Abstract
One-hundred-fourteen kindergarten through third-grade teachers from seven different schools were surveyed using The Survey of Preparedness and Knowledge of Language Structure Related to Teaching Reading to Struggling Students. The purpose was to compare their definitions and application knowledge of language structure, phonics, and other code-based concepts, as well as their perceptions of their own knowledge as operationalized in a scale designed to measure participants’ confidence in their responses. Participants were divided into groups based on their districts’ use or non-use of a scripted, code-based reading program. The code-based reading program group comprised 60 teacher participants, and the no code-based reading program group comprised 54 participants. Multivariate analysis of covariance revealed no significant differences between groups in definitions or application knowledge, once demographic differences were accounted for. Analyses of covariance revealed no significant differences in perceptions of knowledge after accounting for relevant covariates. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated the variance contribution of condition and demographic variables to obtained knowledge to be non-significant, and partial correlation analyses showed only weak, often non-significant correlations between perceived knowledge and obtained knowledge. Overall poor survey performance indicated that the majority of teachers in both conditions did not possess the necessary code-based reading knowledge or application skills to effectively teach struggling readers. The results of this study suggest that the use of a scripted, code-based reading program does not guarantee mastery of language structure, phonics, and other code-based concepts.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Prior to analysis, one potential covariate, attendance of training workshops was excluded, as there was no way to determine the quality or duration of the workshops attended, and the authors believed that the inclusion of this variable as a covariate could potentially compromise analyses.
References
American Psychological Association. (2014). Education and socioeconomic status fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx
Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, M. R., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, 16, 527–536. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.601434
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
Bos, C. S., Mather, N., Narr, R., & Babur, N. (1999). Interactive, collaborative professional development in early literacy instruction: Supporting the balancing act. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 227–238. doi:10.1207/sldrp1404_4
Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Lowe, E., et al. (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, 425–455. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9166-x
Brady, S., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success—Foundations for teacher preparation. Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association, A Position Paper of the International Dyslexia Association.
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (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
Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., & Callahan, M. D. (2009). Starting small: Building preschool teacher knowledge that supports early literacy development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 487–510. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9164-z
Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation. (2012). What will it take to help more children with dyslexia learn to read proficiently?. New Haven, CT: Author.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997). The case for early reading intervention. In B. A. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 243–264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 203–212. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00020
Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability a longitudinal, individual growth curves study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.3
International Dyslexia Association. (2010). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Graham, L., Ocker-Dean, E., Smith, D. L., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2009). Do textbooks used in university reading education courses conform to the instructional recommendations of the national reading panel? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 458–463.
Joshi, R. M., Washburn, E. K., & Kahn-Horwitz, J. (2016). Introduction to the special issue on teacher knowledge from an international perspective. Annals of Dyslexia, 66, 1–6. doi:10.1007/s11881-015-0119-6
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2007). Breaking words down to build meaning: Vocabulary, morphology, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61, 134–144. doi:10.1598/RT.61.2.3
Lose, M. K. (2007). A child’s response to intervention requires a responsive teacher of reading. Reading Teacher, 61, 276–279. doi:10.1598/RT.61.3.9
Lyon, G. R. (1998). Why reading is not natural. Educational Leadership, 3, 14–18.
Lyon, G. R. (1999). The NICHD research program in reading development, reading disorders and reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Lyon, G. R. (2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Hearing before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Education Reform, 107th Congress. Available at http://www.nrrf.org/lyon_statement3-01.htm
Lyon, G. R. (2009). The NICHD research program in reading development, reading disorders and reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9
Mather, N. (1992). Whole language reading instruction for students with learning disabilities: Caught in the crossfire. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 87–94.
Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 472–482. doi:10.1177/002221940103400508
McCombes-Tolis, J., & Feinn, R. (2008). Comparing teachers’ literacy-related knowledge to their state’s standards for reading. Reading Psychology, 29, 236–265. doi:10.1080/02702710801982258
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S., 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
McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V. (1999). Those who know, teach well: Helping teachers master literacy-related subject-matter knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 215–226. doi:10.1207/sldrp1404_3
McCutchen, D., Green, L., Abbott, R. D., & Sanders, E. A. (2009). Further evidence for teacher knowledge: Supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 401–423. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9163-0
McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cox, S., Sidman, S., Covill, A. E., & Cunningham, A. (2002b). Reading teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207–228. doi:10.1007/s11881-002-0013-x
Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–101. doi:10.1007/BF02648156
Moats, L. C. (1995). The missing foundation in teacher education. American Educator, 19, 43–51.
Moats, L. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Moats, L. C. (2000). Whole language lives on: The illusion of “balanced” reading instruction. New York, NY: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Moats, L. C. (2004). Science, language, and imagination in the professional development of reading teachers. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 269–287). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing, 22, 379–399. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1
Moats, L. (2012). Still wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 387–391. doi:10.1177/0022219409338735
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
Moats, L. C., & Lyon, G. R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Language Disorders, 16, 73–86. doi:10.1097/00011363-199602000-00007
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). 2015 Mathematics and reading assessments. Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/acl?grade=4
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.
