Content uploaded by Sue Buckley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sue Buckley on Jun 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Child Language Teaching and Therapy
29(3) 273 –290
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0265659012474674
clt.sagepub.com
Training phoneme blending skills
in children with Down syndrome
Kelly Burgoyne
University College London, UK
Fiona Duff and Maggie Snowling
University of Oxford, UK
Sue Buckley
Down Syndrome Education International, Kirkby Lonsdale, Cumbria, UK
Charles Hulme
University College London, UK
Abstract
This article reports the evaluation of a 6-week programme of teaching designed to support the
development of phoneme blending skills in children with Down syndrome (DS). Teaching assistants
(TAs) were trained to deliver the intervention to individual children in daily 10 –15-minute
sessions, within a broader context of reading and language instruction. Ten children with Down
syndrome (aged 6 years 11 months to 10 years 6 months) took part in the study; assessments of
reading and phonological skills were completed at baseline, after an 8-week control period, and
after 6-weeks of intervention. Children made significantly greater gains in phoneme blending skills
and single word reading during the intervention period than in the control period. Thus, children
with Down syndrome can make gains in blending skills, which may generalize to wider literacy
skills, following targeted training over relatively short periods.
Keywords
Blending, Down syndrome, intervention, phonological awareness, reading
I Introduction
Many children with Down syndrome (DS) can learn to read, although there is wide variability in
attainment levels (Hulme et al., 2012; Kay-Raining Bird and Chapman, 2011; Laws and Gunn, 2002).
Corresponding author:
Kelly Burgoyne, University College London, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Chandler House (Rm G05),
2 Wakefield Street, London WC1N 1PF, UK.
Email: k.burgoyne@ucl.ac.uk
474674CLT29310.1177/0265659012474674Child Language Teaching and TherapyBurgoyne et al.
2013
Article
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
274 Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(3)
For this group, whole-word reading skills are typically better than are skills in decoding as assessed
by measures of non-word reading. These difficulties in developing decoding skills appear related to
impairments in phonological awareness (Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2000; Lemons and Fuchs, 2010a,
2010b; Roch and Jarrold, 2008). Such difficulties may be interpreted as reflecting a difficulty with
phonological reading strategies in contrast to relatively strong visual or whole-word reading skills.
The skills and strategies that children have available to them to support reading are clearly
affected by reading instruction. Historically, when teaching children with DS to read, instruction
has tended to favour whole-word teaching methods building on visual learning strengths (Fidler et
al., 2005). Whole-word teaching can effectively increase the number of words children recognize;
however, it does not equip children with strategies to enable them to work out how to read new and
unfamiliar words for themselves. Potentially, this tendency towards whole-word approaches to
reading instruction contributes to the pattern of strengths and weaknesses observed in the reading
skills of children with DS (Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2000; Lemons and Fuchs, 2010a).
Two foundational skills that are important for reading development are letter-sound knowledge
and phoneme awareness (Muter et al., 2004). These skills can be applied when children encounter
new words in print: by sounding out the letters and blending those sounds together children can
read new unfamiliar words. This constitutes a phonic approach to reading. Skills in phoneme
blending (an aspect of phoneme awareness) are therefore of particular importance for learning to
read. There is good evidence to support the benefits of systematic phonics instruction (including
training in phoneme awareness) for improving reading (NRP, 2000; Torgerson et al., 2006), such
that phonics instruction (within a language-rich curriculum) is strongly recommended as the pri-
mary approach to reading in the UK (Rose, 2006).
Recent research suggests that phonological awareness and phonics-based reading instruction can also
be effective for many children with DS (e.g. Baylis and Snowling, 2012; Cologon et al., 2011; Goetz et
al., 2008; Lemons and Fuchs, 2010a; van Bysterveldt et al., 2006). In the largest evaluation of reading and
language intervention for children with DS to date (Burgoyne et al., 2012a), children made significantly
greater gains in single word reading following 20 weeks of comprehensive phonics-based reading
instruction combined with targeted language work, in comparison to typical classroom literacy instruc-
tion. Nonetheless, phonological skills and decoding remained challenging for many of these children: no
significant gains were made in non-word reading or spelling, and slower growth was reported on meas-
ures of phoneme blending and letter-sound knowledge after the initial phase of intervention.
The teaching programme evaluated by Burgoyne et al. (2012a) was delivered by trained teach-
ing assistants (TAs) who selected specific teaching targets and activities based on individual chil-
dren’s needs and abilities. These could include work at the syllable and rime levels as well as
phoneme level activities, and activities targeting alliteration and matching skills, as well as blend-
ing and segmenting. Thus, the actual content of teaching was variable and some children may have
received little direct work on phoneme blending skills even though these are particularly important
for decoding. Evidence of difficulties with phoneme level skills in children with DS has been
reported elsewhere (e.g. Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2000). Taken together this suggests that a teach-
ing programme which specifically targets these skills may be beneficial for children with DS.
In the current study, a teaching programme to support the development of phoneme blending
skills in children with DS was devised and evaluated. As teaching assistants report that they find
the teaching of phonics difficult (Burgoyne et al., 2012b; Carroll et al., 2011), we developed a
scripted programme that specifically targeted phoneme blending and was considered easy to
implement. The specific research questions were:
• Can a targeted teaching programme improve the phoneme blending skills of children with DS?
