This study addresses the systematization of phonological awareness intervention programs in the classroom, a key component for reading learning and educational inclusion. Following PRISMA guidelines, 18 programs were analyzed, demonstrating that phonological awareness teaching is feasible and beneficial in school contexts, particularly for students with learning difficulties. This approach promotes early detection and intervention within an inclusive framework, catering to disabled and non-disabled students. The findings emphasize the need for further research to standardize intervention methods and move towards more inclusive educational practices. These insights are crucial for developing pedagogical strategies that effectively integrate phonological awareness, contributing to accessible and equitable education for all students. The significance of this study lies in its potential to guide future educational policies and teaching practices, highlighting the value of phonological awareness as an inclusive and essential tool in the educational process.
Article Details
How to Cite
Amaya-Medina, D.-R., Gonzalez-Fernández, D., Flores-González , J.-F., & Iturra-Osorio , D. (2025). Teaching Phonological Awareness in the Classroom to Support Reading Acquisition: A Systematic Review. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 24(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2025.24.2.514
Amaya-Medina, González-Fernández, Flores-González, and Iturra-Osorio: Teaching Phonological Awareness in the Classroom to Support Reading Acquisition: A
Systematic Review
INTRODUCTION
Phonological awareness (PA) is a key precursor to literacy acquisition (; ). It is a metalinguistic skill that enables individuals to reflect on linguistic
units and manipulate their core components (). These components include the word, syllable, rhyme, and phoneme levels (). The latter is significant for reading development and is a key focus of educational
intervention (; ). Due to its importance, students are expected to develop phonemic awareness through
formal instruction during the early school years (). In educational settings where students have shown difficulties in phonological
awareness, problems have been observed in learning letter–sound correspondences and,
consequently, in acquiring reading skills ().
PA programs are generally implemented in the classroom by teachers trained to instruct
typically developing students () or outside the classroom by professionals specialized in supporting students with
reading difficulties individually or in small groups (). Inclusive education encourages all students to develop their learning primarily
within the classroom (). Moreover, there is convincing evidence that PA can be effectively taught in the
classroom through collaboration between teachers and speech and language therapists
(). Sá and report that studies implementing PA programs have demonstrated effectiveness in fostering
PA development. However, methodological inconsistencies, such as a lack of uniformity
in the skills included, may affect the reported effectiveness. In this context, the
teaching of PA in the classroom has become a challenge for all professionals working
in the educational field, especially for classroom teachers, who have had to adapt
traditional teaching methods to meet the academic needs of a highly diverse student
population ().
In this regard, it is crucial to systematize classroom-based PA intervention programs
and identify the elements that meet minimum standards for replicability in inclusive
settings. PA instruction should explicitly address the strategies needed to respond
to students' diverse needs and errors during learning, for example, scaffolding and
positive feedback (; ). Additionally, duration, intervention intensity, and the types of skills targeted
should be considered when designing instruction (). Therefore, we aim to systematize relevant information on classroom-based PA intervention
programs. Although systematic reviews exist to date, they do not focus on the classroom
as the primary setting for PA instruction. Reviewing and systematizing classroom-based
PA intervention programs could support the development of PA in a way that includes
all students. Based on this, the following research questions were formulated:
(1)
What are the fundamental pillars of PA instruction in the classroom to support reading
acquisition?
(2)
What outcomes have been observed in classroom-based PA training programs?
METHOD
This study followed a systematic review design, and its development adhered to the
guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) standards at each stage ().
Search strategy
The search was conducted in the Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO databases in August
2021. The search strategy included the following keywords: "phonological awareness" AND intervention OR programme OR training OR therapy OR treatment
OR strategies AND classroom, combined using the Boolean operators AND and OR. Filters were applied to the full
text. No restrictions were placed on language or publication date. The first three
researchers conducted the process jointly to avoid errors or duplicating the information
extracted from the databases.
Eligibility criteria
The selection of studies was based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) research
on PA intervention programs; (b) the intervention program had to be implemented in
the classroom; (c) the intervention had to be delivered to the entire class; and (d)
programs in all languages were included.
