AN EVALUATION OF CODE-RELATED PRECURSORS IN A PREKINDERGARTEN CURRICULUM
Karen Michelle Burby
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 1983
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Language and Literacy)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011
AN EVALUATION OF CODE-RELATED PRECURSORS IN A PREKINDERGARTEN CURRICULUM
A Thesis
by
Karen Michelle Burby
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
John Shefelbine, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Cid Gunston-Parks, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Karen Michelle Burby
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library
and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
Rita Johnson, Ed.D., Department Chair
Date
Department of Teacher Education
iii
Abstract
of
AN EVALUATION OF CODE-RELATED PRECURSORS IN A PREKINDERGARTEN CURRICULUM
by
Karen Michelle Burby
A disparity in knowledge of code-related precursors between disadvantaged
children and their more advantaged peers is already apparent upon kindergarten entry.
National reading assessments and research on entering kindergarteners indicate that
pre-kindergarten programs may not be doing enough to close the achievement gap, a
primary goal of state-funded pre-kindergarten. High-quality language and literacy
curriculum that includes explicit instruction can improve the odds for disadvantaged
children.
This descriptive study bridges the gap between research and practice by
applying research-based criteria in an evaluation of the Houghton-Mifflin PreKindergarten Language and Literacy Program (Bredekamp, Morrow, & Pikulski,
2006). Of particular concern is the curriculum’s treatment of phonological awareness
and alphabet knowledge, the two strongest predictors of successful reading acquisition
at kindergarten entry. Using research and California state Pre-K standards as
iv
guidelines, this study evaluates the curriculum’s content (objectives) and methods
(approaches to instruction) for code-related precursors.
Through a review of literature on early literacy development and the California
Preschool Learning Foundations (Abbot, Lundin, & Ong, 2008), the author derived
content and features of effective instruction for code-related precursors. Four rubrics
were developed to guide the examination of (a) content and (b) instruction within the
phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge components of the program. Daily
lessons for the entire academic year were analyzed.
.
This study revealed significant discrepancies between the program and
research-based recommendations. For example, rhyme and alliteration skills (although
important prerequisites for higher-level phonological skills) are the easiest to acquire
and yet receive excessive instructional attention. On the other hand, word- and
syllable-level skills (important precursors to onset-rime and phonemic awareness)
receive relatively little attention. Within the alphabet strand, letter names and shapes
are introduced concurrently, rather than beginning with names alone. Letter sounds are
taught beginning in the 13th week, when many students are still trying to master letter
names and their printed forms. Furthermore, the predominant instructional approach is
more implicit than explicit. Large groups participate in songs, games, and storybook
reading with only one weekly, small-group lesson in phonological awareness and
alphabet knowledge. This study concludes with recommendations for pre-kindergarten
v
teachers to complement the curriculum with supplemental materials and more explicit
teaching strategies.
, Committee Chair
John Shefelbine, Ph.D.
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Judy Ellis-O’Mealy, Early Childhood Education Lead Teacher,
San Juan Unified School District, for her support and assistance. She generously
provided time, materials, and space for me to conduct this examination.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ x
List of Figures.............................................................................................................. xi
Chapter
1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 2
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 3
Rationale ........................................................................................................... 4
Methodology..................................................................................................... 5
Limitations of the Research .............................................................................. 5
Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 6
Organization of Thesis ..................................................................................... 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 8
Phonological Awareness .................................................................................. 8
Alphabet Knowledge ...................................................................................... 33
3. METHOD OF ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 54
Instruments ..................................................................................................... 54
Materials ......................................................................................................... 62
Procedure ........................................................................................................ 63
4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 67
Phonological Awareness Objectives .............................................................. 67
Instructional Delivery for Phonological Awareness....................................... 71
Alphabet Knowledge Objectives .................................................................... 74
viii
Instructional Delivery for Alphabet Knowledge ............................................ 80
Summary......................................................................................................... 83
5. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................... 84
Phonological Awareness ................................................................................ 84
Alphabet Knowledge ...................................................................................... 85
Teacher Survey ............................................................................................... 86
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 87
Recommendations .......................................................................................... 88
Appendix A. Alphabet Knowledge Objectives ........................................................ 90
Appendix B. Teacher Opinion Survey ..................................................................... 93
References .................................................................................................................. 96
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Two Dimensions of Phonological Awareness ................................................. 55
2.
Phonological Awareness Objectives ............................................................... 57
3.
Alphabet Knowledge Objectives ..................................................................... 58
4.
Instructional Delivery for Phonological Awareness........................................ 61
5.
Instructional Delivery for Alphabet Knowledge ............................................. 62
6.
Phonological Awareness Objectives - Results ................................................ 68
7.
Instructional Delivery for Phonological Awareness - Results ........................ 72
8.
Alphabet Knowledge Objectives - Results ...................................................... 76
9.
Instructional Delivery for Alphabet Knowledge - Results .............................. 81
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Frequency of Instruction for Phonological Awareness Levels........................ 71
2.
Frequency of Alphabet Knowledge Instruction .............................................. 80
xi
1
Chapter 1
BACKGROUND
Historically, early childhood education program standards defined
requirements for features of services children received (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow,
2003). Today, most states, including California, have developed early learning
standards for pre-kindergarten that align with elementary school standards. The
California Preschool Learning Foundations (Abbot, Lundin, & Ong, 2008) formulated
to close the achievement gap between economically advantaged and disadvantaged
children, describe competencies, knowledge, and skills that most children achieve in
pre-kindergarten. It is worth noting that California failed to meet the national
benchmark for implementation of early learning standards (Barnett, Epstein,
Friedman, Sansanelli, & Hustedt, 2009) due to the suspension of adoptions for new
instructional material until 2013-2014 (Core purpose, 2010). Despite recent efforts at
improving the quality and access of preschool education in California, the state-funded
pre-kindergarten program compares unfavorably with other states (Barnett et al.,
2009). The State Preschool Yearbook (Barnett et al., 2009) reported that California
ranks 26 out of 38 states in providing access to four-year-olds who qualify. California
pre-kindergarten teacher qualifications require only 12 units in early childhood
education, which is far below the national benchmark of a Bachelor’s degree with
specialized training. This suggests that preschool teachers in California could benefit
from the support of a well-specified curriculum.
2
Curriculum is important because it is a major component of federal and state
efforts to improve school readiness for at-risk children (Preschool Curriculum
Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008). High-quality curriculum is the primary mode
of access to the state’s content standards and supports teachers in selecting teaching
strategies that lead to student mastery of content (Core purpose, 2010). Furthermore,
high-quality curriculum is an essential tool in providing guidance for new or underqualified teachers. Research and government initiatives stress the importance of
implementing literacy curricula backed by scientific evidence (National Association
for the Education of Young Children, 2003; U. S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2003; U. S. Department of Education, 2010). However, claims that specific
curricula are research based are often not supported (National Association for the
Education of Young Children, 2003).