• Does the programme lead to gains in reading and spelling?
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Burgoyne et al. 275
• Do educators working with children with DS feel the programme is easy to implement,
effective and worthwhile?
II Method
Trained TAs delivered a 6-week intervention to support phoneme blending skills to individual children
in daily 10 –15 minute sessions in school. A case series research design was used whereby each child
acted as their own control. Ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics committee, Department
of Psychology, University of York; informed parental consent was obtained for all children.
1 Participants
Ten children (8 boys) with DS were recruited from a cohort of 57 children who had previously
participated in a larger study of reading and language intervention (Burgoyne et al., 2012a).
Recruitment was based on the following criteria:
• TAs working with the children expressed interest in taking part and reading continued to be
a target for instruction in school.
• At the latest assessment (January 2011) children correctly identified a minimum of 15 letter-
sounds, and attained word reading/phoneme blending scores that were below ceiling; and
• Children had good attendance (minimum of 50% attendance rate) during the reading and
language intervention.
Descriptive statistics on key reading and language measures at time 1 (t1; July 2011) are displayed
in Table 1. The children were aged between 6 years 11 months and 10 years 6 months (mean age 8
years 4 months) at t1. All attended mainstream primary school with support from a TA and had
previously received reading and language intervention as part of the larger study for either 40
(n = 4) or 20 weeks (n = 6).
2 Intervention programme
The teaching programme (30 sessions) was designed to be delivered in daily 10 –15-minute ses-
sions with individual children. The content followed a clear, structured progression based on the
sequence of phonemes outlined in Letters and sounds (DfES, 2007). Each teaching session fol-
lowed a prescribed format of six activities introducing 2 –3 new letter-sounds every second day.
Content increased in difficulty with vowel digraphs introduced in week 4 and consonant clusters in
week 5. The activities involved the blending of 2- and 3-phoneme words in order to minimize
cognitive load; TAs were provided with a list of 4-phoneme target words that could be used to
increase the difficulty level if they felt this was appropriate. An overview of the programme struc-
ture and sequence is provided in Appendix 1.
Six teaching activities, based on similar tasks used in previous research (e.g. Cologon et al., 2011;
Lemons and Fuchs, 2010a) were followed each day in a regular sequence (see Table 2 and example of
scripted teaching session in Appendix 2). The language used by teaching assistants was kept consistent
across activities to support the transfer of skills. Blending of individual phonemes/letter-sounds was
practised both aurally (providing practise in listening to sounds) and with letters (to make the connec-
tion with reading explicit). Pictures were used to support some of the activities to reduce cognitive
load, link the words to oral language and enable a non-verbal response; blending activities without
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
276 Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(3)
Table 2. Teaching activities.
1 Visual blending with pictures Teaching assistants (TAs) placed individual letters in front of children
to spell out a word; the child produced the sound for each letter
then blended the sounds to make the word. The child selected which
one of three pictures matched the word.
2 Visual blending TAs placed individual letters in front of the child to spell out a word;
the child produced the sound for each individual letter then blended
the sounds together and said the word.
3 Oral blending with pictures TAs sounded out a word; the child blended the sounds together to
make the word and pointed to one of three pictures which matched
the word.
4 Oral blending TAs sounded out a word; the child blended the sounds together and
said the word.
5 Non-word reading The child was shown a picture of a cartoon monster under which
was a non-word. The child was asked to sound out and blend the
sounds together to read the monster’s name.
6 Sentence reading The child was shown a sentence which contained a decodable
word which was marked out with sound buttons placed under each
phoneme. The child was asked to read the sentence and to sound out/
blend the decodable word, then to read the whole sentence again.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for key reading and language measures at t1 (July 2011).
Test (maximum score) Mean Range Mean age equivalent
Letter-sound knowledge (32) 24.80 (4.13) 18–31 5;2
Word reading (79) 14.00 (9.01) 1–35 –
Phoneme blending with pictures (10)* 7.70 (1.83) 5–10 –
Expressive vocabulary (170) 48.90 (14.11) 32–74 4;8
Receptive vocabulary (170) 52.80 (9.31) 44–72 4;7
Note. *Where chance performance is 3.33.
picture support were also included to reflect real reading experiences. Non-word reading activities
provided further practise in sounding out/blending letters. Lastly, a sentence reading activity was used
to highlight the link between sounding out/blending and reading in context. There was scope within the
programme to adjust the difficulty level of the teaching activities depending on the child’s ability: for
example, by reducing the number of word targets within each activity; increasing/decreasing the level
of TA support; or reading only the decodable word versus the whole sentence in the final activity.
TAs were provided with all resources and materials to deliver the teaching. The design of the
intervention and training took advantage of a number of strategies that increase fidelity to interven-
tion (Kaderavek and Justice, 2010):
• The intervention was scripted and followed a standard format with clear teaching targets for
each activity (for example, see Appendix 2).
• TAs were provided with a teaching manual and training (delivered via a DVD), which
included a demonstration of each of the teaching activities.
