Lack of teacher knowledge in the teaching of early reading precursory skills has been researched and reported in the literature as one of the major reasons why literacy levels are
73 declining, with attention being drawn to pre-service teacher training (Bos et al., 2001; Brady et al., 2009; Cheesman et al., 2009; Cunningham et al., 2004; DEST, 2005; Education Health & Standing Committee, 2012; Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005; Joshi et al., 2009b; Leader- Janssen et al., 2013; Lyon & Weiser, 2009; Moats, 1994, 2009b; McCutchen et al., 2002; Moats & Foorman, 2003; NRP, 2000; Rose, 2006; T. Smith, 2008; Spencer et al., 2008).
A common misconception is that if teachers are proficient readers they must also be able to teach reading effectively to beginning readers, however, this is not the case (Fielding- Barnsley & Purdie, 2005; Joshi et al., 2009a; Leader-Janssen & Rankin-Erickson, 2013). An adult can be a proficient reader without the explicit knowledge and understanding of the structures of language and the best methods of instruction for teaching young children the decoding skills necessary for beginning readers (Cunningham & Zibulsky, 2009; Cunningham, Zibulskuy & Callahan, 2009; Donnelly, 2012; Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005; Leader- Janssen & Rankin-Erickson, 2013; Louden & Rohl, 2006; McCutchen et al., 2002; Podhajski et al., 2009). This finding has lead researchers to question what teachers actually know about teaching beginning reading, and more specifically phonological awareness and phonics, as teachers cannot teach reading effectively if they do not understand the structures of language themselves (Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi & Hougen, 2012; Brady et al., 2009; Moats, 2009b; Spencer et al., 2008). Chall, Jacobs and Baldwin (1990) also commented that “few teachers have sufficient theoretical knowledge and practical skills to teach reading...” (p.161). Joshi et al. (2009b) and McCutchen et al. (2002) both reinforced the importance of teachers’ knowledge when teaching precursory reading skills by reporting that there is a direct relationship between the content knowledge of the teacher teaching reading and the effect on their students’ reading abilities.
Many researchers worldwide have surveyed and assessed large numbers of early childhood teachers to determine the extent of their knowledge of reading skills, phonological awareness and phonics, with alarming results (Bos et al., 2001; Brady et al., 2009; Cunningham et al., 2004; Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005; McCutchen et al., 2002; Moats, 1994, 2009; T. Smith 2008; Spencer et al., 2008). McCutchen et al. (2002) and Moats (2009) acknowledged that the concept of phonological awareness and phonics is still not widely understood by teachers which raise questions about teachers’ abilities to teach these
74 concepts adequately. American researchers, Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi & Hougen (2012) referred to this sentiment as ‘The Peter Effect’ meaning that teachers cannot provide students with the necessary knowledge and understanding of beginning reading skills if they themselves do not possess an understanding and knowledge of these skills. Spencer and colleagues (2008) raised similar concerns stating that that they find it extremely difficult to believe how teachers with poor knowledge of teaching beginning reading skills, such as phonemic segmentation, can correctly teach children these necessary skills. In the Australian media, Donnelly (2012) referred to an Australian survey which was conducted of Australian teachers in 2006-2007 reported that both experienced and pre-service teachers had limited knowledge and understanding of spelling, phonological awareness and phonics.
In order to be able to teach phonological awareness and phonics effectively a teacher must possess an understanding of how language works at the sound, word and sentence level and how speech sounds relate to print. Teachers need to be able to identify phonemes, graphemes, syllables and morphemes as well as teach skills such as auditory blending (Moats, 2009b; Podhajski et al., 2009). Neuman and Cunningham (2009), also add that teachers must be knowledgeable about the development and sequence of these pre- reading skills so that they can provide the appropriate activities for their students’ abilities. “Many students need explicit instruction in the alphabetic principle and phoneme- grapheme correspondences. To provide this instruction, teachers need to have a clear and explicit ability to analyse speech sounds and relate speech sounds to print” (Spencer et al., 2008, p.517). Having the knowledge and understanding of the structures of language is also important for teachers to be able to interpret and understand speech pathologists’ reports and then provide the necessary support and instruction (Fielding–Barnsley & Purdie, 2005).