Statement of the Problem
Language and literacy environments serving poor children are often inadequate
(Barnett, 2003; Neuman, 2006; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Teacher preparation
(Barnett et al., 2009) and high-quality curriculum, important components of literacy
rich classrooms are significantly absent from pre-kindergarten programs (Dickinson,
McCabe, & Essex, 2006; Preschool Consortium for Evaluation Research, 2008).
Recent implementation of early learning standards has redefined the role of preschool
teachers (Bodrova, Leong, & Paynter, 1999). Teachers need to take a more directed
role than they have in the past. Direct teaching of literacy skills during pre-
3
kindergarten, recommended by reading experts (Engelmann, 1997; Snider, 1995;
Snow et al., 1998), provides disadvantaged children with prerequisite skills in
phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge while “their absence can initiate a
causal chain of escalating negative effects” (Stanovich, 1986, p. 364). However, many
early childhood teachers view direct teaching of literacy skills with distaste (Bodrova
et al., 1999; Roberts, 2003; Yeh, 2003). They cling to traditional practices in
adherence with the constructivist perspective. Advocates of the constructivist
perspective believe that developmentally appropriate practice in a supportive
environment lead children to make natural discoveries of academic concepts and skills
(Chaille, 2008; Strickland & Schickedanz, 2004). This view conflicts with research
stating that literacy skills are not usually discoverable; they require direct instruction.
Another problem with the constructivist perspective is that teachers may delay literacy
instruction until children indicate that they are ready to learn. Delay could impede
children’s literacy progress (Bodrova et al., 1999; Yeh, 2003) which may lead to
failure to acquire the alphabetic principle essential for reading acquisition.
Purpose of the Study
Recent research indicates that direct instruction in code-related precursors to
reading acquisition can increase student achievement, particularly for disadvantaged
children (American Federation of Teachers, 2002; Barnett, 2002; Barnett & Hustedt,
2003; Engelmann, 1997; Neuman, 2009). The purpose of this thesis is to conduct a
descriptive study of Houghton-Mifflin Pre-Kindergarten Language and Literacy
4
Program (2006) curriculum, which is widely used by area school districts. Although it
claims to be research-based, evidence for its effectiveness on child outcomes is
unavailable from either literature or the What Works Clearinghouse website (Institute
for Educational Sciences, 2010). In this study, recent research in early literacy
development and standards from the California Preschool Learning Foundations
(Abbot et al., 2008) provide the basis for rubrics used to evaluate Houghton-Mifflin
Pre-Kindergarten Language and Literacy Program (Bredekamp, Morrow, & Pikulski,
2006). Two primary areas of investigation that this thesis will address are
phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge.
Rationale
This topic is worthy of study for several reasons. First, research demonstrates
that levels of phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge at kindergarten entry
are the two best predictors of later reading achievement. Second, many disadvantaged
children enter kindergarten with under-developed levels of phonological awareness
and alphabet knowledge. Third, recent research indicates that disadvantaged prekindergarten children benefit from direct instruction in early decoding skills (Barnett,
2002; Barnett & Hustedt, 2003; Engelmann, 1997). Fourth, high-quality curriculum is
an important part of educationally rich classrooms (Dickinson et al., 2006), and
curriculum can assist preschool teachers by promoting research-based practices
(Neuman & Dwyer, 2009). Finally, California state preschool teacher qualifications
5
are far below the national benchmark indicating that high-quality curriculum could
help educate early childhood teachers.
Methodology
A thorough search of relevant literature and the California Preschool Learning
Foundations (Abbot, et al., 2008) provided the basis for rubrics designed to guide an
examination of Houghton-Mifflin Pre-Kindergarten Language and Literacy Program
(Bredekamp et al., 2006). One set of rubrics outlines the pedagogical content and
sequence suggested by research for phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge.
A second set (of rubrics) notes the presence and qualitative features of direct
instruction. Notes compiled during the extensive curriculum review contributed to data
analysis.
Limitations of the Research
The first limitation is that the examination concerned only the teacher’s
manuals and instructional materials to ascertain the quality of materials themselves.
This type of analysis does not permit conclusions drawn regarding implementation of
the curriculum. Second, other pre-kindergarten literacy curricula may provide better
teacher guidance for direct instruction in code-related precursors to reading. Third,
possible design flaws in the rubrics themselves may have inadvertently overlooked
subtleties in the curriculum.
6
Definition of Terms
Alphabetic principle: Knowledge that letters in written words represent the
sounds in spoken words (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008).
Constructivist perspective: A theoretical framework that underlies the
decisions that a teacher makes about classroom arrangement, curriculum, and how she
responds to children. Classroom activities revolve around a big idea that children
explore, motivated by their own curiosity and desire to learn (Chaille, 2008).
Developmentally appropriate practice: Occurs when professionals make
decisions about the well-being and education of children based on at least three
important kinds of information or knowledge; (a) what is known about child
development and learning, (b) what is known about the strengths and interests, and
needs of each individual child in the group, and (c) knowledge of the social and
cultural contexts in which children live (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, as cited in
National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003).
Direct instruction: A pedagogical method originally developed in the mid1960s by Siegfried Engelmann (Smith, 2003). Teacher guided learning is a salient
characteristic of direct instruction. Reading instruction is broken down into sets of
sub-skills taught sequentially, some to mastery, and become meaningful when
combined. Effective teachers explicitly demonstrate learning objectives and provide
guided practice with corrective feedback before expecting children to perform the task
7
independently (Rosenshine, 1986, 1995). Direct instruction is a teaching strategy used
to facilitate learning academic content (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001).
Organization of Thesis
Chapter 2 presents a review of early literacy research in phonological
awareness and alphabet knowledge. Chapter 3 explains the method used to examine
the curriculum including the process of rubric design. Chapter 4 summarizes the
results of the evaluation. Chapter 5 is a discussion of these findings along with
implications and recommendations.
8
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews research concerning the development of phonological
awareness and alphabet knowledge in young children. An explanation of the two
dimensions of phonological awareness (size of the sound unit and level of task
difficulty) precedes a discussion of the difference between phonological and phonemic
awareness. Then, phonological awareness is related to the development of early
decoding skills. Next, recent developmental research explores the way children acquire
phonological awareness. Finally, studies that confirm the appropriateness of direct
instruction for pre-kindergarten provide contrast to current practice. Following this is
a similar discussion for alphabet knowledge. Examples of effective instruction from
experts in the field offer an idea of the type of instruction that could be included in
pre-kindergarten curricula.
