Phonemic awareness is a key concept in early literacy development, a concept that never fails to spark passionate debates among educators, researchers, and even parents. If the term has you stumped or you simply want to deepen your understanding about it, you are in the right place.
After delving into several research articles and synthesizing the ideas of esteemed scholars, I have put together a comprehensive look at why phonemic awareness is important for early literacy development. If you’re intrigued by the discussions here, you won’t want to miss my other post that delves into various academic definitions of phonemic awareness.
Why is phonemic awareness important for early literacy development?
The importance of phonemic awareness in literacy development cannot be understated, and the research is compelling on this front. Let’s analyze it.
The National Reading Panel conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis that included 52 peer-reviewed studies that examined the effectiveness of phonemic awareness (PA) instruction (Ehri et al. 2001). Overall, the findings overwhelmingly suggest that PA instruction has a significant and statistically significant impact on reading and spelling. The effect size for PA acquisition was notably large (d = 0.86), while moderate but significant impacts were observed for reading (d = 0.53) and spelling (d = 0.59).
The benefits of PA instruction, according to the report, were not limited to a specific demographic group; They spanned several groups, including typically developing readers, at-risk readers, disabled readers, and children from different socioeconomic backgrounds and grade levels.
Interestingly, PA instruction had a more profound impact when it was taught using letters and focused on one or two PA skills rather than multiple. Smaller groups and instruction durations between 5 and 18 hours also led to more effective results. In particular, classroom teachers were found to be quite effective in providing this instruction. In summary, the meta-analysis by Ehri et al. strongly validates the indispensable role of PA instruction in fostering reading skills, most effectively under certain conditions.
Griffith and Olson (1992) emphasize that phonemic awareness allows children to employ letter-sound correspondences for reading and spelling, essentially equipping them to read unfamiliar words by combining sounds (pp. 516-518). The authors go on to state that phonemic awareness is a “powerful predictor of later reading performance” (p. 518). This is not a lone voice; echoes the findings of many other studies, such as those of Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith and Gough, 1986; Lomax and McGee, 1987; Tunmer and Nesdale, 1985. If we are considering long-term academic success, investing time in developing this skill is not only advisable, but essential.
Going deeper, Griffith and Olson point out that phonemic awareness training directly contributes to children’s word recognition and spelling ability. Other research also suggests that good phonological awareness is often observed in successful readers (Fox & Routh, 1980; Liberman et al., 1974; Perfetti et al., 1987). Kozminsky’s work further supports this by noting that pre-reading phonological awareness tasks are strong predictors of reading success in first grade, even when controlling for other factors such as intelligence and socioeconomic status (Kozminsky & Kozminsky, 1995, p. 187-188). ).
Snider (1997) agrees, stating that there is a “powerful and predictable relationship between phonemic awareness and future reading achievement” (p. 209). In my opinion, it is vital for educators to understand this, especially when choosing literacy programs and educational technology tools.
Stanovich throws a curveball: if there is a specific bottleneck causing reading disability, it likely lies in the domain of phonological awareness (Stanovich, p. 393, cited in Freebody & Byrne, 1988). This suggests that if we address this problem head-on, we could potentially offset a cascade of academic and motivational problems later on.
Manyak (2008) concludes by highlighting that phonemic awareness is key to understanding the alphabetic principle and, consequently, the acquisition of early phonetic skills (p. 659). This reflects my own experience and mission in advocating for effective educational technology solutions that help children understand this concept from the beginning.
10 Reasons Why Phonemic Awareness is Important for Early Literacy Development
Here are the top 10 reasons why phonemic awareness is important for literacy development, as supported by research:
- Predictor of reading success: Studies by Juel et al. emphasize that phonemic awareness is a powerful predictor of later reading performance. This aligns well with my own research and observations in educational settings.
- Improves word recognition and spelling: Griffith and Olson highlighted that children who are phonemic aware are better able to use letter-sound correspondences, thus improving their word recognition and spelling.
- Contributes to reading comprehension: Not only limited to word reading, phonemic awareness also contributes to reading comprehension, as indicated in the National Reading Panel meta-analysis.