In 2001, Bos et al. (2001) surveyed 252 pre-service teachers and 286 in-service teachers (K-3 teachers) using two questionnaires to determine the linguistic knowledge of early childhood teachers. Their study was based largely on Moats’ study (1994), however, this study gathered information from pre-service teachers and in-service teachers. For the pre-service teachers both of the assessments were administered after they had completed their reading courses at University and the in-service teachers were given both of the surveys before they attended professional development. To determine the participating teachers’ knowledge
75 and understanding of the structures of language, phonological awareness and phonics Bos et al. (2001) developed a survey titled, Teacher Knowledge Assessment: Structure of Language, which was based on Moats’ 1994, Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (Bos et al., 2001). The Teacher Knowledge Assessment survey consisted of 20 multiple choice questions and the results reported that just over half (53%) of the pre-service teachers and 60% of the in-service teachers answered half of the questions about phonological awareness and phonics in the Teacher Knowledge Assessment incorrectly.
Fifty percent of the inservice educators missed three of the eight items related to phonics and five of the twelve items related to phonological awareness. The missed phonics items included silent letters, digraphs, and the definition of phonics. More than 50 percent of the inservice educators correctly segmented a word that had two sounds but incorrectly segmented words that had four sounds, could not identify the second sound in ‘queen’; could not identify voiced and unvoiced consonants, and confused teaching phonological awareness with teaching letter/sound correspondences...More than 50 percent of the inservice teachers identified deletion, segmentation, and blending tasks (Bos et al., 2001, p.110).
The teachers were also given a survey to determine their perceptions about teaching reading and spelling called, ‘Teacher Perceptions About Early Reading and Spelling’ which was based on DeFord’s Theoretical Orientation Reading Profile (1985). In this survey the teachers were asked to answer each of the 15 questions using a six point Likert scale which ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). Bos et al. (2001) noted that out of the in-service teachers “those who favoured an explicit approach felt more prepared to teach all children, struggling readers, and phonological awareness and phonics” (p.115). It is interesting to note, however, that both pre-service and in-service teachers demonstrated positive views towards both implicit and explicit instruction and that they generally did not favour one theoretical orientation towards reading instruction.
Bos et al. (2001) noted that the findings from their study (which were based on Moats’ 1994 study) are similar to conclusions made by Moats (1994). Although there have been many National policies, changes in legislation, initiatives and research studies in America with regards to improving literacy levels and literacy instruction in schools “many teachers are confused about the differences between phonological awareness and phonics and would be
76 limited in their skills to teach reading explicitly to children who struggle” (Bos et al., 2001, p.117).
Australian researchers, Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie (2005) conducted a study in Queensland, Australia to determine teachers’ knowledge of phonology, syllables and morphology. The sample consisted of 340 teachers (93 pre-service teachers in their last year of study; 209 primary in-service teachers; and 38 special education teachers with specialist tertiary qualifications). The teacher attitude survey consisted of 10 multiple choice questions and it was adapted from Moats (1994) Survey of linguistic knowledge. The results reported that the mean was 6.12, with only 24.1% of teachers accurately identifying the number of speech sounds (phonemes) in a specific word (Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005). The researchers were surprised that there wasn’t a correlation between the level of the teachers’ knowledge and their teaching experience. Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie were expecting that more experienced teachers would have more knowledge due to attending more professional development and general classroom experience.
The overall results from this study reflect the findings from other studies which have also assessed teachers’ knowledge in reading instruction (Bos et al., 2001; Brady et al., 2009; Cunningham et al., 2004; Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005; Moats, 1994, 2009a, 2009b; Moats & Foorman, 2003. Similar findings were reported in 2008 by Spencer and colleagues where 109 Kindergarten teachers, 112 Year 1 teachers, 160 speech-language pathologists, 100 reading teachers and 60 special education teachers were surveyed to determine their knowledge and understanding of phonemic awareness. Each participant was given a survey, which was also adapted from Moats’ survey (2000), to assess their phonemic awareness skill. The assessment consisted of three parts; phoneme segmentation (20 questions), phoneme identification (5 questions), and phoneme isolation (6 questions). A total score of 47 was given as well as an analysis of performances in each of the three different sections. The results from the survey reported that overall, the speech-language pathologists demonstrated superior knowledge with a mean score of 37.34 compared to an average score of 29.47 for Kindergarten teachers. Only 55% of teachers correctly identified that there are 4 speech sounds in the word stop, whereas 89% of the speech-language pathologists answered that question correctly (Spencer et al., 2008).
