RIT Scholar Works
Theses
Thesis/Dissertation Collections
2007
Reading First Teachers' Knowledge of English
Phonology and Attitudes toward Reading
Instruction
Courtney Richmond
Follow this and additional works at:
http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact
ritscholarworks@rit.edu
.
Recommended Citation
Graduate Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
Of the School Psychology Program
College of Liberal Arts
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
By
Courtney Richmond
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science and
Advanced Graduate Certificate
Rochester, New York
(date)
Approved:
Illegible Signature
(committee chair)
Scott P. Merydith
School Psychology Program
Permission to Reproduce Thesis
PERMISSION GRANTED
Title of thesis: Reading First Teachers' Knowledge of English Phonology and
Attitudes toward Reading Instruction
I, Courtney Richmond
, hereby grant permission to the
Wallace Memorial Library of the Rochester Institute of Technology to reproduce my
thesis in whole or in part
.
Any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit.
RUNNING HEAD:
TEACHERS'KNOWLEDGE AND
ATTITUDES
Reading
First
Teachers'Knowledge
ofEnglish
Phonology
andAttitudes
toward
Reading
Instruction
Courtney
Richmond
Abstract
The
Reading
First
grantrequiresteachers to
gothrough
professionaldevelopment
and education about
reading
instruction
to
improve
their
teaching
methods.The
purposeof
this
study is
to
determine
whetherteachers'knowledge
ofthe
English language
andtheir
attitudestoward
explicitreading
instruction improved
afterworking in
schoolsthat
received
the
Reading
First
grant.Seventy-six
teachers
from four
schoolsthat
receivedthe
Reading
First
grantwere surveyedto
determine
their
knowledge
ofEnglish
phonology
andattitudestoward
explicitandimplicit reading instruction.
Reading
First
teachers
had
moreknowledge
ofEnglish phonology
than
otherteachers,
but did
notdiffer
in
their
attitudes.There
was nodifference in knowledge
or attitudesbetween
general andspecial educators.
The
years ofexperiencehad
norelationship
to
teachers'knowledge
orattitudes.
However,
the
olderthe teachers were, the
more positivetheir
attitudes weretoward
explicit codeinstruction.
Finally,
teachers
withmoreknowledge had
moreCHAPTER
1
Statement
ofthe
Problem
Perhaps
the
mostimportant
basic
skillthat
every
childneedsto
be
successfulboth
in
schoolandin society is
the
ability
to
read.Children
whodo
not acquirethis
skill willsuffer not
only in
their academics,
aslearning
requiresthe
ability
to
take
in
writteninformation,
but
alsoin
their
jobs
andin
everyday
life. Illiterate
adults are morelikely
to
have health
problems,
alower life expectancy
andfinancial
insecurity
(Roman,
2004).
A large
proportionof students arereading below
gradelevel in
school;
for
example,
asmany
as40%
offourth
grade students(National Assessment
ofEducational
Progress,
1997). In
2005,
36%
offourth
grade studentsdid
not read at a"basic"
level
ofperformance which
is
defined
as"partial mastery
of prerequisiteknowledge
and skillsthat
arefundamental for
proficient work at eachgrade"
(Perie, Grigg,
&
Donahue,
2005,
p.
2).
Only
31%
offourth
grade students read at a proficientlevel
of performance.In
2005,
27%
of eighthgrade studentsdid
not readat abasic level
of performance(Perie,
Grigg,
&
Donahue, 2005),
whichis
a minuteimprovement from
the
fourth
gradepercentages.
These
statisticshave
notimproved
morethan
2
percentagepointssince1971.
The
prevalence ofreading disabilities
is
estimatedto
be
around75%
to
85%
of alllearning
disabilities
(Moats,
1994). Due
to the
dismal
nationalstatistics,
having
allstudentsread
by
the
end ofthird
gradehas been
a national goalfor
the
pastdecade
(Bursuck,
Munk,
Nelson
&
Curran,
2002).
Special
education andrelated serviceshave
had
readbelow
gradelevel
in
third
grade stillreadbelow
gradelevel
atthe
endofhigh
school
(Francis, Shaywitz, Steubing,
Shaywitz
&
Fletcher,
1996).
Stanovich
(1986)
described
the
"Matthew
Effect,"wherestudents who
develop
early
literacy
skills cancontinuously
growwhilethose
whodo
nothave
suchskillsfall
progressively
further behind. Students
withreading
difficulties
cannot usereading
to
acquirenew
information
whichgreatly
hinders
their
learning
in every
area(Bos, Mather,
Narr &
Babur,
1999). With
the
overwhelming
number of children notreading
at gradelevel,
improving
children'sreading has
become
a national concern.Phonemic Awareness
andPhonics
Reading
is
broken down
into five
majorcomponentsthat
needto
be learned for
aperson
to
be
a successful reader.One
componentis
phonemicawareness,
whichis
the
ability
to
hear
and manipulate speech sounds(National
Reading
Panel,
2000). Phonemic
awareness
is
one ofthe
earliest skillsthat
needsto
be
taught
to
help
studentslearn
to
read.
Phonemic
awarenessinstruction has been found
to
increase
students'reading
growth
(Torgesen
&
Mathes,
2002). Children
whohave
not masteredthe
skill ofphonemic awareness are more
likely
to
have difficulties
decoding
words,
whichis
the
most common
type
ofreading
disability
(Lyon &
Moats,
1997). Children
whohave
difficulties
with phonemic awarenesstasks
needdirect
and explicitinstruction in
this
area(Lyon,
1998a). Without
this type
ofinstruction
an expected20%
of children willnotlearn
how
to
read(Torgesen
&
Mathes,
2002).
Phonics instruction
teaches
studentsthe
letters
that
correspond withindividual
sounds
(National
Reading
Panel,
2000). Phonics instruction
helps
childrenusethe
letters
andspoken sounds(Armbruster,
Lehr &
Osborn,
2001).
Understanding
the
alphabetic principle allows students
to
decode
unfamiliar words.Systematic
anddirect
instruction in
phonicssignificantly improves
wordrecognition,
spelling
andreading
comprehension
for kindergarten
andfirst
grade students(Lyon &
Moats,
1997).
