CSET Practice Test On Reading, Language, and Literature

Using Student's Writing to Plan Spelling Instruction

Pre-conventional/Pre-phonetic (pre-school, ages 2-5 years)
Play "writing", scribbling, painting, drawing, colouring,
cutting, constructing; dictating stories about their
pictures; practising writing their names; extensive
exposure to print.

Emergent (kindergarten to beginning of first grade, ages
5-6 years) e.g., mi = my or m = my Studying alphabet if
needed and beginning consonant sounds; making class chart
stories; discussing key vocabulary; playing with language
rhymes; working with word wall and learning simple sight
vocabulary; reading environmental labels and pictures;
creating big books and picture dictionaries; dictating
stories and experience charts.

Early (grades 1-2) e.g., Mi cat caem hom today.
Categorizing words by common patterns; developing word
banks and beginning a personal dictionary. Studying one
word family at a time and then comparing word families
with the same vowel; discussing spelling patterns and
sounds heard in words; using cloze procedure with familiar
words; using word banks. Writing regularly; comparing word
families with mixed vowels including words with blends and
digraphs.

Conventional/Fluent (grades 2-4, ages 7-9 years) e.g., My
cat came home today. Explicit instruction in classifying
visual patterns; using word meanings and derivations
(e.g., nature, natural, naturalist); using memory
strategies for difficult words and developing strategies
for learning new words; developing personal word lists;
proofreading own writing. Writing and reading a variety of
texts, doing word study (foreign prefixes, roots,
suffixes), using syllabication, extending proofreading
strategies, developing memory strategies for difficult
words (e.g., look, cover, write, and check), playing word
games (e.g., crosswords, word searches, and riddles).

Morphemic and Syntactic (grades 5-8, ages 10-13 years)
Building a personal spelling vocabulary; revising their
writing; building a repertoire of spelling strategies.
Writing, reading, word study, word games; using content-
area words; identifying own problem words; proofreading
own and others' writing; using a variety of resources to
assist in spelling; studying unusual spellings. 

Consonant Doubling in English

Consonant Doubling (simplified)

Letters that double: <b d f g l m n p r s t z> (c in acc-,
occ-, succ-) Letters that do not double: <h j k q v w x y>
Pseudo-doubling: <k> -> <ck>, <ch> -> <tch>, <ge> ->
<dge>, <v> -> <ve>, <m> -> <me> (sometimes)

Non-word formation

Simple V+C base-words double consonants to mark the
previous simple vowel as short: comma/coma rudder/ruder
(alternatively 'Double consonant letters do not normally
follow long vowels' Carney 1997, and do not follow non-
simple vowels)

Double consonants after stressed short vowels with stress
on the last or penultimate syllable; full, stiff, rubber

exceptions: monosyllables: nil, gel, pal, gal; Latinate
French words; comet, florid Monosyllables double to obey
3-letter rule; ebb, inn, egg, add, err

No double consonants in words with primary stress third
from end; bigamy, celery, denizen, vilify (third syllable
shortening is unmarked in spelling)

Word formation

A inflections Simple V+C base-words double consonants
before a suffix staring with a vowel; mat matting: funny
later/latter mater/matter (but trigger-endings vary)
corollary: no consonant doubling when previous vowel is
double: heading

B. prefixes Double consonants after Latin prefixes
beginning <a-, co- e-, i-, o-, su->: addict, address

Exceptions: words with primary stress third from end;
bigamy, denizen, vilify, (third syllable shortening is
unmarked in spelling) Unexpected double p in worshipping,
kidnapping, handicapping

British versus American

British have final <l> in words with more than one
syllable: fulfil; American have <ll> fulfill, appall,
enroll

Words that do not double in States before <ing ed er/or>;
traveling, kidnaped, equaled, counselor; plus woolen,
carburetor (British forms are exceptions to normal rule)

English consonant doubling according to Carney

Basic (vowel length Carney, 1997)

A stressed vowel may be marked as short by a following
doubled consonant letter in the first two syllables of a
minimal free form 

A final <-e> after a single consonant letter in native
words will mark the previous vowel as long. This <-e> is
usually dropped if a suffix beginning with a vowel is
added Lexical <-e> marks lapse, tense, etc as single
morphemes When final in a monosyllabic word, /z/ and /¶ /
may be marked by a final <-e> even when they occur after
two vowel letters, as in please, wreathe Advanced (Carney,
1994)