Phonological Awareness
Definition
Snow et al. (1998) define phonological awareness as the ability to pay attention
to the sounds of spoken words, rather than meaning or syntax. Children who have
developed an awareness of the phonological structure of language are able to treat
language as an object of thought, paying attention to both the patterns of speech and
the tacit rules of pronunciation (Adams, 1990). For example, children that answer the
question of which word is longer, caterpillar or train with the word caterpillar are
9
phonologically aware. They can separate words from their meaning. However, if they
answer that train is longer, they remain phonologically unaware. Their concern is with
meaning or ideas over sound. They know that a train is much longer than a caterpillar
(Snow et al., 1998; Yopp & Yopp, 2009).
Dimensions of phonological awareness. Phonological awareness has two
dimensions (Yopp & Yopp, 2009) or aspects, and exists on a continuum from simple
forms of awareness to complex forms. The first dimension is the size of the sound unit
receiving attention. From larger to smaller, the sound units include syllable, onsetrime, and phonemes. The second dimension concerns the task or type of manipulation
performed on the sound unit. Tasks include matching sounds, synthesis (blending or
adding sounds together to form words), and analysis (counting, segmenting, deleting)
which is more difficult. Both dimensions range from easy (larger units - matching or
recognition) to difficult (smaller sound units - synthesis, analysis). Children’s
performance depends on both the degree of task difficulty (matching/recognition,
blending/adding, segmentation/deletion) and the size of the linguistic unit (Treiman &
Zukowski, 1991).
Phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness is the conscious perception that
words are comprised of a series of sounds (Snider, 1995). Phonemic awareness
develops gradually and is the highest level of phonological awareness (Adams, 1990;
Snider, 1995). It is important for children to develop phonemic awareness because
English is an alphabetic language, and acquisition of the alphabetic principle depends
10
on the ability to associate letters with their corresponding sounds (Adams, 1990;
Snider, 1995; Snow et al., 1998). Children who begin school with low levels of
phonemic awareness are likely to experience more difficulty acquiring the alphabetic
principle (Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony, & Barker, 1998; Snow et al., 1998).
Furthermore, poorly developed phonemic awareness seems to be the distinguishing
factor between economically disadvantaged preschoolers and their more advantaged
peers (Adams, 1990).
Relationship to Early Decoding Instruction
Bradley and Bryant’s (1983) seminal study of sound categorization abilities in
preschool non-readers provides evidence of a causal relationship between
phonological awareness and reading achievement. Researchers demonstrated that
phonological awareness levels, as measured in sensitivity to rhyme and alliteration
before school entrance, lead to eventual success in learning to read and write. In order
to demonstrate that the relationship was causal, Bradley and Bryant (1983) included a
training program for a sub-sample of 65 non-reading four- and five-year-olds who had
the lowest scores on the original sound categorization tests, and divided them into four
groups matched for age and verbal intelligence as well as original scores on sound
categorization. The first group received training for over two years in 40 ten-minute
sessions on sound categorization of words based on a shared beginning, middle, or
ending sound. The second group received the same training with the addition of letters
in the last 20 sessions. The third group received training in word categorization based
11
on semantics (e.g., hen and pig are both farm animals). The fourth group acted as the
control, thus did not receive training. Test results demonstrate that children trained to
categorize sounds based on shared phonemes were ahead of the semantic group by
three to four months; yet, this difference was not statistically significant. However,
children trained to categorize sounds based on shared phonemes with the addition of
letters outperformed the others in reading and spelling, and this difference was
statistically significant. Children with higher levels of phonological awareness
(phonemic awareness) and letter knowledge had an easier time learning to read.
Results of both longitudinal and training data strongly suggest a causal
relationship between phonological awareness (as represented by sound categorization
tasks) and later success in reading and spelling. Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley (1991b,
1993, 1995, 2000) replicated these findings in a series of studies using Sound
Foundations (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991a). The Sound Foundations (1991a)
program developed by Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley teaches sound categorization
based on shared phonemes. The kit includes large colored posters depicting scenes
with objects beginning with the same phoneme (e.g., sun, seal, sailor, sand) and other
posters depicting objects ending with the same phoneme (e.g., bus, octopus, house,
dress). The kit also contains games, worksheets, and an audiotape, all designed to
teach the concept of sound sharing among words.
For the evaluation trial, 64 preschoolers learned to classify items based on
shared beginning and ending sounds. The control group of 62 preschoolers were
12
trained with the same materials over the same period, but were taught to classify items
based on semantic grounds (e.g., color, shape, etc) rather than sounds. Comparisons of
pre- and post-test measures demonstrated that the experimental group showed greater
gains in phonemic awareness than the control group. In addition, a forced choice
word-recognition test demonstrated that most of the children who had achieved
phonemic awareness and letter-sound knowledge were able to decode unfamiliar
words (45 passed, nine failed). Thus, children were able to transfer learning to
phonemes that were not included in training. These findings agree with Bradley and
Bryant’s (1983) conclusion that preschool children are capable of learning to
recognize and identify phonemes. Furthermore, some children achieved at least partial
insight into the alphabetic principle as demonstrated by the forced choice wordrecognition test.
Developmental Progression
Lonigan et al. (1998) provide evidence for a developmental progression of
phonological sensitivity in two- to five-year old preschoolers. Examiners tested
phonological abilities in 238 children from middle-to upper-income families and 118
children from lower-income families. Measures administered to all children consisted
of rhyme oddity detection, alliteration oddity detection, blending, and elision
(omission of initial or final sound). A subgroup of older children in the middle- to
upper-income sample received additional tests of letter knowledge and environmental
print to serve as measures of word reading ability.
13
Phonological sensitivity at different levels of complexity (syllables and
phonemes) was substantially interrelated at each age and predicted word-reading
ability in older children (four- to five-year-olds). These results indicate that lower
levels of phonological sensitivity might serve as developmental precursors to higher
levels.
A secondary finding was that substantial social class differences in the growth
of phonological sensitivity were present from an early age. Children from lower and
higher socio-economic groups differed on rhyme and alliteration oddity tasks at fiveyears-old. Groups also differed on blending and elision tasks at four-years-old. The
percentage of children from each group who were able to complete phonological
sensitivity tasks at different levels of complexity revealed social class differences as
young as three-years-old.
Researchers conclude that a hierarchy of phonological sensitivity occurs as
varying along levels of linguistic complexity. Lower levels of sensitivity require
explicit analysis of larger sound units (syllables) while higher levels require analysis
of smaller units (phonemes). This research suggests that phonemic sensitivity is more
often associated with reading achievement because it is at this level that graphemes
(letters) correspond to speech sounds in reading. As a result, phonemic awareness
receives instructional emphasis over lower levels of phonological sensitivity.
