I

First-Year Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness and Its Instruction

I'cacher Educatirtn sttd Special Educrtlietn \uIumc -32 \ii!nhci 7 August 7009 270-2i;il r 7OOY 'icacher i:duzat~c,n i l i ~ ~ \ : i iut n the C ounc:! fi-r ixccpr~onal('hsldre!, l o I 177 OXBX40(7309)33~iiX~ htrp tcie cagrpuh iixn

Elaine A. Cheesman LiniversiQ of Colorado at Cc~loradoSprings

Joan M. McCuire UniverLyiyc?f Connecticut

Donald Shankweiler Haskins Laboratories

Michael Coyne Universiy of Cotznectictit Converging evidence has identified phonemic awareness (PA) as one of five essential components of beginning reading instruction. Evidence suggests that many teachers do not have the recommended knowledge or skills sufficient to provide effective PA instruction within the context of scientifically validated reading education. This study examines the knowledge of PA instruction of 223 first-year teachers initially certified in special education, early childhood education, and elementary education. Results indicate that significant numbers of beginning special and general education teachers in this sample appear to be inadequately prepared with respect to PA instruction. They have limited knowledge of PA, confuse PA with phonics, are generally unable to select taskappropriate materials or activities, and lack skill in analyzing written words into phonemes. Special educators did not have significantly more knowledge or skills than their general education counterparts. These findings suggest that university teacher education programs may not be providing future teachers with sufficient content or practice with respect to PA instruction.

Keywords:

"R

knowledge base for teaching; knowiedge level; higher education; photremicb axiL+aretzess;phonics; teacher education

esearch now shams that a chtld -aho doesn't learn the read~ngbasics earl] 1s unllkel~to team them at all and xwtl not eas~lymailter other skills and knstl-ledge, and I.* unItkely to ever Rour~shIn schoot or rn l~fe'"(Moats, 1999, p 5 ) 4Ithough sclenrists no- estimate that over 90°0 of ch~ldrencan be taught to read using rcsearch-based lnstmctton {Torgesen, 2000), estimates of the percentages of reading fatlure horer at 38°i~ for fourlh-grade srrtdents, a figure not sign~ficanllydilfercnt than tn 1992 (U S Department of Educaaon, 2005) ERecr~vereadrng

tnstruct~on has become a natronal prlorlty (Shankwetler & Fo\vIer, 2004) The ultlmate goal of reading instrucrlnn 13, of course. to help chrldren acquire the skilit necessary to comprehend printed matertat at a lelref consistent wtth thelr general language comprehens~on abltitles (Torgesen. 2000) The landmark Rqorr of the ,Vatzonal Reud~urg P~tnei(20001 ldenr~fiedf i k e essential area\ for comprehenslte read~nginstructron Three areas of Instruction help children identify uords accuratel? and Ruentl3-phonemlc a\nareness IP4), sy\ter\iatlc phunrei. md reading

~ticat~it~glcss sot~nds in iiords and then to (Sha>\\i r / ct al.. 3004). t-'or cltilcit-en \ i l l ( , associate those sound5 \\it11 letters. skills in t r t ~ g g l e$3 ith t.caiiitlg ~iciltiiiiioi~. cl?;"cti\ c identifica- f"'l ittstrtictioil rccluires ;i teacher \\ho thorp h ~ t ~ e t i t~c~ g t l t e l l t i ~ ~tnci t i i ) ~\\orel ~ tion ate significatttlj higher than for tilc~se t)t~glll>~111~1erst;111ils it, itilplicilti~nsfix rcacl1% hi) did not reccii c st~clitr;tining ing a c h i c ~emenl. has competent ski 11s. ;iriii st~~detlts (Blaclinlan, 199 1 ; t3lacliman, Tangel. E3all. has a complete ut?cierstanding o f thc contenr. Black, & R.lc\-el-classroom instruction in PA, some children all spending, or teacher salaries. This preparespond poorly or not at all (Torgesen, 2000). ration accounts for as mucli as 60qqit of tile It can be argued, then, that special educators total achievement variance after taking stuneed a deeper level of understanding than do dents'demoprapliics into account. In an earlj. their regular education counterparts to pro- small-scale study, Brady, Fowler, Stone, anci vide effective instruction to these students. Winbury ( 1994) explored the benefits of preSome evidence suggests students ivitli seri- paring kindergarten teachers with 8 hours of ous reading accuracy and fluency problems initial training and xVeeklyclassrootn support respond to instruction that is explicit. cotnprc- in delivering phonological awareness instruchensite, intensive. and supportive (Foorman tion in the regular classroom. Two control & Torgesen, 2001). In one landmark study. teachers followed the standard curriculum of Torgesen et al. (200 1 ) conducted intensive the day, which did not inclttde PA activities. intervention to childreri with severe reading One year after training. the 42 experiment~~l disabilities. Providing instruction for 2 hours students. located in 12 different elementary per day for 8 iveeks in PA, phoneme articula- schools, significantly outperformed studetiti ' tion. and basic decoding skills resulted in in tbc control group on tneasures of 13 significar~tand stable gains in reading and and beginlting reading. In a similar stnd?. corilprcliension skills. Thc children achirx ed h1cC'iitcilen ct al, ( 2 0 0 2 ) ~neasur-edkinderaverage wot-d-reading accrtmcy. and their garten and first-pradc teachers' ( 1 1 = 4-41 reading rate morc than diiubicai "irorn pretest knowledge base in concepts rciatcd t i ) to the cnd of tile f ~ I I i > i ~ -period. ~ip iYirinin pkctnology :lnd early reading instruzrioi~, 1 year folliitving tl-re inref-\ cntic~n.30" of the Xpproaimateiy haif o f thc teachers in i i ~ i h studelits \yere no longer it1 nced of spccial s311tplc{ f l = 2 i j tt~cnattcndcd a 2-week surneducarion serr ices, Likelviic, older studenrs lncr ii-istit~~te dcsigncd to increase iiiit!~i.ti iih pilor reiidir~gskill3 shcn cd sigi~iiicilr~t .tanding of phiiniil~g?;.and bsiic reading gains in dciociir~g.fr1uc11i.y.and ci_reIIingar'rcr citncept%. Pc.~sl;rainir~g1-csuiis shim cb ?!i:if explicit instructiot~in P.4 and the alphiibetic t i ~ c krtotvlrdgc ctl' experimental teacher. code ( B l a c l ~ n ~ actn a]., 3003). This instl-ilc- siynilicantiy improrcd after the stit~l~i~ci' tion has bee?i slii~ur~ rtr actually chdiigc rhc instirilrt: Ilurii~gthe ti~llotvingYeiiT- t c a c i ? ~ r \ .its:* I ~ I C brilln fiinctiiri?s a-i rhilc1rt.n .cad ceitlsirlecrzd insrnictional i~:t~tci-iaiiI;,r tl?i.i? ,.s