D1 Double consonant letters do not normally follow long
vowels

D2 Two identical consonant letters may occur in words with
a Latinate prefix (ad-, com-, e(x)-, in-, ob-, per-, sub-,

D3 The following 15 simple consonants regularly have <C>-
doubling in the appropriate contexts: /p b t d k g t§ d½ f
s z l r m n / <kk>?<ck>, <chch>?<tch>, badge

D4 Stressed short vowels in simple base forms with the
primary stress on the last or next to the last syllable
are normally marked by <C>-doubling

D5 <C>-doubling does, not, however, usually occur with /p
b t d g m n/ before a word boundary

D6 When a primary stress falls on a short vowel which is
three or more syllables from the end of a minimal free
form, there is no <C>-doubling to mark it

D7 <C>-doubling does not usually occur before the bound-
form endings <-ic>, <-id>, <-ish>, <-ule> and Latinate <-
it>

D8 <C>-doubling persists in the spelling of a morpheme
even when the primary stress is shifted by stress-
determining suffixes

D9 Before final /' l/ in a word, a previous short vowel is
marked by <C>-doubling and the /' l/ is pelt with inverted
<le> in Basic words

D10 There are several instances in which the general
restriction that <C>-doubling does not follow long vowels
(#D1) appears to fail in SBS. These involve the 'new' long
vowels /a:/, /˜ :l/ and /¾ /

D11. There are letter-sequencing (grapho-tactic)
restrictions on <C>-doubling

Consonant doubling mistakes

These amount to 14.4% of all mistakes, 43.3% of mistakes
with consonant addition or omission. Adding an unnecessary
double consonant is 48.3%, omitting a necessary second
consonant 51.7%.

<l> Omission or addition excelent and allarm; <ly> endings
generaly or largelly; unnecessary doubling in <ful>
beautifull, and omitting <l> in words ending in single <l>
with short stressed vowels such as tel and wil. <r>
Unnecessary doubling of <r> mostly intervocalic verry,
tirred; no doubling <er>/ <ur> occured, transfering and
the ubiquitous refered. < m> The most common is omitting
<m> in accomodation; some in <comm> lose an <m> comercial;
some in <com> gain an <m> comming. <t> Medial <t> often
wrongly doubled universitty or left single atention,
hoter. <s> Final <ss> often becomes <s> adres, medial <s>
becomes <ss> dissapoint

Phonological Awareness: Instructional and Assessment
Guidelines David J. Chard and Shirley V. Dickson May 1999
Intervention in School and Clinic Volume 34, Number 5 pp.
261-270

No area of reading research has gained as much attention
over the past two decades as phonological awareness.
Perhaps the most exciting finding emanating from research
on phonological awareness is that critical levels of
phonological awareness can be developed through carefully
planned instruction, and this development has a
significant influence on children's reading and spelling
achievement (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Bradley & Bryant,
1985; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1991; O'Connor,
Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993). Despite the promising
findings, however, many questions remain unanswered, and
many misconceptions about phonological awareness persist.
For example, researchers are looking for ways to determine
how much and what type of instruction is necessary and for
whom. Moreover, many people do not understand the
difference between phonological awareness, phonemic
awareness, and phonics. Still others are uncertain about
the relationship between phonological awareness and early
reading.

What Is Phonological Awareness?

Phonological awareness is the understanding of different
ways that oral language can be divided into smaller
components and manipulated. Spoken language can be broken
down in many different ways, including sentences into
words and words into syllables (e. g., in the word simple,
/sim/ and /ple/), onset and rime (e. g., in the word
broom, /br/ and /oom/), and individual phonemes (e.g., in
the word hamper, /h/, /a/, /m/, /p/, /er/). Manipulating
sounds includes deleting, adding, or substituting
syllables or sounds (e.g., say can; say it without the
/k/; say can with /m/ instead of /k/). Being
phonologically aware means having a general understanding
at all of these levels.

