Segmental Awareness and Dyslexia: Is it Possible to Learn to Segment Well and Yet Continue to Read and Write Poorly?

EMILIO SANCHEZ and MERCEDES I. RUEDA Department of Psychology, University of Salamanca

ABSTRACT: This study is focused on the relationship between the development of segmental awareness and dyslexia. More specifically we have tried to address the question, is it possible to learn to segment well and yet continue to read and write poorly? For this purpose, 14 second and third grade dyslexic children were assigned to three different training programs. Those who participated in the first two programs were taught the skills required to use the phonemes, while those in the third program, who served as a pseudo- control group, were given the exercises in perceptual and psychomotor activities. After the training program, children who had received the first two training programs reached a level of performance similar to that of normal readers in different tasks of segmentation of phonemes. The improvements observed in these tasks were correlated in dictation but not in reading, where there was no difference after training.

KEYWORDS: Dyslexia, instruction on segmental awareness, segmental awareness.

The relationship between the development of segmental awareness (Morals, Alegria and Content, 1987) or phonological awareness (Wagner and Torgensen, 1987) and learning to read and, particularly develop- mental dyslexia has been widely studied. The awareness of segments of language or phonological awareness is connected to the ability to con- sciously produce phonemic segments and use them intentionally. This ability is manifested in tasks like deleting or adding a phoneme in a sequence or reversing the order. The findings regarding the relationship between phonological awareness and learning to read provide a very simple conclusion: it is only possible to relate phonemes and letters if we are able to understand the existence of phonemes.

These findings can be summarized in the following manner: (1) phono- logical or segmental awareness, and thus the ability to break up, count, join, and reverse phonemes only develops when reading is learnt with a written alphabetical system (Morais et al, 1979; Read et al, 1986); (2) the skill of primary school children in tasks of phonological awareness cor- relates, years later, with their learning to read (Bradley and Bryant, 1983; Mann and Liberman, 1984; Share, Jorm, Maclean and Mathew, 1984; Juel, Griffith and Gough, 1986; Tunmer, Herriman and Nesdale, 1988); (3) the stimulation and training of these segmentation skills help learning to read (Treiman and Baron, 1983; Fox and Routh, 1984; see also

Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 3:11 -- 18, 1991. © 1991 KluwerAcademtc Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

12 EMILIO SANCHEZ AND MERCEDES I. RUEDA

Bradley and Bryant, 1983); and (4) children with difficulties in learning to read have problems with segmental awareness (Bradley and Bryant, 1978). Although the relationship between segmental awareness and dyslexia is well founded, the cause as to whether dyslexics are poor readers due to insufficient development of segmental awareness or vice

versa has not been properly established (Wagner and Torgesen, 1978). In fact there are two aspects to be considered here; one is demonstrating the development of segmental awareness in dyslexic subjects is lower than expected considering their reading ability, and the other aspect is that the reading difficulties encountered by dyslexic children could be attributed to their problems in segmental awareness.

The first question has been studied by Bradley and Bryant (1978). In this study, the performance of a group of dyslexic subjects was compared with that of a group of normal children who had the same reading level but were not of the same age in two tasks that evaluate phonological awareness -- identifying words with common phonemes and rhymes. It was observed that the difficulties encountered by dyslexic children in phonological awareness tasks were greater than expected considering their level and experience in reading.

In this study, we intend to consider the second aspect of the issue. That is, is it possible to improve reading ability by improving segmental awareness in dyslexic children. The purpose of this study is to try to normalize the segmental awareness by way of specific instruction, and later observe its effects on reading and writing. If the dyslexics' problems only lie in this difficulty then once a normal performance is achieved in these tasks of segmentation, the reading difficulties should disappear. If on the other hand, the problems persist at the same level, then it would be difficult to maintain that segmental awareness could be a cause of dyslexia. In short, the question we would like to answer is: is it possible to segment well and yet continue to read and write poorly?

