Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Changes in education policy, the accumulation of research evidence that skilled instruction prevents and ameliorates reading failure, accountability requirements, and a new emphasis on multi-tiered interventions in schools are all causing a growing interest in improving teacher knowledge and skill in reading instruction. Consensus frameworks that explain reading development and individual differences provide an outline for what teachers need to know. The details of that content, however, including the English phonological system, the organization of English orthography, and the language structures that are processed during reading and writing, are challenging for teachers to learn. Recent studies are reviewed that investigate the relationship between teacher knowledge, practice, and student outcomes. The paper argues that teachers must have considerable knowledge of language structure, reading development, and pedagogy to differentiate instruction for diverse learners. Policy mandates for improvement of reading achievement should provide for more effective teacher education, as the knowledge base is not learned casually or easily. Research on how teachers best develop expertise should inform our licensing and professional development programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 58–173. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biemiller, A. (1999). Language and reading success. Newton Upper Falls, MA: Brookline Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S. M., Shaywitz, B. A., et al. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444–461. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97–120. doi:10.1007/s11881-001-0007-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, C., Mather, N., Narr, R., & Babur, N. (1999). Interactive, collaborative professional development in early reading instruction: Supporting the balancing act. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 215–226. doi:10.1207/sldrp1404_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 305–336. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0804_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. C., & Torgesen, J. K. (July 2006). Teaching all children to read: Practices from Reading First schools with strong intervention outcomes. Presented at the Florida Principal’s Leadership Conference. Retrieved March, 2008, from http://www.fcrr.org/science/sciencePresentationscrawford.htm.

  • Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 264–274. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 139–167. doi:10.1007/s11881-004-0007-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, C., Foorman, B. R., & Mathes, G. G. (2003). Schools that “Beat the Odds”: Implications for reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 258–261. doi:10.1177/07419325030240050101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EdSource. (2003). California’s lowest performing schools: Who they are, the challenges they face, and how they’re improving. Palo Alto, California: EdSource.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L., & Snowling, M. (2004). Developmental variation in word recognition. In A. C. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 443–460). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D., Schuster, B., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 250–257. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 51–60. doi:10.1177/07419325040250010601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B. R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M., Moats, L. C., & Francis, D. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P., & Young, C. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, R., & Kaminski, R. (2005). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, K. (2006). Phonics and spelling through phoneme-grapheme mapping. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, M. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, F. M., Rotherham, A. J., & Walsh, K. (Eds.). (2004). Introduction. A qualified teacher in every classroom? Appraising old answers and new ideas (pp. 1–9). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. B. (2000). Literacy instruction in teacher education: A comparison of teacher education in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, Teachers College, New York.

  • Hogan, T. P., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2005). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading: Implications for the assessment of phonological awareness. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 285–293. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2005/029).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S., Swartz, C., Wakely, M., deKruif, R., & Montgomery, J. (2002). Executive functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 57–68. doi:10.1177/002221940203500105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, M. (2005). Response to intervention based on the componential model of reading. In S. O. Richardson & J. W. Gilger (Eds.), Research-based education and intervention: What we need to know (pp. 45–65). Baltimore: International Dyslexia Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., Murphy, D., Steinbach, K. A., DePalma, M., & Frijters, J. C. (2005). The importance of multi-component interventions for children and adolescents who are struggling readers. In S. O. Richardson & J. Gilger (Eds.), Research-based education and intervention: What we need to know (pp. 67–102). Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 471–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). An evaluation of two reading interventions derived from diverse models. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., et al. (2002a). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 69–86. doi:10.1177/002221940203500106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. E. (2002b). Reading teachers’ content knowledge of children’s literature and phonology. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207–228. doi:10.1007/s11881-002-0013-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, P., Foorman, B. R., Branum-Martin, L., & Taylor, W. P. (2005). Literacy as a unidimensional multilevel construct: Validation, sources of influence, and implications in a longitudinal study in grades 1–4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 85–116. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–102. doi:10.1007/BF02648156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (1995). The missing foundation in teacher education. American Educator, 19(9), 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (2007) Final report of the LETRS CD-Rom efficacy study. Technical report available from Sopris West Educational Services. www.sopriswest.com.

  • Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0003-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2008). Literacy achievement in the primary grades in high-poverty schools. In S. Neuman (Ed.), Educating the other America: Top experts tackle poverty, literacy, and achievement in our schools (pp. 91–111). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C., Foorman, B. R., & Taylor, W. P. (2006). How quality of writing instruction impacts high-risk fourth graders’ writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 363–391. doi:10.1007/s11145-005-4944-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), Inc.(2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved March, 2008, from www.nasde.org.

  • National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read—an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: NICHD, National Institutes of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, R. (1999). Teachers learning ladders to literacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 203–214. doi:10.1207/sldrp1404_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, R. (2004). SSSR, environment, and genes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 111–124. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0802_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Foorman, B. F., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.00004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, A. D., Duggar, S. W., Moats, L. C., Glover, M., & Mincey, B. (2008). When teachers work to use progress monitoring data to inform literacy instruction: Identifying potential supports and challenges. Remedial and Special Education, 29(6), 364–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarborough, H. S., & Brady, S. A. (2002). Toward a common terminology for talking about speech and reading: A glossary of the ‘phon’ words and some related terms. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 299–334. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3403_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., & Burns, S. M. (Eds.). (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, A. O. (2003). Teachers’ acquisition of knowledge about English word structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 72–103. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0005-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, A. O. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 332–364. doi:10.1007/s11881-004-0016-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Partnership for Reading. (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Kindergarten through grade 3 (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

  • The University of Texas. (2005). Introduction to the 3-tier reading model (3rd ed.). Austin: College of Education, Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts. Retrieved March, 2008, from www.texasreading.org.

  • Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Preventing early reading failure—and its devastating downward spiral: The evidence for early intervention. American Educator, 28(6–19), 45–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Remedial interventions for students with dyslexia: National goals and current accomplishments. In S. O. Richardson & J. Gilger (Eds.), Research-based education and intervention: What we need to know. Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1101_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Dunne-Wilcox, D. (2006). What elementary teachers don’t know about reading and what teacher preparation programs aren’t teaching. Washington, DC: National Council for Teacher Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., Miller, L., & Donnelly, K. (2002). Retrieval, automaticity, vocabulary elaboration, orthography (RAVE-O): A comprehensive, fluency-based reading intervention program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 375–386. doi:10.1177/002221940003300408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sopris West Educational Services, Longmont, CO, USA

    Louisa Moats

Authors
  1. Louisa Moats
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louisa Moats.

Appendix

Appendix

Teacher knowledge survey

Percentage of 139 licensed, practicing primary grade teachers who earned correct scores on the item is in parentheses to the right. Correct responses are italicized.

Items 1–5: How many spoken syllables are in each word?

1.

nationality

1

2

3

4

5

(95%)

2.

enabling

1

2

3

4

5

(95%)

3.

incredible

1

2

3

4

5

(95%)

4.

shirt

1

2

3

4

5

(87%)

5.

cleaned

1

2

3

4

5

(69%)

  1. 6.

    A syllable is: (50%)

    1. a.

      the same as a rime

    2. b.

      a unit of speech organized around a vowel sound

    3. c.

      a sequence of letters that includes one or more vowel letters

    4. d.

      equivalent to a morpheme

Items 7–12: How many phonemes or distinct speech sounds are in each word?

7.

straight

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

(33%)

8.

explain

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

(1%)

9.

lodged

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

(45%)

10.

know

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

(68%)

11.

racing

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

(13%)

12.

eighth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

(75%)

  1. 13.

    Which of the following words has a prefix? Pick one. (9%)

    1. a.

      missile

    2. b.

      distance

    3. c.

      commit

    4. d.

      interest

    5. e.

      furnish

  2. 14.

    Which of the following words has an adjective suffix? Pick one. (7%)

    1. a.

      natural

    2. b.

      apartment

    3. c.

      city

    4. d.

      encircle

    5. e.

      emptiness

  3. 15.

    Which word has a schwa (/ə/)? (55%)

    1. a.

      eagerly

    2. b.

      prevent

    3. c.

      definition

    4. d.

      formulate

    5. e.

      story

  4. 16.

    If a student spells the word “electricity” as “elektrisuty” which of the following is most likely true? (47%)

    1. a.

      The student does not know sound-symbol correspondence.

    2. b.

      The student has a poor ear for the sounds in our language.

    3. c.

      The student does not know the base word and suffix from which the word “electricity” was constructed.

    4. d.

      The student has a poor visual memory.

    5. e.

      All of the above.

  5. 17.

    The /k/ sounds in lake and lack are spelled differently. Why is lack spelled with ck? (52%)

    1. a.

      The /k/ sound ends the word.

    2. b.

      The word is a verb.

    3. c.

      ck is used immediately after a short vowel.

    4. d.

      c and k produce the same sound.

    5. e.

      There is no principle or rule to explain this.

  6. 18.

    Why is there a double n in stunning? (50%)

    1. a.

      Because the word ends in a single consonant preceded by a single vowel, and the ending begins with a vowel.

    2. b.

      Because the final consonant is always doubled when adding -ing.

    3. c.

      Because the letter u has many different pronunciations.

    4. d.

      Because the consonant n is not well articulated and needs to be strengthened.

    5. e.

      There is no principle or rule to explain this.

  7. 19.

    A student writes: “I have finely finished my math project.” Her misspelling of the word finally most likely indicates that she: (42%)

    1. a.

      is not attentive to the sounds in the word.

    2. b.

      does not know basic letter-sound relations.

    3. c.

      has not matched spelling to the meaningful parts (morphemes) of the word.

    4. d.

      has a limited vocabulary.

    5. e.

      has a limited knowledge of sight words.

  8. 20.

    Which of the following is a feature of English spelling? (10%)

    1. a.

      A silent e at the end of a word always makes the vowel long.

    2. b.

      Words never end in the letters “j” and “v.”

    3. c.

      When two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking.

    4. d.

      A closed syllable must begin with a consonant.

    5. e.

      All of the above.

Part 2—True or False

  1. 21.

    Students must be able to orally segment and blend the phonemes in complex syllables before they can benefit from instruction in letter-sound correspondence. (F) (72%)

  2. 22.

    If a student is “glued to print”, reading slowly word-by-word, the student should be told to read faster and to stop spending so much effort to decode. (F) (80%)

  3. 23.

    Screening at the end of kindergarten can be efficient, reliable, and valid for predicting a child’s silent passage reading comprehension at the end of 3rd grade. (T) (39%)

  4. 24.

    The best remedy for a weakness in nonsense word reading is lots of practice reading nonsense words. (F) (65%)

  5. 25.

    Timed letter naming on DIBELS is a good risk-indicator for later reading comprehension. (T) (64%)

  6. 26.

    Phonological awareness exercises should always include letters or print. (F) (57%)

  7. 27.

    A closed syllable always begins with a consonant. (F) (36%)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moats, L. Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Read Writ 22, 379–399 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation