Effects of the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program on

Report
Effects of the Lindamood Phoneme
Sequencing Program on Phonemic
Awareness in Children who are Deaf
or Hard of Hearing
By: Brittany Wallace
Faculty Advisors: Dr. Tena McNamara & Dr. Angela Anthony
Review of Literature
• Liberman, Shankweiler, Fischer, and Carter (1974) defined phonemic
awareness as the ability to focus on and manipulate individual phonemes
in spoken words
• Isolation, identification, blending, segmentation, deletion
• Recent studies have found a strong correlation between the presence of
phonemic awareness skills and early literacy skills (Ball & Blachman,
1991; Chall, 1996; Ehri et al, 2001; Trezek, Wang, & Paul, 2010)
• Successful readers are able to make associations between graphemes
printed on the page and their corresponding sounds. The reader is then
able to blend those sounds together, understand the word as a whole, and
attach meaning in order to comprehend the text (Adams, 1990).
• Phonemic awareness skills are prerequisite to comprehension of text and
decoding (Trezek et al., 2010)
Review of Literature
• Understanding that letter symbols represent speech sounds, and
the ability to understand the relationship between sound and letter
sequences in words are the foundations for becoming an efficient,
independent reader.
• Chall (1996) describes a six-stage model of reading development.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pre-Reading (6 months – 6 years)
Initial Reading and Decoding (6 – 7 years)
Confirmation and Theory (7 – 8 years)
Reading for Learning (8 – 11 years)
Multiple Viewpoints (high school)
Construction and Reconstruction (post-high school)
Review of Literature
•
“Hearing impairment is a generic term referring to all types, causes, and degrees of
hearing loss,” (Trezek et al., 2010)
• Degree determined by Pure Tone Average
•
Children with hearing impairment may not acquire literacy skills at the same age, or
same rate, as a typically developing child. However, it can be said that they still
possess the capabilities to progress through the stages of reading development
(Trezek, Wang, & Paul, 2010).
• Wolk and Allen (1984) found that the average high school graduate who is deaf reads at the
fourth to fifth grade level. This study also found the growth in reading achievement of
hearing impaired students was only one-third that of average hearing students.
•
Children who are DHH struggle with specific components of language, particularly
morphology and syntax (Trezek, Wang, & Paul, 2010).
• Do not receive sufficient auditory models during crucial language learning periods
• Struggle to hear high frequency sounds which adversely affects language
Review of Literature
• Description of the LiPS-3 (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998)
• Designed to target underlying sensory-cognitive functions of reading,
spelling, and speech
• Targets skills and fosters understanding of phoneme characteristics in
emergent-level readers
• Introduces sounds in pairs or “brothers” based upon phoneme
characteristics such as place, manner, and voicing.
• Tip Tappers, Tongue Scrapers, Lip Coolers, Tongue Coolers, Skinny Air,
Fat Air, Fat-Pushed Air, Nose Sounds, Wind Sounds, and Lifters.
• Vowels introduced in groupings based on lip shape during production
• Smile, Open, Round, Sliders
• Horizontal and vertical tracks of progression through program
Review of Literature
• Research supporting LiPS-3
• Several studies have confirmed the direct correlation between teaching
phonemic awareness and increased reading abilities (McBride, 2006,
Wang, Trezek, Luckner, & Paul, 2008, Nielsen & Luetke-Stahlman, 2002)
• What Works Clearinghouse (2010) concluded that the LiPS-3 has
potentially positive effects
• A study by McIntyre et al. (2008) found greatest gains in phonemic
awareness and letter/sound correspondence for ‘at risk’ students whose
teacher used the LiPS-3
• Results of a study by Colon (2006) revealed positive average gains by all
students on all subtests following the integration of the LiPS-3 into the
classroom curriculum.
• Pokorni et al. (2004) evaluated the efficacy of three phonemic awarenessbased programs (Fast ForWord, Earobics, and LiPS-3) and found the LiPS3 to be more effective in improving participants’ ability to blend phonemes
and significant gains in phonemic awareness.
Research Questions
• Is the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program – 3rd
Edition (LiPS-3) an effective intervention program for
improving phonemic awareness skills in children who are
deaf or hard of hearing?
• Specifically, to what extent did phonemic awareness skills
improve as a result of intervention using the LiPS-3?
Participants
• Participant A
• 9-year, 10-month old female
• Congenital severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss
• Loss ranging from 70-85 dB
• Speech Recognition Test scores of 60 dB
• Uses bilateral, behind-the-ear hearing aids
• Speech and language difficulties consistent with hearing loss.
• Grade 1 reading level (Rigby PM Benchmark Kit)
Participants
• Participant B
• 10-year, 2-month old male
• Moderate bilateral hearing loss
• Uses bilateral, behind-the-ear hearing aids
• Speech and language difficulties consistent with hearing loss.
• Grade 1 reading level (Rigby PM Benchmark Kit)
Methodology
• Research Design
• Multiple case study
• Pretest – posttest design
• Intervention and control phases
• Pre- and Posttest Measures
• Pretest, midtest, posttest
• Phonological Awareness Test -2 (PAT-2)
• Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization test (LAC)
Methodology
• Treatment Protocol
• Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program – 3rd Edition (LiPS-3)
• Direct instruction twice weekly for 40 minutes each session for a
total of 7 weeks
• Intervention and control phases
• Additional practice and review materials provided to classroom
teacher
• 11 consonant pairs, 4 vowel formations
LiPS-3
• Consonants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lip Poppers /p, b/
Tip Tappers /t, d/
Tongue Scrapers /k, g/
Lip Coolers /f, v/
Tongue Coolers /;, ‘/
Skinny Air /s, z/
Fat Air /c, x/
Fat-Pushed Air /., j/
Nose Sounds /m, n, a/
Wind Sounds /w, wh/
Lifters /r, l/
• Vowels
•
•
•
•
Round /u,7,o/
Smile /I,8,2,3,q,4/
Open /0,9/
Sliders /0],o[,9]/
Results – Participant A
Figure 1. Participant A: PAT-2 Phonological Awareness Portion Totals
140
116
120
100
86
80
63
60
40
20
0
Pre-test
Mid-test
Post-test
Results – Participant A
Figure 3. Participant A: PAT-2
Segmentation Subtest Totals
Figure 2. Participant A: PAT-2
Isolation Subtest Totals
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
25
25
20
Pre-test
Mid-test
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20
20
15
11
19
12
Pre-test
Post-test
Figure 5. Participant A: PAT2 Blending Subtest Totals
25
24
Mid-test
10
Figure 6. Participant A: PAT-2
Deletion Subtest Totals
15
5
5
0
11
13
Mid-test
Post-test
25
11
12
Pre-test
Mid-test
9
10
6
5
Post-test
Figure 7. Participant A: PAT2 Substitution Subtest Totals
7
8
4
4
2
0
0
Pre-test
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
Post-test
10
12
Figure 4. Participant A: PAT-2
Rhyming Subtest Totals
Pre-test
Mid-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Mid-test
Post-test
Results – Participant A
Figure 8. Participant A: LAC Totals
70
64
60
51
50
37
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-test
Mid-test
Post-test
Results – Participant B
90
Figure 9. Participant B: PAT-2 Phonological Awareness Portion Totals
77
80
70
60
60
52
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-test
Mid-test
Post-test
Results – Participant B
Figure 10. Participant B: PAT-2
Isolation Subtest Totals
25
16
15
15
15
15
13
13
13
Post-test
15
12
8
6
8
6
5
2
0
0
0
Mid-test
Post-test
4
5
Pre-test
Mid-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Figure 14. Participant B: PAT-2
Substitution Subtest Totals
6
10
0
Pre-test
Figure 13. Participant B: PAT-2
Deletion Subtest Totals
12
5
0
Mid-test
16
10
5
Pre-test
20
15
12
10
12
10
20
20
14
Figure 12. Participant B: PAT-2
Rhyming Subtest Totals
Figure 11. Participant B: PAT-2
Segmentation Subtest Totals
Pre-test
Mid-test
Post-test
Mid-test
Post-test
Figure 15. Participant B: PAT-2
Blending Subtest Totals
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
7
Pre-test
9
Mid-test
10
Post-test
Results – Participant B
Figure 16. Participant B: LAC Totals
60
52
50
39
40
30
20
20
10
0
Pre-test
Mid-test
Post-test
Comparison Data
Discussion
• Data collected indicate the positive effects of phonemic awareness
following 7 weeks of intervention using the LiPS-3.