On the other hand, the following exclusion criteria were applied: (a) programs in
which PA was addressed in small groups within the classroom; (b) programs that did
not intervene on PA but used it as an assessment tool for other skills; and (c) research
types such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, books, theses, and grey literature.
Study selection process
The search yielded 559 articles [Scopus (9%), EBSCO (64%), Web of Science (27%)].
All database studies were organized into a shared Excel spreadsheet, including information
on authors, year, title, and abstract. Subsequently, the first author (DA) manually
removed duplicates, a process verified by the second author (DG). Based on the inclusion
and exclusion criteria, the first three authors reviewed an equal number of articles,
reading the titles and abstracts. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected
for full-text review. The fourth author (DI), blinded to the evaluations of the other
researchers, reviewed 20% of the articles (), achieving strong inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.81; ). As a result, 82 studies were selected for full-text review. At this stage, the
first two authors independently reviewed the chosen texts. In discrepancies, the articles
were jointly reanalyzed to reach a consensus. Ultimately, 18 articles met the established
criteria and were included in this review (Figure 1).
Quality assessment of the studies
The quality assessment of the articles included in the review was conducted by the
fourth author (DI) and verified by the rest of the authors in cases of uncertainty.
For this purpose, the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool was used
(). It consists of 13 items, each scored on a scale from 0 to 3, yielding a maximum
total score of 39. Higher scores indicate better study quality.
Data extraction
Once the 18 articles were selected, the data extraction process began for each study.
The first three authors printed and reviewed the articles simultaneously. Each author
then cross-checked the extracted information with a colleague to ensure accuracy.
The first author (DA) manually extracted and organized the data into three tables.
In contrast, the second author (DG) verified the information and standardized the
data to improve clarity and understanding.
Initially, general information about each study was extracted, including the year
of publication, research design, country where the study was conducted, and language.
Subsequently, key details related to the intervention characteristics were collected,
such as participants’ age, the grade level at which the program was implemented, and
program duration (total duration, number of sessions, session frequency, and minutes
per session). Finally, information about the intervention programs was analyzed based
on the framework proposed by . For each intervention program, the following data were extracted: author, language,
country, participants, duration of the intervention, targeted skill, interventionist
professional, and intervention strategies used. In addition, the primary outcomes
and contributions of the programs to PA instruction within the classroom were included.
Figure 1PRISMA Flow Diagram
RESULTS
(1) What are the fundamental pillars of PA instruction in the classroom to support reading
acquisition?
Characteristics of the studies
As shown in Appendix 1, most of the eighteen analyzed studies employed an experimental design (61%). Regarding
language, 44% of the studies were conducted in Spanish. Regarding methodological quality
assessment, using the QuADS scale criteria, the analyzed studies yielded scores ranging
from 20 to 34 points, corresponding to quality levels between 51% and 87%. Overall,
the item that received the highest score was the statement of intervention objectives
(x̅=2.9). In contrast, the item with the lowest score showed that stakeholders were
considered in the study design (x̅=0.3) (Appendix 2).
Targeted skill and participants
All 18 reviewed interventions included the teaching of phonemic awareness. Among these
studies, seven reported that their results contributed to understanding the relationship
between PA intervention programs and reading development (; ; ; ; ; ; ). Two studies linked their findings to writing (; ), and only one focused on academic performance ().
Regarding participants, only eight studies included individuals with disabilities
or at academic risk in their samples (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).
Facilitator
In 12 of the 18 studies analyzed, the intervention was led by classroom teachers,
and in only one case was it led by a speech and language therapist (). In the studies by and , the interventions were conducted collaboratively by a speech and language therapist
and the teachers, who designed and implemented PA tasks in the classroom. In addition,
13 studies provided training to facilitators. Of these, eight focused on the intervention
programs (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ); two focused on theoretical aspects of PA (; ); and three studies reported providing training without detailing its content (; ; ).
Intervention strategies and dosage
Regarding strategies or supports, only three studies provided specific details about
those used during the intervention (; ; ). These studies included modeling, explicit instruction, feedback, and scaffolding
supporting PA learning.
