Annals of Dyslexia

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 97–122 | Cite as

Computer-based phonological awareness and reading instruction

  • Barbara W. Wise
  • Richard K. Olson
Part III Tools For Remediation


Reading with Orthographic and Segmented Speech (ROSS) programs use talking computers to deal with deficits in word recognition and phonological awareness. With ROSS, children read stories on a computer screen. Whenever they encounter a word they find difficult, they can request assistance by targeting the word with a mouse. The program highlights the word in segments and then pronounces the segments in order. In previous studies, children improved in reading, but children with relatively lower initial phonological awareness (PA) gained less than the others. In order to maximize the benefits from ROSS for all children, the current study aimed to improve PA before and while reading with ROSS, by using some programs based on theAuditory Discrimination in Depth method (Lindamood and Lindamood 1975), and others focusing on phoneme manipulation with speech feedback for all responses. The study compared the effects of this training with training in Comprehension Strategies (CS) based on Reciprocal Teaching techniques (Palincsar and Brown 1984), among second- to fifth-grade students with problems in word recognition. While both groups received equal instructional time in small-groups and with the computer, the groups differed in how much time they spent reading words in context. Whereas PA children spent half their computer time on PA exercises involving individual words and half reading words in context with ROSS, the CS group spent all their computer time reading words in context with ROSS. Both groups made significant gains in decoding, word recognition, and comprehension; however the PA groups gained significantly more than the CS group on all untimed tests of phoneme awareness, word recognition, and nonsense word reading. The CS children performed better on a test of time-limited word recognition; they also achieved higher comprehension scores, although only while reading with a trainer. The PA children’s improved decoding skill led to greater accuracy, but slower responses with difficult words, after one semester’s training.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, M.J. 1990.Beginning to Read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, A., Anderson, H., Voeller, K., and Torgesen, J. 1991. Phonological awareness training and remediation of analytic coding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics.Annals of Dyslexia 31:193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, E., and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrne, B., and Fielding-Barnsley, R. 1993. Evaluation of a program to teach phoneme awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up.Journal of Educational Psychology 85:10 4–11.Google Scholar
  5. Brady, S., Fowler, A., Stone, B., and Winbury, N. 1994. Training phonological awareness: A study with inner-city kindergarten children.Annals of Dyslexia 24:26–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley, L., and Bryant, P. 1983. Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection.Nature 301:419–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calfee, R., Lindamood, P., and Lindamood, C. 1973. Acoustic-phonetic skills and reading: Kindergarten through twelfth grade.Journal of Educational Psychology 64:293–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cunningham, A. 1989. Phonemic awareness: The development of early reading competency.Reading Research Quarterly 24:471–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunn, L.M., and Markwardt, F.C. 1970.Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  10. Fowler, A. 1991. How early phonological development might set the stage for phoneme awareness. InPhonological Processes in Literacy, eds. S. Brady and D. Shankweiler. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Hynd, G. and Semrud-Clikeman 1989. Dyslexia and brain morphology.Psychological Bulletin 24:447–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jastak, J., and Jastak, S. 1978.The Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, M., Wise, B., and Olson, R. November 1994. Text comprehension in reading-disabled second to fifth graders. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Psychonomics Society. St Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  14. Kennedy, K.M., and Backman, J. 1993. Effectiveness of the Lindamood Auditory Discrimination in Depth program with students with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 8:253–59.Google Scholar
  15. Larsen, J., Hoien, T., Lundberg, I., and Odegaard, H. 1989.MRI Evaluation of the Size and Symmetry of the Planum Temporale in Adolescents with Developmental Dyslexia. Stavanger, Norway: Center for Reading Research.Google Scholar
  16. Lindamood, C., and Lindamood, P. 1975.Auditory Discrimination in Depth. Science Research associates Division, MacMillan/McGraw Hill: Columbus: OH.Google Scholar
  17. Lindamood, C., and Lindamood, P. 1979.Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources Corporation.Google Scholar
  18. Lovett, M., Borden, S., DeLuca, T., Lacerenza, L., Benson, N., and Brackstone. In Press. Treating the core deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer-of-learning following strategy and phonologically-based reading training programs.Developmental Psychology.Google Scholar
  19. Lundberg, I, Frost, J, and Peterson, O. 1988. Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness.Reading Research Quarterly 23:263–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacGinitie, W., and MacGinitie, R. 1989.The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (3rd ed.). Riverside Publishing: Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  21. Montgomery, D. 1981. Do dyslexics have difficulty accessing articulatory information?Psychological Research 43:235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nittrouer, S., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and McCowan, R.S. 1989. The emergence of phonetic segments.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 32:120–22.Google Scholar
  23. Olson, R.K., Forsberg, H., and Wise, B.W. 1994. Genes, environment, and the development of orthographic skills. InThe Varieties of Orthographic Knowledge I: Theoretical and Developmental Issues, ed. V. Berninger. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Olson, R.K., and Wise, B.W. 1992. Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback.Reading and Writing 4:107–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Palincsar, A.S., and Brown, A.L. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activity.Cognition and Instruction 2:117–75.Google Scholar
  26. Perfetti, C.A. (1985)Reading Ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sattler, J. M. 1982.Assessment of Children’s Intelligence and Spatial Abilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  28. Snowling, M., and Hulme, C. 1994. The development of phonological skills. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 346:21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stanovich, K. 1986. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in acquisition of literacy.Remedial and Special Education 5:11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stanovich, K., Cunningham, A., and Feeman, D. 1984. Intelligence, cognitive skills and early reading progress.Reading Research Quarterly 19:278–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Torgesen, J. 1994. Memory. Presented at the NIH conference on Attention, Memory, and Executive Function, January, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  32. Treiman, R., and Breaux, A. 1982. Common phoneme and overall similarity relations among spoken syllables.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11:569–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Truch, S. 1994. Stimulating basic reading processes using Auditory Discrimination in Depth.Annals of Dyslexia 24:60–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Uhry, J., and Shepherd, M. 1993. Segmentation/spelling instruction as part of a first-grade reading program: Effects on several measures of reading.Reading Research Quarterly 28:218–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., and Rashotte, C. 1994. The development of reading related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study.Developmental Psychology 30:73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wechsler, D. 1974. Examiner’s manual:Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  37. Wise, B. 1991. What reading disabled children need: What is known and how to talk about it.Learning and Individual Differences 3:307–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wise, B.W., and Olson, R.K. 1992. Spelling exploration with a talking computer improves phonological coding.Reading and Writing 4:145–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wise, B., Olson, R., and Lindamood, P. April 1993. Training phonemic awareness: Why and how in computerized instruction. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  40. Wise, B.W., and Olson, R.K. 1994a. Computer speech and the remediation of reading and spelling problems.Journal of Special Education Technology 12:207–20.Google Scholar
  41. Wise, B., and Olson, R. 1994b. Using computers to teach spelling to children with learning disabilities. InHandbook of Spelling: Theory, Process, and Intervention, eds. D. Brown and N. Ellis. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.Google Scholar
  42. Yopp, H.K. 1988. The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests.Reading Research Quarterly 23:159–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Orton Dyslexia Society 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara W. Wise
    • 1
  • Richard K. Olson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ColoradoBoulder

Personalised recommendations