METHOD

Subjects

The sample consisted of ten boys and five girls selected from a population of 300 second and third year of primary school pupils. One girl later withdrew from the study due to illness. All subjects had normal IQ scores as measured by WISC and were reading at least 1 1/2 to 2 years below grade level as measured by a standardized reading test (TALE). The subjects were randomly assigned to three programs of instruction: (1) training in adding phonemes (ADD): 5 subjects; (2) training in segmenta- tion and use of alphabetic code (write a word: WW): 5 subjects, and (3)

S E G M E N T A L A W A R E N E S S AND D Y S L E X I A 13

controlled instruction based on perceptive and motor tasks (P): 4 subjects. Further a group of good readers were also selected from the same population and were matched with the experimental group on IQ, school achievement, sex and age.

Tasks

Besides the WISC and the standardized reading test (TALE) which evaluates the reading of letters, syllables, words and texts, and also dictation, three questionnaires were constructed (30 items each) for the tasks of omission (O), inversion (I) and addition (AD) of phonemes (Rueda, 1988). The item and construction conditions followed the guide- lines laid down by Morais et al, (1979) and Alegria et al (1982). In the task of phoneme omission, the subjects should delete a phoneme to a sequence of phonemes; in the task of inversion, the subjects should invert the order of words, syllables and phonemes; and in the task of addition, the subjects should add a phoneme to a sequence. Two additional tests were also constructed: one of reading isolated words (Rexp), another of dictation (Wexp) with similar material to that used in one of the instruc- tion programs (WW). These tests were completed by subjects before and after instructional experiences.

As an aid to the interpretation of results, it is helpful to classify these tasks by their distance and match them with those used in the instruction, (both in the cognitive operations and in the material or context to which they are applied). Thus, when subjects of condition ADD are evaluated after the instructional experience in the task of Additions, this task is lacking in distance in relation to the task of instruction and therefore is a task of zero transfer. Other test tasks require the same operations as those in the training, but the material used is different, and therefore are called tasks of close transfer. If a group of subjects is instructed in the operation of adding a phoneme to a sequence and are later evaluated in the omission task, the operations are similar in the two tasks, but the contexts in which they are applied are different to those that were used in the instruction. So, for the subjects of the condition ADD, the reading and writing of words involve the use of addditionai operations to those used in the training. This was referred to as distant transfer. The relationship between the test tasks and instructional tasks changes according to the treatment or program as is shown in Figure 1.

Procedure

The subjects were evaluted individually in three sessions. The first session involved WISC administration; the second session involved administration of segmentation tasks; and in the third session reading tests were administered. There was also a post test after the instructions. In the

14 EMILIO SANCHEZ AND MERCEDES I. RUEDA

TASKS

Programs WW

ADD

ZERO CLOSE MEDIUM DISTANT TRANSFER TRANSFER T R A N S F E R TRANSFER

Wexp. DICTATION- READING TALE Addition

Omission Inversion of phones

Addition Wesp READING Omission Inversion of phones DICTATION-TALE

Fig. 1.

segmentation tasks, the model given by Morais et al (1979) and Alegria et al (1982) was used. The number of essays was reduced to two.

Instructional Programs

In the first training (ADD) we taught strategies for adding a phoneme to a sequence. It is important to stress that the object of the instruction was to teach the operations that help to solve the task of adding a phoneme (see Figure 2 for a description of the procedure), and not simply to correct the subjects until they perform the task correctly. The second treatment consists of a program that specifies the necessary operations to correctly write a dictated word, and is based on the rehabilitation programs described by Tvestkova (1977). This program involves the same opera- tions as the former program (that is involving the teaching of the same activities but in a different order and with other materials and situations) but is also includes the use of the correspondence rules between phonemes and letters. The difference between this program and the former one is similar to the difference between the two programs of Bradley and Bryant (1983). From now on this program will be called WW.

It is important to note that throughout the instruction the subject must do the activites on his/her own and it is regarded as being over when the subject demonstrates that he/she has completely assimilated it. The last program (P), consists of an instruction in perceptual and motor tasks. This procedure served as the control for the two programs of instruction. The number of sessions for all the three treatments was the same: two sessions of an hour a week for five months.