Explicit
Reading
Instruction
andTeacher
Attitudes
Explicit reading
instruction is
ateaching
methodthat
focuses
ondirectly
teaching
discrete reading
skillsto
students.Implicit reading instruction is
the
converse of explicitinstruction,
where studentsarenotdirectly
taught the
underlying reading
skills.Educators
whofavor
animplicit
approach proposethat
children canlearn
to
readby
using
context clues anddetermining
what makes sensein
the
sentence.Yet,
contentwords, those
mostimportant
to the
meaning
ofthe
text,
canonly
be
predictedfrom
context around
20%
ofthe time
(Gough,
Alford
&
Holley-Wilcox,
1981).
Rather,
goodreaders use context
to
promote comprehension ofthe
text,
notto
read unfamiliar words(Lyon,
1998b). This
suggeststhat
direct instruction in
phonemic awareness anddecoding
is necessary for many
studentsin
developing
wordreading
and comprehension.If
teachers
do
notbelieve in
explicitinstruction,
it is
highly
unlikely
they
willteach
in
that
manner.Teachers'
attitudes are
formed early
andtend to persist,
evenin
the
face
ofcontradictory
evidence(Malouf
&
Schiller,
1995). Even
though
they
may be
difficult
to change, there
is
evidencethat
attitudesinfluence
behavior,
thus
attitudes arean
important factor
to
consider(Guskey,
1986). If
teachers'
attitudes arenegative
toward
explicit
instruction,
efforts will needto
focus
onimproving
the
attitudesbefore expecting
Teacher
Knowledge
A growing
body
ofresearch supportsthat
significantimprovements in
reading
and
pre-reading
skills canbe
madewhenteachers
use adirect
and systematic approachto
teaching
phonemic awareness(Foorman,
Francis, Fletcher,
Schatschneider
&
Mehta,
1998; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Rose, Lindamood, Conway,
&
Garvan,
1999;
Torgesen,
2000).
However,
the
questionarisesasto
whetherteachers
are prepared andknowledgeable
enoughin
the
area ofphonemic awarenessto
adequately
teach
studentsin
an explicit manner.
One
potential reasonteachers
may
notbe
preparedis because
training
programswidely vary in
their
focus
andmay
notsufficiently
coverthis
areain
the
curriculum(Moats,
1994). There may be
alack
of professionaldevelopment
opportunities
for
teachers
whodid
notlearn
about phonemic awareness and phonicsin
their
training
programs.School districts may
nothave
the
money
to
providethe
intensive
training
someteachers
need.Furthermore
in
the
pastfew decades
educatorshave heard
conflicting
messages about whatis
goodreading instruction. Teachers may believe
that
phonemic awareness and phonics
instruction
is
the
"new
fad"and will pass
quickly
soit
is
notimportant
to
learn
about andthen teach.
The
researchsupporting
these
practicesmay
notbe
fully
disseminated
to those
who needthe
information
the
most.Early
researchin
this
areafound
that teachers
did
notevenknow
whatthe term
phonemic awareness
meant;
let
alonehow
to
teach
it
(Troyer &
Yopp,
1990). As
research
in
this
areahas increased
dramatically
in
the
pastdecade
and withthe
nation'seye
looking
atreading,
it is
possiblethat teachers
have
gainedknowledge
andinsight
in
the
area of phonemic awareness.Unfortunately,
more recentstudiestaking
place withinhave
adequateknowledge
ofphonemicawareness
(Bos, Mather,
Narr
&
Babur, 1999;
McCutchen
&
Berninger,
1999; Bos,
Mather,
Dickson,
Podhajski &
Chard, 2001;
McCutchen, Harry,
Cunningham,
Cox,
Sidman &
Covill,
2002).
Special
educatorstend to
have
moreknowledge
of phonemic awarenessthan
generaleducators
(Bos, Mather,
Dickson,
Podhajski &
Chard,
2001). Special
educatorsmay
be
morepreparedto
instruct
studentswithdyslexia
andotherreading
problemsthan
regulareducators.
Yet,
the
special educatorsstill appearto
have limited
understanding
about
the
structureoflanguage
andthe
methodsneededto
teach
in
an explicit manner.Professional
Development
As
there
is
adisturbing
lack
ofknowledge
onthe
part ofteachers
in
the
area ofphonemic
awareness,
a method ofdispersing
the
knowledge
of what phonemicawarenessis
andhow it
shouldbe
taught
is
necessary for
the teachers
whoclearly
needit.
The
National
Reading
Panel
(2000)
statedthat
more research needsto
be done
to
determine
whetherprofessional
development
worksandin
what mannerit
shouldbe delivered.
Professional
development
is
thought
to
be
more effective whenteachers
aretrying
to
solve
everyday
problems,
ratherthan
participating in
a oneday
workshop
(Schon,
1987).
The
most common modelfor
schooldistricts
to
provide professionaldevelopment
is
through
short workshops or sessions ratherthan
along
term
focus
on a particulararea.Research
has
shownthat
collaborative yearlong
professionaldevelopment
producesgains
in
teachers'
knowledge
and practices(Bos, Mather,
Narr &
Babur,
1999). With
these results,
it
wouldbe
beneficial
for
schoolsto
utilizeamodel otherthan the
oneday
Very
little
data has been
collectedonteacher
knowledge
of phonemic awarenessfollowing
professionaldevelopment
in
the
area.In
onestudy
the
researchersdid
collectdata
afterteachers
participatedin
aprofessionaldevelopment
model.They
found
that
teachers'
attitudes
toward
explicitinstruction became
more positive andthey
gainedknowledge
ofphonology
(Bos, Mather,
Narr &
Babur,
1999). This
was atwo-and-a-half
week
long
summercoursewith yearlong follow-up
and collaborationbetween
the
teachers
andtrainers.
The
trainers
were researchers and educatorsworking in
auniversity
that
providedthe
funding.
This is
not atypical
professionaldevelopment
model
that
is found
in
public schools.It
wouldbe
moredifficult
to
implement
this
modelwithout
university
funding
andtrainers
with ahigh level
ofknowledge
and expertisein
reading,
teaching,
and research.Districts
likely
couldfind
private sourcesto
providethe
funding,
however
the
district
wouldneed astrong
commitmentto
professionaldevelopment
and understandthe
benefits
this
model would providein
orderto
spendtheir
limited
resources.No
Child Left Behind
The
current nationalinterest in reading
spansfrom reading
instruction
to
studentreading
outcomes.The
recentimpetus in
this
areahas led
to the
passage ofthe
No
Child
Left Behind
(NCLB)
Act
signedinto
law in
January
2002 (US
Department
ofEducation,
2002). Five
key
conceptsthat
underliethe
variousreading
programsare outlinedin
NCLB. The first
is
to
have
all childrenreading
by
third
grade.This in itself
showsthe
absolute need
to
researchreading
instruction
and what variables willincrease
children'sreading.