However, disadvantaged pre-kindergarten children could benefit from early instruction
14
in phonological awareness because it precedes phonemic awareness and is
measureable in young children.
Instructional Sequence
Many researchers recommend direct, systematic, instruction in phonemic
awareness to prevent reading failure in the primary grades (Bereiter & Engelmann,
1966; Ehri & Roberts, 2006; Engelmann, 1969; Snider, 1995; Snow et al., 1998).
Experts suggest instruction begin at the word level, especially for disadvantaged
children who have had less exposure to language (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, &
Beeler, 1998; Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966; Engelmann, 1969; Snider, 1995; Snow et
al., 1998). This section begins with word awareness and continues the sequence with
instruction in rhyme, alliteration, syllables, onset-rime, and finally, phonemes.
Words. Although a word is not a true phonological unit, instruction in word
awareness helps children develop the idea of a word as an individual unit that can be
isolated and manipulated (Adams, 1990; Engelmann, 1969; Snider, 1995). Bereiter
and Engelmann (1966) advise that if disadvantaged children are to succeed in
beginning reading instruction, they need:
an intensive course in word awareness that will enable them to treat words as
things that can be talked about, compared, taken apart and put back together,
constructed out of smaller words or word parts, and changed into other words
by altering their parts or the order in which the parts are arranged. (p. 275)
15
Adams (1990) points out that while word awareness does not develop naturally,
children easily acquire it with explicit instruction. Beginning reading instruction
assumes that children have acquired the concept of word as an individual language
unit (Adams, 1990). Teachers often use word as a referent in beginning reading
instruction, rendering the lesson incomprehensible at the start. “Tell me a word that
starts with /s/ and ends with /at/”, for example.
Counting words. Young children seem to focus on the number of idea units
that the sentence conveys (meaning) rather than the number of words (Adams, 1990;
Snider, 1995; Snow et al., 1998). Children can learn to count words in sentences using
pictures. For example, the words Susan ran home can have a picture of a girl, a girl
running, and a house (Adams, 1990; Snider, 1995). Children lacking in word
awareness are likely to say that the previous sentence contains two words, Susan and
ranhome (Adams, 1990; Snider, 1995; Snow et al., 1998). Engelmann (1969) suggests
turning the sentence into a question. This is to show children that a word is an
independent unit; it remains a separate unit from other words coming before or after it
(e.g., Did Susan run home?). Students repeat the question and count the number of
words while holding up their fingers until successful. When children are able to count
words that have a concrete referent, instruction can advance to sentences containing at
least one two-syllable word (Engelmann, 1969). This is to prevent children from
getting the idea that a word is a syllable, thus from getting the erroneous notion that to
count words, they only have to count syllables. Again, Engelmann suggests turning the
16
sentence into a question by rearranging words (e.g., Fish are animals. Are fish
animals?). Introduce children to articles (e.g., a, the, an – Susan is a girl. Is Susan a
girl?), then abstract words, (e.g., Susan went to the store.), providing sufficient
practice for each.
Identifying words as same or different. As well as being able to count words
and segment sentences, children need to be able to identify a word as the same or
different (Adams, 1990; Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966). Bereiter and Engelmann
(1966) suggest teaching children whether two words are the same by writing a few
words on index cards and placing them in the whiteboard tray. Teachers can print one
of the words on the whiteboard in letters the same size as those on the card, then:
Tell children “This is a word” for each of the three words. Present the rule “If
all the letters are the same, the words are the same,” as well as its converse; “If
all the letters are not the same, the words are not the same.” Place the matching
card under the printed word and proceed to compare each letter asking, “Are
these letters the same?” conclude, “Are all the letters the same? Yes, all the
letters are the same. What’s the rule.” (p. 279)
Well-developed word awareness is essential before kindergarten reading
instruction. Before they can talk about, consider, and work with rhyming words,
children need to understand the concept of word.
Rhyme. An appreciation of sounds as evidenced by the recitation of nursery
rhymes is the simplest level of phonological awareness (Adams, 1990). Maclean,
17
Bradley, and Bryant (1988, as cited in Adams, 1990) conducted a study of 66 English
preschoolers to determine if nursery rhyme knowledge spawned the beginning of the
development of phonemic awareness. Examiners directed three-year-olds to recite five
popular British nursery rhymes. They returned every four months until children were
four and a half to assess progress on oddity tasks, rhyme and alliteration production,
and finally, recognition of letters and words. Data analysis reveals that early
knowledge of nursery rhymes relate strongly to the development of more abstract
phonological skills.
Rhyme sensitivity develops early and relatively easily provided enough
exposure to nursery rhymes, songs, and chants (Adams, 1990; Yopp & Yopp, 2009).
Songs and games that play with language encourage participation and draw children’s
attention away from meaning to the sounds of language (Yopp, 1992). Engelmann
(1969) suggests that teachers begin to work on rhyming tasks as soon as children have
finished their first word counting exercises. To introduce rhyming, the teacher can say:
Listen to this word: money. Say it: money. Say the word very slowly:
muuuney. I’m going to say words that rhyme with money. Here I go: honey,
funny, bunny. Listen—they all rhyme: money, funny, bunny, honey. If I ask
you for a word that rhymes with money, you can say honey, or you can say--what? (p. 88)
Eventually the teacher introduces nonsense words that rhyme, reducing the cue for the
rhyming word to a single consonant until children are able to produce rhymes.
18
Alliteration. According to Adams (1990), the ability to compare and contrast
the sounds of words for rhyme and alliteration is the next level of phonological
awareness. Sensitivity to alliteration develops later than rhyme and is more difficult
because it requires children to focus attention on individual phonemes not easily
discernable within the speech stream.
Bradley and Bryant’s (1983) sound categorization data showed that the level of
rhyme and alliteration awareness achieved before school entry has a powerful
influence on eventual success in learning to read. For the longitudinal portion of their
project, examiners administered 30 memory trials and a test of verbal intelligence to
118 four-year olds and 285 five-year olds, all of whom were non-readers. Sound
categorization tasks required children to remember a group of three or four words and
choose the odd word based on shared initial, middle, or final phonemes. Tests of
middle and final sounds actually measure rhyme detection, not alliteration (Adams,
1990). Presented verbally with a group of three words, four-year olds selected the odd
word over 30 trials (e.g., hill, pig, pin - initial; pin, bun, gun - middle; pin win, sit final). Five-year olds detected the odd word from groups of four words (e.g., bud, bun,
bus, rug - initial; lot, cot, hat, pot - middle; hop, doll, top, pop - final). Standardized
achievement tests in reading and spelling were administered periodically during the
project, and again, at the end. Results showed a significant relationship between initial
sound categorization scores on the oddity detection tasks and later success in reading
and spelling.