kindergarten and first-grade students. After 1 .America, 1997; Learning First Alliance, year, students in the experimental tcachers' 2000). The majority of these positions recclassrooms obtained significantly better ommend that teachers need a solid foundaresults in phor~ologicalawareness and basic tion in the theory and scientific underpinnings reading skills than did students taught by less of reading instruction, which includes PA. knowledgeable teachers. so that they can correctly interpret student Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2004) stud- error patterns and base instruction on eviied the relationship between teacher prepa- dence, not ideology. For example, children ration within a special education teacher who consistently omit phonen~esin words certification program and reading gains made ( i s . , they spell.fog for.fi-og) need instruction by second-grade children with mild word- in phoneme awareness; those who spell phodecoding problems. This study showed that netically but without regard for spelling coneven novice teachers with limited training ventions (i.e., buk for bake) need instruction and experience can have a positive impact on in phonics. Although the reading literature now prochildren's skills in basic decoding and spelling abilities. After only 6 hours of university vides clear direction for teacher education in classroom instruction in word structure, the reading instruction (McCardle & Chhabra, teachers planned and i~nplementedsix 1-hour 2004; National Reading Panel, 2000), many lessons in a supervised setting. Posttest scholars have asserted that teacher education results showed that tutored children improved programs do not include sufficient depth of significantly from pretest to posttest in training necessary to prepare future teachers knowledge of letter sounds, decoding, and to provide effective beginning reading spelling of phonetically regular words and instruction (American Council on Education, reading phonetically irregular words. In addi- 1999; American Federation of Teachers, tion, there were significant posttest correla- 1999; Hill, 2000; International Dyslexia tions between novice teachers' understanding Association, 1997; Libeman: 1987; Lyon, of English word structure and children's 1999; Moats & Farrell, 1999; Walsh, Glaser, posttest scores in decoding and spelling. & Wilcox, 2006). In a recent study of 223 These studies demonstrated that pre-service required reading courses from 72 randomly and experienced teachers can improve their selected education schools, the National knowledge of phonology and basic orthogra- Council on Teacher Quality found that only phy with relatively little training, and the 15% of the education schools provide elegain in teacher knowledge has positive effects mentaq teacher candidates with minimal exposure to the fitre scientifically validated on student achievement. In recent years, several professional orga- core components of reading instnxction-PA, nizations and alliances have published recom- systematic phonics, Ruencq: vocabulay, and mendations or position papers concerning comprehension strategies (Wish et al., competencies required of teachers with respect 2006). Although "real expertise" may not be to reading and spelling insrmction (American possible to acquire in a presenice program, Federation of Teachers, 1999; Internatio- Walsh et af. (2006) contend that nal Dyslexia Association, 1997: International Reading Associationl 19913; International it is the obligation of the schools of cducaReading Association and the National Assotion to provide foundational knowledge o f this research. Kew teachers should enter rhc ciation for the Education of Young Children. ciassnlom uilldersbnd~ngthe firie cisnpclnenrs 1998; Learning Disabiiiries Asrucialiijn of

771 Teacher Education and Special Education

sample were unable to answer nearly half of the questions regarding knowledge of language structure. In the context of a longitudinal study of reading instruction in low-perfoming, high-poverty urban schools, Moats and Other studies suggest that many licensed Foornlan (2003) provided evidence that about teachers do not have the recommended back- 20% of 194 licensed elementaq teachers in ground knowledge or skills in PA or English Texas and the District of Columbia had a orthography to provide reading instruction very limited understanding of language conthat is based on empirically validated instruc- cepts critical for explicit reading instruction. tional coktent and methodology (Bos, Mather, Approximately 45% more had partial concepDickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001; Moats tual knowledge of language, reading develop& Foonnan, 2003; Scarborough, Ehri, Olson, ment, or informal assessment. These studies & Fowler, 1998). In an early exploratory support and extend the Scarborough et al. study of teacher knowledge, Moats (1994) (1998) study, showing that many teachers are reported that a majority of teachers who vol- unable to accurately count phonemes in words untarily enrolled in a language study class greater than two sounds or show how speech demonstrated very limited knowledge of the sounds are represented by print. structure of spoken and written English. Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, and Subsequent studies of teacher competency in Stanovich (2004) surveyed the perceived and this area have shown similar incomplete actual reading-related knowledge in a large knowledge among teachers in other parts of (N = 722) sample of teachers. They found the United States. Scarborough et al. (1998) that teachers tended to overestimate their found that adolescents and adults with no actual level of knowledge in PA and phonics. apparent reading problems had problem seg- Almost 20% of the kindergarten to thirdmenting consonant clusters within words. As grade teachers in this sample could not part of this study, investigators examined the segment any of the 11 words into speech phoneme-counting and letter-sound mapping sounds; 30% could correctly identify the abilities of college students enrolled in number of phonemes in only half the items. teacher education programs. Panicipants Approximately 40% could not identify comwere asked to draw a line under each letter or mon irregular words in a list of 26 words. In letter cluster that represented a single pho- a debriefing following the survey, teachers neme and to record the number of sounds in repofled that they had not received instruceach word. Results indicated that the mean tion conceming the canlplex stmcture of numbcr of M-ords correctly segmented by written English in their teacher preparation these teachers was fewer than half, suggest- programs, nor did their teaching materiats ing that peopte with competent reading skitls emphasize this infomation. This study raised may not have a precise understanding of how questions regarding these teachers' preparaspeech sounds map to the orttlography. tion to teach PA, to help students use the In substantive studies of both experienced alphabetic principle to decode and spell words* teachers and teachers-in-training. other stud- to select apprtllprrate ~nsWelionaltexts, or to ies reporled similar resuIts. Among teachers respond appropriatelr- to fadent errors in in the American southwest sbdied by Bos reading and spelling. et al. j2001), more than half of the 252 preThe teachers' own basic skills may aEect service and 280 in-sen-ice educators in this their akiitty to absorb the complexities of of scientifically based reading instruction and know when and how to deploy each one of them. Teachers who have that knowledge are si~nplymore effective teachers. (p. 47)