The total duration of the reviewed studies varied considerably. The longest interventions
were those by González-Seijas et al. (; ) and , with groups followed up to three years in the former studies and approximately 25
weeks in the latter.Among the shortest interventions were those by , lasting seven weeks, and those by and , lasting a total of eight weeks.It is worth noting that no consistent standard was observed regarding how intervention
duration was reported: it ranged from hours, as in Linan-Thompson et al. (), to years, as in González-Seijas et al. (; ), and also included durations reported in days and months.
(2) What outcomes have been observed in classroom-based PA training programs?
Main findings and conclusions
The various studies analyzed here indicate that PA instruction can be implemented
from an early age; some even emphasize the importance of its implementation as a means
of preventing difficulties in reading and writing acquisition (; ; ; ). The studies by , , and further reinforce that classroom-based phonemic awareness instruction yields the
most significant impact. Some studies target phonemic awareness from an early age,
achieving positive outcomes even among students at risk, such as those with language
disorders (; ; ; ; ; ). Several studies suggest that students at risk for reading difficulties can benefit
from PA intervention within the classroom context, particularly when combined with
interventions targeting other skills that support emergent literacy—such as rapid
naming (; ; ; ), alphabet knowledge (; ; ; ; ; ; ), vocabulary development (; ), and morphological awareness ().
Contributions of classroom-based PA intervention
Implementing PA intervention in the classroom has proven to be as effective as programs
conducted in clinical settings, according to , enabling students to rapidly acquire the concepts without needing instruction outside
the classroom. Moreover, this approach is more cost-effective, eliminating the need
for additional staff, extra materials, or time outside the regular school schedule,
as highlighted by , , and . Significantly, teaching PA in the classroom also facilitates the early identification
of students with low reading performance and those who require support in additional
cognitive skills (; ).
DISCUSSION
This review aimed to systematize relevant components of studies on PA instruction
in the classroom. Its main contribution is defining how programs are structured to
address this skill. This review is directly aligned with inclusive education, which
promotes teaching all students within the classroom setting (). Our findings show that PA instruction in the classroom is carried out alongside
the development of other skills, such as rapid naming and grapheme–phoneme conversion.
These findings are consistent with previous studies suggesting that PA training should
include additional skills related to reading instruction (). However, it is essential to emphasize that our analysis shows PA, and specifically
phonemic awareness, continues to play a central role in reading instruction and learning,
reaffirming the importance of its training within educational settings.
On the other hand, our results reveal a widespread lack of detail regarding the strategies
used in the reviewed programs. Intervention strategies are key to supporting students
in achieving the expected outcomes, for example, through questioning, feedback, and
modeling. The reviewed studies report strategies such as modeling, scaffolding, and
feedback, which align with the recommendations of , who suggest that professionals should not only ask questions, but also carefully
sequence instruction, provide extensive practice, and offer scaffolding based on the
student’s level of performance. In our view, this is one of the most significant variables
in intervention, yet at the same time, one of the least detailed in the studies, which
could hinder the implementation and replicability of these programs ().
Regarding therapeutic dosage, the highlights its importance for the effectiveness of PA intervention. Our results show
no consensus regarding the sessions' duration, frequency, and length. This poses a
challenge for evidence-based decision-making, as although this information is explicitly
reported in the studies, as suggested by and , there is no clear trend that would allow for a precise determination of intervention
dosage in PA instruction within the classroom. This represents a challenge for both
teachers and speech and language therapists, as properly defining the duration of
treatment is crucial to ensuring the acquisition of language and/or reading skills
(). Such heterogeneity has previously been reported for other language levels (). It may hinder replicability and decision-making according to evidence-based practice
guidelines (). Therefore, it is recommended that future research report dosages based on students’
needs and available classroom resources ().
Regarding the interventionist, although collaborative work between teachers and speech
and language therapists is presented as a valuable approach for teaching PA in the
classroom (), only two studies in this review reported collaborative PA instruction in the classroom.