The
second conceptis
to
closethe
achievementgap
between
high
andlow
achieving
students,
including
minority
students
andthose
who aredisadvantaged. The
third
conceptis
that
adequateyearly
progress mustbe
made,
increasing
the accountability
ofschoolsand
teachers.
Now
morethan
everit
is necessary
to
determine how money
should
be
spentto
increase
students'reading.
This
includes
money for
professionaldevelopment
whichmeansthe
successofprofessionaldevelopment
mustbe
demonstrated in
the
area ofreading instruction.
The
fourth
conceptis
annual studenttesting,
whichagain relatesto
accountability.The final
conceptis using scientifically
based
reading
research,
of whichthere
are stillholes in
the
area ofteacher
variablesthat
affectstudentoutcomes.
As NCLB specifically
callsfor
highly
qualifiedteachers
in
every
classroom, this
is
a centralfocus
for
continuedresearch(Smith,
Desimone
&
Ueno,
2005).
One reading
programfunded
by
NCLB
is
Reading
First (US Department
ofEducation,
2002).
Reading
First
focuses
on studentsin kindergarten
through third
gradein districts
and schools with ahigh
percentageofstudentsreading below
gradelevel
andliving
in
poverty.Reading
First
provides grantmoney
to these
schoolsto
usefor
materials,
professionaldevelopment
andteacher
supportto
develop
the
skillsnecessary
to
improve
instruction
that
focuses
onthe
five
reading
elements,
and usesscientifically-based
programs,
and assessment.New
York
received$129
millionin 2003
andis
setto
receivea
total
of$460.8
millionin
Reading
First
funds
overthe
nextsixyears(US
Department
ofEducation,
2003). With
an estimated$5
billion
designated
to
Reading
First,
it
is
apparentthat
having
this
programbe
successfulis
atop
concernand researchOne
type
of professionaldevelopment
requiredby Reading
First
is
the
use of peercoaching
whichgroupsteachers
with similar responsibilitiestogether
to
sharetheir
experiences and assist each other
in
problemsolving
(Denton,
2003).
Moreover,
the
entire
faculty
andadministrators
arerequiredto
gothrough the
sameprofessionaldevelopment
sothere
is
acommonknowledge
base,
though
whetherthis
is
an adequateknowledge
base
has
yetto
be determined.
It
is
alsorecommendedby
lawmakers
that
professional
development include
opportunitiesfor
teachers to
apply
the
information
to
solveproblems of
their
actual students.Purpose of
Study
With
the
amountofReading
First money
that
is
being
givento
schools withimpoverished
andbelow
gradelevel
readers,
it
is
assumedthat the
professionaldevelopment
is
increasing
both
teacher
knowledge
and studentreading
outcomes.Although
student outcomes arebeing
measured,
teachers'
knowledge
of phonemicawareness and attitudes
toward
explicit codeinstruction have
not yetbeen
reportedin any
published
study
to
date. Thus
to
find
out whether professionaldevelopment
truly
increases
teachers'knowledge
ofEnglish phonology
andreading instruction
andtheir
attitudes
toward
instruction,
a systematicstudy
needsto
be done.
Furthermore,
the
possible
teacher
variableslike
years ofexperience, type
ofteacher
educationprogram,
and whether
the teacher
is
a general or specialeducator,
canbe
assessedto
determine
if
these
affectknowledge
and attitudes as well.The
following
researchquestionswereaddressed
in
this
study:1
.Do
teachers
whohave
completedintensive
professionaldevelopment
programsexplicit
reading
instruction
than
teachers
whohave
notbeen
through
aprofessional
development
program?2.
Do
specialeducatorshave
moreEnglish phonology knowledge
and more positiveattitudes
toward
explicitreading
instruction
than
general educators?3.
Do
teachers
with more experiencehave
moreEnglish phonology knowledge
andmorepositive attitudes
toward
explicitreading instruction
than
those teachers
with
less
experience?4.
Do
teachers
withmoreEnglish phonology knowledge have
more positiveCHAPTER
2
Literature
Review
There
is
abroad
foundation
ofresearchonreading instruction
and studentoutcomes.
However,
the
researchonthe
best
methodsto
deliver
this
information
to the
teachers,
andthe
effectiveness ofthat
delivery,
is limited. This
chapter will summarizethe
literature
onreading
instruction
andthe
effectinstruction has
on student outcomes.Then
researchoneducating
teachers
willbe
examinedto
determine
whatgaps are stillpresent and
how
the
presentstudy
addressesthose
gaps.The Five
Big
Ideas
in
Reading
The National
Reading
Panel
(NRP,
2000)
was createdto
examinethe
scientificresearch on
reading
andits
implications for instruction. The NRP identified five
"big
ideas"
of
early
literacy including
phonemicawareness,
alphabeticprinciple,
accuracy
andfluency,
vocabulary
and comprehension.Phonemic
awarenessis
the
ability
to
hear
andmanipulatesounds which
is necessary for
readersto
recognizehow letters
representsounds and will
help
readersdecode
unfamiliarwords.The
alphabetic principleis
connecting
speechto
print, this
letter-sound
correspondenceis
a skill usedin
wordidentification
(Juel,
1991).
Accuracy
andfluency
referto the
ease and speed ofreading
words
in
connectedtext;
oncea readeris
accurateandfluent
they
canfocus
ongaining
meaning
from
the
print(Kuhn
&
Stahl,
2000).
Vocabulary
is
the
ability
to
use andunderstand words
to
convey
meaning;
having
alarge
vocabulary
is
correlated withreading
comprehension(Anderson
&
Nagy,
1992).
Finally,
comprehensionis
the
ability
to
understand written material(NRP,
2000). This
allows achildto
gaininformation
Phonemic Awareness
Phonemic
awareness willbe
aprimary focus
ofthis
reviewbecause
the
relatively
new
impetus
to teach
phonemicawareness
createsthe
question whetherteachers
have
adequate
knowledge
ofthe
concepts andhow
to teach them to
their
students.Phonemic
awareness
is
the
initial
skillthat
is necessary before
printis
evenintroduced
(Armbruster,
Lehr &
Osborn,
2001).