Checsman ct a1

Fmt-Year Teacher Knouledge of Phoncmtc d4%rareness 275

English language structure presented in teacher education programs. Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2003) provided evidence that many teacher candidates enrolled in a special education licensure program have incornplete knowledge about word structure and the ability to understand how phonemes map to graphemes in written language. In a follow-up study, these investigators examined the relationship between teacher-education students' component reading-related abilities and their ability to acquire word-structure knowledge (Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2006). Results showed that some students' basic decoding and spelling skills were below average, despite average reading comprehension and passing scores on the PRAXIS 1 (Educational Testing Service, 1994) teacher competency test. Students' decoding and spelling skills, but not their comprehension or reading speed, influenced their ability to acquire word-structure knowledge. Prior to instruction, though, even students with strong decoding and spelling skills scored well below the maximum possible on phonemecounting tasks. Thus, even strong word reading and spelling abilities did not automatically impart the ability to identify the number of phonemes in a set of one- and myo-syllable written real words and to show which Ietter(s) represented each phoneme in the word. This evidence suggests that proficient reading and writing skills do not automatically translate into the ability to teach basic literacy skills to beginning readers without specific training in English word structure. As a step toward evaluating the outcome results of special and genera1 education course work in reading instruction, the present study examined the competencies with respect to P.4 of recent graduates of teacher education programs-first-year teachers initially certified in comprehensive special education, elementaq education, and early childhood education (preschool through Grade 3). The

follou~ingresearch questions were explored in this study: What is the level of knowledge about PA and PA skills of first-year teachers'? 2. Can first-year teachers distinguish between PA and phonics? 3. Will there be differences in knowledge about PA, PA skills, and the ability to distinguish between PA and phonics among first-year teachers initially certified in comprehensive special education, elementary education, or early childhood education? 1.

Method Participants Two hundred and twenty-three randomly selected first-year teachers from 102 school districts in a northeastern state participated in this study. Individuals in this sample represented graduates of teacher education programs in 15 different states. Although most of the teachers were educated in the eastern United States, this sample also included teachers who received their teacher education in southern, midwestern, and western states. Forty-six percent of the sample had a master's degree. The teachers in this sample were initially certified in special education (tz = 52; 4 male, 48 female; mean age = 30.94 years, SD = 9.201, e l e r n e n t a ~education (n = 118: 6 male, 1 I2 female; mean age = 28.14 years, SD = 6,87), and early ch~ldhood(preklndergaflen through thlrd grade) educatton ( n = 53; 1 male, 52 female; mean age = 28.02 years, SD = 6.261. Most of the teachers were Caucasian f95%0).

&faterialsand Procedures Participants in this smdy were eonlacted through postal mait and asked to anon~mously complete and return a 15-~zemmuitrple-choice

276

Teacher Education and Special Education

instrument. the S u ~ v qof~ Teacher P k X S (Phonemic Aw*urc.rress,K~zo~+.ledge, and Sk.i(ls1. which was de\eIoped by the first author and adapted h m several sources (American Federation of Teachers, 1999; Bos et al., 200 1 ; Mather, Bos, & Babur. 2001; Moats, 1994). The survey was mailed to 475 teachers; 46.9% (223 people) returned completed forms. For each item. there were three possible choices. A fourth item, (4 I'm not sure, was included for each item to discourage random guessing. The survey included nine items to assess teacher knowledge about PA instruction. These items are shown in Table 2, with correct answers in bold type. The first six items pertaining to knowledge contained a phonic foil choice, an answer that better describes phonics (i.e., using the relationships between letters and speech sounds to read and spell) than PA (i.e., the ability to identify and work with the sounds of spoken language). Phonic foil items are italicized. The last six items in the survey assessed several key skills in phonological awareness, including the ability to identify. match, count, and delete phonemes in written words. These items are shown in Table 3, with correct answers in bold type.

education teachers, academic language therapists, speech and language therapists, and state department of education consultants). A 16-item pilot study was conducted with a convenience sample of 127 graduate education students (mean age = 28: 95% Caucasian) enrolled in university teacher preparation programs. Participation was voluntary, and responses were strictly anonymous. This sample included a mix of pre-service ( n = 58) and in-service ( n = 69) teachers, with an average teaching experience of less than 4 years. Of the 69 in-service teachers, almost half (49%) had certification endorsement in Elementary Education, 25% had Special Education certification, with another 12% having cross-endorsement in Elementary and Special Education. Only 7% had Early Childhood certification endorsement, with another 7% having certification endorsement in other areas. The final instmment was revised based on the results of the pilot study.

Reliahilit?;. An analysis of the internal consistency reliability yielded a KuderRichardson 20 (K-R,,)' coe%cient of .69. Because the Survey of Teacher P h A m mias Vulidig; evidence based on content. For intentionally brief to encourage respondents the Sun.ey of Teacher Ph/lli;S, judg~nental to return the survey. the Spearman-Brown evidence regarding item content was gath- Formula was used to estimate the reliability ered prior to the development of the instru- of scores from a similar test twice as long ment. An initial pool of 25 items was rated with homogeneous content (Isaac & Michael, by 17 expen judges selected by the investiga- 19951, Using this formula. doubling the numtor based on experience with PA instruction ber of test questions should increase the reliand professional sccomplishments. These ability to .82. expert judges were experienced in one or more of the following: providing PA instruction to children, providing professional Results education, development to teachers about PF"4 setting teacher standards at the stare departA series of anaiyhes wcre conducted ro ment of education level, or developing assess- examine (a) the le.te1 of knouledge about ment instruments that include PA. These PA and PA skills, (b) the abit~tyto distinguish judges represent a cross-section o f profes- between PA and phctnics. and i c ) drffersions (e g., university professors, special eace\ m kno~,ledgeand skill amorsg specmi

C'hcesman el al. 1 First-Ycar Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic AN-arcness 277

Table 1 First-tear Teacher Performance in Items Related to Knowledge, PA Skills, and the Total Instrument by Certification Endorsement Group Knowledge ( n = 9)

P.4 Skills ( n = 6 )

Total jab'= 1 5 )

Certification Endorsement

M

SD

hl

SD

M

SD

Special Education (lV = 52) Early Childhood (h'= 53) Elementary (N= 1 18) Total ( N = 223)

.54 '56 .52 .53

(24) 07) .(23) (24)

.64 .64 .62 .63

1.24) (.211 (.23) (.23)

.58 .59 .56 .57

(20) t.21) ('1 9) ('19)

I.*'otc: PA = phonemic awareness. Means are proportions correct of the maximum possible score for each area, averaged across all scores for the items related to knowledge, PA skills, and the total instrument.

educators and general education teachers certified in elementary and early childhood education.