Nevertheless, such interactions contribute to improved teaching practices that facilitate
learning for all students, including those with disabilities (). This highlights a key opportunity for developing programs that foster collaborative
implementation of PA instruction between teachers and speech and language therapists
(). Therefore, future studies must specify how professionals should interact in teaching
PA in the classroom, both during the assessment process () and during intervention ().
Finally, studies such as those by and support the notion that early PA instruction in the classroom is not only more cost-effective
and efficient than in clinical settings but also aligned with the principles of inclusive
education (). This approach facilitates the early detection and intervention of PA difficulties,
particularly among students at risk for learning difficulties, within their regular
educational environment.
Limitations
The limitations of this study include the number of databases used. For future research,
it is recommended to expand the scope and include additional databases that may contain
studies not considered in this review. Moreover, the analysis does not allow for the
identification of which programs are effective for PA training. Therefore, meta-analyses
are recommended to obtain such information.
Conclusion
PA is recognized as an essential skill for learning to read and write. The reviewed
programs reveal limited information regarding strategies or procedures that can help
clarify how to teach this skill in the classroom. These findings will improve decision-making
for those responsible for designing language intervention programs, educational plans,
and even those in charge of shaping educational policy. However, the high variability
of the results highlights the urgent need for further research, including studies
incorporating students with greater support needs.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Durley Ruth Amaya-Medina: Project administration; Formal analysis; Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing
– original draft; Writing – review and editing; Investigation; Methodology; Resources;
Supervision; Validation; Visualization.
Daniela González-Fernández: Formal analysis; Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing – original draft; Writing
– review and editing; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Supervision; Validation;
Visualization.
Juan Felipe Flores-González: Formal analysis; Writing – review and editing; Validation; Visualization.
Acosta-Rodríguez, V. M., Moreno-Santana, A. M., & Axpe-Caballero, M-Ángeles (2011).
Intervención sobre la conciencia fonológica en sujetos con trastorno específico del
lenguaje en contextos inclusivos: posibilidades y limitaciones. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 63(3), 9-22. https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/BORDON/article/view/29038
Archibald, L. (2017). SLP-educator classroom collaboration: A review to inform reason-based
practice. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 2, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941516680369
Bodé, S., Content, A. (2011). Phonological awareness in kindergarten: a field study
in Luxembourgish schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26, 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0039-0
6
Carson, K. L., Gillon, G. T., & Boustead, T. M. (2013). Classroom phonological awareness
instruction and literacy outcomes in the first year of school. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 44(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0061)
7
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition
from novice to expert. Psychological Science in Public Interest, 19(1), 5-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
8
Clayton, F. J., West, G., Sears, C., Hulme, C., & Lervåg, A. (2019). A longitudinal
study of early reading development: Letter-sound knowledge, phoneme awareness and
RAN, but not letter-sound integration, predict variations in reading development.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 24, 107-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1622546
9
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., Stiff, J. C., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2019). The importance
of early phonics improvements for predicting later reading comprehension. British Educational Research Journal, 45(6), 1220-1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3559
10
Flórez-Romero, R., Restrepo, M. A., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2009). Promoción del
alfabetismo inicial y prevención de las dificultades en la lectura: una experiencia
pedagógica en el aula de preescolar. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 27, 79-96. https://revistas.urosario.edu.co/index.php/apl/article/view/17
11
González-Fernández, D., Flores-González, J. F., Gambetta-Tessini, K., & Segura-Pujol,
H. (2023). Colaboración entre fonoaudiólogos y profesores de aula: determinantes del
trabajo colaborativo. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 88, 121-137. https://doi.org/10.17227/rce.num88-13471
12
González-Seijas, R. M., Cuetos-Vega, F., López-Larrosa, S., & Vilar-Fernández, J.
M. (2017). Efectos del entrenamiento en conciencia fonológica y velocidad de denominación
sobre la lectura: un estudio longitudinal. Estudios sobre educación, 32. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.32.155-177
13
González-Seijas, R. M., Cuetos-Vega, F., Vilar-Fernández, J., & Uceira, E. (2015).