• TAs were observed in weeks 2–3 of intervention for ongoing support/follow-up training.
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Burgoyne et al. 277
Fidelity to intervention was evaluated during observations by rating TAs on 10 items measuring
effectiveness of delivery and adherence to the programme using a scale of 1 (excellent) to 3 (poor);
the average TA rating was 1.31.
All children completed all teaching sessions (1–30) in sequential order. TAs were instructed that
the blending programme should be delivered alongside the book reading and sight word learning
activities they had been delivering as part of a reading intervention programme (for a description
of the intervention, see Burgoyne et al., 2012a).
3 Assessments and procedure
Children were assessed three times: at the start of the study (t1), after an 8-week control period (time 2;
t2) and after 6 weeks of intervention (time 3; t3). The control period included school holidays as well as
time in school with typical teaching. Assessments were conducted by the first author (KB) and two
research assistants at the University of York, all of whom had training and experience in assessing chil-
dren with DS. At each time point, testing was completed in a single session in a quiet room at the child’s
school. TAs were present during testing to support behaviour and communication where necessary.
a Descriptive measures (t1)
• Letter-sound knowledge (YARC; Hulme et al., 2009): Children were asked to identify 32
individual letters and digraphs (alpha = .98).
• Vocabulary: Children completed the Expressive and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary
Tests (EOWPVT; ROWPVT; Brownell, 2000). Children were required to name a series of
pictures and to choose the correct pictures – from arrays of 4 – which matched a series of
spoken words.
b Outcome measures (t1–t3)
• Single-word reading was assessed using the YARC Early Word Recognition (EWR) test
(Hulme et al., 2009; alpha = .98). A further set of words from the Test of Single-Word
Reading were given to children scoring over 25.
• Phoneme blending with pictures: Children selected one of three pictures that matched a
word spoken by the experimenter in ‘robot’ talk (i.e. saying the constituent phonemes
sequentially, with a one-second gap between each). Two practice items were followed by 10
test items (alpha = .67).
• Phoneme blending no pictures: Children were asked to name a word spoken by the experi-
menter in ‘robot’ talk. The test included two practice items and 12 test items (alpha = .66).
• Non-word Reading: Children were asked to read the names of 6 cartoon monsters: ‘et’,
‘om’, ‘ip’, ‘neg’, ‘sab’ and ‘hic’. Two practice items were given before test items (alpha =
.88). One point was awarded for each non-word read correctly.
• Sound isolation was assessed using the subtest from the YARC (Hulme et al., 2009), which
asks children to identify initial (6 items) and final (6 items) phonemes in spoken non-words.
• Spelling: Ten words were presented as pictures to be named and spelled (alpha = .97). If no
letters were correctly represented in the first two items the test was discontinued. Raw
scores were calculated by awarding 1 point for each word spelt correctly. A Phonetic Spelling
score was also derived, to assess how closely the orthographic representations of the conso-
nants matched the target consonants: 4 points were awarded for each correct letter; 3 points
for a letter that differed from the target consonant by only one phonetic feature (place,
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
278 Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(3)
manner or voicing); 2 points for a partially represented digraph, or for a correct letter in the
wrong position; and 1 point for a letter more than one phonetic feature away from the target
consonant. Twenty-three consonants were scored, giving a total of 92 points.
c TA Questionnaire. At t3 TAs were asked to complete a questionnaire about their experiences deliver-
ing the intervention. A 7-point response scale was used to rate the extent to which TAs agreed (1 = disa-
gree; 7 = agree), with 8 statements related to intervention delivery and effectiveness (see Table 5 below).
III Results
Table 3 shows the scores on measures of phonological and reading skills at t1, t2 and t3. As the
length of the control (t1–t2) and intervention periods (t2–t3) were not equal, gain scores were
adjusted to take into account differences in time periods: dividing gain scores by the time lag in
testing points (2.8 months in the control period versus 1.8 months in the intervention period) pro-
duced a comparable measure of gain per month.
Research Questions 1 and 2: Can a targeted teaching programme improve the
phoneme blending skills of children with DS, and does the programme lead to
gains in reading and spelling?.
Figure 1 compares the gains made per month during the control and intervention periods (95%
confidence intervals included). As can be seen from the graph, children made very little progress
over the control period; more progress was seen on all outcome measures during the intervention.
Paired t-tests on the adjusted gain scores showed that gains per month made during the intervention
Table 3. Mean (and standard deviations) pre- and post-intervention raw scores on outcome measures
(n = 10) with gain scores and t-values for changes in values across control (t1–t2) and intervention periods
(t2–t3).