Level of Knowledge and PA Skills The first research question in this study focused on the level of knowledge with respect to PA instruction. Table 1 shows the scores of the three endorsement groups for items related to knowledge about PA, PA skills, and the total instrument, with scores expressed as proportion correct of the maximum possible score for each item. In all endorsement groups, first-year teachers performed slightly better in items related to PrZ skills than in items related to knowledge about PA instruction. However, scores in both categories were unifomly low. The distribution of raw scores on the 15-item instrument was positively ske~red,ranging from I to 15 correct. with a mean of 8.6, a median of 8, and a mode of 6. Only 3 of the 223 subjects (19,o) received a perfect score. The first nine items on the instrument related to knowledge about PA instruction. Table 2 shows the mean scores for each item choice in ireins related ro P% knowledge by cerlification endorsement group, with scores expressed as proportion correct of the maximum possible score for each item. Correct responses are shown in bold type. Items 1 ro

4 measured one's understanding of key definitions and content related to PA instruction; Items 5 to 7 measured one's ability to identify activities that develop PA; Item 8 analyzed one's understanding of task difficulty; and Item 9 concerned the type of student PA instruction potentially benefits. Although a majority of the novice teachers ( M = .94) thought PA instruction potentially benefits most children in kindergarten and first grade (Item 91, little more than half (M= '56) understood the purpose of PA instruction (Item 3). Fewer still (M = .41) were able to identify the definition of PA (Item 2); most equated PA with understanding the relationships between letters and the sounds they represent. Nonetheless, three quarters of the teachers (M = ,741 knew that a phoneme was a speech sound, not a letter (Item 1). Recopizing activities that foster an awareness of phonemes was equalIy problematic. Although three quarters ( M = .73) of the special educators could recognize which activity explicitly linked spelling with PA (Item 3, they could not consistently recognize other activities that develop PA (Items 4, 5. and 6). The vast majority of these first-year teachers did not appreciate that idenrifi:ing the initial consonant sound within the consonant blend s required more refined P.4 than isolating the single sound /sh/, represented by the digraph sh (Itern 81,

178

Teacher Education and Special Education

Table 2 First-Year Teacher Performance in Items Related to Knowledge About PA Instruction Certification Item 1 . A phoneme is (a) the sinallat part of written language (b) the smallest part of spoken language (c) a word part that contains a vowel sound (d) I'm not sure 2. Phonemic awareness is: (a) the sanze thing as phonics (hl understandittg the relationships between 1etter.s and the sounds they represent (c) the ability to identify and work with the individual sounds in spoken words (d) I'm not sure 3. Effective phonemic awareness instruction teaches children to: (a) convert letters or letter combinations into sound.^ (b) notice, think about, and work with sounds in spoken language (c) discriminate one letter from the other letters of the alphabet (d) I'm not sure 4. The student's first lessons in phonemic awareness involve: (a) learning letter-sound relationships (b) matching spoken words with printed words (c) identifying sounds shared among words (d) I'm not sure 5. A student has broad phonological awareness and now needs explicit phonemic awareness instruction. What type of activity focuses on phonemic awareness skills? (a) Color the pictures that begin with the letter b (b) Count the syllables in the word hotdog (c) Count the sounds in the word cake (d) I'm not sure 6. An example of explicit phonemic aurarcness instruction is: (a) teachirzg ietter-sourzd correspondences (b} choosing the word in a set of four wards that has the "odd" sound (c) reading words in the same word family. e.g.. at, saz, mar, caf (dl I'm not sure 7 , tlihich acrivrty explicitly links spelling with phonemic awareness'? (a) Make as many words as you can using on15 the letters p, a,r, ? (b) Say a mord, then name the letters out loud, urrtte the ~ o r d (el Say a word, then tap out the sounds in the word: write the letters for these sounds (d) I'm not sure 8 Which task requlres more refined phonemic a%areness8> i d ) Mhat is the first sound in sled? (b) What i s the first sound in ,heP l e i The tasks are the same (d) I'm not sure

C hccsman et al

First-Ycdr Tcdcher Knorsledgc of Phoncrnic .%\%arcncs\ 279

Table 2 (continued) Cenification Item 9. Phonemic awareness instruction: (a) is only meant for students at-risk for reading failure (b) potentially benefits most children in kindergarten and I" grade (c) is not appropriate for older students ( 7 4 years old) who have reading problems (d) I'm not sure Total mean score

T

SE

EC'

EL

.O1 .94 .01

.00 .94 .03

.O3 .92 .OO

.09 .94 .09

Note Means are proporttoni correct of the nlaxrmum posstble score for each ltem Correct answers are in bold type Phonlc foll cho~cesare itallc~zed PA = phonemrc awareness, 1= total sample a\erage score, SE = 4pecidl education, EC = early childhood. EL = elementary

Six items related to PA skills (Table 3). Items 10, 11, and 12 measured one's ability to identify and match phonemes in written words, Items 13 and 14 measured one's ability to count phonemes in written words with consonant blends, and Item 15 measured one's ability to recognize what is left of a word after deleting an individual sound from that word. Many of the first-year teachers in this sample had difficulty disentangling speech sounds from spelling. When asked to identify and match phonemes in written words when the spelling of the sound dif-fered, most were able to correctly identify words with the same final and medial vowel sounds (Items 10 and 12j. However, consonant sounds appeared to be more problematic than sorvel sounds when the spelling was not aansparent. When asked to match words with a common final consonant sound in item I I , nearly one third of the panicipants selected words with matching final letters (house-hose; yfj,ij) instead of sounds (please-buzz). Counting sounds in words with consonant blends (i.e,. two adjacent Ierters representing hvo distinct phonemes) proved disficult for half the sample. For Item 13. the proporlion of teachers who inconectly counted three phonemes in the word grape ( M = .49j was similar to rhuse who cor;ectIy identified four

phonemes (M= .5 1). Fewer teachers (M = .39) were able to identify that ape, lake, and break were arranged sequentially by the number of phonemes in each word (Item 14). These results support the confusion noted with consonant blends in Item 8 and suggest that the teachers who identified three, not four, sounds may consider the consonant sounds in the onset g r and hr to be one phoneme. Participants also had difficulty deleting a consonant sound when the spelling was not transparent. Item 15 required teachers to identify the resulting word from a list of three choices if the sound ;k were deleted from the word mked. Slightly more than half (ilri = .5 8) understood the correct answer to be mist,but a substantial proportion selected mid, suggesting that. besides being unaware that the letter x represents two sounds, 'k: and is!, teachers were aaending to the final letter d, not the sound it! of SU%X ed. OveraIi, these results suggest that a significant minority of recent graduates of teacher education programs have difficultlt: distinguishing the sounds of speech from the letters that imperfectly represent them.