Efectos de la intervención en conciencia fonológica y velocidad de denominación sobre
el aprendizaje de la escritura. Aula Abierta, 43(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aula.2014.06.001
14
González-Seijas, R. M., López-Larrosa, S., Vilar-Fernández, J., & Rodríguez-López-Vázquez,
A. (2013). Estudio de los predictores de la lectura. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 11(2), 98-110. https://revistas.uvigo.es/index.php/reined/article/view/1952/1863
15
Gutiérrez-Fresneda, R. (2018). Habilidades favorecedoras del aprendizaje de la lectura
en alumnos de 5 y 6 años. Revista Signos Estudios de Lingüística, 51(96), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342018000100045
16
Gutiérrez-Fresneda, R., De-Vicente-Yagüe-Jara, M. I., & Alarcón-Postigo, R. (2020).
Desarrollo de la conciencia fonológica en el inicio del proceso de aprendizaje de
la lectura. Revista signos, 53(104), 664-681. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342020000300664
17
Harrison, R., Jones, B., Gardner, P., & Lawton, R. (2021). Quality assessment with
diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality
in systematic reviews of mixed-or multi-method studies. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06122-y
18
Hegarty, N., Titterington, J., McLeod, S., & Taggart, L. (2018). Intervention for
children with phonological impairment: Knowledge, practices and intervention intensity
in the UK. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 53(5), 995-1006. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12416
19
Justi, C. N. G., Henriques, F. G., & Dos-Reis-Justi, F. R. (2021). The dimensionality
of phonological awareness among Brazilian Portuguese-speaking children: a longitudinal
study. Psicologia, Reflexao e Critica: Revista Semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da
UFRGS, 34(1), 26-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-021-00192-x
20
Kelly, C., Leitão, S., Smith-Lock, K., & Heritage, B. (2019). The effectiveness of
a classroom-based phonological awareness program for 4-5-year-olds. International journal of speech-language pathology, 21(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2017.1400589
21
Kjeldsen, A. C., Educ, L., Saarento-Zaprudin, S. K., & Niemi, P. O. (2019). Kindergarten
training in phonological awareness: Fluency and comprehension gains are greatest for
readers at risk in grades 1 through 9. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(5), 366-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419847154
22
Kruse, L. G., Spencer, T. D., Olszewski, A., & Goldstein, H. (2015). Small groups,
big gains: efficacy of a tier 2 phonological awareness intervention with preschoolers
with early literacy deficits. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(2), 189-205. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0035
23
Labra, M., Martínez, L., Sazo, J., & González, C. (2022). Componentes generales
de la intervención fonoaudiológica en Trastorno Específico del Lenguaje: una revisión
panorámica. Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes, 33(5) 458-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmclc.2022.09.003
24
Laing, S. P., & Espeland, W. (2005). Low intensity phonological awareness training
in a preschool classroom for children with communication impairments. Journal of Communication Disorders, 38, 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.03.009
25
Linan-Thompson, S., Pedrotty-Bryant, D., Dickson, S. V., & Kouzekanani, K. (2005).
Spanish literacy instruction for at-risk kindergarten students. Remedial and Special Education, 26(4), 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260040601
26
Manosalba-Torres, C., & Arancibia-Gutiérrez, B. (2023). Diseño y validación de la
Prueba de desarrollo de los Dominios de Alfabetización Emergente (PDAE) en Preescolar.
Ocnos, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2023.22.2.339
27
Mayer, A., & Motsch, H. J. (2015). Efficacy of a classroom integrated intervention
of phonological awareness and word recognition in "Double-Deficit Children" learning
a regular orthography. Journal of Education and Learning, 4, 88-111. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v4n3p88
McNeill, B. C., Justice, L. M., Gillon, G. T., & Schuele, C. M. (2017). Phonological
awareness: Description, assessment, and intervention. In J. E. Bernthal, N. W. Bankson,
& P. Flipsen (Eds.), Articulation and phonological disorders (8th ed., pp. 302-324). Pearson.