t1 t2 t1–t2 t3 t2–t3
Test (maximum
score)
Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range Gain t(9) Mean (SD) Range Gain t(9)
Single word
reading (79)
14.00 (9.00) 1–35 14.00 (9.36) 4–35 0.00 0.00 17.50 (11.31) 4–43 3.50 4.20*
Sound isolation
(12)
2.70 (3.83) 0–10 3.00 (3.16) 0–7 0.30 0.28 4.50 (3.92) 0–11 1.50 1.77
Phoneme
blending with
pictures (10)
7.70 (1.83) 5–10 6.80 (1.55) 3–8 –0.90 1.06 9.20 (1.48) 6–10 2.40 3.42*
Phoneme
blending no
pictures (12)
6.50 (2.32) 4–12 5.70 (1.95) 3–9 –0.80 1.27 8.00 (2.05) 3–10 2.30 3.54*
Non-word
reading (6)
2.10 (1.52) 0–5 2.50 (1.27) 1–5 0.40 0.80 3.10 (0.99) 2–5 0.60 1.62
Spelling raw (10) 0.70 (0.82) 0–2 0.70 (0.95) 0–3 0.00 0.00 1.40 (1.58) 0–4 0.70 1.91
Spelling
phonetic (92)
41.30 (31.37) 0–78 48.30 (29.27) 0–82 7.00 1.29 55.10 (26.57) 0–83 6.80 1.63
Note. * p < .01.
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Burgoyne et al. 279
period were significantly larger than those made during the control period on blending (both with
and without pictures) and on word reading. No significant effects were found on measures of sound
isolation, non-word reading or spelling.
The gains in word reading for each child over the intervention period are presented in Table 4,
ordered according to increasing gains. All but one of the children made progress in word reading
during the course of the intervention, though there is considerable variability between children in
the size of the gains made.
Research Question 3: Do educators working with children with DS feel the
programme is easy to implement, effective and worthwhile?
Mean ratings (standard deviations) on the TA questionnaire are displayed in Table 5. Scores indi-
cate that TAs felt that the intervention was easy to implement and enjoyable, and had benefits for
the children’s development.
IV Discussion
This study evaluated a 6-week prescribed programme of teaching designed to develop phoneme
blending skills in a group of children with DS. The programme was delivered in the context of a
Table 5. Mean (standard deviations) for teaching assistant questionnaire ratings.
Question Rating*
a) The blending intervention was easy to deliver. 6.80 (0.42)
b) The child I work with has improved on the intervention activities. 5.80 (1.03)
c) The child I work with is more confident with the intervention activities. 5.89 (0.78)
d) I have seen the child I work with using a blending strategy more often
in reading contexts outside of the intervention.
5.60 (0.97)
e) The child I work with is now more able to sound out and blend new
words when reading.
5.30 (1.16)
f) I have enjoyed delivering the intervention. 7.00 (0.00)
g) The child I work with has enjoyed taking part in the intervention. 6.80 (0.42)
h) I believe there is a benefit of doing this specific type of intervention. 7.00 (0.42)
Table 4. Case analysis of the gains made in word reading during the control (t1–t2) and intervention periods (t2–t3).
Participant t1 t2 t1 –t2 gain t3 t2 –t3 gain
5 1 4 3 4 0
9 9 7 –2 8 1
10 12 12 0 13 1
7 10 12 2 14 2
1 21 23 2 26 3
2 9 4 –5 8 4
6 15 15 0 19 4
8 14 12 –2 17 5
3 14 16 2 23 7
4 35 35 0 43 8
Note. *1=disagree; 7=agree.
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
280 Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(3)
wider programme of literacy, which included book reading and sight word instruction. Using a case
series design in which children acted as their own controls, significant gains were seen on meas-
ures of phoneme blending skills (both with and without picture support). Gains also transferred to
a measure of single word reading. There was no evidence of transfer to sound isolation, non-word
reading or spelling skills.
The results of this study indicate that children with DS can learn to blend phonemes in words
following targeted instruction over a relatively short period of time. Phoneme awareness is critical
to the development of alphabetic reading skills; the ability to sound out and blend phonemes in
words is an important strategy for readers to tackle new and unfamiliar words. Significant effects
on word reading suggest that improving blending skills supported the development of a phonic
reading strategy, which transferred to gains in reading. It is important to note, however, that no
significant effects were found on a measure of non-word reading, argued to be a pure test of decod-
ing ability, and that children were also engaged in book reading and sight word learning activities
alongside the blending programme. Therefore it remains a possibility that children were reading
real words using alternative strategies.
It is notable that significant gains in blending and word reading were observed following only
six weeks of instruction. Consistent with previous research, gains made in word reading across the
intervention phase were highly variable across the group (ranging between 0 and 8 words). This
raises important questions about whether all children can benefit from this type of intervention, and
who intervention should be aimed at. It is interesting to note that the child who did not progress on
the word reading measure across the intervention period had both the lowest word reading and the
lowest vocabulary scores at time 1. Initial word reading has been identified as a significant predic-
tor of growth in decoding (Lemons and Fuchs, 2010a), leading to the suggestion that this type of
instruction may be most effective for those who have established some level of (sight word)
reading ability. Language has also been identified as a significant predictor of response to phonics-
based intervention, both for typically-developing children (e.g. Whiteley et al., 2007) and for chil-
dren with DS (e.g. Burgoyne et al., 2012a). It may be that children with limited existing reading
skills and significant and pervasive language deficits are not yet at a stage where they are able to
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
ReadingSound
isolaon
Blending
pictures
Blending
no
pictures
Nonword
reading
Spelling
raw
Spelling
phonec
Average gain per month
Control
Intervenon
***
**
Figure 1. Comparison of raw score gains made on each outcome measure over control and intervention
periods accounting for time, with 95% confidence intervals.
