Literature Review (USPS Financial Crisis)

1

Assignment 4

Literature Review

by

xxx xxxx

RES 8200

Nova Southeastern University

<Insert date>

Thematic Literature Review

Introduction

Phonological awareness is a critical foundational skill in early childhood literacy that significantly impacts a child's ability to learn to read and develop emergent literacy skills. Children may struggle with these essential skills due to a variety of factors. This brief literature review first presents a theoretical framework for growth in reading skills, then explores the causes of phonological awareness deficits, examines potential interventions for these deficits, and highlights the crucial role of educators in supporting students' literacy development through comprehensive, collaborative, and individualized approaches.

Theoretical Framework

The present literature review, which highlights the foundational nature of phonological awareness and the critical need for early intervention, is framed within the established cognitive model of the Simple View of Reading (SVR), originally proposed by Gough and Tunmer (1986). The SVR asserts that reading comprehension (RC) is the product of two core, independent abilities: Decoding (D) (word recognition) and Linguistic Comprehension (LC) (language comprehension). This relationship is expressed mathematically as RC=D×LC. This formula signifies that both components are necessary but neither is sufficient on its own: if a child’s skill level in either Decoding or Linguistic Comprehension is near zero, their Reading Comprehension will also be near zero, regardless of the strength of the other component. This review’s focus on phonological awareness deficits directly addresses a core component of Decoding, establishing SVR as the cognitive foundation for the challenges discussed.

To explain the growth and widening achievement gaps observed among readers, the SVR is extended through the concept of Reciprocal Causation, most famously articulated as the Matthew Effect in Reading (Stanovich, 1986). This concept explains how small, early differences in reading skill compound over time, leading to accelerating advantages or disadvantages. For a child who successfully masters phonological awareness (high D), the act of reading becomes easier and more enjoyable. They read more frequently, which in turn rapidly expands their vocabulary and general world knowledge (increasing LC). This cycle where reading ability improves comprehension, which fuels more reading practice, which further strengthens reading ability is the engine of reading growth.

Conversely, for students who struggle with early decoding (low D), such as those with cognitive disabilities or language impairments mentioned in this review, reading is arduous and often avoided. The lack of reading exposbure limits their acquisition of new vocabulary, background knowledge, and complex syntax (stunting LC growth). This creates a downward, negative feedback loop where poor initial decoding skill inhibits reading volume, which in turn suppresses the development of language comprehension, causing the student to fall further behind their peers over time. Therefore, interventions must target both SVR components to interrupt this negative cycle and initiate a cycle of cumulative advantage.

Causes of Phonological Awareness Deficits

Some children in early learning struggle with phonological awareness skills when learning to read. Research highlights known causes for learners which disrupts progress and lends young children to becoming an at-risk reader (Gonzales, 2018). Educators and researchers have made gains to understand the impact that cognitive, neurological, disabilities and language disorders have on the development of phonological awareness skills. Educators are identifying needs, tracking student progress through data, initiating interventions and evaluating students who are struggling. Students with diagnosed disabilities are receiving support, when needs are targeted. There are many known reasons students struggle while learning to read.

A common disrupter of phonological awareness skills are cognitive disabilities. Thangarajathi and Menaha (2020) noted, using cognitive strategies and interventions significantly influences the phonemic awareness skills in children with dyslexia. When educators specifically target cognitive strategies, improvements can be made.

Speech disorders in young learners make up for a large number of students who struggle with phonemic awareness and to meet benchmarks. Researchers note, early detection of speech impairments and language deficits led to specialized instruction and the child is less likely to be at-risk(Dynia,2019, Hayiou-Thomas et al. (2017). For students with language needs or impairments, Gonzales (2018) recommends interventions that include collaboration with the speech language pathologist, (SLP). Studies show collaboration has positive effects for students with language impairments, Gonzales (2018).

Children who have autism as a disability often exhibit reading difficulties without targeted instruction. Dynia (2019) noted, children with autism spectrum disorder, (ASD) have significantly lower scores on phonemic awareness tasks when compared to typical peers in comparison studies. Dynia (2019) noted that with identification and interventions, , children with ASD can make gains in phonological awareness tasks similar to their typically developing peers for most of the phonological awareness tasks.

Potential Solutions to Phonological Awareness Deficits

Kaminski (2017) states the importance of educators is to catch reading difficulties early and provide interventions. Early learning, early detection, and early interventions coupled with data collection are helping students stated Kaminski (2017) and Becker (2021).