S E G M E N T A L A W A R E N E S S AND D Y S L E X I A 15

PROGRAM FOR WRITING A WORD (ww) SITUATION The instructor proposes the word "Important" to the child

PROGRAM FOR ADDING PHONES (ADD)

SITUATION The instructor proposes that the child changes the world (OVER) into the word (DOVER) OVER DOVER

ACTIVITIES (1) Listen to the word ~important~

(2) Break the word up into voice, beats /im/. . . /por/ . . . . . . /tant/

(3) Count the number of voice beats Three beats

(4) Draw as many squares as voice beats o o o

(5) Counts the number of sounds in each syllable (with the help of the squares) /irn/: two sounds ~pot~: three sounds /tant/:: three sounds (6) Divide each square according the sounds [] o o

(7) Clearly articulate each syllable /iimm. . ./ (im/ (/pooorrrtt/ /po:t/ /taanntt)/taent/

(8) Once each syllable is articulated, write the corresponding letters ( 7and 8) are repeated for each syllable (9) Write the word "Important"

ACTIVITIES (1) Listen to the words OVER DOVER The instructor chooses The child chooses OVER DOVER (2) Break the word up into voice, beats Instructor Child /O/ /VER/ /DO/ /VER/ (3) Count the number of voice beats Instructor Child two two (4) Draw as many squares as voice beats Instructor Child O O O O

O VER DO VER (5) Compare the first and second sylables

(with the help of the squares) O O O O

I01 IDOl / V E R / / V E R /

(6) Indicate where they are not the same O O

/ 0 / IDOl (7) Clearly articulate each syllable /ooooo/ /ddoo/

(8) Indicate which sound is added to the first o

Taken from S~nchez, Rueda & Orrantia: (1989) Note: We have tried to find similar English words to the Spanish words used in the study.

Fig. 2.

Resu l t s

T h e resul ts were ana ly sed by us ing the analys is o f cova r i ance , p e r f o r m - ance o n the pre tes t s b e i n g the covar iab le . It was f o u n d that there were s igni f icant b e f o r e a n d af ter d i f fe rences in the D ic t a t ed test Tale , F ( 2 , 1 0 ) =

16 E M I L I O S A N C H E Z AND M E R C E D E S I. R U E D A

5.495, p < 0.025; Wexp, F(2,10) = 6.860, p < 0.013; inversion of phonemes F(2,10) = 12.59, p < 0.002; omission F(2,10) -- 6.28, p < 0.017; addition F(2,10) = 5.027, p < 0.03, attributable to ADD and WW treatments. There were no significant differences between the training groups in reading tasks: Rexp F(2, 10) = 0.34, n.s.; and Reading Tale F(2, 10) = 3.769, p < 0.06.

Table 1, Means of errors in segmental awareness tasks

MEANS OF ERRORS INVERSION ADDITION OMISSION

PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST

WW 6.4 2.4 9.2 8,0 16.8 7.0 ADD 7.0 4.6 18.6 6,0 17.6 11.8 P 6.6 8.2 20.5 20 24 27.5

GOOD READERS 2.0 3.9 5.0

Even though there were clear differences (at 0.01 level) in all the variables among each subgroup and good readers, however after the instruction in both ADD and WW programs, there were no significant differences among each subgroup and good readers. Thus comparing the subgroup ADD with normal readers, we find in addition task t ( l l ) -- 0.75, n.s.; in omission task t(11) = 0.58, n.s.; and in inversion task t(11) = 0.37, n.s. On the other hand in this condition, the WW subjects improved also in Wexp until the differences between the two groups disappears t(11) --- 1.24, n.s.

Table 2. Means of errors in reading and writing tasks

MEANS OF ERRORS READING-TALE R exp DICTATION-TALE W exp PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST

WW 13.4 10.8 12 11 12 4 10.4 2.4 ADD 21.7 14.4 17.6 10.6 10.8 5.6 17 6.8

P 19.7 9.2 18 13 9.0 8,0 15.5 12

GOOD 3.2 ! .5 READERS

SEGMENTAL AWARENESS AND DYSLEXIA 17

DISCUSSION

Morais et al. (1987) have proposed as criteria for the success of segmental awareness that the transfer effects should be observed. That is if we instruct in a segmental skill such as additions, improvements must appear in other uninstructed skills such as in omissions and inversions. A transfer effect was indeed observed in our sample and further their performance was close to that of the normal readers. However, the fact that the subjects in the two conditions WW and ADD improved in writing (dictated) but not in reading, shows that they have difficulties in other unidentified areas. It is also possible that the measuring instruments may not be sensitive to detect the possible imporvements. In the reading test (TALE), reading of nonwords, very common words, uncommon words, words in context are all randomly combined, hence for the specific nature of the treatments, probably specific measuring instruments are needed to evaluate their efficiency.

