1988). This was that dialogic reading had a powerful effect on the development of children’s language skills. The videotape that was produced was cost effective and provided a means for the correct implementation of dialogic reading.
Studies completed by Crain-Thoreson and Dale (1999) and Valdez-Menchaca and Whitehurst (1992) further agree that dialogic reading results in improved language/literacy skills within the preschool and early school aged population.
Back to treatment options Back to top
v.
Title:
Cloze Procedure
Who:
Wilson Taylor in 1953
Population:
Cloze procedure has been used with both school aged and preschool children. It presents in two forms, oral and written. It is therefore suitable for both children who have not yet developed reading skills and for those who have.
Explanation:
The theoretical model on which cloze procedure was originally based, was gestalt psychology (Rye, 1982). The model describes an individual’s tendency to complete unfinished but familiar patterns. Within cloze deletions, individuals do not necessarily ‘see’ the pattern, but use their cognitive skills to fill in the gaps, therefore showing that gestalt psychology didn’t really fit with this pattern (Rye, 1982). Rye (1982) additionally comments that such a theoretical model fails to adequately take into account the cognitive nature of the cloze procedure technique.
Parker and Unsworth (1986) comment that cloze procedure is seen as appealing by many professionals from a theoretical perspective. Parker and Unsworth (1986) comment that this is due to similar behaviours being present when successfully replacing words, to that of normal reading according to psycholinguistic accounts of reading processes (Goodman, 1967, 1976; Smith, 1973).
Below is what Parker and Unsworth (1986) describe as the main factors that children will understand from cloze procedure experiences:
1. The act of reading involves the active search for a meaning.
2. The overall meaning of the text is deemed more important than articulating/guessing every word in the text correctly.
3. The same thing can be said in many different ways.
4. Readers that are skilled will often make inferences or educated guesses about word meanings.
These understandings can begin to develop prior to the stage where the child begins to develop formal reading skills (Parker & Unsworth, 1986). This can be achieved through oral cloze within shared storybook experiences. When using oral cloze, Parker and Unsworth (1986), recommend that professionals/adults use MeLennan’s Procedure involving the child predicting, justifying, comparing before discussing their suggestions.
Procedure:
Children will use some or all of syntax, semantic, vocabulary, and often grapho-phonic cues in order to determine the most suitable word to be placed in the position of the missing word (Westwood, 2004).
The process of cloze procedure generally involves certain words or parts of words within the text being deleted, replacing them with spaces/underlines of standardised length (Westwood, 2004). Parker and Unsworth (1986) recommend these standardised lengths to be 3-4 centimetres in length, or approximately 12 typed letter spaces. The child is then expected to read through the text and suggest/guess appropriate words suitable to be placed within the space. As the child progresses through the text, they will make active decisions as to whether their suggestions are confirmed or require modifications (Parker and Unsworth, 1986).
The words to be deleted from the text will vary depending on what the main goal of the activity is e.g. if the main goal of the activity is to develop an awareness of word endings, then the parts of words will be deleted. The words purposely chosen to be deleted will assist the children to use the cues in the context, mentioned above, in order to derive appropriate word replacements (Parker & Unsworth, 1986). The proportion of words to be deleted from the text again will vary depending on the goals of the activity.
Walker (2000) suggest that cloze procedure are exercises that can be used following a shared storybook experience or guided reading, or as individual activities in their own right. It is further suggested that cloze procedures can be used as part of group, class or individual activities.
Resources/Training:
Text forms used with cloze procedure should engage the child and appeal to their interest levels. The child should further be able to make use of prior knowledge when deriving meaning from the text (Parker & Unsworth, 1986). Text forms that can be used include; jokes, poems, storybooks, fables, songs, recipes, advertisements, textbooks to simply name a few. All of these text forms should however to ‘real’ texts that convey meaning (Parker & Unsworth, 1986).
It has been made evident that professionals delivering this procedure are likely to benefit from training into its instruction (Jongsma, 1971). However, there were no specific training programs found in relation to cloze procedure. It may therefore be beneficial to be mentored by a peer competent with using this technique.
