Full Goal

Given a CVC word presented auditorily (no print or picture), with a manipulative or finger-tap supporting one count per phoneme, [Student] will segment the word into its individual phonemes (e.g., ‘cat’ → /k/ /æ/ /t/) with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive probes of 10 items each, drawing from a mix of consonant and vowel positions, as measured by SLP scoring against phoneme-by-phoneme key, with errors coded by position (initial, medial, final).

Individualization Guidance

Before using this goal, verify:

• Phoneme vs. syllable vs. onset-rime. Phonological awareness has a developmental hierarchy. If the student cannot segment compound words, syllables, or onset-rime, those precede phoneme segmentation. Probe the hierarchy before writing this goal.
• Articulation profile. A student who substitutes /w/ for /r/ or fronts /k/ in their own speech may produce “wat” for “rat” when segmenting. Score on the intended phoneme, not the produced phoneme, when articulation patterns are clearly separate from phonological awareness. Document the convention you’re using.
• CVC limits. Stay at CVC for this goal. Blends (CCVC, CVCC) are separate developmental targets and inflate error rates if mixed in. Once CVC is mastered, write a successor goal for blends.
• Auditory-only condition. Presenting written words converts this into a decoding task. Print exposure is fine as a separate goal — keep this one phonological.
• The position-coded error data is the point. Most students master initial-consonant segmentation before medial vowels. Tracking errors by position gives you a clear instructional signal. Don’t collapse to a single percentage.
• Connection to written language disorders / dyslexia. SLPs are within scope to target phonological awareness as a literacy goal per ASHA’s 2001 position statement. If the school’s culture is that “reading is the reading teacher’s job,” cite the position statement at the IEP meeting.

Clinical Notes

Phoneme segmentation is one of the strongest predictors of word-level reading. Targeting it explicitly in the K-2 window is among the most leveraged uses of SLP time for students at risk for or identified with reading disability or DLD with co-occurring reading concerns.

The manipulative or finger-tap condition is scaffolding, not the long-term goal. Once the student is consistently at 80% with manipulatives, a successor goal removes the manipulative (“auditorily, without external counting support”). Don’t skip the scaffolded stage and don’t camp in it.

The 80% across 3 probes balances rigor with the noise inherent in 10-item probes. A single 10-item probe can swing a percentage by 10 points on a single miss. Three probes smooths that variance.

The relationship between phonological awareness and reading is well-replicated. The relationship between phonological awareness therapy and reading outcomes is conditional: it depends on integration with phonics and letter-sound instruction. Coordinate with the classroom teacher or interventionist so that phoneme-level work in your sessions maps to grapheme-level work in the classroom. Isolated phonological awareness work has weaker generalization to reading than integrated work.

Related Goals

• WH-Question Comprehension from Narratives — discourse-level comprehension goal that pairs with word-level decoding to support reading development