• Participant A: intervention phase, followed by control phase
• Participant B: control phase, followed by intervention phase
• Both participants showed an increase in total raw scores on the
PAT-2 following direct instruction.
• Participant A continued to show increases through the control phase as
well, which may indicate generalization and carryover of skills after the
intervention phase.
• Participant B’s decrease in scores following control phase and 25 point
gain in scores after direct instruction indicates the positive effect of the
LiPS-3 on phonemic awareness.
Discussion
• Both participants demonstrated largest gains on the Segmentation
subtest, with gains of 7 and 8 and gains of 6 on the Deletion
subtest of the PAT-2.
• These results indicate the LiPS-3 had the largest impact on the ability
to section a word into its individual sounds and the ability to remove
phonemes from a given word to achieve a novel word.
• Other largest gains were recorded for the Isolation subtest for
participant A and Deletion and Substitution subtest for
participant B.
• This trend indicated the program also had a positive impact on the
ability to identify single phonemes within a word or syllable and the
ability to alter a word by deleting or substituting phonemes to create a
new word.
Discussion
• Participant B displayed a 13-point gain on the LAC
immediately following direct instruction with the LiPS3. However, a 19-point gain was made over the control
phase.
• Participant A failed to make any gains on the LAC
immediately following the intervention phase, although
gains were made following the control phase.
• Results from the LAC test are inconclusive and reveal
that this assessment may not be an adequate measure of
progress for the LiPS-3.
Clinical Implications
• The LiPS-3 may be an effective intervention program
for improving phonemic awareness skills in children
who are deaf or hard of hearing
• Further research and empirical evidence will assist
in solidifying role the LiPS-3 as in the improvement
of phonemic awareness skills.
Strengths & Limitations
• Strengths
• Intervention and test administration reliability
• Study design
• Limitations
•
•
•
•
Irregular participant attendance
Inconsistent use of amplification
Small sample size & concise intervention period
Formal assessment word selection
Future Research
• Larger sample
• Longer intervention phases
• More assessment options
• Teacher observation
• Behavioral observation
• Decoding formal assessment
• Further into sequence
• Hearing aid vs. cochlear implant
• Supplemental visual phonics
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a
difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.
doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/747731
Chall, J. S., (1996). Stages of reading development. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Colon, E. (2006). Utility of the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program (LiPS) for classroom-based
reading instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 67.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M, Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001).
Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading
Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/748111
Liberman, I., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme
segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201-212. doi:
10.1016/0022-0965(74)90101-5
Lindamood, C. H., & Lindamood, P. C. (1998). Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program. Austin,
TX: PRO-ED
References
McIntyre, L., Protz, S., & McQuarrie, L. (2008). Exploring the potential of LiPS instruction for beginning readers.
Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 36(1-2), 18-48.
McBride, N. (2006). The effectiveness of second shot and/or Lindamood-Bell on reading achievement of elementary students.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 67.
Pokorni, J. L., Worthington, C. K., & Jamison, P. J. (2004). Phonological awareness intervention: Comparison of Fast
ForWord, Earobics, and LiPS. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 147-158. doi: 10.3200/JOER.97.3.147-158
Trezek, B. J., Wang, Y., & Paul, P. V. (2010). Reading and deafness: Theory, research, and practice. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar,
Cengage Learning.
Wang, Y., Trezek, B. J., Luckner, J. L., & Paul, P. V. (2008). The role of phonology and phonologically related skills in reading
instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 396-407.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2010). Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS).
What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report. What Works Clearinghouse.
Wolk, S., & Allen, T. E. (1984). A 5-year follow-up of reading comprehension achievement of hearing-impaired students in
special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 161-176.
Questions?

similar documents