Time Frame:
The time frame for this technique is unspecified and may be used when required to assist reading and with the building of the child’s ability to appropriately inference. As this technique can be used verbally or through written means, it can therefore be used spontaneously within conversation or storybook reading or through structured sessions.
Evidence:
Cloze procedure is commonly recommended by professionals within the language field; however research evidence says little about its effectiveness and evidence base (Jongsma, 1971). Rye (1982) further discusses that although cloze procedure is a popular technique used within the classroom and clinical setting, it has obvious weaknesses. Jongsma (1971) described the absence of any research proving cloze procedure to be an effective teaching technique. He described this absence to be due to several factors within the structural design of the research projects evident to that date (1971). Some flaws that existed within the studies where factors such as professionals delivering the technique did not have training in its instruction, weak experimental designs, problems with measuring and a lack of intent for the use of the technique (Jongsma, 1971).
Since this time, further studies have been conducted into the effectiveness of cloze procedure. One of these studies is described below:
Bradshaw, Hoffman and Norris (1998) completed a study incorporating two 4 year old boys with delayed language development. An alternating experimental design was used to compare two styles used with storybook reading. One style consisted of a combined approach incorporating expansions of language with cloze procedures. The other style consisted of the professional providing the child with questions followed by the appropriate answers being modelled for them. The two children were assigned to one of the styles. Results found children to produce more interpretations, answers to questions, with their utterances being more syntactically advanced when expansions and cloze procedure were used. The researchers in this study add specifically that the addition of cloze procedure techniques to expansion techniques, have aided development of the child’s descriptions and interpretations.
There is much controversy into the effectiveness and evidence base of this technique. Throughout reading relating to cloze procedure, it has been made evident that many educators and speech pathologists regularly use this technique as favourable to assisting a child’s development of language. However there is a lack of research into its effectiveness, with many studies into its effectiveness showing no language development changes. It therefore should be used at the discretion of the educator or speech pathologist, as it is not an evidence based best practice technique.
Back to treatment options
Back to top
Literacy Evidence Table
Technique/
Program |
Reference |
Level of Evidence |
| Gillon Phonological Awareness Training Program |
Gillon, G. (2000). The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 31(2), 126-141. |
Level II |
| |
Gillon, G. (2002b). Follow-up study investigating benefits of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 37(4), 381-400. |
Level I |
| Auditory Discrimination in Depth Program (ADD) |
Alexander, A., Anderson, H., Heilman, P., Voeller, K., & Torgesen, J. (1991). Phonological awareness training and remediation of analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 193-206. |
Level III.2 |
| Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program (LiPS) |
Pokorni, J., Worthington, C., & Jamison, P. (2003). Phonological awareness intervention: comparison of FastForWord, Earobics and LiPS. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 147-158. |
Level III.2 |
| Earobics |
Farnsworth Diehl, S. (1999). Listen and learn? A software review of Earobics. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 30(1), 108-117.
|
Level IV |
| |
Pokorni, J., Worthington, C., & Jamison, P. (2003). Phonological awareness intervention: comparison of FastForWord, Earobics and LiPS. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 147-158. |
Level III.2 |
| |
Wasowicz, J. (1998). Computer applications. Child Language Teaching and Therapy Journal, 14(3), 279-299. |
Level IV |
| Spalding Method |
Spalding Education International. (2004). Spalding student achievement: a comparison of Spalding school scores with district, state, and national norms on standardised achievement test. Retrieved September 10th 2006 from http://www.spalding.org/method/
report2004.pdf#search =%222004%20Spalding%20
student%20achievement%3A
%20a%20comparison%20of%20%22.
