The purposes of the present study are: 1) to investigate whether or not children can use phonics as a tool in reading without knowing abstract terms; 2) to compare high and low level readers on their abilities to define phonics terms; 3) to compare high and low level readers on their abilities to apply phonics terms; and 4) to determine the relationship between the determination and application of phonics terms

Litcher, John H

Moore, Lynn J

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and 
Language Arts 
Volume 24 
Issue 1 October 1983 Article 5 
10-1-1983 
A Comparison of Children's Ability to Define and Apply Phonics 
Terms 
Lynn J. Moore 
Forsyth Co. School, Winston-Salem, N.C. 
John H. Litcher 
Wake Forest University 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons 
 Part of the Education Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Moore, L. J., & Litcher, J. H. (1983). A Comparison of Children's Ability to Define and Apply Phonics Terms. 
Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 24 (1). Retrieved from 
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol24/iss1/5 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by 
the Special Education and Literacy Studies at 
ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion 
in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language 
Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. 
For more information, please contact wmu-
scholarworks@wmich.edu. 
A COMPARISON OF CHILDREN'S 
ABILITY TO DEFINE AND 
APPLY PHONICS TERMS 
Lynn J. Moore 
FORSYTH CO. SCHOOLS, WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. 
John H. Lifcher 
PROFESSOR OF EDUCA nON, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY 
Since the early 1900' s, American educators have emphasized 
that letter sounds instead of letter names should be taught to 
beginning readers (Venezky, 1976). They have also stressed that 
blending of sounds should be done in order to minimize memory 
load. Consequently, the practice of emphasizing phonics application 
and de-emphasizing phonics tenninology is, in theory, the basis 
for many present~ay teaching strategies. However, a question 
arises when one considers the actual material being taught to 
children. Has the critical emphasis been on the knowledge of phonics 
usage rather than the memorization of terms? 
Research by Tovey (1980), Downing (1970), and Reid (1966) 
provides the conclusion that children do not readily handle the 
abstract technical terms used by teachers in talking about written 
or spoken language. Alt,hough a child may possess the skills re-
quired to deal with the concept of the term, the child may have 
difficulty in the clarification of the term. 
Many current reading series still emphasize the use of labels 
in learning practice. Beck (1979) has stated that no logical or 
empirical evidence can be found to link the knowledge of a label 
such as short or long vowel with learning the correct sound. 
Therefore, the purposes of the present study are: 1) to inves-
tigate whether or not children can use phonics as a tool in reading 
wi thout knowing abstract terms; 2) to COffip3Te high and low level 
readers on their abilities to define phonics terms; 3) to COffip3Te 
high and low level readers on their abilities to apply phonics 
terms; and 4) to detennine the relationship between the detennina-
tion and application of phonics terms. 
MEm-lOD 
The subjects in the study were 40 fourth-grade students chosen 
from a population of 152 students attending an elementary school 
near a large metropolitan area in the Southeast. Twenty students 
were randomly selected from fourth graders scoring at or above 
fourth year, fifth month (4.5) on the 3rd grade California Achieve-
ment Test, Form C, Level 13, and were designated as high level 
readers. Twenty st~udents were randomly select>ed from fourth graders 
scoring at or below third year, fifth month ( 3 . 5) on the same 
California Achievement Test and were designated as low level 
readers. 
28-rh 
Two instruments developed by Tovey (1980) were used to obtain 
data from the subjects. The first instrument, the Phonics Definition 
Instrument, was used to determine whether the subjects could cor-
redly define selected phonics t,erms. Each was asked if he or 
:.;lie had ever heard of Q part,icular phonics term. For ~xrtmpl e, 
the child might have been asked, "Have you ever heard of a vowel?" 
If the response was affirmative, the child was asked the meaning 
of the term, "Tell me what a vowel is." The oral response provided 
by the students were coded by the researchers on a data sheet. 
A definition was considered acceptable if minimal understanding 
of the term was express and this understanding was coded with 
a plus. A possible score of 18 correct responses could be obtained 
on the instrument. 