30
Molina-Roldán, S., Marauri, J, Aubert, A., & Flecha R (2021) How inclusive interactive
learning environments benefit students without special needs. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 661427. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661427
31
Moll, K., Ramus, F., Bartling, J., Bruder, J., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., Lyytinen, H.,
… & Landerl, K. (2014). Cognitive mechanisms underlying reading and spelling development
in five European orthographies. Learning and Instruction, 29, 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.003
32
Muñoz, K., Valenzuela, M. F., & Orellana, P. (2018). Phonological awareness instruction:
A program training design for low-income children. International Journal of Educational Research, 89, 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.003
33
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow,
C. D., ... & Alonso-Fernández, S. (2021). Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada
para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Revista Española de Cardiología, 74(9), 790-799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016
34
Parpucu, N., & Dinç, B. (2017). The effects of colorful worlds of sounds program on
phonological awareness of preschool children. Education and Science, 42, 233-261. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6864
Phillips, B. M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2008). Successful phonological
awareness instruction with preschool children: Lessons from the classroom. Topics in early childhood special education, 28(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121407313813
37
Porta, M. E., & Ramírez, G. (2020). The impact of an early intervention on vocabulary,
phonological awareness, and letter-sound knowledge among Spanish-speaking kindergarteners.
International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 8(1), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2018.1558137
38
Ritter, M. J., & Saxon, T. F. (2011). Classroom-based Phonological Sensitivity Intervention
(PSI) using a narrative platform: An experimental study of first graders at risk for
a reading disability. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740109356800
39
Sá, M., & Lousada, M. L. (2022). Effectiveness of phonological awareness stimulation
in preschoolers. A systematic review. Revista Chilena de Fonoaudiología, 21, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-4692.2022.64161
40
Schuele, C. M., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: beyond
the basics. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 39(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/002)
41
Schuele, C. M., Justice, L. M., Cabell, S. Q., Knighton, K., Kingery, B., & Lee, M.
W. (2008). Field-based evaluation of two-tiered instruction for enhancing kindergarten
phonological awareness. Early Education and Development, 19, 726-752. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802375299
42
Segura-Pujol, H., & Briones-Rojas, C. (2021). Treatment intensity for developmental
language disorder: A systematic review. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23(5), 465-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2020.1856412
43
Spencer, E. J., Schuele, C. M., Guillot, K. M., & Lee, M. W. (2008). Phonemic awareness
skill of speech-language pathologists and other educators. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 39(4), 512-520. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0080)
44
Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: Early phoneme awareness and phonics
teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learner. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 587-605. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709999157914
45
Tyler, A. A., Osterhouse, H., Wickham, K., Mcnutt, R., & Shao, Y. (2014). Effects
of explicit teacher-implemented phoneme awareness instruction in 4-year-olds. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 28(7-8), 493-507. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2014.927004
46
Veríssimo, L., Costa, M., Miranda, F., Pontes, C., & Castro, I. (2021). The importance
of phonological awareness in learning disabilities’ prevention: Perspectives of pre-school
and primary teachers. Frontiers in Education, 6, 750328. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.750328
47
Wallace, E. S., Senter, R., Peterson, N., Dunn, K. T., & Chow, J. (2021). How to establish
a language-rich environment through a collaborative SLP–teacher partnership. Teaching Exceptional Children, 54(3), 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059921990690
48
Wilson, L., McNeill, B. C., & Gillon, G. T. (2019). Understanding the effectiveness
of student speech-language pathologists and student teachers co-working during inter-professional
school placements. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 35, 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659019842203
Appendix
APPENDIX 1
Characteristics of intervention programs in phonological awareness in the classroom
Author (Year)Language/Country
Participants (CS = Control group; EG = Experimental group / MA = Mean age)
Duration of the classroom intervention
Type of study
Level of the targeted
Facilitator / Facilitator training
Intervention strategies
Main results and conclusions
Contributions of the PA intervention in the classroom
English/England
112 students CG = 57; MA: 5.08 EG = 55; MA: 5.0
Total: 12 weeks, 30 minutes per day.
Experimental
Phoneme
Classroom teachers. Training on the program
Not reported.
Significant gains were observed in the experimental group in phoneme segmentation
and awareness, as well as improvements in reading and writing skills. One year after
the intervention, this group remained ahead in phonemic awareness. These findings
support the idea that early intervention has lasting effects on reading and writing
development.