|
Level III.3 |
| Event Structures |
Carrow-Woolfork, E (1988). Theory, assessment and intervention in language disorders: an integrative approach. Philadelphia: Grune & Stratton. |
Level IV |
| |
Paul, R. (2001). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: assessment and intervention (2nd Ed.). Missouri: Mosby. |
Level IV
|
| Applebee’s Schema |
Applebee, A. (1978). The child’s concept of story: ages two to seventeen. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. |
Level IV |
| |
Paul, R. (2001). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: assessment and intervention (2nd Ed.). Missouri: Mosby. |
Level IV |
| |
Warr-Leeper, G. (1983). The language management library: therapy procedures for the treatment of pragmatic disorders (Vol 1). Ontario: Marnier Graphics & Communications. |
Level IV |
| Stickwriting |
Ukrainetz, T. (1998). Stickwriting stories: a quick and easy narrative representation strategy. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 29(4), 197-207. |
Level IV
|
| |
Ukrainetz McFadden, T. (1998). The immediate effects of pictographic representation on children’s narratives. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 12(1), 51-67. |
Level III.3 |
| Scaffolding |
Liboiron, N,. & Soto, G. (2006). Shared storybook reading with a student who uses alternative and augmentative communication: A description of scaffolding practices. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 22(1), 69-95. |
Level III.3 |
| |
Nelson, N. (2005). The context of discourse difficulty in classroom and clinic: an update. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(4), 322-331. |
Level IV |
| |
Silliman, E., Bahr, R., Beasman, J., & Wilkinson, L. (2000). Scaffolds for learning to read in an inclusion classroom. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in
Schools, 31(3), 265-280.
|
Level I |
| Script Therapy |
Charlop-Christy, M., & Kelso, S. (2003). Teaching children with autism conversational speech using a cue/written script program. Education & Treatment of Children, 26(2), 108-127. |
Level III.2 |
| |
Taylor, R., & Iacono, T. (2003). AAC and scripting activities to facilitate communication and play. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 5(2), 79-93. |
Level III.3 |
| Print Referencing |
Justice, L., & Ezell, H. (2000). Enhancing children’s print and word awareness through home-based parent intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 9(3), 257-269.
|
Level I |
| |
Justice, L., Weber, S., Ezell, H., & Bakeman, R. (2002). A sequential analysis of children’s responsiveness to parental references to print during shared storybook reading. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(1), 30-40. |
Level III.3 |
| |
Ezell, H., & Justice, L. (2000). Increasing the print focus of adult-child shared book reading through observational learning. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 36-47. |
Level II |
| Shared Storybook Reading |
Roberts, J., Jurgens, J., & Burchinal, M. (2005). The role of home literacy practices in preschool children’s language and emergent literacy skills. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 48(2), 345-360.
|
Level III.2 |
| |
Hontz Hockenberger, E., Goldstein, H., & Siriannj Haas, L. (1999). Effects of commenting during joint book reading by mothers with low SES. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 19(1), 15-28.
|
Level III.3 |
| |
Morgan, A. (2005). Shared reading interactions between mothers and pre-school children: case studies of three dyads from a disadvantaged community. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5(3), 279-304. |
Level III.2 |
| Guided Reading |
Kouri, T., Selle, C., Riley, S. (2006). Comparison of meaning and graph phonemic feedback strategies for guided reading instruction of children with language delays. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15(3), 236- 247. |
Level II |
| |
Schwartz, R. (2005). Decisions, decisions: responding to primary, student during guided reading. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 436-443. |
Level IV |
| Dialogic Reading |
Arnold, D., Lonigan, C., Whitehurst, G., & Epstein, J. (1994). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: replication and extension to a videotape training format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 235-243. |
Level I |
| |
Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. (1999). Enhancing linguistic performance: parents and teachers as book reading partners for children with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19(1), 28-40. |
Level II |
| |
Valdez-Menchaca, M., & Whitehurst, G. (1992). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: a systematic extension to Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1106-1114 |
Level II |
| Cloze Procedure |
Jongsma, E. (1971). The cloze procedure as a teaching technique: Delware: International Reading Association. |
Level IV |
| |
Rye, J. (1982). Cloze procedure and the teaching of reading. London: Heinemann Educational Books. |
Level IV |
| |
Bradshaw, M., Hoffman, P., and Norris, J. (1998). Efficacy of expansions and cloze procedures in the development of interpretations by preschool children exhibiting delayed language development. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 29(2), 85-96. |
Level III.2 |
Back to top |
|
|