A second instrument used in the study was the Phonics Applica-
tion Instrument. Three items which tested knowledge of vowels, 
short vowels, and inflectional end:ings were added to the Tovey 
Application test since the original test measured only 15 of the 
18 terms that were to be defined by the subjects. During the ad-
ministration of the second instrument, each subject read nonsense 
words and completed items concerning phonics skills. All instruc-
tions were read aloud to the subjects. Responses were recorded 
by the researcher. 
The test administration for each subject took approxirrately 
15 minutes. During that time the items on the Phonics Definition 
Instrument were defined and the Phonics Application Instrument 
was administered. A t,ape recording was made of every testing 
session. The tapes were used to insure scoring accuracy and esta-
blish interrater reliability. 
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 
Analysis of the data was computed in four areas. First, dif-
ferences between the mean scores of all subjects on the instrument 
measuring the ability to define phonics terms and the instrument 
measuring the ability to apply phonics terms were examined by 
a correlated t-test. Second, an independent t-test was used to 
examine the differences between high level and low level readers' 
scores on the instrument measuring the ability to define phonics 
terms. Third, the differences between high and low level readers' 
scores on the instrument measuring phonics application were examined 
by an independent t-test. Finally, the relationship between stu-
dents' knowledge of phonics terms and their ability to apply 
phonics terms was examined by the Pearson product-moment correla-
tion. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
Children in the present study applied more phonics terms 
than they defined. The t-test applied to the mean scores of all 
subjects on the Phonics Definition Instrument and the Phonics 
Application Instrument revealed a significant difference. 
Variable 
Table 1 
Difference Between Means on the Phonics Definition 
Instrument and Phonics Application Instrument 
Range Mean 3D t 
rh-29 
Definition instrument 2 - 1.4 8 2.8 *10.4 
Application instrument 6 - 17 12.8 2.5 
df = 39; *p -< .001 
Table 2 
Difference Between Means on the Phonics Definition 
Instrument for High and Low Level Readers 
Variable Range 
High Level Readers 5 - 1.4 
Low Level Readers 2 - 11 
df = 38; *p -<. .001 
Table 3 
Mean 
9.5 
6.6 
3D 
2.6 
2.2 
t 
*3.63 
Difference Between Means on the Phonics Application 
Instrument for High Level and Low Level Readers 
Variable 
High level readers 
Low level readers 
df = 38; *p~ .01 
Range 
10 - 17 
6 - 16 
Mean 
14 
11.7 
3D 
1.4 
2.8 
t 
*3.17 
By way of elaboration, a few examples of contrast and com-
parison might be appropriate. The term consonant digraph, for 
instance, was not successfuly defined by any child, yet 39 of 
the 40 subjects successfully pronounced words containing consonant 
digraphs. Furthermore, the term consonant blend was correctly 
defined by only 13 students, yet was applied correctly by 39 stu-
dents. These findings support the research of Tovey ( 1980), who 
found that children could use sound/symbol relationships even 
when they could not define the terms involved. Also, children 
were able to learn phonics relationships without first learning 
phonics terms. 
30-rh 
An explanation for the results above rmy be attributed to 
the reading instruction given to the students in classroom lessons. 
Teachers are presented with terms that are never taught to the 
students. The students :lre expected to rmster phonics ski.lls even 
thn1l£'.h th0 t.0rTnS h,vp nnt hppn prpspnt.P<i. 
The greater success of high level readers in defining phonics 
terms rmy be directly related to the level of reading instruction. 
A statistilcally significant t value was found between the mean 
scores of high level and low level readers on the Phonics Defini-
tion Instrument. The high level readers used as students had been 
exposed to terms like possessive, prefix, and suffix in thE:: fourth-
grade reading instruction. The students in the low level reading 
group had not received similar instruction. Consequently, the 
tenns were fdJ.Ttiliar or.tly to the hi~~ levTel readers. For exarnple, 
15 students in the high level group successfully defined the terms 
prefix and suffix, while only four students from the low level 
group correctly defined prefix and only three students defined 
suffix. ---
It is interesting to note that when the number of acceptable 
definitions familiar to both groups is compared, the differences 
lessen and, in some cases, reverse. The terms short vowel and 
final e rule were successfully defined by the same number of stu-
dents In each group. More low level readers than high level readers 
successfully defined the term vowel and the term short vowel. 