When
childrenenterschool,
phonemic awareness andletter
knowledge
arethe two
best
predictorsofhow
wellthey
willlearn
to
readduring
their
first
two
yearsin
school(Haskell, Foorman,
&
Swank,
1992).
Children
mustlearn
how
words are made
up
ofsounds,
orphonemes,
that,
whenmanipulated,
can changethe
meaning
of words(Armbruster
etal.,
2001). Children
whodevelop
phonemic awarenessare
likely
to
have
a much easiertime
learning
to
read and spellthan
children whodo
notform
these
skills.Children
who cannothear
and manipulate sounds willhave
tremendous
difficulty
understanding
that
phonemes relateto
writtenletters,
or graphemes.Deficits
in
phonemic awareness
have been identified
asone ofthe
aspects of phonologicalprocessing
that
causereading disabilities (Lyon &
Moats,
1997). The
most commontype
of
reading
disability
is
difficulty
in
decoding
words.Good
readershave
masteredthe
concept
that
letters
representsounds while poor readershave
tremendous
difficulty
developing
this
fundamental
principle(Lyon,
1998a).
Fortunately,
phonemic awareness canbe
taught
andlearned,
helping
childrento
read and spell
(Torgesen
&
Mathes,
2002). For
these children,
systematic and explicitinstruction
is
required(Lyon,
1998a). Without
explicitinstruction
focusing
onphonemicawareness,
atleast 20%
of school children willhave
significantdifficulties
learning
to
either
before
reading instruction
begins,
orduring
reading
instruction,
willboost
the
reading
growthfor
those
children,
especially
when combined withinstruction
onletter-sound
correspondence.
Children
needto
be
trained
onhow
to
blend
phonemestogether
to
create words aswell ashow
to
segmentorbreak
words apartinto
phonemes.Children
show
the
mostimprovement
in
phonemic awarenesswhenboth
ofthese
skills aretaught
(Torgesen,
Morgan &
Davis,
1992).
Explicit
Reading
Instruction
Reading
researchoverthe
past40
yearshas
notbeen
ableto
showreading
development
asoccurring naturally
due
to
simple exposureto
literature
(Lyon,
1998b).
However,
early
systematicinstruction in
phonemic awareness and phonicshas
been
shown
to
increase
decoding
skillsandword recognitionin
at-riskkindergarten
through
secondgrade students
(Lyon &
Moats,
1997). Instructional
approachesthat
are notdirect
and systematic seem
to
be less
effective atincreasing
wordreading
skills.A growing
body
of research supportsthat
significantimprovements
in reading
and
pre-reading
skillsoccurs when adirect
and systematic approachto
teaching
phonemic awareness
is
used.Foorman,
Francis, Fletcher,
Schatschneider
andMehta
(1998)
examineddifferent
teaching
instruction
stylesincluding (a)
direct,
systematiccodeinstruction,
(b)
embedded codethat
was not asexplicit,
yet stilltaught
phonologicalawareness and
phonics,
and(c)
implicit
codethat
did
not providesystematicinstruction.
They
found
that
studentsin
the
direct
code condition showed strongeroutcomesin
wordreading,
decoding
andcomprehension.Additional
supportfor
the
importance
of explicitcodeinstruction
wasfound
in
aawarenessplus
phonics,
(b)
embeddedphonics,
and(c)
tutorial
supportin
the
regularclassroom,
comparedto
ano-treatmentcondition.
Once
again,
atthe
conclusionofthe
study
the
childrenin
the
phonological awarenessplus phonics conditionhad
the
highest
average scoreson word attack andword
identification
measures.Even
whendirect
andsystematic
instruction
was providedthrough
acomputerprogram,
significant gains werefound,
rivaling
those
found in
similarteacher
directed
instruction
(Torgesen,
2000).
Teacher
Knowledge
andPreparation
to
Teach
Reading
Research
has
shownthat
studentsbenefit from
phonemic awarenessinstruction.
Some may
question whetherteachers
needspecificknowledge in
phonemic awarenessto
sufficiently
teach
students.Teachers know how
to read,
andinstruction
ofphonology
may
seemunnecessarily
technical
and abstract(McCutchen &
Berninger,
1999).
However,
asliterate
adults,
teachers'
knowledge
ofsounds andspelling
patterns areintertwined. This
makesit difficult for
teachers to
separatetheir
knowledge
ofspelling
from
their
knowledge
of soundsto teach
effectively
to
children whodo
not yetknow how
to
spell.Thus,
without adequateknowledge
ofEnglish
phonology, teachers
canunintentionally
relay
misinformation,
causing
confusionandfrustration
onthe
part ofthe
students.
Inappropriate
andunclearexamples of soundsin
words canbe especially
perplexing for
students withdisabilities
(Moats,
1994).
Also,
without adequateknowledge
ofphonology, teachers
willnotbe
ableto
interpret
and remediatetheir
students'
errors.
Having
asufficientunderstanding
ofthe
English
language
will allowteachers
to
organize and sequenceinformation
for instruction
in reading
andspelling.Of
concernis
whetherteachers
actually
have
this
knowledge
of phonemicterm
phonemicawareness(Troyer
&
Yopp,
1990).
Troyer
andYopp (1990)
did
afollow
up study
onkindergarten
teachers'knowledge
ofphonemic awareness andsegmentation,
also
looking
at years ofteaching
experience
and educationcredentials.They
found
that
the
less
experiencedteachers
andthe teachers
withMaster's degrees
were moreknowledgeable due
to their
instruction
in
graduateclasses,
with someknowledge coming
from
district inservices.
Even
so,
only half
ofthe
less
experiencedteachers,
those
withthe
mostknowledge,
werefamiliar
withthe
concepts.This study
was conducted15
yearsago,
before
the
dissemination
ofthe
National
Reading
Panel
report causedthe topic
ofphonemic awareness
to
become
more commonin
the
vernacularof school professionals.Therefore
moreteachers
may
nowbe familiar
withthe topic.
