Explicit linguistic knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient, for the provision of explicit early literacy instruction

  • Alison W. ArrowEmail author
  • Christine Braid
  • James W. Chapman


Teacher’s knowledge can influence the act of teaching and affect children’s learning outcomes. Linguistic and language knowledge of teachers plays an important role in supporting learners at the beginning to read stage. This study examines the language and linguistic knowledge of teachers of beginning readers in New Zealand, how these teachers perceive their own practices in teaching reading, and the relationship with the nature of observed instructional practices. The teachers in the study used predominantly implicit approaches to early reading instruction, with word-level instruction and prompting used only after context, even when teachers with high linguistic knowledge used implicit approaches, suggesting that teacher’s knowledge is not sufficient, on its own, to ensure effective, explicit, word-level instruction to beginning readers.


Beginning reading Phonics instruction Teachers’ knowledge of language constructs Teachers’ word identification prompts 



  1. Aitkin, J., Villers, H., & Gaffney, J. S. (2018). Guided reading: Being mindful of the reading processing of new entrants in Aotearoa New Zealand primary schools. Set: Research Information for Teachers, (1), 25–33.
  2. Arrow, A. W., Chapman, J. W., & Greaney, K. T. (2015). Meeting the needs of beginning readers through differentiated instruction. In W. E. Tunmer & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Excellence and equity in literacy education: The case of New Zealand (pp. 171–193). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, A. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2012). Contemporary reading acquisition theory: The conceptual basis for differentiated reading instruction. In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds.), Contemporary debates in childhood and education (pp. 241–249). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Binks-Cantrell, E., Joshi, R. M., & Washburn, E. K. (2012). Validation of an instrument for assessing teacher knowledge of basic language constructs of literacy. Annals of Dyslexia 62 (3), 153–171.Google Scholar
  5. Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Lowe, E., North, W., Russo, E., & Wilder, T. D. (2009). First grade teachers’ knowledge of phonological awareness and code concepts: Examining gains from an intensive form of professional development and corresponding teacher attitudes. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 425–455. Scholar
  6. Byrne, B. (2005). Theories of learning to read. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 104–119). Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carreker, S. H., Neuhaus, G. F., Swank, P. R., Johnson, P., Monfils, M. J., & Montemayor, M. L. (2007). Teachers with linguistically informed knowledge of reading subskills are associated with a Matthew effect in reading comprehension for monolingual and bilingual students. Reading Psychology, 28(2), 187–212. Scholar
  8. Carroll, J., Gillon, G., & McNeill, B. (2012). Explicit phonological knowledge of educational professionals. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 15(4), 232–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman, J. W., Greaney, K. T., Arrow, A. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2018). Teachers’ use of phonics, knowledge of language constructs, and preferred word identification prompts in relation to beginning readers. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 23(1), 87–104. Scholar
  10. Cheesman, E. A., McGuire, J. M., Shankweiler, D., & Coyne, M. (2009). First-year teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness and its instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 32(3), 270–289. Scholar
  11. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(4), 305–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, A. (2013). To read or not to read: Decoding synthetic phonics. Impact, 2013(20), 1–38. Scholar
  14. Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2010). Australian pre-service teachers’ knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonics in the process of learning to read. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15(1), 99–110. Scholar
  15. Greaney, K. (2001). An investigation of teacher preferences for word identification strategies. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 24(1), 21–30.Google Scholar
  16. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M. E., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. L. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 392–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahar, N. E., & Richdale, A. L. (2008). Primary teachers’ linguistic knowledge and perceptions of early literacy instruction. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 13(1), 17–37. Scholar
  19. Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and Inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 472–482. Scholar
  20. McNeill, B., & Kirk, C. (2014). Theoretical beliefs and instructional practices used for teaching spelling in elementary classrooms. Reading and Writing, 27(3), 535–554. Scholar
  21. Ministry of Education. (2003a). Effective literacy practice in years 1 to 4. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Education (2003b). Sound sense: Phonics and phonological awareness. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  23. Ministry of Education. (2014). Ready to read turns 50. New Zealand Education Gazette, 93, 2.Google Scholar
  24. Moats, L. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do.Google Scholar
  25. Nuttall, J. (2010). Influences on the co-construction of the teacher role in early childhood curriculum: Some examples from a New Zealand childcare centre. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(1), 23–31.Google Scholar
  26. Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prochnow, J. E., Tunmer, W. E., & Arrow, A. W. (2015). Literate cultural capital and Matthew effects in reading achievement. In W. E. Tunmer & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Excellence and equity in literacy education: The case of New Zealand (pp. 145–167). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spear-Swerling, L., & Cheesman, E. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge base for implementing response-to-intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1691–1723. Scholar
  29. Spear-Swerling, L., & Zibulsky, J. (2014). Making time for literacy: Teacher knowledge and time allocation in instructional planning. Reading and Writing, 27, 1353–1378. Scholar
  30. Smith, P. (2018). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs and practices related to peer learning: a mixed methods study. New Zealand: Unpublished doctoral thesis, Massey University.Google Scholar
  31. Stuart, M., Stainthorp, R., & Snowling, M. J. (2008). Literacy as a complex activity: Deconstructing the simple view of reading. Literacy, 42(2), 59–66. Scholar
  32. Tetley, D., & Jones, C. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge of language concepts: Relationships to field experiences. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19(1), 17–32. Scholar
  33. Tunmer, W., & Chapman, J. (2002). The relation of beginning readers’ reported word identification strategies to reading achievement, reading-related skills, and academic self-perceptions. Reading and Writing, 15(3–4), 341–358. Scholar
  34. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2015). The development of New Zealand’s National Literacy Strategy. In W. E. Tunmer & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Excellence and equity in literacy education: The case of New Zealand (pp. 1–20). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., Greaney, K. T., Prochnow, J. E., & Arrow, A. W. (2013). Why the New Zealand National Literacy Strategy has failed and what can be done about it: Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and Reading Recovery monitoring reports. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18(2), 139–180. Scholar
  36. Washburn, E., Binks-Cantrell, E., Joshi, R. M., Martin-Chang, S., & Arrow, A. (2015). Preservice teacher knowledge of basic language constructs in Canada, England, New Zealand, and the USA. Annals of Dyslexia, 66, 1–20. Scholar
  37. Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Binks-Cantrell, E. S. (2011). Teacher knowledge of basic language concepts and dyslexia. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 17(2), 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilcox-Herzog, A., & Ward, S. L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ perceived interactions with children: A tool for assessing beliefs and intentions. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 6(2), 1–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Dyslexia Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison W. Arrow
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christine Braid
    • 2
  • James W. Chapman
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Education, Health and Human Development Te Rāngai Ako me te HauoraUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.College of Humanities and Social SciencesMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations