This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]
On: 12 November 2014, At: 18:46
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Reading Research and
Instruction
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19
Developing first graders'
phonemic awareness,
word identification and
spelling: A comparison of
two contemporary phonic
instructional approaches
Laurice M. Joseph
a
a
The Ohio State University
Published online: 28 Jan 2010.
To cite this article: Laurice M. Joseph (1999) Developing first graders' phonemic
awareness, word identification and spelling: A comparison of two contemporary
phonic instructional approaches, Reading Research and Instruction, 39:2, 160-169,
DOI: 10.1080/19388070009558318
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070009558318
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
Reading Research and Instruction
Winter 2000, 39 (2) 160-169
Developing first graders' phonemic awareness,
word identification and spelling: A comparison of two
contemporary phonic instructional approaches
Laurice M. Joseph
The Ohio State University
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
ABSTRACT
This exploratory study compared the effectiveness of two contemporary phonic
approaches (word box instruction and word sort instruction) on children's phonemic
awareness, word identification, and spelling performance. Forty-two first-grade
children who were randomly selected to participate in three conditions: word box
instruction, word sort instruction, and traditional instruction. The experimental conditions lasted approximately three months and consisted of daily 20 minute phonics
instruction sessions. Children were administered five posttest measures: phonemic
blending, phonemic segmentation, pseudo-word naming, word identification, and
spelling. MANOVA and univariate analyses revealed that type of phonic instruction
significantly discriminated among the groups on posttest measures. Post hoc analyses
indicated that there were significant differences favoring (1) word box instruction
group over the traditional group on performance on all posttest measures except
spelling, and (2) word sort group over control on phonemic segmentation, word identification and spelling performance. No significant differences existed between the
two experimental conditions on any measure.
Very few quibble over whether phonics should be taught as part of a comprehensive
classroom literacy program. Instead, many have suggested that it should be taught
well (Adams, 1990; Chali, 1996; Groff, 1998; Williams, 1991). The question that still
remains is what constitutes teaching phonics well? In a recent article about teaching
phonics, Stahl, Duffy-Hester, & Stahl (1998) present a comprehensive overview of
specific contemporary phonic instructional approaches. Contemporary phonic instruction approaches are different than traditional approaches because they incorporate word
study procedures involving multi-sensory manipulatives to help children internalize
phonological and orthographic features about words. Traditional phonics instruction tends
to be rule-based and involve many worksheet assignments. Although contemporary phonic
approaches appear to have the potential for being more engaging to the learner as well
as including phonemic awareness training and spelling, their effectiveness has not been
demonstrated through comparative, controlled research studies (Stahl et al., 1998).
The purpose of the present study was exploratory as it sought to compare the
effectiveness of two contemporary phonic instructional approaches on first-grade
children's' phonemic awareness, word identification, and spelling performance. The
two contemporary phonic instructional approaches studied were word boxes instruction
and word sort instruction. These two approaches have the potential to facilitate the
linkages between phonemic awareness, word identification, and spelling; but they have
not been compared to traditional phonic instruction in determining their effectiveness
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
161 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000, 39 (2)
on first-grade students' early literacy performance.
Word boxes, an approach used within the comprehensive Reading Recovery
program (Clay, 1973), are an extension of D.B. Elkonin's (1973) sound boxes because
they go beyond segmenting sounds in spoken words. Word boxes also involve matching
sound to print as children articulate sounds in words while placing magnetic or tile letters
and writing words in the boxes. Specifically, a word box consists of a drawn rectangle
that has been divided into sections (boxes) according to individual phonemes in a word.
Initially, the child places a token in respective sections as each sound in a word is
articulated slowly. Eventually, the child places letters (either magnetic or tile) in respective sections as each sound in a word is articulated. During more advanced phases, the
child is asked to write the letters in the respective divided sections of the box.
Griffith & Olson (1992) and Yopp (1995) have described word boxes as a good
approach to helping children develop phonemic awareness. Variations of this approach
have been used as part of a comprehensive phonemic awareness training program in
experimental studies (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Hohn & Ehri, 1983). Using single
subject designs, Joseph (1998) demonstrated its effectiveness for helping second-grade
and third-grade children with learning disabilities identify and spell basic words.