PA or Phonics? The second questlon dealt w ~ t kthe att111t;v to dlsrlngursk, PA and phonics Recall that

280

Teacher Education and Spcciai Education

Table 3 First-Year Teacher Performance in Items Related to PA Skills Certification

SE

EC

EL

10. Can the words shoe,, do, flcjtt,, and~zoube used to illustrate oral rhyming'.' (a) yes (bf no (c) o n l y ? ; ~do, ~ , and siroe, but not,flt.+c (d) I'm not sure I I. An example of matching words with the same final sound is: (a) please-buzz (b) house-hose (c) of-uff (d) I'm not sure 12. An example of grouping words with a common vowel sound is: (a) kin, fist, kind (b) paid, said, maid (c) son, blood, touch (d) I'm not sure. 13. You are helping studettts break a word into its separate sounds. How many sounds are in the word grape? (a) three (b) four (c) five (d) I'm not sure 14. Which list shows a systematic sequence in counting sounds in words, from easy to complex? (a) ape, lake, break (b) hop. shop, shops (c) toe, bow, float (d) I'm not sure 15. If you said the word mi-xed without the sound ;k/, you would say: (a) mid (b) mist (e) mitt id) I'm not sure Total mean score Kitte: Means are proponions correct of the maximum possible score for each item. Correct answers are in hold

type. Phonic foif choices are italicized. PA = phonernlc awareness: T = rota1 sample average score; SE = special education; EC' = early childhood: EL eiementaq. I-

~ l t h t nthe muItrpIe-cholce options for the first SIX items on rhe Surtlej of Teacher Ph4KS ucre "phonlc forfs," chorces that better deicrlbed phonrcs fle , using the relat~onshlps between letters and speech soundr to read and spetlj rather than PA 0 e , the abil~ryto identrfy and tnork b%lrh the sound.; o f spoken language) In Table 2, the phonic foil tkortes are rlalrcized

An analysis of the ersors In t h ~ study s suggests that a substantial proporllon of firstyear teacher5 conslstmtlj confused PLAwrth phva~cs One quarter of rbrs sample d ~ dnot understand that a phoneme represents spoken, not written language (Item 1). More than half beirebed that PA 1s '"understand~ng the relarncrnsh~pbetween letters and sound3 the.) repreaerl'~(It@m3-that effecklr: PA

Chcesman et ai

First-Year Teacher Knct\+lcdge of Phoncm~cAktarencsi,

instruction teaches children to convert letters into sounds rather than notice, think about, and work with the sounds in spoken language (Item 3); and that the student's first lessons in PA involved learning Ietter-sound relationships rather than identifying sounds shared among words (Item 4). Responses to Item 6 showed that more teachers in this sample equate explicit PA instruction with reading words in the same word family than teaching letter-sound correspondences or the correct answer, choosing the word in a set of four words that has the "odd" sound. Overall, these results suggest that among the frrst-year teachers in this sample, differences between PA and how it differs from phonics instruction are not yet fully established.

Differences Among Certification Endorsement Groups Research Question 3 asked if there were differences in the level of knowledge about PA, the ability to demonstrate PA, and the ability to distinguish between PA and phonics among the three certification endorsement groups. To address this question, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)was used to compare the percentage of teachers for each certification endorsement group on the mean score of items relating to knowledge about PA inshuction (Items I through 9): items relating to PA skills (Items 10 througtl 151, and the percentage s f teachers selecting the phonic foil choices (embedded within Items 1 through 6). Although the mean score of teachers with special education endorsement on items constituting knottjledge about PA instmction (-5.1) was slightly higher than those with elementary certification 1.52) and slightly lower than early childhood teachers (.56), there was no statjstically significant difference among the three endorsement groups, F(2,220) = .604,p = 3 5 , tikevvise, the mean

28 1

score on items related to PA skiIIs of teachers with special education endorsement (.64) was slightly higher than teachers with elementary certification (.62) and equivalent to early childhood teachers (.64), but there was no statistically significant diflerence. F(2,220) = .I51, p = .86, among the three endorsement groups. With respect to confusion between PA and phonics, reflected in Items 1 through 6, teachers with special education endorsement had a mean score of .5 1, indicating that about half of this sample confused PA with phonics. This mean score was higher than teaehers with elementary certification (.45)and slightly lower than early childhood teachers (-52).Nevertheless, differences among the three certification endorsement groups were not statistically significant, F(2, 220)= 1.00, p = .37.

First-Year Teacher Knowledge of PA Instruction Fundamental to this study is the ability of these recent graduates of teacher education programs to understand PA instruction so that they can provide it to their students. Do they understand the essential purpose of PA instruction? Are they able to choose appropriate activities that will enhance an awareness of phonemes in their students? Table 4 summarizes the first-year teacher understanding of PA instruction by cerlification endorsement group, Onty 18% a f rhe 223 teachers in this sample were able to correctly answer at least 12 of the 15 items (go%), suggesting that these teachers have a secure undersbnding of what constitutes PA instruction and are able to perfom PA tasks of identifying and manipulating phonemes in words. ilnother 53%) scored in the range of 7 to 1 1 items eorrecr, suggesting an inconsistent understanding of PA instruction and abiliv to perfom Pd4tasks. Nearly one third of these teachers

282

Teacher Education and Special Education

Table 4 First-Year Teacher Understanding of Phonemic Awareness and Its Instruction Level of Cndcrstandxng" Secure

lncons~stent

L~rnited

Certification

70

11

04

tz

Oio

n

Special Education Early Childhood Elementary Total

17 26

9 14 18 41

60 42 55 53

31 22

23 32 30 25

12 17 35 64

15

18

a. Secure = 12 to 15 items correct; Inconsistent

=7

65 118

to 1 1 items correct; Limited = 1 to 6 items correct.

correctly answered 0 to 6 items, suggesting a (88%) reported that they provide PA instmclimited understanding of PA instruction and tion to their students. Like Grade 1 teachers, 41% provide instruction four to five times ability to perform PA tasks. Cunent instructional practice may also per week. Of the five remedial reading affect understanding of PA and its instruc- instructors in this sample, four (80%) reported tion. PA instruction is known to benefit most that they provide PA instruction, and they did children in kindergarten and first grade and this two to five times per week. older students who have been identified with A 2 x 3 ANOVA was conducted to evaluate reading problems (National Reading Panel, the effects of current instructional practice 2000). As shown in Table 5, of the 223 teach- (i.e., provide or do not provide PA instrucers in this sample, 188 (85%) reported that tion) on the mean score of items related to they provide at least some PA instruction to knowledge for teachers in the three certificatheir students. This figure must be interpreted tion endorsement groups. A second 2 x 3 with caution, however, since a large percent- ANOVA was conducted to evaluate instrucage of these participants confuse PA and tional practice effects on the mean score of phonics. Although 20 out of 2 1 kindergarten items related to PA skills. The results for the teachers (95%) reported that they provide ANOVA on items related to knowledge indisome PA instmction, only 12 (57%) report cated a significant main effect for current that they provide instruction four to five times instmctional practice, F(1, 2 17) = 4.89, p = weekly. A slightly lower percentage of Grade '028, partial q2 .03: results on items related I teachers (9294, or 34 out of 37) provide to I"A skills tndicated a nonsit;nificmt main at least some PA inshcrion, with 15 (4 1 effect for current ~nstructlonal practice, providing insmction four to five times weekly. F(1, 21 7' 1 = 3.68. p = .056, parlial q' = .02. As expected, a somew-hat smaller percentage of teachers working with swdents in Grade 2 or higher (73 out of 94, 78%) provide some Discussion PA insmction. The first research question inrestigated The majorit?: of teachers who work with students with special needs also reponed that the level of kno\-rledge and skills of first-year they provide P-4 instmction to their students. teachers initially certified in special education, Among special educators, 52 out of 54 teshers eIemsntaq educatron, and early chrfdfiood