Most children can quickly acquire PA concepts within the classroom setting without
the need for small group instruction.
Spanish / United States
28 students: CG: 58 participants; MA = 5.78 EG: 70 participants; MA = 5.78
Total: 2 sessions total 3 sessions per week, 20 minutes each
Experimental
Phoneme
Classroom teachers. Training on the program
Modeling, explicit language use, corrective feedback, scaffolding, and rhyming activities
Despite the short duration of the intervention, at-risk children who received explicit
reading instruction in Spanish made significant gains in PA skills.
PA interventions are easy to implement and cost-effective in classroom settings. Teachers
were able to apply the intervention quickly, without the need for additional resources,
and it improved students’ academic performance.
English / United States
11 participants: CG = 5; MA: 4.3 EG= 6; MA: 4.3
Total: 8 weeks, 2 sessions per week, 15 minutes each
Experimental
Rhymes and phonemes
Researcher Training not reported.
Not reported.
The brief, low-intensity intervention improved PA in children with expressive language
and/or phonological disorders, bringing them to the level of their peers in the control
group.
Classroom-based interventions can directly improve PA skills in children with speech
and/or language delays.
Classroom teachers and speech-language pathologist. Training on the program.
Not reported.
PA instruction has a positive impact on reading and writing; however, the quality
of instruction and the way children engage in sessions are key factors.
Classroom-based PA instruction helped differentiate typically developing children
from those with lower performance. Small-group instruction is more costly and may
be better targeted to children with greater needs.
The program combined universal practices with targeted interventions, including PA
and small-group work, and was more effective in fostering skills required for alphabetic
success.
Small-group PA work benefits children performing below average.
Spanish / Spain
3 participants MA: 4
Total: 48 sessions, 3 per week, 15 minutes each
Case study
Syllabic and phonemic
Classroom teachers and speech-language pathologist. Training not reported.
Classroom organization, structured PA knowledge, scaffolding, and interactive modeling.
Improvements were observed in intersyllabic and intrasyllabic awareness within the
classroom context. However, the development of phonemic awareness was minimal. It
is concluded that although classroom-based instruction may positively impact syllabic
awareness in children with Specific language impairment (SLI), a more clinical approach
is required to effectively develop phonemic awareness.
Children with SLI can benefit from classroom-based intervention focused on intersyllabic
and intrasyllabic awareness. However, improving phonemic awareness likely requires
targeted work outside the classroom.
Total: 20 weeks, 5 sessions per week, 10 minutes each
Experimental
Rhyme, syllable, and phonemeas
Classroom teachers. Training on the program.
Not reported.
Moderate statistical effects were found for phoneme synthesis and pseudoword tasks.
For pseudoword spelling, only syllable synthesis and short-term verbal memory were
significant predictors. Teacher training and participation in supervision sessions
did not contribute significantly.
The study suggests that PA activities can be easily integrated into the current kindergarten
context without requiring specialized knowledge or substantial instructor supervision.
Moreover, they may help teachers identify non-responders, who are potentially at greater
risk for learning difficulties.
Total: 12 weeks, 2 sessions per week, 25 minutes each
Experimental
Rhyme, syllable, and phoneme
Speech-language pathologist. Training not reported.
Modeling, repetition, guidance, and verbal explanations. Facilitative prompts based
on the child's responses.
The implementation of the PSI program in the classroom significantly improved reading
skills in children identified as at risk for reading disabilities.
This study provides preliminary evidence that children at risk, including those identified
with speech and language impairments, can also benefit from classroom-based PSI interventions.
Total: 12 weeks, 4 sessions per week, 30 minutes each
Quasi-experimental
Phoneme
Classroom teachers. Training on the program.
Not reported.
Intensive classroom-based PA instruction significantly improved reading and spelling,
benefiting both children with TEL and those at risk for reading difficulties.
PA instruction should adopt a comprehensive approach to the development of phonemic
awareness.
Longitudinal study of up to 3 years in preschool; 2 sessions per week
Experimental
Rhyme, syllable, and phoneme
Classroom teachers. Training not reported.