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Burgoyne et al. 281
benefit from this type of intervention approach, and that alternative, more foundational, interven-
tion may be more appropriate; it remains for future research to address this question.
Though children made gains in spelling during the intervention, no significant effects were seen
on this measure. Potentially, this type of intervention may have benefits for spelling over longer
periods of instruction. Scores on the spelling task were low at all assessment points. The nature of
the spelling task placed demands on fine motor skills which affected children’s performance on this
test; future work should take this into account when developing measures of spelling ability by, for
example, using magnetic letters or keyboards. Though the intervention activities did not explicitly
target spelling, such activities could easily be incorporated into future work to increase the poten-
tial for improving spelling skills.
This work is also consistent with other research that demonstrates that TAs can be trained to
deliver intervention effectively (Burgoyne et al., 2012a). Qualitative reports suggest that TAs
delivering intervention find the teaching of phonics to be difficult, even after training (Burgoyne
et al., 2012b; Carroll et al., 2011). The TAs in this study found the intervention to be easy and
enjoyable to implement, perhaps because of its prescriptive nature. Responses to the TA question-
naire also lend further support (albeit subjective) to the efficacy of the teaching programme; TAs
agreed with statements regarding improvements to children’s abilities and confidence in the inter-
vention activities, increased use of a blending strategy when reading outside of the intervention
sessions and greater ability in sounding out and blending words. TAs also agreed that they could
see the benefit of this type of intervention.
The teaching programme evaluated here could also be readily adapted for electronic delivery
(e.g. via iPad or iPhone apps). There are an increasing number of apps available that aim to address
specific reading skills in a programmed and structured way. Though rigorous evaluation of such
programmes is needed, they have considerable potential as many children find them engaging and
motivating and are able to attend to them for sustained periods of time.
There are a number of limitations to this study. The use of participants as their own historical
controls has been applied in this study as in previous evaluations of reading intervention both for
typically developing children (e.g. Duff et al., 2008) and for children with DS (e.g. Baylis and
Snowling, 2012; Cologon et al., 2011). However, this design does not adequately control for threats
to internal validity such as maturation and is therefore not sufficient to make strong claims regard-
ing the efficacy of the intervention. Future work would benefit from the inclusion of a control
group with which to compare progress. In addition, whilst the design of this study incorporated a
number of strategies that support fidelity to intervention, objective assessment of this was limited
to a single observation. Nonetheless this suggested that the intervention was implemented with a
sufficient degree of fidelity. The small sample size also limits the extent to which the findings can
be generalized to a wider sample and precludes a thorough investigation of factors that may con-
tribute to differential response to the intervention.
V Conclusions
Children with DS can learn to blend phonemes in words when provided with targeted instruction.
Developments in phoneme blending skills can potentially transfer to gains in word reading. Thus,
there is significant potential for prescriptive teaching to boost phoneme blending skills. These find-
ings add to current evidence that supports the efficacy of phonics-based reading approaches, taught
within comprehensive programmes of literacy instruction, with children with DS (e.g. Burgoyne
et al., 2012a; Goetz et al., 2008; Lemons and Fuchs, 2010b). This type of intervention can be deliv-
ered easily and effectively by TAs already working in the children’s classrooms.
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
282 Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(3)
Acknowledgements
Research assistance was provided by Dea Nielson and Sophie Brigstocke. Lauren James made a significant
contribution to the development of the intervention materials. Our thanks go to the schools, TAs, children and
families who took part in the research.
Funding
This project was supported by the Big Lottery Fund, a Nuffield summer student bursary and Down Syndrome
Education International.
References
Baylis P and Snowling M (2012) Evaluation of a phonological reading programme for children with Down
Syndrome. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 28: 39–56.
Brownell R (2000) Expressive and receptive one word picture vocabulary tests. 2nd edition. Novato, CA:
Academic Therapy Publications.
Burgoyne K, Duff FJ, Clarke P, Buckley S, Snowling MJ, and Hulme C (2012a) Efficacy of a reading and
language intervention for children with Down syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 53: 1044–53.
Burgoyne K, Duff FJ, Clarke P, Smith G, Buckley S, Snowling MJ, and Hulme C (2012b) A reading and
language intervention for children with Down Syndrome: Teaching handbook. Cumbria, UK: Down
Syndrome Education International.
Carroll JM, Bowyer-Crane C, Duff FJ, Snowling MJ, and Hulme C (2011) Developing language and literacy:
Effective intervention in the early years. Malden, MA: John Wiley.
Cologon K, Cupples L, and Wyver S (2011) Effects of targeted reading instruction on phonological aware-
ness and phonic decoding in children with Down syndrome. American Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities 116: 111–29.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2007) Letters and sounds: Principles and practice of high qual-
ity phonics. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Duff FJ, Fieldsend E, Bowyer-Crane C, Hulme C, Smith G, Gibbs S, and Snowling MJ (2008) Reading with
vocabulary intervention: Evaluation of an instruction for children with poor response to reading interven-
tion. Journal of Research in Reading 31: 319–36.