19
Engelmann (1969) suggests that teachers introduce alliteration tasks as soon as
children can produce a rhyming word from a single-sound cue, “a word that rhymes
with batman; its f…” (p. 90). Teachers present the task as words that start the same
way. Engelmann recommends that teachers:
Begin with entire syllables and decrease the cue that is given until the children
are able to work from a single sound or a group of difficult sounds (spl).
Listen. I’m going to say some words that start the same way as ice cream. Here
I go ice—cube, ice—ing, ice—icle. (p. 90)
Teachers pronounce the sounds of words separately so that children can clearly hear
the sound that is being held constant. After children have practiced identifying and
repeating words that start the same, Engelmann suggests teachers move to short
words, eventually working down to a single-sound cue, “I want words that start the
same way as run: r- -(p. 90). At this point Engelmann recommends introducing
children verbally to word exercises using words that begin with consonant blends.
Teachers distinctly pronounce two sounds at the beginning of the word and ask
children to identify the word (/s/ /t/ op). For children having trouble identifying the
word, the teacher repeats the word faster (st-op).
A few minutes of daily verbal exercises with alliteration facilitates beginning
reading acquisition. Oddity tasks provide a test of children’s ability to identify
alliteration. Teachers can use results to plan instruction focusing on those areas that
need work (initial, final, or middle sounds).
20
Syllables. The ability to blend and split syllables requires children to not only
be comfortable with the sounds of language, but also to understand the idea that word
parts can be put together or broken down (Adams, 1990). Tasks at this level require
children to put parts together (blend) and take words apart (segment or split syllables).
Blending is easier than segmentation and syllable segmentation is easier than phoneme
segmentation (Liberman, Shankweiler, Fischer, & Carter, 1974).
Liberman et al. (1974) found direct evidence for a developmental ordering of
syllable and phoneme (the smallest unit of sound) segmentation abilities in young
children. Two experimental groups (phoneme and syllable segmentation) of preschool,
kindergarten and first graders participated in a tapping game. Participants were 136
middle-class children from a public preschool and elementary school. Children were
required to repeat a word or sound spoken by the examiner and to indicate, by tapping
a small wooden dowel on the table, the number (from one to three) of segments
(phonemes or syllables) in the stimulus item. Four sets of training trials containing
three items each provided demonstration and practice. When the child was able to
repeat and tap each item correctly, items were scrambled and presented in random
order without prior demonstration, but with corrective feedback. Test trials followed
training and consisted of 42 randomly assorted individual items (of one, two, or three
segments) presented without prior demonstration and corrected as needed. Testing
continued through all 42 items or until the child was able to tap six consecutive items
correctly without demonstration. It was apparent from measuring the number of trials
21
to reach criteria that syllable segmentation was easier than phoneme segmentation.
Children at the preschool level were not able to segment phonemes at all, while nearly
half could segment syllables. Children who did reach criteria required more trials to do
so. The average number of trials to reach criterion in the syllable group was 26 for
preschoolers, 12 for kindergarteners, and 10 for first-graders. The average number of
trials to reach criterion in the phoneme group was zero for preschoolers, 26 for
kindergarteners, and 26 for first-graders. Researchers concluded that explicit analysis
of spoken words into phonemes is significantly more difficult for young children than
analysis into syllables, and develops later. Furthermore, this study suggests that
language analysis may require explicit instruction.
Engelmann (1969) suggests one way to introduce blending syllables. Teach
children to say the word fast:
Listen to this story: I’m going to say some of the words slowly. See if you can
tell me what they are. I went to a store where I saw a wo--man. What did I see?
I saw a woman. She was carrying a basket full of pup--pies. What was she
carrying? (p. 91)
Continuous sounds are easier for children to blend than stop sounds (Byrne &
Fielding-Barnsley, 1990; Engelmann, 1969; Snider, 1995). Therefore, teachers should
begin rhyming and syllable activities using words that start with continuous sounds (f,
l, m, n, r, s, v, w, y, and z,), although stop sounds (b, c, d, g, h, j, k, p, q, and x,) may be
introduced within a few days (Snider, 1995).
22
After children have mastered blending tasks, they are ready to learn
segmentation (Engelmann, 1969; Snider, 1995), Introduce segmenting tasks by telling
children, “I’m going to say a word. See if you can say it slowly: hamburger, say it
slow: hammm—burrgerr. Your turn: hamburger. Say it slow,” (Engelmann, 1969, p.
93). Again, present continuous sounds before stop sounds and larger units before
smaller. Both Engelmann (1969) and Snider (1995) suggest that teachers delay
phonemic awareness activities until children have mastered syllable segmentation.
Onset-rime. Treiman and Zukowski (1991) identified onset-rime as an
intermediate level between syllables and phonemes. Onsets are consonant sounds that
precede a vowel within a syllable (m - an). Rimes are the vowel sound and any
consonant sounds that follow within a syllable (m – an) (Snider, 1995; Treiman &
Zukowski, 1991; Yopp & Yopp, 2009). It is easier to separate the onset from the rime
than to break either the onset or the rime into its phonemic components (Adams, 1990;
Bradley & Bryant, 1983). The final consonant and its vowel are difficult to separate
into phonemes since they are basic elements of the syllable’s rime (Adams, 1990).
Treiman (1985a) conducted an experiment to test whether children’s ability to
recognize the initial consonant would depend on whether it was a single member of
the syllable’s onset. In the experiment, a group of five-year-old children became
friends with two puppets. Each puppet had a favorite sound, /s/ and /f/, chosen because
they are continuous sounds and therefore easily produced in isolation. The puppets
responded with pleasure whenever they heard a word that began with their sound and
23
disappointment when they did not. Following demonstration and practice, each child
received a puppet. Children repeated a series of taped syllables, and then made the
puppet say whether it began with its favorite sound. Some of the favorite consonants
were followed by a vowel sound (e.g., /sa/ and /sap/ or /fa/ and /fal/) while others were
followed by another consonant (e.g., /sme/ and /ski/ or /fla/ and /fru/). Children
recognized about 87% of single consonants and only about 72% of consonant blends.
Conversely, children misjudged only 13% of single consonant sounds in contrast to
28% of consonant blends. Treiman concludes that children have special difficulty
segmenting consonant blends into individual phonemes.
Teachers can introduce children to onset-rime blending (mmm—an, man) by
having them say it fast. Segmentation can be introduced by having children do the
opposite, say it slow (man, mmm—an). Snider (1995) suggests teachers begin with
continuous sounds, because, as Treiman (1985a) demonstrated, initial and final blends
are more difficult. Onset-rime level skills are important prerequisites for higher-level
skills (phonemic awareness) but are not the ultimate goal of instruction. Therefore, it
may not be necessary for children to master onset-rime tasks (Snider, 1995).