- Beneficial for all demographics: Ehri et al. The meta-analysis suggests that phonemic awareness instruction benefits a wide range of children, from typically developing readers to those who are at risk or have disabilities, at different socioeconomic levels.
- Impacts various stages of reading: From preschoolers to first graders, phonemic awareness has been shown to be crucial at multiple stages of a child’s educational journey.
- Effective when taught early: Many studies, such as those by Kozminsky, suggest that early phonemic awareness training contributes significantly to initial decoding skills. This is something I’ve also noticed in my research.
- Potential to address reading disabilities: The slow development of phonemic awareness can start a cascade of academic struggles, making it an area for intervention (e.g., Stanovich).
- Influence on the alphabetic principle: Manyak notes that phonemic awareness plays a critical role in understanding that letters of the alphabet represent sounds, making early phonics instruction more impactful.
- Impact on spelling in disabled readers: Interestingly, the meta-analysis found that PA instruction improved reading but did not significantly affect spelling in disabled readers.
- Effectiveness of teaching methods: According to the meta-analysis, the effectiveness of teaching phonemic awareness increases when taught with letters, in small groups, and for shorter periods (5-18 hours).
So what’s the takeaway here? Phonemic awareness is not a peripheral skill; it is critical for reading and spelling, predicts academic achievement, and is potentially a game-changer for those at risk for reading disabilities. It is essential that everyone involved in education not only understand this, but actively integrate this knowledge into teaching strategies and educational tools.
Concluding thoughts
As we wrap up this discussion of the critical importance of phonemic awareness, it is evident that this skill is an essential component in literacy development. Through a series of academic research and practical implications, we have seen how phonemic awareness serves as a powerful predictor of future reading success and how it goes hand-in-hand with effective spelling and word recognition. It is a metalinguistic tool that allows children to understand the alphabetic principle and participate meaningfully with written language.
I’ve been on both sides of the educational landscape (as a teacher for over 15 years and now as an educational researcher) and the power of phonemic awareness has been an enduring theme in my own experience. This skill equips children to navigate the complexities of letter-sound relationships, decode, and ultimately understand text. The potential impact is not just limited to academic success, but extends to lifelong learning and the pleasure of reading.
So if there is anything to learn from this post it is that encouraging phonemic awareness is a valuable investment for anyone involved in a child’s learning process, whether teachers, parents or caregivers. Understanding its critical role can be a game-changer in making literacy education more effective and engaging.
References
- Ehri, LC, Nunes, SR, Willows, DM, Schuster, B.V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. http://www.jstor.org/stable/748111
- Free Body, P. and Byrne, B. (1988). Word reading strategies in elementary school children: Relationships with comprehension, reading time, and phonemic awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.2307/747642
- Fox, B., & Routh, D. (1980). Phonemic analysis and severe reading disability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9, 115-119.
- Griffith, P.L., & Olson, M.W. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers crack the code. The Reading Teacher, 45(7), 516–523. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200912
- Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first to fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447
- Juel, C, Griffith, PL. and Gough, R.B. (1986). Literacy acquisition: A longitudinal study of first and second grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255.
- Kozminsky, L., & Kozminsky, E. (1995). The effects of early phonological awareness training on reading success. Learning and Instruction, 5(3), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(95)00004-M.
- Liberman, I., Shankweiler, D., Fisher, F., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit segmentation of syllables and phonemes in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201-212.
- Lomax, R.G., & McGee, L.M. (1987). Young children’s concepts of print and meaning: Toward a model of word reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 237-256.
- Manyak, personal computer (2008). Phonemes in use: multiple activities for a critical process. The Reading Teacher, 61(8), 659–662. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204646
- Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic awareness and reading learning are reciprocal: A longitudinal study in first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283-319.
- Snider, V. E. (1997). The relationship between phonemic awareness and subsequent reading performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 203–211. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542094
- Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in literacy acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
- Tunmer, W.E., & Nesdale, A.R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation and initial reading skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 417-427.