Fidler D, Most DE, and Guiberson MM (2005) Neuropsychological correlates of word identification in Down
syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities 26: 487–501.
Goetz K, Hulme C, Brigstocke S, Carroll JM, Nasir L, and Snowling M (2008) Training reading and phoneme
awareness skills in children with Down syndrome. Reading and Writing 21: 395–412.
Hulme C, Stothard SE, Clarke P, Bowyer-Crane C, Harrington A, Truelove E, and Snowling MJ (2009) York
assessment of reading for comprehension: Early reading. London: GL Assessment.
Hulme C, Goetz K, Brigstocke S, Nash H, Lervag A, and Snowling M (2012) The growth of reading skills in
children with Down syndrome. Developmental Science 15: 320–29.
Kaderavek JN and Justice LM (2010) Fidelity: An essential component of evidence-based practice in speech-
language pathology. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 19: 369–79.
Kay-Raining Bird E and Chapman RS (2011) Literacy development in childhood, adolescence, and young
adulthood in persons with Down syndrome. In: Burack J, Hodapp R, Iarocci G, and Zigler E (eds) The
Oxford handbook of intellectual disability and development. 2nd edition. Toronto: Oxford University
Press, 184–99.
Kay-Raining Bird E, Cleave PL, and McConnell L (2000) Reading and phonological awareness in chil-
dren with Down syndrome: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology
9: 319–30.
Laws G and Gunn D (2002) Relationships between reading, phonological skills and language development in
individuals with Down syndrome: A five year follow-up study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal 15: 527–48.
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Burgoyne et al. 283
Lemons CJ and Fuchs D (2010a) Phonological awareness of children with Down syndrome: Its role in learn-
ing to read and the effectiveness of related interventions. Research in Developmental Disabilities 31:
316–30.
Lemons CJ and Fuchs D (2010b) Modelling response to reading intervention in children with Down syn-
drome: An examination of predictors of differential growth. Reading Research Quarterly 45: 134–68.
Muter V, Hulme C, Snowling MJ, and Stevenson J (2004) Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical
skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental
Psychology 40: 663–81.
National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of the subgroups.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Clearing House.
Roch M and Jarrold C (2008) A comparison between word and nonword reading in Down syndrome: The role
of phonological awareness. Journal of Communication Disorders 41: 305–18.
Rose J (2006) Independent review of the teaching of early reading: Final report. London: Department for
Education and Skills.
Torgerson CJ, Brooks G, and Hall G (2006) A systematic review of the research literature on the use of sys-
tematic phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling. London: Department for Education and Skills.
van Bysterveldt A, Gillon G, and Moran C (2006) Enhancing phonological awareness and letter knowl-
edge in preschool children with Down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education 53: 301–29.
Whiteley HE, Smith D, and Connors L (2007) Young children at risk of literacy difficulties: Factors predict-
ing recovery from risk following phonologically-based intervention. Journal of Research in Reading 30:
249–69.
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
284 Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(3)
Session Old sounds New
sounds
Letters–pictures Letters Oral–pictures Oral Non-word Sentence
1 n/a s, a, t, p,
i, n
tap, tin, pin at, is, nap pan, tip, pip it, an, sip sa Turn the tap on.
2 s, a, t, p, i, n n/a sit, sat, pat in, pin, pan pit, sit, pin at, pat, pan ips Pat the dog.
3 s, a, t, p, i, n M, d, g man, map, pan am, dam, did dig, peg, pig tap, gap, gas id Get the map.
4 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g n/a mat, pat, pig tin, tag, sag man, map, pan dad, sad, sit pag The pig sat in the
mud.
5 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g o, c pot, cot, cap pop, pod, top cat, can, pan on, can, mop nom The baby is in the
cot.
6 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c n/a mop, top, map on, an, man pot, pat, sat dog, dig, pig ot Mop the floor.
7 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c k, ck, e pet, pen, ten kick, kit, pit sack, pack, sad net, neck, pet ick Sam has a pet.
8 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e
n/a neck, sock, sat met, get, got net, pet, peg get, pet, pat eka A smelly sock.
9 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e
u, r rat, cat, rug sat, run, sun red, rock,
duck
up, cup, cap um The rat is fat.
10 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r
n/a cup, up, cap rip, pip, put gun, sun, sad mug, mud, dad rin A cup of tea.
11 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r
h, b hit, hat, bat hot, pot, had bag, bed, red bin, big, dig bup He hit the ball.
12 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b
n/a bin, bug, rug hit, hid, did hen, ten, hug bus, bad, had hib The bug has wings.
13 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b
f/ff,l/ll fat, fan, man ill, hill, hat leg, peg, lick fog, dog, fill aff The dog is fat.
14 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll
n/a log, dog, lid dog, doll, ball lock, sock, lip fog, fun, sun lus She sat on the log.
15 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll
ss, j jam, jog, log job, jug, bug kiss, hiss, hit mess, less, leg jid Jam on toast.
16 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j
kiss, mess, kit pass, moss,
pan
jug, jet, pet jab, jig, dig oss The room was a
mess.
17 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j
v,w,x,y,z box, fox, bag van, vet, get boy, toy, bat will, win, hill veb He saw a fox.