Phonemes. Phonemes are the smallest unit of sound (Ehri & Roberts, 2006).
Activities at this level require children to blend, segment, and manipulate (add or
delete) sounds. Blending is easier than segmentation, and segmentation is easier than
manipulation (Snider, 1995).
24
In combination, phonemic awareness and letter knowledge lead to partial
acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Children in the partial alphabetic phase know
letter names, some sounds, and some phonemic awareness (Ehri & Roberts, 2006).
When children are able to segment words into separate beginning and ending sounds,
they can use this knowledge to read some words. “For example, they might remember
jump by connecting the Jay to /j/ and the Pee to /p/, but ignore U and Em” (Ehri &
Roberts, 2006, p. 116). Children who enter kindergarten in the partial alphabetic phase
of reading development are in a better position to benefit from beginning decoding
instruction (Ehri & Roberts, 2006; Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008)
Once children have mastered syllable blending and segmentation, and have
experience separating the onset from the rime, they can begin blending at the phoneme
level (Snider, 1995). For example, “I can say a word the slow way. Mmm-aaa-t. I can
say it fast. Mat. Your turn, I’ll say it the slow way then you say it fast” (p. 6). The
ability to segment phonemes or isolate individual sounds is more difficult. The teacher
says a word the fast way while children say it slowly. For example, “I can say the
sounds in the word mat. Listen. Mmmm-aaaa-t” (Snider, 1995, p. 7).
The ability to manipulate phonemes (add, delete, or rearrange phonemes) to
make a new word is more difficult than blending and segmenting tasks; however,
performance on phoneme manipulation tasks is a strong predictor of reading
achievement (Adams, 1990; Snider, 1995).
25
Implicit Instruction
Constructivists advocate a child-directed curriculum in which instruction is
implicit (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1998; Snider, 1995; Yopp & Yopp, 2009). Yopp
and Yopp (2009) recommend surrounding preschool children in a phonologically rich
environment and taking advantage of spontaneous teachable moments. Interaction
with books that play with language, rhymes, songs, and games are developmentally
appropriate activities that promote phonological awareness (Yopp & Yopp, 2009).
Instruction typically progresses from larger to smaller units of sounds, although
mastery is not required before proceeding to the next level (Yopp & Yopp, 2009).
Teachers need to identify the task on which they wish to focus and then “consider a
developmentally appropriate means for engaging children in the task” (Yopp, 1992, p.
699). Child participation is encouraged but not required. Teachers should comment on
books’ language play, invite children to share their own observations, and create their
own play with sounds (Yopp & Yopp, 2009). Props such as pictures or objects, to
represent sounds help reduce memory load making the task easier for some children
(Yopp & Yopp, 2009). Games that draw attention to sounds such as, “I spy something
you all are wearing that begins like this: /sh/” (Yopp & Yopp, 2009, p. 7), are also
developmentally appropriate. Teachers using this instructional approach employ a
variety of games and activities for developing phonemic awareness. Implicit rhyme
instruction includes reading books and poems, as well as reciting songs and
fingerplays. First, teachers read the poem aloud exaggerating its rhymes, and then
26
reread it having children repeat each line in unison. Yopp and Yopp (2009) provide a
sample of phonological awareness activities employing this teaching technique (pp. 58).
Rhyme production. After children have heard and chanted Hickory Dickory
Dock a few times, suggest they create a poem titled Hickory Dickory Dare. Ask
children where the mouse might go. Some children might appropriately substitute the
onset by saying, “The mouse ran to the fair” or “The mouse ran through the hair.”
Other children might offer a response such as, “The mouse ran to the store”. The
authors advise teachers to chuckle and appreciate this response for its image, but
gently guide the child to offer a word that fits the sound pattern. Teachers can provide
feedback such as “Good idea! I can picture in my head a mouse running to a store!
Let’s see if we can use a word that rhymes with dare.” ‘Hickory Dickory Dare, the
mouse ran to the bear. What else rhymes with dare? Care? Share? Let’s try!” Teachers
then invite children to offer their own versions.
Alliteration production. Teachers can read aloud Bearsie Bear and the
Surprise Sleepover Party (Waber, 1997). The teacher chuckles with children about the
names of animals in the story (e.g., Moosie Moose, Foxie Fox, and Goosie Goose).
After repeating the names a few times, the teacher introduces children to a collection
of stuffed animals. The teacher invites children to name the animals. She places the
animals in a center along with the book and a box with blankets. Authors suggest that
27
children may reenact the story for days afterwards and even created their own
versions.
Syllable segmentation. Explain that this game is to clap the beats (or chunks)
of the words they speak. Begin with clapping the syllables in children’s names. Then
clap all the syllables in other words, such as table, carpet, bookcase, lunch, and
playground. Clap on a variety of occasions. For instance, clap the names of foods you
are eating for lunch. Let children offer words to clap. Say a sentence slowly, and then
invite children to repeat the sentence with you while you all clap the syllables (e.g.,
the – child-ren-went-out-doors, has six claps).
Onset-rime blending and segmentation. Teachers and children play I Spy, a
game that requires children to blend the onset and rime. “I spy with my little eye
something all of you are wearing that begins like this: /sh/ and ends like this /oo/.”
Teachers are told to appreciate children’s efforts and reinforce correct responses by
exaggerating the initial sound. For example, teachers can acknowledge effort by
commenting that Bobby thought of an object that begins with the sound /b/. Then, the
game can be made more difficult by deleting the rime. “I spy with my little eye
something on the wall that begins like this: /m/”.
Children are ready to participate in phonemic awareness activities after the
development of phonological awareness (Yopp & Ivers, 1988, as cited in Yopp, 1992).
28
Phoneme matching. To identify a word with a targeted sound, teachers give
children a series of pictures of familiar objects (e.g., snake, dog, and cat) and ask them
to select the one that begins with the /s/ sound.
Phoneme isolation. Teachers can give children a word and ask them to tell
what sound occurs at the beginning, middle, or end of the word. For example, teachers
can sing a song (to the tune of Old McDonald), “What’s the sound that starts these
words? Turtle, time and teeth? /t/ is the sound that starts these words: Turtle, time and
teeth. With a /t/, /t/ here, and a /t/ /t/, there and so forth.”