77 The researchers noted that they expected the speech-language pathologists to perform better due to the more intense focus on language and word structure in their degree. The results reported that the Kindergarten and Year 1 teachers performed better in the survey than the reading teachers and special education teachers, which was surprising to the researchers. The American researchers were surprised with this finding as they anticipated that the reading teachers and special education teachers would perform better on the survey due to their more specialised training (Spencer et al., 2008). Spencer et al. (2008) suggested that speech-language pathologists be included in schools’ planning, delivery, instruction and intervention reading programs as they are more likely to be able to provide scientifically based instruction knowledge in effective reading instruction.
It is important to establish what teachers should know about teaching reading, phonological awareness and phonics and what they currently know as this information can assist with providing effective professional development programs for teachers and Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998) state that “the primary school teacher’s knowledge and experience, as well as the support provided to the teacher, are central to achieving the goal of primary prevention of reading difficulties” (p.10).
2.81 Teacher efficacy and knowledge calibration
Teachers have been reported as perceiving their knowledge and understanding about phonological awareness and phonics as higher than it actually is (Cunningham et al., 2004; Cunningham, Zibulsky & Callahan, 2009; Moats, 2009a). Cunningham, Zibulsky and Callahan (2009), cited one of the earliest studies that investigated teachers’ knowledge and perceptions about their teaching of reading by Lyon, Vaaseen and Toomey in 1989 where initially teachers reported that overall they felt well prepared to teach reading as they had done well at university in this area. However, when discussed further, it became evident that these teachers had a false perception about their ability and knowledge in teaching beginning reading. It became evident, through the research, that these teachers were not provided with information about explicit and effective instructional methods or given information about differentiating instruction during their pre-service teacher education or other professional development (Cunningham Zibulsky & Callahan, 2009).
78 Cunningham et al. (2004) conducted a large study of 722, K-3 teachers to determine teachers’ knowledge about early literacy and more specifically the difference between their actual knowledge, about phoneme awareness and phonics, and their perceived knowledge. The results revealed that although teachers had a limited knowledge of phonics and phoneme awareness the majority of these teachers indicated that they had strong levels of knowledge and understanding (p.139). Cunningham and colleagues referred to this as knowledge calibration, which is the ability or awareness to determine what you do know and what you do not know. In their research they found that overall the teachers were “poorly calibrated in the domains of phoneme awareness and phonics” (p.140).
Cunningham and colleagues concluded that teachers’ self-evaluations of their knowledge were not very reliable. Interestingly they reported that it was the teachers who stated that they did not know a lot about phonics actually knew more than the teachers who rated themselves as being strong in their knowledge of phonics. Their study demonstrated that teachers are often unaware of what they do not know, especially when it comes to phonological awareness and phonics. This could be at the heart of the problem as to why teachers lack the necessary knowledge to be able to teach reading effectively, or seek new information on reading instruction (Cunningham, Zibulsky & Callahan, 2009; Fielding- Barnsley & Purdie, 2005; Lyon & Weiser, 2009; Moats, 2009b; T. Smith, 2008).
2.82 Pre-Service teacher education
The reported lack of knowledge and confidence in pre-service teachers and graduates when it comes to teaching reading, particularly in early childhood education is an important part of this discussion as it is highlighted in many of the relevant studies and reports on reading as being a contributing factor to poor teacher knowledge (Binks-Cantrell, Joshi & Washburn, 2012; Brady, et al., 2009; Cunningham, Zibulsky & Callahan, 2009; DEST, 1998, 2005; Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005; Joshi et al., 2009a, 2009b; Moats, 2009a, 2009b; Podhajski et al., 2009; Rose, 2006; T. Smith, 2008; Sturtz, 2009). Leader-Janssen and Rankin- Erickson (2013) cite Phelps and Schilling’s research in 2004 where they suggest that one of the reasons that teachers may be leaving teacher training institutions with a lack of knowledge on how to teach reading may be due to the fact that pre-service teachers’
79 training tends to focus more on knowledge of the curriculum, rather than teaching the pre- service teachers what and how to teach beginning reading skills, including phonological awareness and phonics.
Australian researchers, Louden and Rohl (2006) investigated beginning teachers’ preparedness to teach literacy through surveys and focus groups which included participants from three groups: teacher educators, senior teaching staff and beginning teachers in Australian primary and secondary schools. Senior teachers and teacher educators revealed that they were concerned about beginning teachers’ personal literacy skills and their ability to cater effectively for students with diverse needs, especially students where English is a second language. The beginning teachers acknowledged that while there were gaps in their literacy knowledge (particularly with regards to teaching grammar, spelling and phonics), overall they held a positive view towards their university teaching degree with regards to how well prepared they felt to teach literacy on a general level. Louden and Rohl caution readers to be careful when considering reports, media headlines and claims that teachers are not being adequately prepared to teach, and stress that many different factors must be considered when examining teacher preparedness and abilities of beginning teachers. In their introduction, Louden and Rohl provide readers with background information about teacher education in Australia and state that students studying a four year teaching degree “typically take two or more units with a literacy focus...” (p.66). The length of time pre-service teachers spend on teaching literacy at university has been a point of discussion in other research on teacher preparedness (Rohl & Greaves, 2005).
