Pre-service teachers’ knowledge of phonemic awareness: relationship to perceived knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, and exposure to a multimedia-enhanced lecture

Abstract

This study examined the relations among perceived and actual knowledge of phonemic awareness (PA), exposure to PA instruction during practicum, and self-efficacy for teaching PA in a sample of 54 teacher candidates (TCs) enrolled in a 1-year Bachelor of Education program in a Canadian university. It also assessed the effects of a brief multimedia-enhanced lecture on TCs’ actual knowledge of PA and efficacy ratings. Prior to the lecture, teacher candidates’ scores on the PA assessment were relatively low with a mean percentage correct of 56.3 %. Actual knowledge was not significantly correlated with perceived knowledge or self-efficacy ratings. Perceived knowledge was significantly and positively correlated with efficacy ratings and students’ rating of their exposure to PA instruction during their practicum experience. A path analysis revealed that the relationship between exposure to PA instruction and self-efficacy beliefs was mediated by perceived knowledge controlling for actual knowledge and general prior experience working with young children. Analyses also revealed that TCs made significant gains in self-efficacy as well as actual knowledge when re-assessed after the lecture with a mean post-lecture score of 71.4 %. Written feedback from the TCs indicated that the digital video clips included in the lecture provided clarity regarding the type of instructional practices that teachers could use to support phonemic awareness development in children. Implications for practice and future research on teacher preparation are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig 1

References

  1. Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C. M., Folsom, J. S., Wanzek, J., Greulich, L., Schatschneider, C., et al. (2014). To wait in tier 1 or intervene immediately a randomized experiment examining first-grade response to intervention in reading. Exceptional Children, 81, 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Al Otaiba, S., Lake, V. E., Greulich, L., Folsom, J. S., & Guidry, L. (2012). Preparing beginning reading teachers: an experimental comparison of initial early literacy field experiences. Reading and Writing, 25(1), 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bell, S. M., Ziegler, M., & McCallum, R. S. (2004). What adult educators know compared with what they say they know about providing research-based reading instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(7), 542–563.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Binks-Cantrell, E., Joshi, R. M., & Washburn, E. K. (2012a). Validation of an instrument for assessing teacher knowledge of basic language constructs of literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 62, 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 526–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Binks-Cantrell, E., Joshi, R. M., & Washburn, E. K. (2012b). Validation of an instrument for assessing teacher knowledge of basic language constructs of literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 62(3), 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Budin, S., Mather, N., & Cheesman, E. (2010). Examining promising practices to improve linguistic knowledge and inform practice in teacher education. Perspectives on Language, 36, 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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, 32, 270–289.

    Article  Google 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, 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Denton, C. A. (2012). Response to intervention for reading difficulties in the primary grades some answers and lingering questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 232–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dieker, L. A., Lane, H. B., Allsopp, D. H., O'Brien, C., Butler, T. W., Kyger, M., & Fenty, N. S. (2009). Evaluating video models of evidence-based instructional practices to enhance teacher learning. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(2), 180–196.

  15. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 551–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub‐Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta‐analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ely, E., Kennedy, M. J., Pullen, P. C., Williams, M. C., & Hirsch, S. E. (2014). Improving instruction of future teachers: A multimedia approach that supports implementation of evidence-based vocabulary practices. Teaching and Teacher Education44, 35-43.

  19. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.

  20. 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, 99–110. doi:10.1080/19404150903524606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: what, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Carroll, J. M., Duff, F. J., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). The causal role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read: combining intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science, 23, 572–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 284–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kennedy, M. J., Driver, M. K., Pullen, P. C., Ely, E., & Cole, M. T. (2013). Improving teacher candidates’ knowledge of phonological awareness: a multimedia approach. Computers & Education, 64, 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M., & Hannok, W. (2013). Internalizing problems of adults with learning disabilities: a meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 317–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Koriat, A. (1995). Dissociating knowing and the feeling of knowing: further evidence for the accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 311–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Leader-Janssen, E. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2013). Preservice teachers’ content knowledge and self-efficacy for teaching reading. Literacy Research and Instruction, 52(3), 204–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lonigan, C. J., Schatschneider, C., & Westberg, L. (2008). Developing early literacy: report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., Borden, S. L., Frijters, J. C., Steinbach, K. A., & De Palma, M. (2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology92(2), 263–283.

  34. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., & Gray, A. L. (2002). Beginning literacy links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities35(1), 69–86.

  36. Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S. A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén

  39. National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (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: reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

  40. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Reschly, A. (2010). Reading and school completion: critical connections and Matthew effects. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 26, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Szpunar, K. K., Jing, H. G., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). Overcoming overconfidence in learning from video-recorded lectures: implications of interpolated testing for online education. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 161–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2007). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: preparing teachers for a changing world. John Wiley & Sons.

  47. Spear-Swerling, L. (2009). A literacy tutoring experience for prospective special educators and struggling second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 431–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 332–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge and self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(2), 266–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2006). Teacher-education students’ reading abilities and their knowledge about word structure. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(2), 116–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: a regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 24–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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(4), 579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Activation of inaccurate prior knowledge affects primary-school students’ metacognitive judgments and calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 15–25.

  54. Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren’t learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wanzek, J., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). Characteristics of general education reading interventions implemented in elementary schools for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 33(3), 192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Binks-Cantrell, E. (2011). Are preservice teachers prepared to teach struggling readers? Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zeichner, K. & McDonald, M. (2011). Practice-based teaching and community field experiences for prospective teachers. In A. Cohan & A. Honigsfeld (Eds.) Breaking the mold of pre-service and in-service teacher education: Innovative and successful practices for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.

  58. Zell, E., & Krizan, Z. (2014). Do people have insight into their abilities? A metasynthesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rhonda Martinussen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martinussen, R., Ferrari, J., Aitken, M. et al. Pre-service teachers’ knowledge of phonemic awareness: relationship to perceived knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, and exposure to a multimedia-enhanced lecture. Ann. of Dyslexia 65, 142–158 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-015-0104-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Efficacy
  • Instruction
  • Multimedia
  • Phonemic awareness
  • Teacher preparation