Phoneme blending. Teachers and children can play a blending game such as,
“What am I thinking of?” Teachers can tell the class that they are thinking of
something, an animal, for example. Teachers then give a clue – the separate sounds in
the word. If teachers were thinking of a cow, they tell the class that the animal is a
“/k/-/ow/”, articulating each of the sounds separately. The children blend the sounds
together to discover the animal that teachers have in mind. Teachers may use picture
cards and face them away from the children, give the segmented clue, then turn the
picture around once the children have guessed. Teachers may also play the game using
a grab bag, peeking inside and saying, “I see a toy /d/ - /u/ - /k/ in here. Who knows
what I see?”
Phoneme segmentation. Teachers can have children begin by segmenting just
the first sound in a word. Iteration, or sound repetition activities, are fun and, at the
same time, helps children begin to gain an understanding of the smaller units of
29
speech. Popular songs can be modified to include iterations. For example, when
singing, Pop Goes the Weasel, teachers may encourage the children to sing P-p-p-pPOP Goes the Weasel for the final line. Teachers can also iterate children’s names, CC-C-Catherine, for example, and so forth.
Phoneme manipulation. Adding or substituting sounds in words in familiar
songs may help children begin to focus on the sounds that make up their speech.
Children may insert consonant sounds, blends, or diphthongs, for example, “Fe-FiFiddly-i-o; Fe-Fi-Fiddly-i-o-o-o-o; Fe-Fi-Fiddly-i-ooooo; Now try it with the /z/
sound.”
Explicit Instruction
Stallings (1987) reported positive outcomes on longitudinal measures of
reading achievement for Head Start participants in the Direct Instruction/Follow
Through program. Head Start children trained with direct instruction methods
outperformed children from Montessori and traditional preschool programs. Byrne and
Fielding-Barnsley (1995) conducted a new preschool trial to examine the effects of
their program to teach phoneme identity (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991a)
administered by regular classroom teachers working from the teacher’s manual.
Although children made smaller gains than those from the original study trained by
researchers, results showed improvement in phonemic awareness when compared with
children not explicitly taught.
30
Yeh (2003) evaluated two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness in a
quasi-experimental study that compared a treatment group receiving explicit
instruction in phonemic blending and segmentation with a control group receiving
implicit instruction in rhyme and alliteration (stories and songs). His purpose was to
find out which approach was more effective in teaching phonemic blending,
segmentation, deletion, and substitution as well as letter-sound relationships and oral
reading. Yeh chose to compare a phonemic group with a rhyme group because,
although phonemic awareness is a critical skill for early reading acquisition (Adams,
1990; Juel, 1988; Snow et al., 1998), many early childhood teachers continue to
believe that rhyme and alliteration activities are sufficient to develop phonemic
awareness and developmentally more appropriate for preschool.
Participants in Yeh’s (2003) evaluation of instructional approach were 44
socio-economically disadvantaged children in four Head Start classrooms at two
centers. All children were non-readers with low levels of phonemic awareness as
measured by a pre-test. Children received small group instruction twice a week for 2025 minutes over nine weeks. Consultants provided in-class modeling and coaching for
the first three weeks and researchers observed all sessions.
The rhyming group participated in activities selected from a commercially
available curriculum (Adams, 1990). Children supplied the rhyming word. Children
provided words beginning with the same initial consonant for alliteration activities.
For example in response to pictures of a fox, a foot, some feathers and a fish, or in
31
response to “I went for a walk and I saw a /p/ as in ____.” Bookmaking activities
taught letter-sound relationships in a way that is consistent with emergent literacy
perspectives having children paste pictures into blank booklets and dictate stories to
match.
The segmentation group meanwhile, focused on blending, segmenting and
substituting phonemes in the context of spelling three-letter words, manipulating the
spelling to create new words, and oral reading of short sentences containing those
words. These pre-planned activities were adapted from a commercially available
program that emphasizes phonemic spelling and oral reading using manipulative
letters (McGuinness & McGuinness, 1999, as cited in Yeh, 2003). The teacher
scaffolded instruction by supplying, modeling, and exaggerating phonemes, eliciting
and reinforcing correct responses, and gradually withdrawing support as children
learned to match sounds and letters and sound out short words. For example, the
teacher first taught children to articulate /p/, then to match /p/ with the letter p.
Altogether, children learned six letter-sound correspondences, /m/ m, /a/ a, /t/ t, /p/ p,
/o/ o, and /c/ c, building the words, mat, mop, and cat.
Results show significantly greater gains in phonemic awareness and
knowledge of letter-sounds for the explicitly trained segmentation group. A secondary
analysis demonstrates that the type of instruction significantly relates to gains in
phoneme substitution. Both groups scored zero on the 14 item pre-test of phoneme
substitution. Although the rhyme group remained at zero on the post-test, the phoneme
32
group achieved a score of four out of fourteen. Furthermore, by the fourth week of
instruction, four children in the phoneme group read an unfamiliar 25-word story
aloud. When translated to percentiles, substantial group effect sizes for phonemic
awareness and letter-sound knowledge placed the average child’s performance at the
79th percentile (percentile data were not provided for the rhyming group). Yeh (2003)
concludes that rhyming and alliteration activities alone are not as effective as direct,
systematic instruction in phonemic awareness. Furthermore, direct instruction in
phonological awareness skills may facilitate acquisition of phonemic level skills.
Direct instruction features. Direct instruction in phonological awareness
activities should progress from easy to more difficult (Engelmann, 1969; Snider,
1995). Demonstration or modeling lets children know exactly what to do and shows
them how to do it. Some programs and activities to teach phonological awareness
actually just provide practice (Snider, 1995). For example, children play a board game
that requires them to produce a rhyming word when they land on a square or draw a
card. This is a practice activity because instruction occurs as corrective feedback only
after children make mistakes. Failure is a negative experience that can damage
motivation and self-esteem. While practice is important to secure knowledge and skills
or provide review, it is appropriate for material children already understand. Snider
(1995) and Rosenshine (1986, 1995) recommended that guided practice follow
demonstration. The teacher guides children through the activity systematically,
correcting misconceptions and checking for understanding. When students have had
33
enough guided practice to be successful most of the time they are ready for
independent practice (see section on instructional sequence for specific examples).
Summary of phonological awareness. Phonological awareness refers to the
ability to attend to sounds of language rather than meaning. Children’s task
performance depends upon both sound unit size and task complexity. Lower levels
may serve as precursors to higher levels. At the highest level, phonemic awareness,
children can attend to and manipulate individual phonemes in words. Reading experts
recommend direct or explicit instruction to provide disadvantaged children with
knowledge and skills necessary for success in kindergarten reading instruction. The
combination of phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge lead to at least partial
insight into the alphabetic principle, thus easing the transition to reading instruction in
kindergarten.
The next section defines alphabet knowledge, explains its importance to early
decoding skills taught in kindergarten, and provides examples of effective instruction.