-

C'heestnan ct al. :First-Year Teacher Knowlcdgc of Phonemic Awareness 283

Table 5 Reported Frequency of PA Instruction by Certification Endorsement and Primary Role Certification

Primary Role

Frequency

Total

EC

EL

SE

PS

Not at all I to 4 times per month 2 to 3 times per week 4 to 5 times per week Missing data Total

33 60 61 67 2 223

4 9 13 26 I 53

23 38 35 21 I I18

6 13 13 20 0 52

I 3 0 2 0 6

K

GI

G2+

SE"

R

0

I

3 7 12 15 0 37

19 35 27 11 2 94

7 13 15 24 0 59

1 0 I 3 0 5

I 0 0 0 0 I

7

&.

6 12 0 21

Note: The values represent number of teachers. PA = phonemic awareness; EC = early childhood; EL = elementary; SE = special education; PS = preschool: K = kindergarten; G1 = Grade I; G2+ = Grades 2 through 5; R = remedial reading, reading, or literacy; 0 = other. a. Five teachers with certification endorsement in early childhood and two in elementary education teach special education. The grade level assignments of special education teachers were not reported.

education. The 15-item multiple-choice instrument, the Survey of Teacher PhAKS (PhotzemicAwar-eizessKnowledge arzd Skills), targeted conceptual knowledge, activities that develop PA, and the ability to match and count phonemes in written words. Those elements that were most troublesome for beginning special educators were (a) recognizing activities that fostered an awareness of phonemes, (b) understanding the content and purpose of PA instruction, and (c) identifying and counting phonemes in written words when the spellings were not transparent. Consistent with other studies of teachers' knowledge and skills (Bos et al., 2001; Mather et al., 200 1;Moats, 1994; Moats & Fooman, 2003; Spear-Swerling & Bmcker, 2003, 2004, 200Sj, only 18% of the total sample of firstyear teachers were able to answer at teast 80% of the items correctly. Of the 52 firstyear special educators in the present study, 12 (23% demonstrated a rJery limited understanding o f the subject !i,e., six or fewer correct answ-ers). The percentage of novice teachers in this sample who could accurately segment words with consonant blends by phonemes was less

than half, a figure that is similar to the number of competent teacher-trainees reported in Scarborough et al. (1998) and experienced teachers in Moats and Foonnan's (2003) study. These findings add to other investigations of teacher knowledge in spelling-sound correspondences (Bos et al., 200 1; Mather et al., 200 1 ; Moats, 1994; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2003, 2004, 2006). Consistent with the teacher-trainees in the study of Scarborough et al. (1998) and the in-service teachers in the research of Moats and Foorrnan (2003) and SpearSwerling and Brucker (2003, 2004, 2006), a substantial portion of the teachers in this study tended to undercount the number of phonemes in words. This patrern of responses, though, is common among mature readers. '4s other investigators (Ehri & Wilce, 1980; Moats & Fooman, 2003: Scarborough el al., 1998; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1982) have shown, these findings indicate that the spellings of words influenced p e ~ u m a n c eon PA tasks. Similar to Moats and Fooman (2903), phoneme matching was surprisingly diEeult. Consonant spellings were more confounding than vowels or rhyme% In this study: 169.6 af

283

Teacher Educatron and Speclal Education

the teachers were confused by letter representations of final phonemes in the rhyming words shoe, do,.fletr; and you: 1396 matched vowels by spelling, not sound (i.e.. kin-firtkitzd; puid-.%aid-maid); and 30% matched consonants by orthography, not phonology (i.e., of-off:. house-hose; mhed without ilc: is mid). The consonant sounds presented in these foils (e.g., lv/ in of: but !fi in ofl is/ in house, but /zi in hose; /ti in mixed, but id/ in mid) are particularly troublesome because, although they are similar in place of articulation, they differ in voicing (Moats, 2000). These findings confirm and extend Tunmer and Nesdale's (1 982) hypothesis that individuals think about letters rather than sounds when doing such tasks. The second question examined teachers' ability to distinguish between PA and phonics. A majority of the participants consistently confused PA with phonics. The error patterns on the phonic foils suggest that a substantial portion of special and general educators believe the essence of PA lies in lettersound relationships. Almost twice as many teachers in this sample believed that the purpose of PA lessons is to learn and use lettersound relationships rather than develop an awareness of sounds in spoken words. More than one fourth of first-year special education and more than one third of general education beginning teachers believe that reading words in the same word family (i.e., at: sat, mat) is an example of explicit PA instmction. Clearly, the undersanding that PA develops sensitivity to s p e c h sounds in oral lanpage has not been fim1y established in the knowledge base of these beginning reachers. Overall, these results suggest that there is considerable confusion between what constitutes PA and how it diEers fiom phmics instmction. These recent graduates of teacher education prorrarns could be expected to have considerable difficulty recognizing essential predictors of reading failure or engaging students in

-

activities designed to foster an awareness of phonemes. Furthermore, if other professionals recommend intensive PA training for students atrisk for reading failure, very few special education teachers in this sample would understand what that recommendation entails. Nearly all of the teachers in this study reported that they provide at least some PA instruction to their students, and those that do have significantly higher levels of content knowledge, but not PA skills, than do teachers who do not. In the present study, teachers who correctly answered all six items related to PA skills had significantly greater scores on items that measured conceptual knowledge about PA instruction than teachers who missed one or more items related to PA skills. This suggests that using PA may positively influence a teacher's understanding of this construct. However, the pervasive confusion between PA and phonics warrants caution in interpreting these results. The third question in this study asked if there are differences in PA knowledge and skills or the ability to distinguish between PA and phonics among the three certification endorsement groups. Results showed no significant differences among certification groups with respect to knowledge about PA instruction, PA skills, or the ability to distinguish PA and phonics. The vast majority of teachers in all three certification groups in this sample were unable to answer correctly 80% of the items on the 15-item inshltment, .Ttdwq~>cf Teacher PhAKS. The data in this study also suggest that special educators are no better prepared to provide specialized instmction in PA than their general education counterparts. These findings must be interpreted within the context of cefilzin limitations. A primaq coneem of this study is the low response rate. The survey was mailed to 475 teachers. The number of respondents (N = 2231 in this sample represents a return rate of 36.9%.