The difference in mean scores of high and low level readers 
on the Phonics Application Instrument was statistically signifi-
cant. An explanation for this significance can be found in the 
research by Allington, who found the successful readers spend 
up to 95% of their fortn3.1 reading instruction time practicing 
activities involving silent reading comprehension, oral reading 
with fluency, and oral reading with accuracy and self-correction. 
In other words, when students are exposed to large amounts of 
reading rmterial, the conversion of isolated phonics skills into 
near-automatic responses is possible. High level readers see and 
hear phonics skills used correctly during almost all of their 
reading instruction time. 
Conversely, Allington continues, low level readers spend 
only 5% of their time in fortn3.1 reading instruction performing 
silent and oral reading activities. Generally, low level readers 
are instructed in tasks and drills which stress word recognition, 
word analysis, and visual discrimination. Obviously, low level 
readers have very little exposure to actual reading. They are 
often unable to see words as whole units or how words appear in 
sentences. They also experience difficulty in rmking the transition 
from studying the phonics skills in isolated units to the success-
ful application of the skills in actual reading. 
The finding that high level readers are able to apply phonics 
terms more successfully than low level readers tempts one to con-
clude that a student's ability to apply phonics terms correctly 
causes the student to be a high level reader. Weaver and Skonkoff 
(1979) feel that this relationship could be caused by other factors. 
rh-31 
High level reading and the ability to apply phonics skills may 
be the result of cognitive ability, combined with a home environ-
ment where the importance of readinglrJd ot~,er la!gu,wc skills 
is emphasized. If this environmental factor is valid, high level 
readers have the additional advantage of stimulation which can 
strengthen their reading abilities both outside and inside the 
school. 
The results of the study confirm the relationship of high 
knowledge of phonics terms to the ability of successfully applying 
phonics terms and vice versa. A correlation of .44 was obtained 
between scores of all subjects on the instruments measuring phonics 
term definitions and phonics application (df = 38; p ~ .01). The 
correlation between phonics term knowledge and phonics application 
supports the research of Weaver and Skonkoff (1979). Although 
the teaching of phonics terms does not necessarily cause children 
to become good readers, phonics terms are useful labels in chil-
dren's reading instruction. Awareness of phonics terms facilitates 
communication between teacher and the students during reading 
instruction. Students who understand phonics terms are more likely 
to receive and understand instruction in the area of phonics appli-
cation. 
The findings in the present study are supported by Tovey's 
research (1980) which found that children could use sound/symbol 
relationships (corrmonly called phonics skills) even when they 
couldn't define the terms involved. Also, children were able to 
learn phonics relationships without first learning phonics terms. 
Two limitations inherent in the study must be identified. 
They are: (1) The procedure for student selection was not as 
powerful as it might have been had other performance variables 
such as teacher rating and current reading level been used in 
conjunction with the California Achievement Test scores; 
(2) The present study made use of two recently de-
veloped instruments lacking reliability and validity. However, 
reliability coefficients were established during the research 
and both instruments were judge to have more than adequate face 
validity for the terms included. 
Limitations notwithstanding, the authors feel that when teach-
ing reading to students, the critical emphasis needs to be on 
knowledge of phonics usage, instead of memorization of phonics 
terms. Phonics skills can be learned as isolated sub-skills, but 
must be irrmediately practiced in actual reading. Teachers can 
best assist in the development of successful readers by providing 
students with large amounts of interesting reading material and 
encouragement to read. 
32-rh 
REFERENCES 
Allington, R. "Making Bad Readers Better" Lecture presented at 
the Cormrunications Skills Awareness Conference, Greensboro, 
N.C., February, lY51. 
Beck, 1. L. "What do we know about teaching and learning in urban 
schools? Vol 5: Instructional ingredients for the development 
of beginning reading competence." ERIC Doc -ED 155 l6l. 
DeStefano, J.S. Language, the learner and the school. N.Y.: John 
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978. 
Downing, J. "Children's concepts of language in learning to read." 
Educational Research, 1970, 12 (2), 106-112. 