Operationally, skills that represent children's
phonological awareness lie on a continuum of complexity.
At the less complex end of the continuum are activities
such as initial rhyming and rhyming songs as well as
sentence segmentation that demonstrates an awareness that
speech can be broken down into individual words. At the
center of the continuum are activities related to
segmenting words into syllables and blending syllables
into words. Next are activities such as segmenting words
into onsets and rimes and blending onsets and rimes into
words.

Finally, the most sophisticated level of phonological
awareness is phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness is the
understanding that words are made up of individual sounds
or phonemes and the ability to manipulate these phonemes
either by segmenting, blending, or changing individual
phonemes within words to create new words. The recent
National Research Council report on reading distinguishes
phonological awareness from phonemic awareness in this
way: The term phonological awareness refers to a general
appreciation of the sounds of speech as distinct from
their meaning. When that insight includes an understanding
that words can he divided into a sequence of phonemes,
this finer-grained sensitivity is termed phonemic
awareness. (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, p. 51)

Throughout this article we will use the term phonological
awareness to mean an awareness at all levels from basic
rhyme to phonemic awareness. Only in some specific
instances will we use the term phonemic awareness.

At this point, it is important to note that phonological
awareness differs distinctly from phonics. Phonological
awareness involves the auditory and oral manipulation of
sounds. Phonics is the association of letters and sounds
to sound out written symbols (Snider, 1995); it is a
system of teaching reading that builds on the alphabetic
principle, a system of which a central component is the
teaching of correspondences between letters or groups of
letters and their pronunciations (Adams, 1990).
Phonological awareness and phonics are intimately
intertwined, but they are not the same. This relationship
will be further described in the following section.

Children generally begin to show initial phonological
awareness when they demonstrate an appreciation of rhyme
and alliteration. For many children, this begins very
early in the course of their language development and is
likely facilitated by being read to from books that are
based on rhyme or alliteration, such as the B Book by
Stanley and Janice Berenstain, 1997, or Each Peach Pear
Plum by Janet and Allan Ahlberg, 1979, (Bryant, MacLean,
Bradley, & Crossland, 1990). As children grow older,
however, their basic phonological awareness does not
necessarily develop into the more sophisticated phonemic
awareness. In fact, developing the more complex phonemic
awareness is difficult for most children and very
difficult for some children (Adams et al., 1996). However,
it is a child's phonemic awareness on entering school that
is most closely related to success in learning to read
(Adams, 1990; Stanovich, 1986).

Why Is Phonological Awareness So Important?

An awareness of phonemes is necessary to grasp the
alphabetic principle that underlies our system of written
language. Specifically, developing readers must be
sensitive to the internal structure of words in order to
benefit from formal reading instruction (Adams, 1990;
Liberman, Shankweiler, Fischer, & Carter, 1974). If
children understand that words can be divided into
individual phonemes and that phonemes can be blended into
words, they are able to use letter-sound knowledge to read
and build words. As a consequence of this relationship,
phonological awareness in kindergarten is a strong
predictor of later reading success (Ehri & Wilce, 1980,
1985; Liberman et al., 1974; Perfetti, Beck, Bell, &
Hughes, 1987). Researchers have shown that this strong
relationship between phonological awareness and reading
success persists throughout school (Calfee, Lindamood, &
Lindamood, 1973; Shankweiler et al., 1995).

Over the past 2 decades, researchers have focused
primarily on the contribution of phonological awareness to
reading acquisition. However, the relationship between
phonological awareness and reading is not unidirectional
but reciprocal in nature (Stanovich, 1986). Early reading
is dependent on having some understanding of the internal
structure of words, and explicit instruction in
phonological awareness skills is very effective in
promoting early reading. However, instruction in early
reading-specifically, explicit instruction in letter-sound
correspond ence-appears to strengthen phonological
awareness, and in particular the more sophisticated
phonemic awareness (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

Many children with learning disabilities demonstrate
difficulties with phonological awareness skills (Shaywitz,
1996). However, many other children have such difficulty
without displaying other characteristics of learning
disabilities. Although a lack of phonemic awareness
correlates with difficulty in acquiring reading skills,
this lack should not necessarily be misconstrued as a
disability (Fletcher et al., 1994). More important,
children who lack phonemic awareness can be identified,
and many of them improve their phonemic awareness with
instruction. Furthermore, although explicit instruction in
phonological awareness is likely to improve early reading
for children who lack phonemic awareness, most children
with or without disabilities are likely to benefit from
such instruction (R. E. O'Connor, personal communication,
June 2 2, 1998).