Piasta, S. B., Connor, C., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 224–248. doi:10.1080/10888430902851364
Podhajski, B., Mather, N., Nathan, J., & Sammons, J. (2009). Professional development in scientifically based reading instruction: Teacher knowledge and reading outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 403–417. doi:10.1177/0022219409338737
Shaywitz, S. E. & Shaywitz, B.A. (2014, January 27). Make dyslexia a national priority [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/196400-make-dyslexia-a-national-priority
Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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
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
Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge and self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 266–296. doi:10.1007/s11881-005-0014-7
Spear-Swerling, L., & Cheesman, E. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge base for implementing response-to-intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1691–1723.
Spencer, E. J., Schuele, C. M., Guillot, K. M., & Lee, M. W. (2008). Phonemic awareness skill of speech-language pathologists and other educators. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 39, 512–520. doi:10.1044/0161-1461
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Cognitive processes and the reading problems of learning-disabled children: Evaluating the assumption of specificity. In J. K. Torgesen & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on LD (pp. 75–103). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stark, H. L., Snow, P. C., Eadie, P. A., & Goldfield, S. R. (2016). Language and reading instruction in early years’ classrooms: The knowledge and self-rated ability of Australian teachers. Annals of Dyslexia, 66, 28–54. doi:10.1007/s11881-01500112-0
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1501_6
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.579
Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R., & Binks-Cantrell, E. (2010). Are preservice teachers prepared to teach struggling readers? Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 21–43. doi:10.1007/s11881-010-0040-y
Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R., & Binks-Cantrell, E. S. (2011). Teacher knowledge of basic language concepts and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 17, 165–183. doi:10.1002/dys.426
Williamson, E. G. (1939). Reading disabilities. In E. G. Williamson (Ed.), How to counsel students: A manual of techniques for clinical counselors (pp. 327–347). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Wilson Reading Systems. (2012). Fundations: Wilson language basics K-3. Oxford, MA: Wilson Language Training.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Survey of preparedness and knowledge of language structure related to teaching reading to struggling students
Appendix: Survey of preparedness and knowledge of language structure related to teaching reading to struggling students
Thank you for participating in this survey. The survey results are anonymous, and no individuals or schools will be identified. Some of the items will be more difficult than others. It is not expected that you will be able to answer every item correctly; however, please complete all of the items. Please be honest as your responses will have NO impact on your job.
Section 1: General Questions
Where did you receive your teacher preparation training?
What current certificate(s) do you hold?
How prepared did you feel to teach the following to struggling readers after completing your teacher preparation program?
Not at all prepared | Minimally prepared | Moderately prepared | Well prepared | Extremely well prepared | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Phonemic awareness | |||||
Phonics | |||||
Fluency (reading rate and accuracy) | |||||
Vocabulary | |||||
Reading comprehension | |||||
Overall, how prepared did you feel to teach reading to struggling readers after completing your teacher preparation program? |
What is the highest degree you have earned (e.g., B.S., B.A., M.A., etc.)?
How many years have you taught?
Have you attended any literacy-related professional development training sessions or workshops such as Orton Gillingham, Wilson Reading System, Reading Recovery etc. which significantly enhanced your ability to teach reading? If so, please list the trainings here.
How prepared did you feel to teach the following to struggling readers after the following experiences?
Not at all prepared | Minimally prepared | Moderately prepared | Well prepared | Extremely well prepared | |
Undergraduate education course | |||||
Post-degree or graduate school courses, workshops or in-services | |||||
Student Teaching | |||||
On the job experience | |||||
Other: please list |
What are your biggest challenges in regard to teaching struggling readers?
If you could receive any additional training regarding teaching struggling readers, what areas would you like the training to cover?
Section 2: Definitions
-
1.
The writing system of a language is called
-
a.
orthography
-
b.
phonics
-
c.
semantics
-
d.
phonology
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
2.
A reading method that teaches the relationship between the sounds of a language and the letters used to represent them is called:
-
a.
directionality
-
b.
orthography
-
c.
miscue analysis
-
d.
phonics
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
3.
Phonemic awareness is primarily
-
a.
the ability to derive meaning from a word
-
b.
the ability to recognize and manipulate the individual sounds in spoken language.
-
c.
the ability to use sound-symbol (phoneme-grapheme) correspondences to read and spell new words.
-
d.
both b and c
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
4.
A written letter or combination of letters that are used to represent a single speech sound is called a:
-
a.
consonant blend
-
b.
minimal pair
-
c.
grapheme
-
d.
syllable
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
5.
A phoneme is:
-
a.
a single letter
-
b.
a single speech sound
-
c.
a single unit of meaning
-
d.
a grapheme
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
6.
A pronounceable group of letters that contains a vowel sound is a:
-
a.
grapheme
-
b.
syllable
-
c.
digraph
-
d.
minimal pair
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
7.