Appendix 1. Overview of teaching programme.
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Burgoyne et al. 285
Session Old sounds New
sounds
Letters–pictures Letters Oral–pictures Oral Non-word Sentence
18 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j, v,
w, x, y, z
n/a wig, web, dig zip, zap, cap van, vet, man six, fix, sock wi The spider made a
web.
19 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j,
v, w, x, y, z
ch, sh chop, chip, lip much, rich,
mug
ship, shed, bed fish, wish, fat ach Chop the meat.
20 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k, ck,
e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j, v, w,
x, y, z
n/a shop, shell, bell dish, push,
put
chip, chick,
lick
shot, shin, pot shad Go to the shop.
21 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j,
v, w, x, y, z
ee,oo,
ng
bee, sheep, shed see, weep, sit ring, king, rat sing, long, sit eem The bee has stripes.
22 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j,
v, w, x, y, z, ee, oo, ng
n/a foot, book, ball look, wood,
lock
feet, deer,
door
bee, bed, deer unga Read the book.
23 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j,
v, w, x, y, z, ee, oo, ng
cl,cr clock, class, sock clip, club, rub crab, cress,
mess
crisp, cream,
team
clee The clock is round.
24 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j,
v, w, x, y, z, ee, oo, ng, cl, cr
n/a crash, crack, sack crab, crush,
jab
clap, clog, tap click, cliff, sick cra Crack the egg.
25 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j,
v, w, x, y, z, ee, oo, ng, cl, cr
bl,br blue, blood, wood blink, blow,
sink
bread, brush,
head
brown, bright,
light
blit Blink your eyes.
26 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j,
v, w, x, y, z, ee, oo, ng, cl, cr,
bl, br
n/a broom, brick, sick brush, brass,
kiss
black, blob,
shack
blob, bleed,
sheep
bru Pick up the broom.
(continued)
Appendix 1. (Continued)
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
286 Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(3)
Session Old sounds New
sounds
Letters–pictures Letters Oral–pictures Oral Non-word Sentence
27 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j,
v, w, x, y, z, ee, oo, ng, cl, cr,
bl, br
gl,gr glass, glove, mess glee, glum,
see
green, grass,
kiss
grow, grab,
sob
gli A glass of milk.
28 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j,
v, w, x, y, z, ee, oo, ng, cl,
cr, bl, br, gl, gr
n/a grin, grey, tin grill, grunt,
hill
glue, glum,
mum
gloom, glad,
sad
griz Grab the book.
29 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j, v,
w, x, y, z, ee, oo, ng, cl, cr, bl,
br, gl, gr
Sn,sl snail, snip, tip snug, snack,
pack
slide, sleeve,
ride
slime, slug, bug snim Eat your snack.
30 s, a, t, p, i, n, m, d, g, o, c, k,
ck, e, u, r, h, b, f/ff, l/ll, ss, j, v,
w, x, y, z, ee, oo, ng, cl, cr, bl,
br, gl, gr, sn, sl
n/a sleep, sled, red slap, slug, rug snake, snow,
lake
sneeze, snap,
tap
sla The slug was slimy.
Appendix 1. (Continued)
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Burgoyne et al. 287
Appendix 2.
Script and resources for teaching session 1
Session 1
Introduce the session: ‘We are going to play some games with letters and sounds. Are you ready?
First we are going to play some games with letters so let’s get our letter card out.’ Get out the letter
grid. ‘Here it is. Are you ready?’
Game 1: Visual blending with pictures: Words tap, tin, pin
1. Show the child the picture card. Say, ‘Here are three pictures; let’s say what these pictures are.’
Point to each picture and say the words; encourage the child to say them after you. ‘Tap, Tin and
Pin.’
2. Say ‘I’m going to spell out one of these words with my letters. I want you to say the sound for
each letter as I put it down on the table. When I have put all the letters down, I want you to sound
out the letters and blend them together to make the word. See if you can guess which word I am
spelling. When you guess, say the word and point to the right picture.’
3. Put out the first letter for the word ‘tin’. Encourage the child to say the sound ‘t’. Say, ‘Well
done, that is a “t” ’. Repeat for the next two letters. Provide as much support as needed.
4. Ask the child to sound out each letter, and then to blend the sounds together: ‘Say the sounds for
all the letters, then put them together to make the word.’ Provide the child with as much support
as needed, for example, repeat the sounds, encourage the child to say the sounds faster, get the
child to say the sounds after you.
5. When the child says the word and has chosen the matching picture, repeat the activity for the
remaining two pictures.
6. If the child makes an incorrect guess, sound out the word again and support them in choosing the
correct picture. Explain why this is correct, for example, . ‘Our letters are t-i-n.’ When we put the
letters together, we make the word ‘tin’ – can you say that? Which picture is ‘tin’? Well done, you
are right! Let’s do the next one.’ Repeat the activity with the remaining two words.
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
288 Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(3)
Game 2: Visual blending (no pictures): Words at, is, nap
1. Say, ‘Now we are going to play another game with our letters – this one doesn’t have any pic-
tures so we need to concentrate. I’m going to spell out a word with my letters. I want you to say
the sound for each letter, and then put the sounds together to guess the word I am spelling. Are
you ready?’