In short, success in early reading depends on achieving a
certain level of phonological awareness. Moreover,
instruction in phonological awareness is beneficial for
most children and seems to be critical for others, but the
degree of explicitness and the systematic nature of
instruction may need to vary according to the learner's
skills (Smith, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998), especially for
students at risk for reading difficulties. With this in
mind, we discuss documented approaches to teaching
phonological awareness.

Teaching Phonological Awareness

There is ample evidence that phonological awareness
training is beneficial for beginning readers starting as
early as age 4 (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Byrne &
Fielding-Barnsley, 1991). In a review of phonological
research, Smith et al. (1998) concluded that phonological
awareness can be developed before reading and that it
facilitates the subsequent acquisition of reading skills.
Documented effective approaches to teaching phonological
awareness generally include activities that are age
appropriate and highly engaging. Instruction for 4-year-
olds involves rhyming activities, whereas kindergarten and
first-grade instruction includes blending and segmenting
of words into onset and rime, ultimately advancing to
blending, segmenting, and deleting phonemes. This pattern
of instruction follows the continuum of complexity
illustrated in Figure 1. Instruction frequently involves
puppets who talk slowly to model word segmenting or magic
bridges that are crossed when children say the correct
word achieved by synthesizing isolated phonemes. Props
such as colored cards or pictures can be used to make
abstract sounds more concrete. During the last few years,
publishers have produced multiple programs in phonological
awareness, some of which are based on research. Two of
these programs are Ladders to Literacy (O'Connor, Notari-
Syverson, & Vadasy, 1998) and Teaching Phonemic Awareness
(Adams et al., 1996). Below are illustrations of phonemic
awareness lessons that are based on examples from these
programs.

Instructional activity that teaches synthesis of phonemes
into words.

Guess-the-Word Game

Objective: Students will be able to blend and identify a
word that is stretched out into its component sounds.

Materials Needed: Picture cards of objects that students
are likely to recognize such as: sun, bell, fan, flag,
snake, tree, book, cup, clock, plane

Activity: Place a small number of picture cards in front
of children. Tell them you are going to say a word using
"Snail Talk" a slow way of saying words (e.g.,
/fffffllllaaaag/). They have to look at the pictures and
guess the word you are saying. It is important to have the
children guess the answer in their head so that everyone
gets an opportunity to try it. Alternate between having
one child identify the word and having all children say
the word aloud in chorus to keep children engaged.

An Instructional activity that teaches segmentation at
multiple phonological levels.

Segmentation Activities

Objectives: Students will be able to segment various parts
of oral language.

Activity: a. Early in phonological awareness instruction,
teach children to segment sentences into individual words.
Identify familiar short poems such as "I scream you scream
we all scream for ice cream!" Have children clap their
hands with each word. b. As children advance in their
ability to manipulate oral language, teach them to segment
words into syllables or onsets and rimes. For example,
have children segment their names into syllables: e.g.,
Ra-chel, Al-ex-an-der, and Rod-ney. C. When children have
learned to remove the first phoneme (sound) of a word,
teach them to segment short words into individual
phonemes: e.g., s-u-n, p-a-t, s-t-o-p. 

Figure 4. An instructional activity that teaches phoneme
deletion and substitution.

Change-A-Name Game

Objective: Students will be able to recognize words when
the teacher says the word with the first sound removed.

Activity: Have students sit in a circle on the floor.
Secretly select one child and change their name by
removing the first sound of the name. For example, change
Jennifer to Ennifer or change William to Illiam. As you
change the name, the children have to identify who you are
talking about.

Extension Ideas: As children become better at identifying
the child's name without the first sound, encourage them
to try removing the beginning sounds of words and
pronounce the words on their own.

After children learn how to remove sounds, teach them to
substitute the beginning sound in their name with a new
sound. The teacher can model this ,beginning with easier
sounds (common sounds of consonnant s, e.g., /m/, /t/,
/p/) and advancing to more complex sounds and sound blends
(e.g., /ch/, /st/). 