Cheesman et al

Fxrst -Year Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness 285

which affects the ability to generalize beyond this sample. Another limitation of this study is that it focuses on only one, albeit essential, component of comprehensive literacy instruction. Future studies are needed to determine if recent graduates of teacher preparation programs are weak in other essential components of research-based reading instruction. Nonetheless, the low performance by teachers in this sample is particularly unsettling in the era of standards-based education, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), all of which instill new requirements for accountability for both teachers and students. Despite these efforts on the national and state levels to establish a set of policies and reforms designed to improve teacher learning (Wilson, Darling Hammond, & Berry, 2001), it appears that there remains substantial room for improvement in teacher preparation programs concerned with reading skills, at least in the field of PA instruction (Walsh et al., 2006).

preparation programs enter the profession without the requisite foundational knowledge in PA suggested by the National Council on Teacher Quality (Walsh et al., 2006). This adds to the evidence that teachers are often licensed to teach without having acquired sufficient depth of essential knowledge and skills related to beginning reading instruction (Bos et al., 2001; Moats & Foorman, 2003). Proficiency as measured by this instrument is equally low among all three certification endorsement groups. Teaching phoneme analysis skills to teacher candidates within the context of a conventional university course is not a simple matter, though. In studies of teacher education (McCutchen et a]., 2002; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2003, 2004, 20061, researchers demonstrated that teachers can acquire some level of knowledge and skills in the structure of language through a combination of instruction and practice. However, teacher candidates' word reading accuracy and spelling ability can also influence their acquisition of word-structure knowledge (Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2006), suggesting that some teacher candidates may Conclusion need more time to internalize the material. In In this study, a large proportion of first- this sample, 87% of the teachers reported year special educators and general education having at least an introduction to PA activiteachers (a) have limited understanding of ties at least one time in their teacher educawhat constitutes PA instruction, (b) cannot tion. This suggests that teacher preparation reliably distinguish PA and phonics, and programs do provide some instruction in FtZ, (c) cannot reliably identifji or count phonemes but &is infomation is not fully rebined by the in wrigen words when the splling is nor trans- graduates. Teacher education candidates map parent. The focus of this study was limited require instmction that is more intense and to the outcome knowledge and skills with explicit to fulty understand PA and its instntcrespect to PA instmction of recent graduates tion and to fully appreciate how PA diRers of teacher education programs and did not .from phonics instruction. Future srudies that investigate the exact conrent o f teacher edu- expinre the mount of r-t-it-ioa neded by cation programs. It could well be that PA and teacher candidates may be wmanted. This study also raises hard quesdon~dx'mt other essential eIemenrs of scientifically vallreliable ways to measure PA in teachers, dated reading instruction were taught as pan of these reachers' education. Flowever, results shon of individually administered araf tests* of this study suggest that graduates of"teacher In that many first- and second-gade children

186

Teacher Education and Special Education

can segment words with consonant blends, like the word grape (Schatschneider, Francis, Foorman, Fletcher, & Mehta, 19991, it may be that tasks involving more difficult cognitive aspects, such as phoneme deletion and showing a systematic sequence of counting sounds in words, may prove to be a more reliable way to measure teachers' understanding of PA and PA skills than simply counting sounds or tasks involving phoneme identity. Previous investigations of PA skills in teachers (Scarborough et al., 1998; SpearSwerling & Brucker, 2003) have measured segmentation abilities by means of both indicating the number of phonemes detected in a given word and also underlining or circling the letter or letters that correspond to the individual phonemes (e.g., SH I P or S K A T E). This latter measurement technique provides more detailed information regarding the respondents' understanding of letter sound correspondences and is a methodology that is important to consider in future investigations of this nature. Although some teacher preparation programs, textbook publishers, state departments of education, and providers of professional development courses are indeed attempting to translate research findings for teacher education, others may be making superficial changes in teminology with little change in actual content or practice (,Moats, 2007: Shanklveiler & Fowler, 2004). In 2006, the Colorado Reading Directorate was charged with the responsibility ofreviewing and evaluating university course syllabi for all state teacher preparation prograrns that touched on literacy (Colorado Depafiment of Education, 2006). Similar investigations concerning the depth of reading-related content o f university teacher education cunicula may be justified. As Moats and Lyon i1996) asserted, "professors of education and special education . . . who have a thorough knowledge o f language structure themseives and who are skilied

at teaching it to educators are uncommon" (p. 83). If schools of education do not S U E ciently prepare teachers to provide competent reading instruction, the burden of educating teachers shifts to individual school districts (Walsh. 2006). A persisting topic for the field of teacher education is demonstration of meaninghl outcomes for both content knowledge and instructional skills that correspond to state licensing standards in the field of beginning reading instruction.

Note 1. The Kuder-Richardson formula, used for dichotomously scored instruments, usually yields lower reliability coefficients than those obtained using other methods of calculating reliability (Gall, Borg, & Call. 1996).

References Adams, M. J. (1990). Begirzning to read: Thinking and jearnirrg about print. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. Adams, M. J.,Allington. R. L., Chaney, J. H., Goodman, 1'.M., Kapinus. B. A., McGee, L. M., et al. ( 1991). "Beginning to read: A critique by literacy professionals and a response by Marilyn Jager Adams. Reuding Teacher, 4416). 370-395. American Council on Education. ( 1 999). To touch rhr ,firlure: Transfirmzing the way teachers are laugh[. Washington, DC: Author. American Federation of Teachers. ( 1 999). Teachittg readitrg is rocket science, Washington, DC: Author. Ambruster. B, B.. Lehr. F., & Osborn, J . (2001). Put reading iir-it: The rczreorcil hiri!ding blocks fir reuchitzg thiidrem to r e d K-3-3.Washington, DC: Narionai Institute for Literacy. Blachman, 8. A. ( 1 991 1. Early intenention for chddren's reading problems: Clinical applications of the research in phonological auareness. Tupics in Latlguage Disorder.?. iZ( I ), 5 1-65. Biachrnan. B. X. (1993. Ear!?. intewenriun and phonological awarrmess: A c m t i o n q tale. In B. A. Biachman {Ed.j. Eiiundurions ufreading uiyu~sitinnatrd &F/e.via: fnzplimfion~forear[~, it~ten,entiorz{pp. 409430). kfahwah, NI: Lawrence Erlbaum, Blachrnan, B.pi.. Scharschneider, C , , Fiercher* J, 9;L.~ Francis. D.J,. Cionan, S. M.,Shaywirz, B, X..

Checsnlan et al. I First-.Year Teacher Knowledge of Phonentie Awareness 287 et al. (2004). Effects of intensive reading reme- International Reading Association. ( 1998). Photremic diation for second and third graders and a I-year u1+.urenessand the teaching oJ'rc>uding:A posiricjn al follow-up. J0urrta1 of' E d u c a f i ~ ~ ~P.~y~.hologt.. starepnent f k m the Bourd of' Directors of' the 96(3), 44446 I. lnterrtationul Ileudirtg ilssociarion. Newark, DE: Blachinan, B. A.. Tangel, D. M.. Ball, E. U'., Black, R., Author. & McGraw. C. K. ( 1999). Developing phonological Intemational Reading .4ssociation and the National awareness and word recognition skills: A two-year Association for the Education of Young Children. intervention with low-income, inner-city children. ( 1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally Reading and Witing, 11(3), 239-273. appropriate practices for young children. Reading Bos. C., Mather, N., Dickson. S., Podhajski, B., & Teacher, 5212), 193-2 16. Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of Isaac, S., 8i Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in preservice and inservice educators about early readresearch aird et.aluation: A collection qfprinciplec, ing instruction. Atzrrais qf'l)?:de.ria. 51, 97-120. nzethods, and strafegie.~useful in the plantling, Brady. S.. Fowler, A,, Stone, B.: & Winbury, N. (1994). design, and el~aafrrafion of'.studie.s in edumrion atzd Training phonological awareness: A study with the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). San Diego. CA: inner-city kindergarten children. '4nnal.s offlvsle-ria. EdITS Publishers. 44, 26-59. -earning Disabilities Association of America. (1 997). Colorado Department of Education. (2006). Colorado Position paper on teacher preparation and learning reacher preparation program approval r-tibric and 32(3 1, 1, 19, 14. disabilities. Ne~sbriefi~. re~*iew checklist ,fbr literacy courses. Denver, CO: Learning First Alliance. (2000). Even, clzild reading: Author. A proj&.r.~ionaldevelopment guide. Washington, DC: Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Author. Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of .iberman, 1. Y. (1987). Language and literacy: The K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the obligation of the schools of education. In W. Ellis domain of early literacy. rlnnals ofDysle.ria, 54(1), (Ed.), Inrimacy with language: A.fougotten basic in 139- 168. teacher education (pp. 1-9). Baltimore: The Orton Darling-Hammond. L. (2000). Teacher quality and Dyslexia Society. student achievement: A review of state policy Liberman. I. Y., Shankweiler. D., & Liberman, A. M. evidence (electronic version). Educutionaf Policx (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to At?alvsi.s archive.^, 8. Retrieved March 17, 2009. read. In D. Shankweiier & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), from http:,/epaa.asu.edulepaa'v8nl. Phonnlog, and reading di.~ahiliog:Solvitzg the readEducational Testing Senrice. (1 993). PRI14XISI: Acudeniii itzg puzzle (pp. 1-33). Ann Arbor: University of .sliill.s a.s.rc.ssntents. Princeton, NI: Author. Michigan Press. Ehri, L. C.. & Wilce. L. S. (1980). The influence of Lyon, G. R. (1999). The MCHD research progratn it? orthography on readers' conceptualization of the reading de~.elopment,reuding iiisorcier.7 and rradphonemic structure of words. rlpplied P.ychoing instrucrion. Washington, DC: National Center linguirric.~,I(4). 37 1-385. for Learning Disabilities. Foornlan. B, R.. & Torgesen. J. (2001). Critical elements fvfather, X., Bos. C.. & Babur. N.(2001). Perceptions of classroom and small-group instruction promote and knowledge of presen ice and insenrice teachers reading success in ali children. Learning Dicahifitieiabout early literacy instruction. Journai of Learnilig i z 012d Prurticc., 16f4.1, 203-2 11. fr'~.~cat-x Uisuhilirii~.34,472-482. Gali, M.D.. Borg. W. R.. & Gall. J. f" { 1996). Ed1it.a- Vcf'ardie, P. & C'hhabra, tr (Eds.j. (20041. The i * ~ i ~ e riiirzui rc.war?.lr:Ar? inrt-odu[.ticin (6th ed.). U7hite qf'ei*idericr irr r~iriiirlgre.~ran.h.Baltimore: Paul W. Plains. UY: Longman Pubiishing. Brookes, Hill. H . 8. (2000). Lirr.rilc.r.hsrrzri.rion in rpuchet- edzr- McCutchen, D.. .thbott, R , D.. Green. L. B., Beretvas. (.ation. -4 i*n~?i~~ari.son cif reacher edtfcution in S, h;., Cox. 5.. Potter, K.S,. et ai. (1002). Beginning ..fu?i!-iliiu. .%-it. Zeliiund iind the Uniteti Stiirec 01' literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, reacher ..fnit.rira. Cnpublishd doctoral dissersarinn. Teachers practice, and srudc~~t learnme. JOurna! ig Le~rizing College, Colu~nbiaUniversity. Disahiirtitir.. 3.5, 69-86. International Dyslexia Association. ( 1997). Infirrnt>l! Moah, L ( 199-1) Thc mlsslng founhtion In teacher initnrgitni Pitr hioir\. .cii9), 9x6-1373

Shaywitz, B. A,, Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K. R., Mencl. &V. E., Fulbright, R. K., Skudiarksi, P., et al. (2002). Dismption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with developmental dyslexia. Biologicuf Pst;chiat~,52(2), 101-110. Snow. C. E., Bums, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). f 1998). Preventing reading d~ficuitiesin young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. 0 . (2003). Teachers' acquisition of knowledge about English word structure. ..lnnals of@slexia, 53, 72-103. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. 0 . (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals ofl)yslexda, 54(2), 332-364. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. 0 . (2006). Teachereducation and students' reading abilities and their knowledge about word structure. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 1 16- 126. Torgesen, J. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, I S ( I), 55-64. Torgesen, J. (2006, April). Refectiotls on Reading First and the path ahead: Our continuing challenges and responsibilities. Paper presented at the Colorado Reading First Conference, Colorado Springs, CO. Torgesen, J.,Alexander,A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and longterm outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58. Troia. G. A. (1999). Phonological awareness intewention research: A critical review of the experimental methdolo@. Readiizg Resmrch Quarterlt., 34(l}, 28-52. Tunmer, Nr. E., & Nesdale, A. R. ( 1 982). The effects of digraphs and pseudowords on phonemic segmentation in young children. Applied Psyclzolin~istics, 3(4), 299-2 I I . U.S. Drpafiment of Education. (10051. 17638 nafiov k repurr curd- Readng 2iiO.5 (No. NCES 2006-45 i j. Washingon, DC: Institute for Education Sciences. National Center for Educational Statistics. L'v'alsh, K. (2006). Teacher education: Conzing up empty (No. ED493850). Mshington. DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation Walsh. K., Cliljer, D., L Wilcor, D. D. 120061, t.t'd~aieducarion sch