Teacher
preparationin reading
andwriting
wasfound
to
be insufficient
to
meetstudentneeds
based
onthe
minimal requirementsin
teacher
education programs(Nolen,
McCutchen,
&
Berninger,
1990). Teacher
program requirements of courseworkin
reading
rangefrom 0
to
12
coursehours. Based
onteacher
educationin
reading,
it is
likely
that teachers
themselves
needdirect
instruction in
phonemic awarenessto
successfully
teach
studentsthe
concepts.Teachers
needto
be
empowered withknowledge
sothey
canimpart information
ontotheir
students.Two
common placesfor
teachers
to
learn
newinformation
arethrough
education programs and professionaldevelopment inservices.
Professional Development
There
appearsto
be
abreakdown in
disseminating
reading
researchto those
whoneed
it
most, the
teachers
doing
the
instruction.
It
also seemsthat teachers
do
not alwaysfound
in
researchstudies ascontradictory
andinaccurate
(Malouf
&
Schiller,
1995).
Teachers
may
respectevidencethat
comesfrom
otherteachers' classroom experiencesmore
than
from
"reading
experts"who
do
notteach
reading
to
children(Brabham
&
Villaume,
2003).
This
couldbe
animportant
factor in
the
outcomes of professionaldevelopment.
If
the
information
is coming from
teachers
who arehighly
respectedandvalued,
it may
be
more successfulin changing
teachers'attitudes and practices.
An
important
questionregarding
professionaldevelopment is how
teachers
learn
new
information
they
can useto
improve
their
instruction.
Similar
to
any
otherlearner,
teachers
assimilatenewinformation into
their
already existing
schemata(Sparks-Langer
&
Colton,
1991). Their
schemataarebuilt from
the
experiencesthey
have;
thus
teachers
with more experience
teaching
have
richer schematato
whichthey
can attach newinformation.
Following
this,
professionaldevelopment
shouldbe
moresuccessful withteachers
who are more experiencedthan
those
withless
experience.Although
someknowledge
canbe
gleanedfrom
oneday
workshops,
morelearning
comesfrom
experienceandsolving everyday
problems(Schon,
1987). With
this
in
mind,
how
canprofessionaldevelopment
be
effective?Two
criticalfactors
oftenoverlooked
in
professionaldevelopment
areteacher
motivationto
engageactively in
staffdevelopment
andhow
change occurs.Professional
development
programsthat
do
notaddress
these
factors
are oftenunsuccessful(Guskey,
1986). Teachers
aremotivatedto
do
more work whenthey
believe
that
(a)
they
willbecome better
teachers
and(b)
their
students will
benefit
(McLaughlin
&
Marsh,
1978). Teachers
are morelikely
to
accept aprogram when
they
receivepracticalideas
that
willdirectly
improve
their
students'outcomes.
According
to
Guskey
(1986),
teachers'
improvements
in
student outcomes areshown.This
creates adifficult burden
to
overcome;
teachers'
practicesaremore
likely
to
changeif
their
attitudeschange,
yettheir
attitudes are more
likely
to
changeif
their
student outcomesimprove,
which oftendepends
onteachers
changing
their
practices.Guskey (1986)
setsforth
several criteriathat
mustbe
metfor
professionaldevelopment
to
be
successful.First,
if
anewprogramis
to
be
implemented,
it
mustbe
presented
in
anunambiguousandconcrete mannerfocusing
on specificskills ratherthan
broad
theories
andpractices.Second,
teachers' concerns shouldbe
addresseddirectly
and
in
acompassionatemanner.Third,
the
person whois running
the
professionaldevelopment
mustbe
seen asplausibleby
the
teachers.
Teachers may
notfind
"reading
experts"as credibleas
they
do
otherteachers.
Fourth,
teachers
should receive regularfeedback
onhow
students areprogressing,
especially because
teachers
are motivatedwhenstudent outcomes
improve. This
makesthe
difficult
process ofchange worthwhile.Finally,
teachers
need continued support andfollow up
afterthe
initial
training.
Change
can
be
ananxiety-provoking
process andif
teachers
cannotdiscuss it
withsomeone, the
change can
become
too overwhelming
andthe
process will stop.One
method ofproviding
supportto teachers
is
coaching.Coaching
is
a processthrough
whichteachers
help
eachother,
through
observation and constructivefeedback,
to
improve
their
teaching
practices(Joyce
&
Showers,
1982).
Simply instructing
teachers
in
new skillsdoes
notautomatically
insure
the
transfer
ofthese
skillsto the
classroom.Similarly,
coaching
will not workif
the
teachers
are notadequately
instructed
in
the
newwith
the
supportand opportunitiesto
practicethe
skillswithfeedback,
teachers
willbegin
to transfer
skillsthey
learn into
their
practice.One
exampleof acoaching
professionaldevelopment
modelis
found in
astudy
by Gersten,
Morvant,
andBrengelman (1995). This
study
looked
athaving
specialeducators actas coaches
for
general educators.The study
took
placein
aninner-city
elementary
school with12 voluntary
general educatorsand2-administrator
selectedspecial educators
to
act as coaches.The
researchersfound
that
eventhough
they
focused
on student
performance, teachers
felt
asif
they
werebeing
evaluated.However,
overthe
course ofmonths, teachers
did
changetheir
practicesfrom
personal assessmentofhow
alesson
wentto
focusing
onhow
studentsperformed after alesson,
indicating
success ofinstruction. As
the
researchersdid
notinclude any
oftheir
data,
it is difficult
to
interpret
their
resultsasmeaningful.However,
it is important
to
keep
in
mindthat
using
the
coaching
methodmay
causeteachers
anxiety
andmistrust,
which couldhamper
their
rateof change.
Interestingly,
otherstudieshave found coaching
to
be
viewedpositively
by
teachers
(Haager
&Windmueller,
2001)
soit
couldbe
that the
anxiety is
aninitial
reaction and
diminishes
as results are seen.Phonological
Knowledge in
Preservice
andInservice
Teachers
McCutchen,
Harry,
Cunningham,
Cox,
Sidman
andCovill
(2002)
studieda sample of general education and special educationteachers
ofkindergarten
through
second grades.
They
looked
at(a)
teachers'
knowledge
ofEnglish
phonology,
(b)
teachers'
general
knowledge,
(c)
teachers'
attitudes
toward
instruction,
and(d)
students'
outcomes.