Word sorts have been considered to be a contemporary spelling based phonic
instruction approach (Stahl et al, 1998). According to Bear, Invemizzi, Templeton, and
Johnston (1996), word sorting is a technique that can be used to help children categorize
words according to shared phonological, orthographic, and meaning structures. Word
sorts can come in the form of closed sorts in which the teacher establishes the categories
or open sorts in which the child induces the categories based on an examination of
subsets of given words to be sorted (Zuteil, 1998). Words to be sorted are usually placed
on index cards, and the established categories provide a structure for detecting common
spelling patterns and discriminating among word elements (Barnes, 1989). Although
word sorts have not been researched extensively (Zuteil, 1998), studies have shown word
sorts to be especially effective for helping children in the upper primary and intermediate
grades make gains in spelling performance (Hall, Cunningham, & Cunningham, 1995;
Weber & Henderson, 1989; Zuteil & Compton, 1993).
Word sorts have also been used within various tutoring programs. Morris, Shaw,
and Perney (1990) used word sorts to help second and third grade children recognize and
spell word patterns within a comprehensive tutoring program called the Howard Street
Tutoring Program. Children who received tutoring made greater gains in reading and
spelling than a comparison group of children who did not receive tutoring. Santa and
Hoien (1999) implemented the Early Steps tutoring program with a sample of first-grade
children. Word sorts were used as a method for studying word patterns in this program.
Children who received the Early Steps program performed significantly better in spelling
and word recognition than children in a control group.
The present study explored the following specific research questions.
1) Will first-grade children who receive word boxes or word sort instruction (two
contemporary phonic approaches) outperform first-grade children who receive
traditional phonic instruction on measures of phonemic awareness, word
identification, and spelling?
Comparing Phonic Approaches 162
2) Will word box and word sort instruction produce differential effects on first-grade
children's phonemic awareness, word identification, and spelling performance?
METHOD
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
Participants
Participants in this study consisted of 42 Caucasian first-grade children from two
first grade classrooms (age range = 6.2 to 7.3, mean = 6.6). The total sample was
comprised of 19 females and 23 males who were Caucasian. Parent permission to
participate in this study was obtained for all 42 students. Children attended a public
school in a suburban Southwest Ohio school district. The children came from families
of low to lower-middle socioeconomic levels.
Instructor
A teacher educator with a specialization in literacy implemented both word box
and word sort lessons. The instructor received training on both approaches.
Procedures
Forty-two children from two first grade classrooms were randomly selected to participate in one of three experimental conditions: word box instruction, word sort instruction, and a control condition (traditional classroom instruction). There were 14 students
in each group. The word box group was comprised of 6 females and 8 males (age range
= 6.2 to 7.2, mean = 6.6). There were also 6 females and 8 males in the word sort group
(age range = 6.3 to 7.3, mean = 6.7). The control group consisted of 7 females and 7
males (age range = 6.3 to 7.2, mean = 6.6).
All students were administered the Letter-Word Identification subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Battery-Revised to obtain initial performance levels on
word recognition prior to implementation of contemporary phonic approaches. Table 1
presents means and standard deviations of Letter-Word Identification performance by
group prior to the implementation of contemporary phonic approaches. Differences on
Letter-Word Identification performance among groups prior to contemporary phonic
instruction were determined by a one-way ANOVA. No significant differences were
found among the groups on Letter-Word Identification performance (F (2,39)=.0001 p=.99.
There was similar variability in Letter-Word Identification performance within groups.
TABLE 1 Means and standard deviations of pretest performance by instructional group
LETTER-WORD IDENTIFICATION
Group
Word Box
Word Sort
Traditional
Total
n
14
14
14
42
M
92.28
92.21
92.29
92.26
SD
14.30
13.18
12.06
12.88
163 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000, 39 (2)
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
Students were subjected to the respective conditions for 50 daily sessions excluding
holidays over a 12 week period beginning in September and lasting until December
of the 1998 school year. Students who were selected to participate in experimental
instructional conditions were removed from their classroom during phonics instruction
time only and were able to participate in contextual reading time in their first-grade
classrooms.
Selection of Words Taught
Words selected to be taught during instructional lessons in all conditions were
phonograms containing consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) patterns. A complete list
of the words that were used can be found in Figure 1. Words with CVC patterns were
chosen because most children had not mastered identifying and spelling these types of
words. Children in all three conditions were instructed on approximately 6 to 10 words
per day from the list of words. In all three conditions a new word family was presented
approximately every week. Some weeks two word families were presented. Words
previously taught in one session were reviewed in another session in accordance with
type of instructional approach.
FIGURE 1. List of phonograms used in this study.
sit
bit
can
man
wit
kit
fit
hit
pit
tan
fan
pan
ran
van
mop
top
hop
pop
big
dig
fig
Pig
wig
cat
fin
pin
hut
cut
map
cap
sat
fat
bat
hat
pat
rat
kin
sin
tin
win
but
gut
nut
tap
gap
lap
nap
tap
zap
sun
dip
hip
lip
sip
pet
set
met
bet
get
jet
let
net
vet
wet
dot
got
hot
lot
not
pot
rot
mat
run
fun
bun
gun
tip
zip
;
Experimental Condition
Word box and word sort instructional lessons employed a scaffolding approach. For
instance, the instructor provided demonstrations, guidance, and feedback until students
were able to function on their own. Scaffolds were also embedded within the tasks. In
other words, tasks' materials were intended to be used (e.g., divided sections of the word
box, chips, magnetic letters, word categories, and note cards) as supportive structural
components for identifying and spelling words. Both experimental conditions and control condition are subsequently described in more detail.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
Comparing Phonic Approaches 164
Word Boxes
Children who participated in the word boxes condition received 20 minute daily
lessons. Each student was provided with a magnetic board that contained a drawn
rectangle divided into three sections. Each section corresponded to the individual sound
units in words. Approximately 6 to 10 words were presented with the exception of the
initial sessions. Four words were provided initially to allow children the chance to
grasp the process of the task.
To facilitate the links between phonemic awareness, phonological recoding, and
orthographic processing, an entire daily word box lesson was presented in three stages.
The instructor initially demonstrated all three stages to the children, shared the task with
the children, and gradually allowed the children to perform the task independently with
guidance. The first stage facilitated awareness of phonemes by providing the children
with three colored chips in which each one was to be placed below a section of the
divided rectangle. As the instructor slowly articulated sounds in a word, the children
were asked to place the chips sequentially in respective divided sections of the drawn
rectangle. Children were then asked to slowly articulate the sounds in a word as they
placed the chips sequentially in respective divided sections of the box.
The second stage consisted of facilitating phonological recoding. In the second stage,
the chips were replaced with magnetic letters and children were asked to place them in
respective divided sections of the rectangle as they slowly articulated sounds in words.
Children were asked to write the letters in the divided sections using a magic marker as
they articulated sounds slowly. This was considered the final stage and it was mainly
intended to more explicitly facilitate orthographic knowledge about words (spelling
patterns). Each child was given a tissue to wipe the written letters off before the next
word was articulated.
Word Sort
Children who participated in the word sort condition were also provided with 20
minute daily instruction. Three small index cards were placed in a horizontal fashion in
front of the students at their table. Each index card contained a written word (e.g., cat,
man, fit). Each word designated a category. To ensure that the children could identify
the categorical words, the instructor and the children would chorally read all three
index cards.
An entire word sort lesson was also designed to facilitate the links between phonemic
awareness, word recognition and orthographic processing. The first stage consisted of
facilitating phonemic awareness by providing several chips that were placed on the
table. The instructor would say a word, and the children were required to place a chip
below one of the word categories represented by index cards. Once the child placed a
chip below a category, the instructor provided the child with an index card with the
word written on it and the child removed the chip, and placed the new index card below
the one that establishes the category. This provided a means for the child to verify his
response and self-correct if the chip was placed in the wrong category.
After a number of words were phonemically sorted, all the previously sorted index
cards with the exception of those used to establish categories were shuffled and stacked.
165 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000, 39 (2)
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
In this second stage, Children were required to sort the pile of words according to
common spelling patterns ( sometimes referred to as a visual sort) as designated by the
categorical words. Upon completing the sort, children were asked to read the words
below each category which also provided a means to verify responses and self-correct.
The third stage consisted of having the students perform a spelling sort. Children were
provided a piece of white paper with each category word written across the top. The
instructor would say a word, and the children were asked to spell the word below each
respective category. The words varied across sessions.
Control
Children who participated in the control condition received traditional classroom
instruction provided by their first-grade teachers. Their first-grade teachers provided
instruction on phonograms. Each day, they would write a list of words that shared
similar spelling patterns on an overhead transparency, and the children would engage in
repeated choral readings of those words. Sometimes choral readings would be followed
with an explanation of the meaning of words and using words in sentences.
Once words were read on the overhead, the teacher would place the list of words
on a long roll of white paper and hang it on the wall so children could view it throughout the day. Additional rolls of paper were added to the ones already hanging on the
wall as children were introduced to a new phonogram. The teachers would also assign
phonogram workbook exercises and teacher-made worksheets. Very limited, if any,
direct instruction on spelling words was provided. Some workbook exercises and
teacher-made worksheets involved writing the words as well as cutting and pasting,
and drawing circles around words.
Dependent Measures
All posttest measures were administered individually to the children in a quiet
room suitable for testing. Posttests are subsequently described, and they consisted of
phonemic awareness, word identification, pseudoword naming, and spelling measures.
Phonemic awareness
Phonemic Segmentation and Phonemic Blending subtests of the Phonological
Awareness Test (Robertson & Salter, 1997) were used to assess students' phonemic
awareness. During the administration of the Phonemic Segmentation subtest, children
were asked to segment each sound in words that were spoken by the examiner. Each
item contained a word that was read by the examiner. The student was required to say
each sound in the word presented by the examiner. For instance, the examiner said the
word "cat" and the student said Id Izl IM. On the Phonemic Blending subtest, children
were asked to blend sounds of words and say each word as a whole. Each item contained
a word broken into segments such as /s/ lui In/. The examiner said each sound in the
word and the student was asked to blend the sounds and say the word "sun" as a whole.
Standard scores were derived from each of the subtests on this norm-referenced measure.
Word identification
A list of 60 words (phonograms) containing CVC patterns was randomly placed
Comparing Phonic Approaches 166
(i.e., not placed according to their phonogram or word family category) on two sheets
of white paper. Children were asked to read the words on the paper. Total number
correct was recorded for each child.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
Pseudoword naming
Word Attack subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Battery-Revised
(Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) was used as a measure of pseudoword naming. Children
were asked to read a list of nonsense words. This was a norm-referenced measure from
which standard scores were derived.
Spelling
Twenty words were randomly selected from all phonograms (CVC patterns) taught.
The instructor said a word and the student was required to write it on a plain piece of
white paper that was numbered from 1 to 20. Total number correct was recorded for
each child.
DATA ANALYSIS
Means and standard deviations were obtained on children's performance on posttest
measures. MANOVA and univariate statistical procedures were calculated to determine overall significance of the model. Schefee' tests were used as post hoc analysis to
determine significant differences between groups on all posttest measures.
RESULTS
Means and standard deviations on all posttest measures are presented in Table 2. A
mutivariate test revealed that type of instruction significantly separated the three groups
(Wilks Lambda = .43, F (2,39)= 3.66, p<.001). The five posttest measures were subjected to analysis simultaneously, the generalized proportion of variance among the
groups which they explained was 34% (MANOVA T)2 = .344). Univariate procedures
revealed that all five measures significantly discriminated among the three groups:
phonemic blending F (2,39)=4.91, p<.01; phonemic segmentation F (2,39)=11.67,
/K.001 ; pseudo-word naming F (2,39)=11.36,/K.Ol ; word identification F (2,39)=11.36,
/K.001; and spelling F (2, 39)=6.21,p<.01.
TABLE 2 Means and standard deviations of posttests performance by instructional group
GROUP*
Posttest
Phonemic segmentation
Phonemic blending
Pseudoword naming
Word identification
Spelling
Word Box
M
SD
119.64
111.71
106.92
55.71
16.50
9.80
5.34
7.89
4.41
2.62
Word Sort
M
SD
112.50 15.45
108.35 6.24
103.92 11.14
47.14 15.17
18.00 2.54
Traditional
M
SD
95.92
102.21
94.14
33.92
13.07
14.04
11.43
14.04
13.98
5.45
Total**
M
SD
109.35
107.42
101.66
45.59
15.85
Note *n=14 participants per instructional group
**n=42 total participants
Standard scores were obtained on all measures with the exception of word identification and spelling and
were based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
Raw scores were obtained for word identification (60 possible points) and spelling (20 possible points).
11.61
8.87
12.34
14.94
4.24
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
167 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000, 39(2)
Phonemic blending and phonemic segmentation total scores accounted for 20%
and 37%, respectively, of the variance among the three groups. Word identification
and pseudo-word naming total scores accounted for 36% and 20%, respectively, of the
variance among the three groups. Variance among the three groups explained by total
score in spelling was 24%.
Results of the Scheffe' post hoc test of significance for multivariate multiple group
comparisons on each posttest measure were also calculated. Significant mean differences were found in favor of the word box instructional group when compared to the
control group on phonemic blending (p<.01); phonemic segmentation (p<.001); pseudoword naming (p<.05); word identification (p<.001 ). Significant mean differences were
found in favor of the word sort instructional group over the control group on phonemic
segmentation (p<.01), word identification (p<.05), and spelling (p<.0l). There were
no significant differences found between word box instructional group and word sort
instructional group on all posttest measures. Differences in performance among posttest
measures between the two contemporary phonic instructional groups that came close
to approaching significance atp=.05 were in the measure of spelling. Word sort group
performed better than the word box group at p<. 10.
DISCUSSION
Contemporary phonic instruction approaches used in this study appear to have
merit in regards to producing desirable basic literacy performance for a sample of firstgrade children. These approaches appear not only to influence changes in performance
on word identification tasks but also produced changes in performance on phonemic
awareness tasks.
Word sort instruction has often been coined a spelling-based phonic approach (Stahl
et al, 1998). Consistent with previous findings, it appeared to be especially viable for
helping this sample of first-grade children spell words accurately. However, word
sorts are not only used to improve spelling performance but also used to develop word
recognition skills (Morris, 1982). In the present study, word sorts were also effective for
helping a sample of first-grade children identify words.
Children in the word box condition demonstrated better phonemic segmentation,
phonemic blending, pseudoword naming, and word identification skills compared to
the children in the traditional phonics condition. The sequential processing demands
of the word box approach provide a likely reason for children's success in segmenting
phonemes and making successive letter-sound correspondences.
While word boxes and word sort approaches were effective for improving children's
early literacy skills, it should be noted that children in the word sort condition displayed
more frequent strategic self-monitoring and self-correcting behaviors. The established
categories makes it relatively easy for children to verify and correct their responses as
they sort words (Zuteil, 1998).
Contemporary phonic instruction approaches implemented in this study also appeared
to be very engaging and enjoyable to the children even after the novelty wore off. Several
of the children made frequent positive statements that were reflective of their excitement
and pride such as "this is fun," "I like the colored chips and letters," "I am learning how
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
Comparing Phonic Approaches 168
to spell," "Watch me read these words...I can do it," "I want my mom and dad to see me do
this," "Can I take my papers home to show my mom and dad?" The children ran to the
door every day (even during the latter sessions) as the instructor came to their classrooms.
Due to the fact that significant differences were found even with a small sample,
this study is deserving of replication with larger samples so that conclusions can be
generalized to a population of first-grade children. Future studies are needed to include
comparisons to other contemporary phonic instruction approaches or a combination of
approaches (e.g., combining word boxes with word sorts) as well as other forms of
traditional instruction. Phonograms comprised the type of words taught in this study. It
would be interesting to examine children's use of word boxes and word sorts with other
types of high frequency words.
