1. Teaching Phonemic Awareness To Two Low Achieving 1 st Grade Students: A Case Study Linda Wolf Baker University ED 5105 – Action Research Professor Jim Daugherty December 2003

2. Purpose  The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of teaching phonemic awareness to two low achieving 1 st Grade students (N=2) as evidenced by progress on running records, DIBELS, formative assessments and writing samples.

3. Question  How does the strategy of Phonemic Awareness affect the reading progress of two low achieving 1 st Grade students?

4. Period of Study  The study took place over a period of two weeks in November 2003  Assessment data collected for September, October, November 2003

5. Phonemic Awareness  The ability to hear and manipulate the sounds in spoken words, and the understanding that spoken words and syllables are made up of sequences of speech sounds.

6. Phonemic Awareness Instruction  Early intervention of sounds  Priority at Kindergarten and 1 st Grade  Best single predictor of successful reading acquisition  Structure of words, not meaning  Sentences communicated verbally or by writing to make meaning

7. Participants  Student #1 Six year old Native American female Six year old Native American female Difficulty identifying sounds and putting sounds together Difficulty identifying sounds and putting sounds together Frustrated and unwilling to try new words Frustrated and unwilling to try new words  Student #2 Six year old Caucasian male Six year old Caucasian male Difficulty identifying sounds and putting sounds together Difficulty identifying sounds and putting sounds together Frustrated and does not understand why letters have certain sounds Frustrated and does not understand why letters have certain sounds

8. Method and Procedures  Individually worked with each student  Sounds of letters  Sounds of Blends  Onset-rime  Sound Blend, Sound Isolation, Sound Segmentation

9. Assessments  Running Records  DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency Phonemic Segmentation Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency  Formative Assessment Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness  Writing Samples

13. Discussion  Inconclusive  Phonemic awareness as one deterring factor  Data from September, October and November 2003  Regular daily instruction continued

14. Conclusion  Phonemic Awareness is essential  Only one component of a successful Reading program  Must be integrated into instruction  Difference between Phonics and Phonemic Awareness