Research has shown that a young child having multiple disorders often impedes phonological awareness skills and leads to poor reading achievement Kaminski (2017) and Becker (2021). When examining various interventions for children with single or multiple disorders or disabilities, authors Kaminiski and Powell-Smith (2017); Gonzalez (2018); Hayiou-Thomas et al., (2017) and Thoma (2021) concur that effective interventions in the areas of phonological awareness build emergent literacy skills. Hayiou-Thomas (2017); Kaminski and Powell-Smith (2017) state tiered interventions and models of support can increase phonological awareness skills so as a student is not considered at-risk. Studies are finding positive outcomes with students in a grouped or tiered learning environment, Kaminski (2017) and Fien (2015) .

For students with speech articulation or language needs, Dynia (2019) Thangarajathi and Menaha (2020), Hayiou-Thomas et al., (2017) and Gonzales (2018) suggest using articulatory placement strategies with phonemic awareness activities directly in the classroom in collaboration with teachers. Becker (2021) supports through research, collaboration will help improve phonological awareness skills and may prevent the development of later reading difficulties.

Role of Teacher Support For Developing Phonological Awareness Skills

There is much research that supports teacher led interventions as a solution to phonemic awareness difficulties while reading. Meanwhile, teachers are seeking ways to improve their practice of teaching phonemic awareness skills to struggling students who have not learned in traditional ways after multiple attempts. Teachers are seeking ways to improve practice to make student growth. Fien et al. (2015) noted student growth was correlated to training and professional development for teachers. Literacy coaches are often seen in school assisting teachers with curriculum. Coupled with professional development teachers continue to seek information and resources in technology alternatives for student learning and achievement. However, research by Hayiou-Thomas et al., (2017), concluded in their study that computers were not the best intervention for young children as motivation and behaviors were barriers in this study. Computers might not prove to be the best practice according to studies for young learners. Gonzales (2018) supports ELL instruction coupled with collaboration in the classroom to support teachers and students.

Conclusion

There is no debate from educators that some children struggle in the classroom with phonemic awareness skills. The reason they struggle could be from lack of opportunity, being an ELL, or having speech, language, cognitive or neurological deficits. Some children just need more time to grow and develop. The theoretical perspective supporting this document is grounded in Froebel’s theory of early education and the need for kindergarten programs that provide instruction and assessment to reach benchmarks. Research shows educators have proven success with early intervention programs, tiered grouping support, team teaching, language activity support, explicit instruction, and ELL specialized instruction. In order to support students with phonological awareness difficulties, recent research has highlighted the efficacy of computer-led programs and online programs. To supplement growth, teachers are seeking professional development opportunities and districts are utilizing instructional coaches. These supports are showing growth for teachers which positively affects vulnerable students.

References

Becker, R., & Sylvan, L. (2021). Coupling articulatory placement strategies with phonemic awareness instruction to support emergent literacy skills in preschool children: A collaborative approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(2), 661-674. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00095

Dynia, J. M., Bean, A., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2019). Phonological awareness emergence in preschool children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 4, 2396941518822453. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941518822453

Fien, H., Smith, J. L. M., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., Nelson, N. J., & Chaparro, E. (2015). An examination of the efficacy of a multitiered intervention on early reading outcomes for first grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of learning disabilities, 48(6), 602-621.

Froebel, F., & Hailmann, W. N. (1887). The education of man. D. Appleton.

Gonzales, W., & Tejero Hughes, M. (2018). Libros en mano: Phonological awareness intervention in children’s native languages. Education Sciences, 8(4), 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040175

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932586007001

Hayiou-Thomas, M. E., Carroll, J. M., Leavett, R., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2017). When does speech sound disorder matter for literacy? The role of disordered speech errors, co-occurring language impairment, and family risk of dyslexia. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(2), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12648

Kaminski, R. A., & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2017). Early literacy intervention for preschoolers who need tier 3 support. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 36(4) , 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416642454

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.  Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1

Thangarajathi, S., & Menaha, P. (2020). Effect of cognitive strategies on enhancing phonemic awareness of children with dyslexia. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(1), 133-137. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9i1.3415

Thoma, J. (2021). A model of professional development on phonics instruction: A case study of one midwestern district. Journal of Education, 201(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057420903266

Trotti, J., Hendricks, R., & Bledsoe, C. (2017). Emergent literacy development and computer-assisted instruction. STATE Journal, 26(1), 30-39.

Walsh, N. R., Ginger, K., & Akhavan, N. (2020). Benefits of instructional coaching for teacher efficacy: A mixed-methods study with PreK-6 teachers in California. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3), 1143 -1161. https://www.iier.org.au/iier30/walsh.pdf