Another conclusion that could be drawn from these results is that the dyslexic subjects have more difficulties in working with the phonemes than with the association of phonemes and graphemes. This may suggest that it is sufficient to improve segmental awareness to improve dictated reading. An explanation which corresponds with this result is that the dyslexic subjects possess the basic phoneme to grapheme conversion rules, but not the skill of working with them in certain phonemic configurations (for instance, they know that the letter r corresponds to phoneme/r / , but they cannot identify or find the phoneme/r / in the syllable 'bra').

It is also interesting to note that the program WW, which used the phoneme to grapheme rules (the alphabetic code), was more effective than the ADD program in improving the dictation and to certain extent improving segmental awareness also. This latter finding was somewhat surprising as the program WW was more distant than the ADD program in relation to the segmentation tasks and should, therefore, be less effective. In the literature concerning these problems, there exists an interrelationship between segmental awareness and learning to read and write; and in this study it was found that on the one hand, by improving segmental awareness the ability to use the alphabetic code is increased as shown by the effect of the ADD program. On the other hand, by increas- ing the use of the alphabetic code, segmental awareness is increased as shown by the effect of the WW program.

NOTE

* Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. Emilio Sanchez, Department of Psychology, University of Salamanca AVD. de la Merced s/n, 37005, Salamanca, Spain.

18 E M I L I O S A N C H E Z AND M E R C E D E S I. R U E D A

REFERENCES

Alegria, J., Pignot, E. and Morais, J. 1982. Phonetic analysis of speech and memory codes in beginning readers. Memory and Cognition, 10, 451 --456.

Bradley, L. and Bryant, P. E. 1978. Difficulties in auditory organization as a possible cause of reading backwardness. Nature, 271,285--298.

Bradley, L. and Bryant, P. E. 1983. Categorizing sounds and learning to read -- a causal connection. Nature, 301,419--421.

Fox, B. and Routh, D. K. 1984. Phonemic analysis and synthesis as word attack skills: Revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1059--1064.

Jorm, A. F. and Share, D. L. 1983. Phonological recording and reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103-- 147.

Juel, C., Griffith, P. and Gough, P. 1986. Acquisition of literacy: a longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 243--255.

Lieberman, Y. I. and Shankweiler, D. 1985. Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 6(6), 8-- 19.

Mann, V. and Liberman, I. Y. 1984. Phonological awareness and short-term memory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 592--599.

Morals, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J. and Bethelson, P. 1979. Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 8, 323--332.

Morals, J., Alegria, J. and Content, A. 1987. The relationships between segmental analysis and alphabetic literacy: an interactive view. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 1--24.

Read, C., Zhang, Y., Nie, H. and Ding, B. 1986. The ability to manipulate speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic reading. Cognition, 24, 31 --44.

Rueda, M. I. 1988. Entrenamiento en habilidades de analisis explicito de la palabra en ninos con dificultades de aprendizaje en lectoescritura. Memoria de Licenciatura, Unversidad de Salamanca.

Sanchez, E., Rueda, M. I. and Orrantia J. 1989. Estrategias de intervencion con ninos con difficultades en la lectura. Comunicaci6n, Lenguajey Educaci6n, 3--4, 101--111.

Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R. and Matthews. 1984. Sources of individual differ- ences in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-- 1324.

Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E. and Cramer, B. B. 1985. Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. Journal of Experi- mental Child Psychology, 38, 175-- 190.

Treiman, R. and Baron, J. 1983. Phonemic-analysis training helps children benefit from spelling-sound rules. Memory and Cognition, 11,382--389.

Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L. and Nesdale, A. R. 1988. Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134-158.

Tvestkova, L. 1977. Vosstanovitelnoe abuchenie pri lokalnyj poruzbeniyaj, mozga. Moscu, Pedagogika.

Yopp, H. K. 1988. The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 1 5 9 I 177.

Wagner, R. K. and Torgensen, J. K. 1987. The nature of phonological Processing and its role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192--212.