In the current study, dependent measures only involved identifying and spelling
words in isolation. Studies are needed to determine if these approaches help children
transfer reading words out of context to reading words in context or perhaps how these
approaches could be embedded effectively within meaning-based literacy activities. It
would also be interesting to determine which approach may be more advantageous for
learners with special needs and how the approaches may have differential effects on a
host of other reading and writing skills.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM USE
A combination of word boxes and word sort activities can be incorporated within a
comprehensive literacy program in the classroom. These approaches can be implemented
for common as well as different purposes. For instance, word boxes appear to especially
provide children with a supportive structure for segmenting phonemes and making
left-to-right letter-sound correspondences. Word sorts appear to be helpful in comparing
and contrasting spelling patterns among words. Word boxes and word sort activities
appear to provide children with opportunities to study the phonological and orthographic
features about words. Both approaches can be used to reinforce reading and writing
connected text. Words contained in children's storybooks or in their written journals
can be studied more carefully by implementing a combination of word box and word
sort activities. Teachers should use a variety of phonic approaches systematically to
facilitate children's knowledge about distinguishable but interconnected word study
components. Flexible use of several phonic approaches may more likely meet specific
needs of diverse learners.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B.A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten
make a difference in early word recognition and spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26,49-66.
Barnes, G. W. (1989). Word sorting: The cultivation of rules for spelling in English. Reading
Psychology, 10, 293-307.
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M. A., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (1996). Words their way:
Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Clay, M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook to teachers in training. Portsmouth,
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 18:46 12 November 2014
169 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000,39 (2)
NH: Heinemann.
Chali, J. S. (1996) Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Elkonin, D. B. (1973). U. S. S. R. in J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading (pp. 551-579).
New York: Macmillan.
Groff, P. (1998). Where's the phonics? Making a case for its direct and systematic instruction.
The Reading Teacher, 52,138-141.
Griffith, P. L., & Olson, M. W. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break
the code. The Reading Teacher, 45, 516-523.
Hall, D. P., Cunningham, P. M., & Cunningham, J. W. (1995). Multilevel spelling instruction
in third grade classrooms. In K. A. Hinchman, D. L. Leu, & C.Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on
literacy research and practice (pp. 384-389). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Hohn, W. E., & Ehri, L. C. (1983). Do alphabet letters help prereaders acquire phonemic
segmentation skill? Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 752-762.
Joseph, L. (1998). Word boxes help children with learning disabilities identify and spell
words. The Reading Teacher, 42, 348-356.
Morris, D. (1982). "Word sort": A categorization strategy for improving word recognition
ability. Reading Psychology, 3, 247-259.
Morris, D., Shaw, B., Perney, J. (1990). Helping low readers in grades 2 and 3: An afterschool volunteer tutoring program. The Elementary School Journal, 91, (2), 133-150.
Robertson, C. & Salter, W. (1997). The phonological awareness test. EL: LinguiSystems.
Santa, C. M. & Hoien, T. (1999). An assessment of Early Steps: A program for early
intervention of reading problems. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, (1), 54-79.
Stahl, S. A., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Stahl, K. A. (1998). Everything you wanted to know
about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 338-355.
Weber, W. R., & Henderson, E. H. (1989). A computer-based program of word study:
Effects on reading and spelling. Reading Psychology, 10, 157-162.
Williams, J. P. (1991). The meaning of a phonics base for reading instruction. In W. Ellis
(Ed.), All language and creation of literacy (pp. 9-19). Baltimore: Orton Dyslexia Society.
Woodcock, R., Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised.
TX: DLM Teaching Resources
Yopp, H. K. (1995). A test for assessing phonemic awareness in young children. The
Reading Teacher, 49, 20-29.
Zuteil, J. (1998). Word sorting: A developmental spelling approach to word study for
delayed readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14, 219-238.
Zuteil, J. & Compton, C. (1993, April). Learning to spell in the elementary grades:
Developing the knowledge base for effective teaching. Paper presented at the International
Reading Association, Las Vegas, NV.
Received: March 5,1999
Revision Received: May 26,1999
Accepted: June 4,1999