D_~,.1 T "'G' ItT_ ...... ,..,.........;"....,..... ~_ +-~...;"....l,. ..... h ....... "-r .,.."r\<O"'\rl;Y'\t'? II li'rh"1,...."l ..... ;t""\'Y\~l 'Roco~ya,...h 
11.t:;..LU, u. r. .l..Jc;cu. l.L..LlJO LJV u.lL.L....l.l..n. GlUVl.A.l.J .1. GO.\.L...L.l."O. LA..Ll,.A.v(..LU~V.L~ .L"'-'~~ _.L.&. 
1966, 2 (1), 56--62. 
Tovey, D. T. "Children's grasp of phonics terms vs. sound-symbol 
relationships." The Reading Teacher, 1950, 33 (4),431-437. 
Weaver, P. & F. Skonkoff. Research within reach. St. Louis: Research 
and Development Interpretation Service, 1979. 


A Comparison of Children\u27s Ability to Define and Apply Phonics Terms

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts Volume 24 Issue 1 October 1983 Article 5 10-1-1983 A Comparison of Children's Ability to Define and Apply Phonics Terms Lynn J. Moore Forsyth Co. School, Winston-Salem, N.C. John H. Litcher Wake Forest University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons  Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Moore, L. J., & Litcher, J. H. (1983). A Comparison of Children's Ability to Define and Apply Phonics Terms. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 24 (1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol24/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Education and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact wmu-scholarworks@wmich.edu. A COMPARISON OF CHILDREN'S ABILITY TO DEFINE AND APPLY PHONICS TERMS Lynn J. Moore FORSYTH CO. SCHOOLS, WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. John H. Lifcher PROFESSOR OF EDUCA nON, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY Since the early 1900' s, American educators have emphasized that letter sounds instead of letter names should be taught to beginning readers (Venezky, 1976). They have also stressed that blending of sounds should be done in order to minimize memory load. Consequently, the practice of emphasizing phonics application and de-emphasizing phonics tenninology is, in theory, the basis for many present~ay teaching strategies. However, a question arises when one considers the actual material being taught to children. Has the critical emphasis been on the knowledge of phonics usage rather than the memorization of terms? Research by Tovey (1980), Downing (1970), and Reid (1966) provides the conclusion that children do not readily handle the abstract technical terms used by teachers in talking about written or spoken language. Alt,hough a child may possess the skills re-quired to deal with the concept of the term, the child may have difficulty in the clarification of the term. Many current reading series still emphasize the use of labels in learning practice. Beck (1979) has stated that no logical or empirical evidence can be found to link the knowledge of a label such as short or long vowel with learning the correct sound. Therefore, the purposes of the present study are: 1) to inves-tigate whether or not children can use phonics as a tool in reading wi thout knowing abstract terms; 2) to COffip3Te high and low level readers on their abilities to define phonics terms; 3) to COffip3Te high and low level readers on their abilities to apply phonics terms; and 4) to detennine the relationship between the detennina-tion and application of phonics terms. MEm-lOD The subjects in the study were 40 fourth-grade students chosen from a population of 152 students attending an elementary school near a large metropolitan area in the Southeast. Twenty students were randomly selected from fourth graders scoring at or above fourth year, fifth month (4.5) on the 3rd grade California Achieve-ment Test, Form C, Level 13, and were designated as high level readers. Twenty st~udents were randomly select>ed from fourth graders scoring at or below third year, fifth month ( 3 . 5) on the same California Achievement Test and were designated as low level readers. 28-rh Two instruments developed by Tovey (1980) were used to obtain data from the subjects. The first instrument, the Phonics Definition Instrument, was used to determine whether the subjects could cor-redly define selected phonics t,erms. Each was asked if he or :.;lie had ever heard of Q part,icular phonics term. For ~xrtmpl e, the child might have been asked, "Have you ever heard of a vowel?" If the response was affirmative, the child was asked the meaning of the term, "Tell me what a vowel is." The oral response provided by the students were coded by the researchers on a data sheet. A definition was considered acceptable if minimal understanding of the term was express and this understanding was coded with a plus. A possible score of 18 correct responses could be obtained on the instrument. A second instrument used in the study was the Phonics Applica-tion Instrument. Three items which tested knowledge of vowels, short vowels, and inflectional end:ings were added to the Tovey Application test since the original test measured only 15 of the 18 terms that were to be defined by the subjects. During the ad-ministration of the second instrument, each subject read nonsense words and completed items concerning phonics skills. All instruc-tions were read aloud to the subjects. Responses were recorded by the researcher. The test administration for each subject took approxirrately 15 minutes. During that time the items on the Phonics Definition Instrument were defined and the Phonics Application Instrument was administered. A t,ape recording was made of every testing session. The tapes were used to insure scoring accuracy and esta-blish interrater reliability. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Analysis of the data was computed in four areas. First, dif-ferences between the mean scores of all subjects on the instrument measuring the ability to define phonics terms and the instrument measuring the ability to apply phonics terms were examined by a correlated t-test. Second, an independent t-test was used to examine the differences between high level and low level readers' scores on the instrument measuring the ability to define phonics terms. Third, the differences between high and low level readers' scores on the instrument measuring phonics application were examined by an independent t-test. Finally, the relationship between stu-dents' knowledge of phonics terms and their ability to apply phonics terms was examined by the Pearson product-moment correla-tion. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Children in the present study applied more phonics terms than they defined. The t-test applied to the mean scores of all subjects on the Phonics Definition Instrument and the Phonics Application Instrument revealed a significant difference. Variable Table 1 Difference Between Means on the Phonics Definition Instrument and Phonics Application Instrument Range Mean 3D t rh-29 Definition instrument 2 - 1.4 8 2.8 *10.4 Application instrument 6 - 17 12.8 2.5 df = 39; *p -< .001 Table 2 Difference Between Means on the Phonics Definition Instrument for High and Low Level Readers Variable Range High Level Readers 5 - 1.4 Low Level Readers 2 - 11 df = 38; *p -<. .001 Table 3 Mean 9.5 6.6 3D 2.6 2.2 t *3.63 Difference Between Means on the Phonics Application Instrument for High Level and Low Level Readers Variable High level readers Low level readers df = 38; *p~ .01 Range 10 - 17 6 - 16 Mean 14 11.7 3D 1.4 2.8 t *3.17 By way of elaboration, a few examples of contrast and com-parison might be appropriate. The term consonant digraph, for instance, was not successfuly defined by any child, yet 39 of the 40 subjects successfully pronounced words containing consonant digraphs. Furthermore, the term consonant blend was correctly defined by only 13 students, yet was applied correctly by 39 stu-dents. These findings support the research of Tovey ( 1980), who found that children could use sound/symbol relationships even when they could not define the terms involved. Also, children were able to learn phonics relationships without first learning phonics terms. 30-rh An explanation for the results above rmy be attributed to the reading instruction given to the students in classroom lessons. Teachers are presented with terms that are never taught to the students. The students :lre expected to rmster phonics ski.lls even thn1l£'.h th0 t.0rTnS h,vp nnt hppn prpspnt.P<i. The greater success of high level readers in defining phonics terms rmy be directly related to the level of reading instruction. A statistilcally significant t value was found between the mean scores of high level and low level readers on the Phonics Defini-tion Instrument. The high level readers used as students had been exposed to terms like possessive, prefix, and suffix in thE:: fourth-grade reading instruction. The students in the low level reading group had not received similar instruction. Consequently, the tenns were fdJ.Ttiliar or.tly to the hi~~ levTel readers. For exarnple, 15 students in the high level group successfully defined the terms prefix and suffix, while only four students from the low level group correctly defined prefix and only three students defined suffix. ---It is interesting to note that when the number of acceptable definitions familiar to both groups is compared, the differences lessen and, in some cases, reverse. The terms short vowel and final e rule were successfully defined by the same number of stu-dents In each group. More low level readers than high level readers successfully defined the term vowel and the term short vowel. The difference in mean scores of high and low level readers on the Phonics Application Instrument was statistically signifi-cant. An explanation for this significance can be found in the research by Allington, who found the successful readers spend up to 95% of their fortn3.1 reading instruction time practicing activities involving silent reading comprehension, oral reading with fluency, and oral reading with accuracy and self-correction. In other words, when students are exposed to large amounts of reading rmterial, the conversion of isolated phonics skills into near-automatic responses is