They
found
that
althoughteachers
had
ahigh level
of generalknowledge,
they
the
questions
correct.Further,
McCutchen
andcolleagues
(2002)
found
that the
teachers
did
nothave
strong
preferencesfor
oneinstructional
practice over another.A
significantbut
smallcorrelation wasfound between
teacher's
phonologicalknowledge
andtheir
useof
explicit
phonologicalactivities.Moreover,
kindergarten
teachers
withhigher
phonological
knowledge
who used explicit phonologicalinstruction
had
students scorehigher
on wordreading
atthe
endofthe
year.However,
this
correlation was notfound
for
first
and secondgrades, though there
was a small correlationbetween
teachers'phonological
knowledge
andstudents'
writing
atthis
level.
This
is
animportant
study
asit
showsasignificantrelationship,
atleast in
kindergarten,
between
teachers'knowledge
ofphonology,
their
useof explicitinstruction,
andtheir
students'ability
to
read(McCutchen, Harry, Cunningham, Cox,
Sidman &
Covill,
2002). One
limitation
ofthis
study
is
there
was noinitial
measure ofword
reading for
students atthe
beginning
ofthe
yearto
determine
the
amount of growthas compared
to
students whoseteachers
had less
phonologicalknowledge.
Still,
evidencesuggests
that
knowledge
ofphonology
andusing
explicitreading
instruction
areimportant
to
student success.From
the
researchonlack
ofteacher
knowledge in reading
instruction,
professional
development
models were examinedfor
their
effectivenessin
training
teachers
onhow
to
teach
early reading
skills.Often,
professionaldevelopment
only
consists of
providing
teachers
with prescribedlessons
ratherthan
informing
them
ofthe
researchon
the topic
sothey
canbe
preparedto
develop
their
ownlessons (McCutchen
&
Berninger,
1999).
The
typical
professionaldevelopment
modelis inservice
training,
teachers'
practices
(Miller &
Lord,
1993). For teachers
to
incorporate
newideas
andmethods
into
their
teaching
practices,
they
need regularfollow-up
and support combinedwithpressure
to
change(Guskey,
2002).
It
is
alsobeneficial
for
the teachers to
have
feedback
ontheir
students'
performance.
To
addressthe
limitations
ofthe
oneday
workshops,
an alternative professionaldevelopment
modelwastested
by
McCutchen
andBerninger (1999). This
modelfocused
on a
different
developmental
level
eachyear,
for
three
years.During
the
first
yearthe
focus
was onkindergarten,
the
second year onfirst
and secondgrades,
andthe
third
yearon
third
andfourth
grades.A
two
weeksummerinstitute
wasfollowed
by
observationsandconsultationswith
the teachers
andthree
1-day
follow up inservices. At
the time this
article was
published,
data had been
collectedfor
the
first
and second years.The
participantswere
59
teacher
volunteersfrom
avariety
of schoolsin
alarge
urban area.The
teachers
wereassignedto
eitherthe
professionaldevelopment
condition or a wait-listcontrol condition.
The
participants'
knowledge
ofEnglish
phonology,
changein
teaching
practices
(measured
by
observations),
and student outcomes on measures of phonemicawareness,
orthographicfluency,
wordreading, comprehension,
spelling
and compositionfluency
were all measured.Teachers'
knowledge
wasmeasuredbefore
the
summerinstitute
and atthe
end ofthe
following
schoolyear,
teaching
practices weremeasuredthroughout
the
schoolyear,
and student outcomes were measured atthe
beginning
andendof
the
school year.The study found inservice
teachers'
linguistic knowledge
to
increase,
their
instruction to
focus
more on phonicsthan
the
controlgroup,
andtheir
conclusion
that
couldbe
drawn
is
that
if
teachers
learn
English
phonology,
it
willcontribute
to
changing
their
teaching
practices
andtheir
studentsmay benefit.
The
mainlimitation
ofthis
study
is
researchers
did
notspecifically
reporttheir
data.
The
authorsdid
notinclude
any
tables
orgraphsto
display
their
data
andsimply
included
one sentence about eachofthe
results.Some
ofthe
results were not evenpresented,
just
that
it
wassignificant
andthere
was animprovement. This leaves
the
reader
to
questionhow
big
the
improvement
was and whetherit is
truly
socially
relevantand worth
the
immense
amountoftime
and resourcesit
wouldtake to
putthis type
ofinservice
into
place.Although
the
results arepromising, this
study
shouldbe
replicatedto
determine
whetherthere
aresignificant gains.Another voluntary
professionaldevelopment
projectthat
wasconductedto
study
the
issue
ofdeveloping
teacher
knowledge
wasProject
RIME,
Reading
Instructional
Methods
ofEfficacy
(Bos, Mather,
Narr
&
Babur,
1999). It
wasanin-depth
training
model,
having
a coursetaught
overthe
summerfor
two-and-a-half
weeks withsessionsthree-and-a-half
hours in
length,
followed
by
ayear-long
collaboration withthe
schoolsand
monthly inservices. Project RIME
wasinteractive,
asit
provided professionaldialogues for
teachers
to
process newinformation
andassimilateit into
their
pre-existing
schemata.
It
was also collaborativebecause
it
provided opportunitiesfor
teachers,
schoolprofessionals and
the
researchersto
interact. The
goal ofthe
program wasto
foster
apositive attitude
toward
explicitinstruction
ofearly reading
skills.The
programgavetechniques
and strategiesfor teachers, along
withbuilding
their
knowledge
ofthe
English
Project RIME had
athorough
programcontentwhichincluded factors
that
affectearly reading
andspelling
development,
assessments
that
canidentify
difficulties in
these
areas,
andtechniques
andstrategiesto
reducethe
effects ofthese
problems.Specific
methods
weretaught
in
orderto
increase
students'phonemic awareness.