Most early phonological awareness activities are taught in
the absence of print, but there is increasing evidence
that early writing activities, including spelling words as
they sound (i.e., invented or temporary spelling), appear
to promote more refined phonemic awareness (Ehri, 1998;
Treiman, 1993). It may be that during spelling and writing
activities children begin to combine their phonological
sensitivity and print knowledge and apply them to building
words. Even if children are unable to hold and use a pen
or pencil, they can use letter tiles or word processing
programs to practice their spelling.

Instruction in phonological awareness can be fun,
engaging, and age appropriate, but the picture is not as
simple as it seems. First, evidence suggests that
instruction in the less complex phonological skills such
as rhyming or onset and rime may facilitate instruction in
more complex skills (Snider, 1995) without directly
benefitting reading acquisition (Gough, 1998). Rather,
integrated instruction in segmenting and blending seems to
provide the greatest benefit to reading acquisition (e.g.,
Snider, 1995). Second, although most children appear to
benefit from instruction in phonological awareness, in
some studies there are students who respond poorly to this
instruction or fail to respond at all. For example, in one
training study that provided 8 weeks of instruction in
phonemic awareness, the majority of children demonstrated
significant growth, whereas 30% of the at-risk students
demonstrated no measurable growth in phonological
awareness (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). Similarly,
in a 12-week training in blending and segmenting for small
groups (3-4 children) in 2-minute sessions four times a
week, about 30% of the children still obtained very low
scores on the segmenting posttest and 10 % showed only
small improvements on the blending measures (Torgesen et
al., 1994).

Torgesen et al. (1994) concluded that training for at-risk
children must be more explicit or more intense than what
is typically described in the research literature if it is
to have a substantial impact on the phonological awareness
of many children with severe reading disabilities.
Therefore, we recommend two tiers of instruction. The
first tier of instruction is the highly engaging, age-
appropriate instruction that we introduced earlier. The
second tier of instruction includes more intensive and
strategic instruction in segmenting and blending at the
phoneme level (e.g., Snider, 1995).

Beside content, another issue that requires attention in
phonological awareness instruction is curriculum design.
From research, we are able to deduce principles for
effectively designing phonological awareness instruction.
These design principles apply for all students but are
particularly important for students who respond poorly to
instruction. In the design of phonological awareness
instruction, the following general principles increase
students' success (Chard & Osborn, 1998):

* Start with continuous sounds such as /s/, /m/, and /f/
that are easier to pronounce than stop sounds such as /p/,
/b/, and /k/;

* Carefully model each activity as it is first introduced;

* Move from larger units (words, onset-rime) to smaller
units (individual phonemes);

* Move from easier tasks (e.g., rhyming) to more complex
tasks (e.g., blending and segmenting); and,

* Consider using additional strategies to help struggling
early readers manipulate sounds. These strategies may
include using concrete objects (e.g., blocks, bingo chips)
to represent sounds.

Research suggests that by the end of kindergarten children
should be able to demonstrate phonemic blending and
segmentation and to make progress in using sounds to spell
simple words. Achieving these goals requires that teachers
be knowledgeable about effective instructional approaches
to teaching phonological awareness and be aware of the
ongoing progress for each of their students. In the next
section, we describe effective ways to assess phonological
skills and monitor progress in phonological awareness.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

David J. Chard, PhD, is an assistant professor of special
education at The University of Texas at Austin. His
current interests include research in professional
developmental in early reading and analysis of children's
discourse in mathematics classrooms. Shirley V Dickson,
PhD, is an assistant professor of special education at
Northern Illinois University. Her interests are in
research on phonological awareness and reading instruction
and collaboration models in special education. Address:
David J. Chard, University of Texas at Austin, Dept. of
Special Education, SZB 408, Austin, TX 78712.

REFERENCES

Ahlberg, J., & Ahlberg, A. (1979). Each peach pear plum.
New York: Viking Penguin.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Thinking and
learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Adams, M., Foorman, B., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T (1998).
Phonemic awareness in young children. Baltimore: Brookes.

Ball, D. L., & 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.

Berenstain, S., & Berenstain, J. (1997). B book. New York:
Random House.

Bradley, L. L., & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason
in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.

Bruce, D. (1964). An analysis of word sounds by young
children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34,
158-170.

Bryant, P. E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L. L., & Crossland,
J. (1990). Rhyme and alliteration, phoneme detection, and
learning to read. Developmental Psychology, 26, 429-438.

Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic
awareness and letter knowledge in the child's acquisition
of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81, 313-321.

Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a
program to teach phonemic awareness to young children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451-455.

Calfee, R. C., Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, C. (1973).
Acoustic-phonetic skills and reading: Kindergarten through
twelfth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 293-
298.

Chard, D. J., & Osborn, J. (1998). Suggestions for
examining phonics and decoding instruction in
supplementary reading programs. Austin, TX: Texas
Education Agency.

Chard, D. J., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998).
Word recognition: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J.
Kameenui (Eds), What reading research tell us about
children with diverse learning needs. Bases and basics
(pp. 141-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ehri, L. C. (1998). Research on learning to read and
spell: A personal historical perspective. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 2, 97-114.

Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1980). The influence of
orthography on readers' conceptualization of the phonemic
structure of words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 371-385.

Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1985). Movement into reading:
Is the first stage of printed word learning visual or
phonetic? Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 163-179.

Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P.,
Katz, L., Liberman, 1. Y., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, K.
J., Fowler, A. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1994). Cognitive
profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy
and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86, 6-2 3.

Gough, P. B. (1998). A step toward early phonemic
awareness [Grant No. 00480188]. Austin, TX: Texas
Education Agency.

Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H., 111 (1996). Toward a
technology for assessing basic early literacy skills.
School Psychology Review, 25, 215- 227.

Liberman, 1. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W. & Carter,
B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in
the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
18, 2 01-212.

Liberman, 1. Y., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M.
(1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In
D. Shankweiler, & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and
reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (pp. 1-3
3). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

MacDonald, G. W., & Cornwall, A. (1995). The relationship
between phonological awareness and reading and spelling
achievement eleven years later. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 28, 52 3-52 7.

Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not
onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and
spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 154-167.

O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Leicester, N., & Slocum,
T. A. (199 3). Teaching phonological awareness to young
children with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children,
59, 532-546.

O'Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. F.
(1998). Ladders to literacy: A kindergarten activity book.
Baltimore: Brookes.

Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L., & Hughes, C. (1987).
Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A
longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 33, 283-319.

Rosner, J., & Simon, D. P. (19 7 1). The Auditory Analysis
Test: An initial report. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
4, 3 84-3 92.

Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Katz, L., Fowler, A. E.,
Liberman, A. E., Brady, S. A., Thornton, R., Lunquist, E.,
Dreyer, L., Fletcher, J. M., Steubing, K. K., Shaywitz, S.
E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1995). Cognitive profiles of
reading-disabled children: Comparison of language skills
in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychological
Science, 6, 149-156.

Shaywitz, B. A. (1996). The neurobiology of reading and
reading disability. Unpublished paper prepared for the
Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in
Young Children.

Smith, B. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998).
Phonological awareness: Bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J.
Kameenui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about
children with diverse learning needs. Bases and basics
(pp. 61-128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Snider, V. E. (1995). A primer on phonemic awareness: What
it is, why it's important, and how to teach it. School
Psychology Review, 24, 443- 455.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998).
Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some
consequences of individual differences in the acquisition
of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.

Templeton, S. (1995). Children 's literacy: Contexts for
meaningful learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Tindal, G. A., & Marston, D. B. (1990). Classroom-based
assessment. Evaluating instructional outcomes. Columbus,
OH: Merrill.

Torgesen, J. K., & Bryant, B. R. (1993). Test of
phonological awareness. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Torgesen, J. K., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference
variables that predict response to training in
phonological awareness. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 63, 1-2 1.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994).
Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and
reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276-286.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess,
S., & Hecht, S. (1997). Contributions of phonological
awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the growth
of word-reading skills in second- to fifth-grade children.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 161-185.

Treiman, R. (199 3). Beginning to spell. A study of first-
grade children. New York: Oxford University Press.

Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Linguistic
coding and reading ability. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.),
Advances in applied psycholinguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 1-69).
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wolf, M. (1991). Naming speed and reading: The
contribution of the cognitive neurosciences. Reading
Research Quarterly, 26, 12 3-141.

Yopp, H. K. (198 8). The validity and reliability of
phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23,
159-177.

Yopp, H. K. (1995). A test for assessing phonemic
awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 49, 20-
29.