possible. High level readers see and hear phonics skills used correctly during almost all of their reading instruction time. Conversely, Allington continues, low level readers spend only 5% of their time in fortn3.1 reading instruction performing silent and oral reading activities. Generally, low level readers are instructed in tasks and drills which stress word recognition, word analysis, and visual discrimination. Obviously, low level readers have very little exposure to actual reading. They are often unable to see words as whole units or how words appear in sentences. They also experience difficulty in rmking the transition from studying the phonics skills in isolated units to the success-ful application of the skills in actual reading. The finding that high level readers are able to apply phonics terms more successfully than low level readers tempts one to con-clude that a student's ability to apply phonics terms correctly causes the student to be a high level reader. Weaver and Skonkoff (1979) feel that this relationship could be caused by other factors. rh-31 High level reading and the ability to apply phonics skills may be the result of cognitive ability, combined with a home environ-ment where the importance of readinglrJd ot~,er la!gu,wc skills is emphasized. If this environmental factor is valid, high level readers have the additional advantage of stimulation which can strengthen their reading abilities both outside and inside the school. The results of the study confirm the relationship of high knowledge of phonics terms to the ability of successfully applying phonics terms and vice versa. A correlation of .44 was obtained between scores of all subjects on the instruments measuring phonics term definitions and phonics application (df = 38; p ~ .01). The correlation between phonics term knowledge and phonics application supports the research of Weaver and Skonkoff (1979). Although the teaching of phonics terms does not necessarily cause children to become good readers, phonics terms are useful labels in chil-dren's reading instruction. Awareness of phonics terms facilitates communication between teacher and the students during reading instruction. Students who understand phonics terms are more likely to receive and understand instruction in the area of phonics appli-cation. The findings in the present study are supported by Tovey's research (1980) which found that children could use sound/symbol relationships (corrmonly called phonics skills) even when they couldn't define the terms involved. Also, children were able to learn phonics relationships without first learning phonics terms. Two limitations inherent in the study must be identified. They are: (1) The procedure for student selection was not as powerful as it might have been had other performance variables such as teacher rating and current reading level been used in conjunction with the California Achievement Test scores; (2) The present study made use of two recently de-veloped instruments lacking reliability and validity. However, reliability coefficients were established during the research and both instruments were judge to have more than adequate face validity for the terms included. Limitations notwithstanding, the authors feel that when teach-ing reading to students, the critical emphasis needs to be on knowledge of phonics usage, instead of memorization of phonics terms. Phonics skills can be learned as isolated sub-skills, but must be irrmediately practiced in actual reading. Teachers can best assist in the development of successful readers by providing students with large amounts of interesting reading material and encouragement to read. 32-rh REFERENCES Allington, R. "Making Bad Readers Better" Lecture presented at the Cormrunications Skills Awareness Conference, Greensboro, N.C., February, lY51. Beck, 1. L. "What do we know about teaching and learning in urban schools? Vol 5: Instructional ingredients for the development of beginning reading competence." ERIC Doc -ED 155 l6l. DeStefano, J.S. Language, the learner and the school. N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978. Downing, J. "Children's concepts of language in learning to read." Educational Research, 1970, 12 (2), 106-112. D_~,.1 T "'G' ItT_ ...... ,..,.........;"....,..... ~_ +-~...;"....l,. ..... h ....... "-r .,.."r\<O"'\rl;Y'\t'? II li'rh"1,...."l ..... ;t""\'Y\~l 'Roco~ya,...h 11.t:;..LU, u. r. .l..Jc;cu. l.L..LlJO LJV u.lL.L....l.l..n. GlUVl.A.l.J .1. GO.\.L...L.l."O. LA..Ll,.A.v(..LU~V.L~ .L"'-'~~ _.L.&. 1966, 2 (1), 56--62. Tovey, D. T. "Children's grasp of phonics terms vs. sound-symbol relationships." The Reading Teacher, 1950, 33 (4),431-437. Weaver, P. & F. Skonkoff. Research within reach. St. Louis: Research and Development Interpretation Service, 1979. 

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1912&amp;context=reading_horizons

A Comparison of Children\u27s Ability to Define and Apply Phonics Terms

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU

ScholarWorks at WMU

ScholarWorks at WMU