The Australian NITL (DEST, 2005), the UK Rose Report (Rose, 2006), and the US publications, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Griffin & Burns, 1998) and the NRP (NRP, 2000) all emphasised the importance of improving pre-service teacher education and providing in-service teachers with the necessary evidence based professional development in order to improve teacher knowledge about teaching beginning reading in a systematic, direct and explicit manner (Joshi et al., 2009a). However, many studies since the release of the reports have reflected that many pre-service and in-service teachers are still not knowledgeable about the most effective methods of instruction for teaching beginning skills or the knowledge to teach phonological awareness, phoneme awareness and phonics
80 (Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi & Hougen, 2012; Bos et al., 2001; Brady et al., 2009; Cheesman, et al., 2009; Cunningham et al., 2004; Fielding & Barnsley, 2005; Joshi et al., 2009a, 2009b; Lyon & Weiser, 2009; Moats, 2009b; Spencer et al., 2008).
Researchers suggest that if pre-service teacher education programs can be improved to include more substantial units/courses in metalinguistics then teachers should be more knowledgeable about teaching early precursory reading skills (Bos et al., 2001; Cunningham et al., 2004; Lyon & Weiser, 2009; Moats, 2009a, 2009b; Spencer et al., 2008). Essentially not enough time is allocated for pre-service teachers to be able to grasp the content knowledge required to be able to teach phonological awareness and phonics effectively and confidently (Cunningham, Zibulsky & Callahan, 2009; DEST, 1998; Lyon & Weiser, 2009; Moats, 2009a, 2009b; Rose, 2006; Spencer et al., 2008). In Australia, the NITL (DEST, 2005) reported that pre-service teachers on average spent less than 10% of their time studying (in compulsory units) how to teach reading (DEST, 2005).
Cunningham et al. (2004) and Podhajski et al. (2009) noted that universities and educational training centres are not providing the how and what to teach in phonological awareness and early reading instruction. Beginning teachers are therefore leaving University with limited knowledge with regards to how, what and when to teach phonological awareness and phonics effectively to young children and consequently children are not going to receive systematic, explicit and direct instruction in these skills. As Binks-Cantrell et al. (2012) report, universities are not adequately preparing pre-service teachers to teach reading which has a direct impact on their future students as “one cannot teach what one does not know” (p.527). Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie (2005), note that improving pre-service teacher education could play an important part in reducing the number of children that experience reading difficulties. The NITL (DEST, 2005) report also included recommendations to improve the teaching of reading that a “national program of literacy action be established to: promote research into the most effective teaching practices to be used when preparing pre-service teachers” (DEST, 2005, p.59). Moats (2009) cites a study by Hill in 2000, where interviews were conducted with pre-service teachers at four major American universities and not surprisingly the majority of them felt under-prepared to teach children with reading difficulties. In 2012, Donnelly, the director of the Education Standards Institute and an
81 experienced teacher, commented in an article in The Australian newspaper that he believed that pre-service teachers were still not being provided with the necessary content knowledge and skills required to teach beginning readers using research based evidence strategies and instructional methods.
Another aspect of improving pre-service teacher education is the knowledge of the literacy instructors/lecturers at universities. American researchers, Joshi et al. (2009a) suggested that there may be two reasons why pre-service teachers do not have adequate knowledge of linguistic concepts to be able to effectively teaching reading; “a lack of attention given to such concepts by teacher educators...and a lack of relevant information provided in the textbooks used in college courses” (p.458). Research findings reported by Joshi et al. (2009a) found after surveying 78 language instructors in teaching institutes that overall they understood syllables but performed poorly on questions that specifically related to phonemes and morphemes. This has obvious consequences for the pre-service teachers attending their units on teaching literacy (Lyon & Weiser, 2009).
More recently, Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi & Hougen (2012) conducted research which investigated the knowledge and understanding of university teacher educators who teach reading to pre-service teachers in early childhood teaching degrees and the impact that their level of knowledge has on their pre-service teachers with regards to whether they had