2. Spell out the first word, a-t. Encourage the child to sound out each letter. Ask the child to blend
the sounds together and say the word; ‘What is the word?’
3. Provide the child with as much support as needed, for example, repeat the sounds, encourage
the child to say the sounds faster, get the child to say the sounds after you.
4. When the child correctly guesses the word, repeat the activity for the remaining two words.
5. If the child makes an incorrect guess, model the correct answer, for example, point to each letter
and say, ‘A-t; if we put those sounds together, we get the word ‘at’. A-t, at. Can you say that? Well
done. Let’s try the next one.’ Repeat the activity with the remaining two words.
6. Say, ‘You are doing some brilliant work today, well done. We are going to play some listening
games now. It’s really important that we listen carefully – are you ready?’
Game 3: Oral blending with pictures: Words pan, tip, pip
1. Show the child the picture card. Say, ‘Here are three pictures; let’s say what these pictures are.’ Point
to each picture and say the words; encourage the child to say them after you. ‘Pan, Tip and Pip’.
2. Say, ‘I’m going to say the name of one of these pictures using a silly voice. See if you can guess
which word I am saying. When you guess, say the word and point to the right picture.’
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Burgoyne et al. 289
3. Say one of the words by sounding the word out, for example, p-i-p. Encourage the child to look
at your face you as you sound out the word. Ask the child to blend the sounds together and
choose the matching picture; say, ‘Which word did I say?’
4. Provide the child with as much support as needed, for example, repeat the sounds, say them
more slowly, get the child to say the sounds after you.
5. When the child makes the correct guess, repeat the activity for the remaining two pictures.
6. If the child makes an incorrect guess, sound out the word again and support them in choosing
the correct picture. Explain why this is correct, for example, ‘Listen again; p-i-p. When we put
the sounds together, these sounds make the word ‘pip’ – can you say that? Which picture is
‘pip’? Well done, you are right! Let’s do the next one.’ Repeat the activity with the remaining
two words.
Game 4: Oral blending (no pictures): Words it, an, sip
1. Say, ‘Now we are going to play another listening game – this one doesn’t have any pictures so
we have to listen even more carefully. I’m going to say a word in my silly voice and I want you
to tell me what word I am saying. Are you ready?’
2. Say the first word by sounding it out, for example, i-t. Encourage the child to look at your face
as you sound out the word. Ask the child to blend the sounds together and say the word; say,
‘What word did I say?’
3. Provide the child with as much support as needed, for example, repeat the sounds, say them
more slowly, get the child to say the sounds after you.
4. When the child correctly guesses the word, repeat the activity for the remaining two words.
5. If the child makes an incorrect guess, model the correct answer, for example, ‘I-t; if we put those
sounds together, we get the word ‘it’. I-t, it. Can you say that? Well done. Let’s try the next one.’
Repeat the activity with the remaining two words.
Game 5: Non-word reading
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
290 Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(3)
1. Say, ‘Now we are going to play a game with monsters, are you ready to see a scary monster?’
Show the child the monster picture and non-word. Say, ‘Look, the monster’s name is written
underneath the picture, let’s try and read it. Remember this is a monster so he will have a silly
made-up name, not a real name.’
2. Encourage the child to sound out each letter, and then to blend the letter-sounds together to
make the monster’s name, for example, ‘Let’s sound this out. What sound does this first letter
make? You’re right, it is s. And the second letter is? Yes, it is a. So we have s and a. What word
does that make – what is the monster’s name?’
3. Provide as much support as the child needs to name the monster, for example, repeat the sounds,
encourage the child to say the sounds faster, get the child to say the sounds after you.
4. If the child makes an incorrect guess, model the correct answer, for example, point to each letter
and say, ‘S-a; if we put those sounds together, we get the name ‘sa’. S-a, sa; the monster is called
Sa. Can you say that? Well done.’
Game 6: Sentence reading
Turn the t
.a
.p
. on.
1. Say, ‘You have done a brilliant job and worked very hard. We have one more game to play. We
are going to read a sentence together. One of the words in the sentence is a word we are going
to sound out. Shall we have a look?’
2. Show the child the sentence strip. Say, ‘This is our sentence today; let’s read it’. Encourage the
child to read the sentence.
3. When the child gets to the ‘special’ word (decodable word in bold with sound buttons) say, ‘This
is our special word we are going to sound out’. Point to the first letter and say ‘what sound does
this letter make?’ Repeat with the remaining letters. Encourage the child to blend the sounds
together: ‘What is the word? Blend the sounds together to make the word.’
4. Provide as much support as the child needs to read the word, for example, repeat the sounds,
encourage the child to say the sounds faster, get the child to say the sounds after you.
5. If the child makes an incorrect guess, model the correct answer, for example, point to each letter
and say, ‘T-a-p; if we put those sounds together, we get the word ‘tap’. T-a-p, tap; the word is
tap. Can you say that? Well done.’
6. Re-read the sentence with the child.
7. When you have finished, praise the child and tell them you will play some more games
tomorrow.
by guest on January 9, 2016clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