Not reported.
After three years of intervention in PA and rapid naming starting at age 4, the results
showed improved performance compared to the official curriculum. Age-specific tasks
suggest that PA is particularly critical at ages 4 and 5, while rapid naming plays
a greater role at age 5. The findings underscore the importance of designing interventions
tailored to needs identified from an early age.
Not reported.
English / United States
24 participants: MA: 3.10 – 4.11
Total: 10 weeks, 4 sessions per week, 20 minutes each
Quasi-experimental
Phoneme.
Classroom teachers. Training on theoretical aspects
Not reported.
Explicit phonemic awareness instruction for 4-year-old children led to significant
gains, highlighting the importance of targeted instruction in phoneme blending.
Phonemic awareness instruction involving complex tasks can be implemented in the classroom
setting with 4-year-old children, benefitting even those at risk for reading disorders.
Longitudinal study of up to 3 years in preschool; 2 sessions per week, 30–45 minutes
each
Quasi-experimental
Rhyme, syllable, and phoneme
Classroom teachers. Training on the program.
Not reported.
The results highlight the importance of PA and vocabulary development (VD) in writing,
as both are fundamental for spelling skills and the automatization of basic written
processes. PA contributes to early spelling.
Explicit classroom instruction in PA and rapid naming improves writing acquisition,
at least at basic levels. These findings underscore the importance of designing programs
suitable for classroom implementation.
German / Germany
85 participants: CG= 68; MA: 6.4 EG= 17; MA: 6.4
Total: 14 weeks, 2 sessions per week, 40 minutes each
Experimental
Rhyme, syllable, and phoneme
Classroom teachers. Training on the program.
Not reported.
Children with a double deficit require targeted support. These results are the first
to show that inclusive classroom interventions for German-speaking children can successfully
prevent difficulties in written language acquisition among those at risk for dyslexia.
PA difficulties can be addressed within the classroom context, even when combined
with rapid naming difficulties. However, it is suggested that small-group instruction
may be even more effective for these children.
Total: 8 weeks, 3 sessions per week, 40–60 minutes each.
Quasi-experimental
Rhyme, syllable, and phoneme
Researcher. Training not reported.
Not reported.
The Colorful Worlds of Sounds program is effective in improving PA. The findings emphasize
the importance of early PA intervention in education and its positive impact on reading
development.
Phonemic awareness contributes more significantly to reading acquisition than syllabic
awareness, which appears to be less relevant. The study suggests designing instructional
proposals based on tasks focused on awareness of the smallest units of speech, along
with activities that promote rapid naming and dialogic reading.
Not reported.
Spanish /Chile
162 participants: CG= 81 EG= 81
Total: 5 months, 7 sessions per week, 15 minutes each
Quasi-experimental
Phoneme.
Classroom teachers. Training in theoretical aspects
Not reported.
The intervention in phonemic awareness led to notable improvements in phoneme segmentation,
highlighting its benefits. Teachers positively valued the feedback and planning, both
of which were crucial for enhancing teaching practices.
Classroom-based phonemic awareness intervention is effective when implemented through
a professional development approach, enhancing skills.
English / Australia
120 participants: CG= 60; MA: 4.2 EG= 60; MA: 4.2
Total: 38 weeks, one 40-minute session every two weeks
Experimental
Rhyme, syllable, and phoneme
Classroom teachers. Training not reported.especificado.
Not reported.
The program group showed significant improvements in phonemic awareness, literacy,
and reading. The program was effective in enhancing PA skills and alphabet knowledge
in young children. Short and varied instruction proved to be effective.
PA instruction delivered by classroom teachers in large-group settings can be effective.
One-on-one models, while more resource- and time-intensive, reach fewer students.
The results of this study support the integration of PA, vocabulary, and morphological
awareness into kindergarten interventions to promote later literacy success. Focusing
on PA alone may not yield the long-term outcomes required for more advanced literacy
tasks such as reading comprehension.
Early intervention programs can be effectively delivered to entire classrooms by trained
classroom teachers.
APPENDIX 2
Quality assessment of articles on PA intervention programs included in the review