A morpheme is:
-
a.
a single letter
-
b.
a single speech sound
-
c.
a single unit of meaning
-
d.
a word that has several different meanings
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
8.
What term refers to a combination of 2 or 3 consonants that keep their own sound identity (makes its own sound) when pronounced?
-
a.
silent consonant
-
b.
consonant digraph
-
c.
diphthong
-
d.
consonant blend
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
9.
Two consonant letters that represent a single speech sound are called a:
-
a.
minimal pair
-
b.
consonant digraph
-
c.
silent consonant
-
d.
consonant blend
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
10.
A weak, mid-central vowel sound that occurs in unaccented syllables is a:
-
a.
vowel team
-
b.
schwa
-
c.
glide
-
d.
minimal pair
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
11.
A prefix and a suffix are
-
a.
morphemes that are added to a root or base word that may change the word’s part of speech but not its meaning
-
b.
free morphemes to which other affixes can be added
-
c.
morphemes that cannot stand alone but are used to form a family of words
-
d.
morphemes that are added to a root or base word that may change the word’s part of speech and its meaning
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
12.
The terms onset and rime refer to
-
a.
two words that contain different vowel digraphs yet rhyme
-
b.
the two parts of a syllable; the initial consonant or consonants, and the vowel and any final consonants
-
c.
two consonants joined together in one syllable to produce one sound
-
d.
the separate syllables in a two syllable word, as well as the two words that comprise a compound word
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
13.
Sounds in which the vocal cords are used are called:
-
a.
reversals
-
b.
variants
-
c.
miscues
-
d.
voiced
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
14.
Fill in the blank. ________ primarily helps to support phonics instruction.
-
a.
repeated readings
-
b.
decodable text
-
c.
guided reading
-
d.
independent reading
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
15.
In a word that contains a closed syllable,
-
a.
there must be more than one syllable
-
b.
there is a “silent e” at the end of the syllable
-
c.
the vowel makes a short sound and is followed by a consonant
-
d.
there can be more than one vowel but it is closed in by one or more consonants
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
16.
A diphthong is
-
a.
a vowel sound composed of two parts that glide together
-
b.
a vowel sound spelled with two different vowels that make one sound
-
c.
two consonant letters that represent one speech sound
-
d.
a spelling pattern that contains a silent letter
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
Section 3: Application
-
1.
How many speech sounds are in the following words?
-
a.
eight
-
b.
grass
-
c.
box
-
d.
queen
-
e.
brush
-
f.
knee
-
g.
through
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
2.
For each of the words determine the number of syllables.
-
a.
disassemble
-
b.
heaven
-
c.
observer
-
d.
frogs
-
e.
teacher
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
3.
For each of the words determine the number of morphemes.
-
a.
disassemble
-
b.
heaven
-
c.
observer
-
d.
frogs
-
e.
teacher
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
4.
Which word contains a consonant blend?
-
a.
push
-
b.
look
-
c.
straw
-
d.
chip
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
5.
Which of the following words contains a consonant digraph?
-
a.
bring
-
b.
sleep
-
c.
much
-
d.
tired
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
6.
Which word has a schwa (/ә/) sound?
-
a.
eagerly
-
b.
problem
-
c.
formulate
-
d.
story
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
7.
Which of the following words has a prefix and a suffix? You may mark more than one.
-
a.
prejudgment
-
b.
property
-
c.
teaching
-
d.
salamander
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
8.
Which has correctly separated the word “strand” into the onset and the rime?
-
a.
stra….nd
-
b.
str….and
-
c.
st….rand
-
d.
“strand” does not contain an onset or rime.
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
9.
Identify the pair of voiced and unvoiced consonant sounds.
-
a.
/b//p/
-
b.
/d//g/
-
c.
/f//s/
-
d.
/n//m/
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
10.
Which sentence is an example of decodable text?
-
a.
The bear snatched the meat away from the trainer.
-
b.
She watched the slippery, slimy, slugs slink by.
-
c.
The fat cat sat on the mat.
-
d.
The car was found down the road in the snow.
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
11.
An example of a word with a closed syllable would be:
-
a.
keep
-
b.
clothes
-
c.
limit
-
d.
heard
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
12.
Which of the following words contains a diphthong?
-
a.
drip
-
b.
battle
-
c.
shut
-
d.
boy
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
13.
Which pair of words contains the same underlined sound?
-
a.
intend…baked
-
b.
weight…height
-
c.
was…votes
-
d.
push…pump
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
-
14.
Which pair of words begins with the same sound?
-
a.
joke-goat
-
b.
chef-shoe
-
c.
quiet-giant
-
d.
chip-chemist
-
a.
How sure are you of your answer? Circle. 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cohen, R.A., Mather, N., Schneider, D.A. et al. A comparison of schools: teacher knowledge of explicit code-based reading instruction. Read Writ 30, 653–690 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9694-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9694-0