Teachers
wereasked
to
discuss
the
methods presentedandthen
plananddevelop
their
own methodsto
be
usedin
their
currentliteracy
programs.After
the
summerprogram, the
Project RIME
staffobserved
the
participantsin
their
classroomsandheld monthly
support meetings.For
the
beginning
ofthis project,
1 1
participantswere chosenfrom
atotal
of31
teachers
involved
in Project RIME. These 1 1
participants were chosenbecause
they
worked
in
two
schoolsthat
had
collectedstudent outcome measures.The
teachers'
knowledge
and attitudestoward
reading instruction
were measuredbefore
the
summercourse,
afterthe
summer course andafterthe
yearlong
school collaboration.Participants
in
the
wait-listgroup
were giventhe
same measuresbefore
the
summerand atthe
end ofthe
school year.The
researchers also measured student performances on soundidentification,
spelling
andreading
fluency
tasks
atthe
beginning
and end ofthe
year.Results
ofthe
study
showedthat
teachers
perceivedthe
professionaldevelopment
asvaluable,
their
attitudestoward
explicitinstruction
became
morepositive,
they
were moreknowledgeable
andtheir
instruction became
more explicit.Students
whoseteachers took
part
in
the
professionaldevelopment
had better
outcomes overall.A
concern withthis
study
is
the
cost andlength
oftime
involved
withthis type
ofprofessional
development,
especially
if
it
wereto
be
requiredfor
teachers.
Would
the
teachers
have
to take the
course overthe
summerandif
so wouldthey
paidfor
the
work?were
in
their training?
Also,
the
collaborationwiththe
schoolsrequirestrained
professionals
withtime
dedicated
to
working
withthe teachers.
There
wasnofollow up
after
the
year of collaborationin
this
study.It
wouldbe
helpful for
schoolsto
know
whether
the
gains made aresustainable.
Would
the teachers
needongoing
collaborationindefinitely
andif
sohow
wouldthis
work?As
has
been
discussed,
a smallbody
ofresearchhas
begun
to
look
atteachers'
knowledge
ofphonemic awareness andthe
structureoflanguage
andits implications for
positivestudent outcomes
(McCutchen
&
Berninger,
1999). Another study contributing
to this
body
ofevidencewas conductedby
Bos, Mather, Dickson,
Podhajski
andChard
(2001).
The
researchersnotonly
looked
atteachers'
knowledge
ofEnglish
phonology;
they
broadened
their
researchto
include
teachers'attitudesof explicit and
implicit
instruction.
Bos
and colleagues(2001)
wantedto
see whatthe
relationship
wasbetween
teachers'
attitudes of explicit
instruction
of phonemic awareness andtheir
knowledge
onthe
subjectbefore
and after professionaldevelopment in
the
area.This study looked
at alarge
number ofpreserviceteachers
(=252),
i.e.,
those
who were still
in
school or studentteaching,
andinservice
teachers
(=286), i.e.,
those
who were
in
the
field
teaching
kindergarten
through
third
grades and wereparticipating
in
the
aforementionedProject RIME (Bos
etal.,
1999). The
perceptionsandknowledge
measures were collected
from
the
preserviceteachers
afterthey
completedtheir
reading
methods course and
from
the
inservice
educatorsbefore
they
participatedin
the
professional
development
(Bos
etal.,
2001).
The
resultsindicated
that the
preserviceeducatorsatleast mildly
agreedwiththe
attitudes
toward
explicit codeinstruction
than the
preservice
teachers.
Preservice
educators
only
answered53%
ofthe
knowledge
ofEnglish
phonology
questionscorrectly,
whilethe
inservice
educators answered60%
ofthe
questionscorrectly,
whichis
astatistically
significantdifference.
The
inservice
teachers
whohad
morethan
1 1
yearsofexperience
teaching
demonstrated
significantly
higher knowledge
than
inservice
teachers
withless
experience.Special
educationteachers
had
a more positive attitudetoward
explicit codeinstruction
and moreknowledge
ofEnglish phonology
than
generaleducation
teachers.
A
positive attitudetoward
explicit codeinstruction
wasslightly,
but
significantly,
correlatedwithfeeling
preparedto
teach
reading
andto
teach
struggling
readers,
and apositive attitudetoward
implicit
codewasnegatively
correlated withfeeling
prepared.This
correlationis
likely
due
to the
needto
useexplicitcodeto
help
struggling
readers succeed.If
ateacher
does
nothave
a positive attitude aboutusing
explicit
code,
they
areprobably less
likely
to
use explicitteaching
methods andtheir
struggling
readersmay
notmake as much progress as students withteachers
whohave
positive attitudes about explicit code.
One limitation
ofthis
study is
the
researchersdid
not examinethe
relationshipsbetween
their
findings,
actualteacher
practicesandstudentoutcomes.However,
perceptions and attitudes
have been demonstrated
to
influence
teacher
practices(Guskey,
1986).
Thus,
if
teachers
do
notbelieve in
explicitinstruction,
it is
highly
unlikely
they
will
teach
in
that
manner.Another
limitation
is
Bos
andcolleagues(2001)
did
notgivethe
measuresto the
inservice
educators afterthey
took
partin
the
professionaldevelopment inservice.
Thus,
it is
unknownasto
whetherprofessionaldevelopment
canmore.
Additionally,
althoughinservice
educatorsknow
more aboutthe
English language
than
preserviceeducators,
they
only
answered60%
ofthe
questions correctly.The
researchers
did
not give specificdata
onhow
muchmorethe
experiencedteachers
knew
than the
inexperienced
teachers,
soit is difficult
to
makea statementregarding
the
true
significance
ofthat
finding. The
researchers also mentionedas alimitation
their
sole useofself-report
data,
withoutany
direct
observations.Thus
the
data
couldbe
proneto
social
desirability
bias,
atleast
withattitudestoward
codeinstruction. In
the
future,
astudy
that
combines self-reportdata
andobservationsto
showthat
teachers'perceptions
of
their
behavior
are accurate wouldbe beneficial.
From
the
research onteachers'
attitudes
toward
reading instruction
andtheir
knowledge
ofthe
English
language,
it is
evidentthat
teachers
lack
some ofthe
underlying
knowledge
that
couldimprove
their
abilitiesto
teach
reading,
especially
to
those
studentswith
disabilities. It
seemsthat
many
teachers
have
nothad
adequateopportunity
to
acquire such
knowledge
(Lyon,
1998). The
researchin
the
areais
severely
lacking
onspecifics
that
arenecessary
to
inform
how
teachers
should gainthis
knowledge. In
mostof
the studies,
the
information
was collectedbefore
the
implementation
of a professionaldevelopment
program.While
McCutchen
andBerninger
(1999)
did
collectdata
afterthe
program,
they
did
not give specificdata stating how
much of anincrease in knowledge
and attitudes
the
teachers experienced,
whichleaves
unclearwhethercostly
andtime
consuming
professionaldevelopment
is
truly
worthwhile.Issues
that
still needto
be
addressed
in
researcharethe type
and amount ofboth
preservice education andinservice
which,
aspreviously
mentioned,
had
aprescribed amountof professionaldevelopment
CHAPTER
3
Methodology
Participants
This study
consisted of79
teacher
participants
from four
Reading
First
elementary
schoolsin
an urbanschooldistrict
in New York. The
participantsincluded
kindergarten
through third
grade classroomteachers
(=44),
special educationteachers
(=21),
reading
teachers,
reading
coachesand other related specialists(=8)
andunknowngrade
level/area (n=6).
The
participantshad
a mean age of41
years;
were86%
female,
10%
maleand4%
unknowngender;
71%
White,
1.3% African
American,
3.8%
Latino,
1.3%
Asian American
and23%
unknownethnicity;
10% had
aBachelor's
degree,
77%o had
aMaster's
degree
and13%
unknown educationlevel;
had
taught
a mean of13.9
years,
a mean of6.7
years attheir
current gradelevel
and a mean of8.3
yearsattheir
current school.
Approximately
80%
ofthe
studentsin
this
schooldistrict
qualifiedfor
free
or reduced pricelunch
and ahigh
proportion of students readbelow
gradelevel
(http://www.rcsdkl2.org/district/profile.htm,
2005). The
schooldistrict in
whichthese
four
Reading
First
schools werein had
a student population of64% African
American,
20%
Hispanic,
14%
White,
and2% Native
American,
Asian,
and other ethnicgroups.The
schooldistrict
provides special education servicesto
14%
ofthe
student population.At
the time
ofdata
collection,
the
schooldistrict
wasin
its
second year ofimplementation
ofthe
Reading
First
program.The
teachers
and specialistshad
completed
the necessary
requirementsofthe
Reading
First
programfor New York
State,
including
the
NYS
Reading
Academy,
a comprehensive web-basedprogramthat
focuses
First
grant,
severaltrained
professionalsfrom
aroundthe
country
providedtraining
for
the
faculty
ontopics
including
differentiated
instruction,
intervention
planning,
smallgroup
instruction,
phonemicawareness,
andteaching
struggling
readers andimpoverished
students.They
had
receivedin-depth
training
onthe
Dynamic Indicators
of
Basic
Early Literacy
Skills
(DIBELS)
assessmentandhow
to
usedata
to
drive
instruction.
Moreover,
each schoolhad building-level
reading
coaches whohad
undergone even more
training.
The
building-level
reading
coaches were selectedby
the
administration
because
they
wereexperienced,
had
leadership
skills,
anddeemed
asexceptional
in
their
school.The
coachesled
gradelevel
meetings,
helped
monitorprogressona school
level,
gradelevel,
andindividual
teacher
level,
andhelped
assessstudents'
reading
skills.They
were availableto
help
teachers
withinstructional
activitiesand
interventions. There
also were regionalreading
coordinators selectedby
the
stateeducation
department
to
help
synchronizethe
effortsofthe
building
coaches and provideeven moresupport
to
the teachers.
Recruitment. The 79
participantswere recruitedfrom
a possible123
teachers
andreading
coachesfrom
the
four
Reading
First
schools,
for
a return rate of64%. The
participants were recruited
through
aninformation
session withthe
reading
coachesfrom
each school.
The
researcherdescribed
the
study
andthe
methodsto the
reading
coaches.The reading
coaches agreedto
disseminate
the
information
and surveysto the teachers
in
their
building,
as well as collectthe
surveys and returnthem
to the
researcher.Random
assignment ofparticipantswas not possible as
the
variablesbeing
studiedincluded
gradeConfidentiality.
The identities
ofthe
participants
andtheir
responses onthe
survey
were notanonymous;
however
they
werekept
confidential.Identification
numbers
were assignedto
eachteacher
and names were not usedfor
the
study.However,
noneof
the
resultsfor
individual
teachers
were shownto
anyonefrom
the
schooldistrict.
Measures
Data
werecollected ontwo measures,
a perceptionsurvey
ofteaching
reading
anda
knowledge
assessmentofEnglish
phonology.Perceptions
survey.The Teacher Perceptions About
Early Reading
andSpelling
was
developed
by
Bos, Mather, Dickson,
Podhajski
andChard
(2001)
and modeled afteran
instrument developed
by
DeFord (1985). The survey
focuses
on perceptions oftwo
theoretical
orientationstoward
reading
instruction,
explicitcodeinstruction
(EC)
andimplicit
codeinstruction (IC). The
currentsurvey
wasa modified version ofBos
andcolleagues
(2001)
15 item
survey.Three
questions were removedfrom
the
originalsurvey
asthe
questions measured neither perceptions ofimplicit
or explicit codeinstruction
and weresimply foils. The
questions wererandomly
putin
orderusing dice.
Educators
were askedto
rate each ofthe
12
items
on a six-pointLikert
scaleranging from
strongly disagree
(1)
to
strongly
agree(6). The
technical
properties ofthe
Bos
et al.(2001)
survey
showed moderateinternal consistency
(Cronbach's
coefficientalpha) for
each
factor
EC= .70and IC=.50.
Knowledge
assessment.The
Teacher
Knowledge Assessment:
Structure
ofLanguage is
a22-item
multiple choice assessmentthat
examinesknowledge
ofthe
structure of
the English
language
atboth
the
word and soundlevels.
This survey
was83
(Cronbach's
coefficientalpha)
wasfound.
The
perceptionssurvey
andknowledge
assessment
canbe found in Appendix A.
Procedures
During
ameeting, the
reading
coachesfrom
each school weretold
aboutthe
study
including
the risks,
benefits,
confidentiality
ofresponses,
andvoluntary
nature ofthe
study.
The reading
coaches weregivenpacketsincluding
the
informed
consentpage(see
Appendix
B)
which eachteacher
had
to
signto
agreeto
participate.All
pagesin
the
packetcontainedan
identification
numberincluding
the
informed
consent page.The
teachers
wereaskedby
the
reading
coachesto
completethe
surveys and returnthem
to
the
reading
coaches.Data Analysis
To
addressthe
research questions outlinedin Chapter 1
,the
data
wereanalyzedusing
correlationsto
determine if
(a)
there
wasany relationship between
teachers'
knowledge
ofEnglish phonology
andtheir
attitudestoward
explicitreading instruction