“No. The construct of phonemic awareness is based on being able to focus on and manipulate sounds in spoken words and does not need to be linked to phonics (grapheme/phoneme relationships), as it can be taught without the use of letters or words. Whereas, phonics is underpinned by the alphabet using the alphabetic principle, where students need to recognize and name letters (upper and lowercase) and know that the sounds of spoken words can be represented by letters (or combination of letters) for reading and writing” (John Hattie, personal communication, July 13, 2017).
Articles in this section
- How much do we need to advocate for teacher professional development and Pre-service training in the area of phonemic awareness? When we ask teachers and most new graduates cannot define nor teach it.
- Why is phonemic awareness tied up with phonics when it is a totally different construct? Does combining the two indicate that they are the same construct?
- When new graduate teachers cannot define phonemic awareness as different than phonics, does it mean that their professors disregard the difference and the importance of phonemic awareness?
- I can’t find a ranking of phonemic awareness as a construct alone. If it is rolled up into phonics, then there must be a ranking or effect size as a single construct. Would you kindly point me to a resource?
- I am wondering if your research is aligned to a specific program or curriculum that can be purchased by our school?
- You state that bilingual programmes have an effect size of 0.36, so not so significant. What do you define as bilingual progammes and where, around the world, was this data taken from? Why do you think the effect size is so low?