Alphabet Knowledge
First, alphabet knowledge is defined and related to reading achievement.
Studies on entering kindergarteners provide demographic data useful for gauging the
effectiveness of pre-kindergarten programs in developing alphabet knowledge (Zill &
West, 2001). Next, a review of research advocates a specific instructional sequence
with subtopics of letter names, letter shapes, letter printing, and letter-sound
34
associations. Finally, a review of research compares implicit and explicit strategies for
teaching letter names and letter recognition.
Definition. Some experts suggest that alphabet knowledge consists of being
able to identify and name letters (Snow et al., 1998; Strickland & Schickedanz, 2004).
Others say that letter identification leads to the ability to associate letters with sounds
in words (Adams, 1990; Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966; Bowman et al., 2001; Ehri &
Roberts, 2006; Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008). A recent report by the National Early
Literacy Panel (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008) defines alphabet knowledge as
knowledge of both letter names and letter sounds.
Relationship to Early Decoding Instruction
Strong alphabet knowledge predicts ease. Strong alphabet knowledge upon
school entry accelerates reading acquisition (Adams, 1990; Snow et al., 1998). Welldeveloped alphabet knowledge is one of the strongest predictors of later reading
achievement, particularly early word recognition skills (decoding) (Adams, 1990;
Lonigan et al., 2000; Snow et al., 1998; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).
Storch and Whitehurst (2002) examined measures of code-related precursors,
including alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness in preschool and
kindergarten children. Researchers related them to later measures of reading accuracy
and comprehension taken when children were in first through fourth grade.
Participants were 626 Head Start children in eight centers assessed at six points.
Results demonstrated that levels of alphabet knowledge (referred to as print
35
knowledge in this study) and phonological awareness determined reading ability in
early elementary school.
Lonigan et al., (2000) measured letter knowledge and phonological sensitivity
and related them to other emergent literacy skills and reading in two samples of
preschool children. Researchers followed 96 three-to-four-year olds from early to late
preschool and 97 four-to-five-year olds from late preschool to kindergarten or first
grade. Participants were mainly white, English-speaking children attending preschool
and child-care centers serving middle- to upper-income families.
Both groups of children completed a battery of standardized tests including
letter knowledge administered at the beginning of the study and again 18 months later.
Results indicated that letter knowledge was a stable individual difference from late
preschool to first grade. Letter knowledge, in late preschool (indicated by knowledge
of both letter names and sounds) predicted 72% of the variance in kindergarten and
first grade letter knowledge. Letter knowledge represented an emergent literacy skill
that was independent of phonological sensitivity, environmental print, and decoding.
Contrary to current perceptions, researchers found that print concepts and the ability to
read environmental print did not have independent predictive associations with later
reading; instead, they appeared to reflect the development of other emergent literacy
skills such as letter knowledge and phonological sensitivity.
Weak alphabet knowledge predicts difficulty in learning to read. Underdeveloped alphabet knowledge is a reliable indicator of risk for later reading
36
difficulties (Adams, 1990; Elbro, Borstrom, & Petersen, 1998; Gallagher, Frith, &
Snowling, 2000; Justice, Pence, Bowles, & Wiggins, 2006). A Danish longitudinal
study demonstrated that the lack of letter-naming abilities in preschool might indicate
dyslexia when combined with genetic risk. Elbro et al. (1998) followed 51 children of
dyslexic parents and 45 children of normally reading parents from the beginning of
kindergarten to the beginning of second grade. Children eventually diagnosed with
dyslexia performed poorly on measures of phonological recoding (associating letters
with sounds). Measures of phonological recoding skills consisted of asking children to
rapidly name letters in non-word letter strings, and choose which word of a set of nonwords sounded most like a real word. A battery of language measures obtained while
children were in kindergarten (one year before formal schooling in Denmark) provided
the predictive value of a wide range of phonological skills on reading at the beginning
of second grade. The five strongest predictors from the kindergarten battery, including
letter naming, underwent further analysis in order to determine the predictive value of
each. The final model demonstrated the strong predictive value of letter naming in
preschool. With this information, researchers successfully identified three out of four
children as at-risk for developing dyslexia one year before formal schooling.
Gallagher, Frith, and Snowling’s (2000) longitudinal study of children at
genetic risk for dyslexia found that alphabet knowledge at 45 months was the strongest
predictor of literacy level at age six. To avoid effects of poor environment on literacy
learning, researchers formed two groups of children with similar socio-economic
37
backgrounds (middle- to upper-income) and maternal education level. Sixty-three atrisk children and 34 not at-risk children received a battery of literacy assessments at
45 months and 6 years. Questionnaire responses indicated that parents of the literacydelayed group read to their children as often as parents of the literacy-normal group
did. All at-risk children spent more time learning letters with their parents than control
children. However, results indicate that the children with genetic risk for dyslexia had
more difficulty learning letter names and sounds. Since alphabet knowledge is one of
the requirements for successful decoding, it is quite likely that children with poor
alphabet knowledge will experience delays and difficulties in learning to read.
Socio-economic differences. Economically disadvantaged children often
begin kindergarten lacking in alphabet knowledge even though they have attended
Head Start or a public pre-kindergarten program. A team of researchers recently
examined gains in letter knowledge for economically disadvantaged pre-kindergarten
children over the course of an academic year (Molfese, Modglin, Beswick, Neamon,
Berg, Berg, et al., 2006).
Participants were 57 four-year-old children attending a public pre-kindergarten
program. Children participated in a district wide program with a common curriculum
that included language and literacy. The alphabet component provided large group,
informal instruction in letter identification for both upper- and lowercase letters. The
Wide Range Achievement Test (Wilkinson, 1993, as cited in Molfese et al., 2006)
subtests of letter identification and word decoding provided measures of letter
38
knowledge in the fall and again in the spring. Comparisons of children’s gains in letter
identification with their performance on an early reading screening tool, Get Ready to
Read (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001, as cited in Molfese et al., 2006) clarified the
interrelationships between the development of letter identification and other measures
of phonological processing, rhyming, and environmental print.
Researchers prepared for the possibility of slow skill development typically
reported for disadvantaged children. However, they were not prepared to find that the
majority (n = 30) showed little or no gains in letter identification compared to their
classmates (n = 27), whose gains averaged seven letters. Although the curriculum
included activities designed to develop letter identification skills, and the district plan
called for assessments three times during the school year, 12 of the 57 children could
not name any letters in the fall or spring. Eight children could name only one letter in
the spring, and eight more could name two or three letters in the spring. This group of
30 contrasted with their 27 classmates who knew on average 11 of 15 letters in the
spring, having begun pre-kindergarten knowing zero to 13 letters.
Researchers conclude that younger children with less developed cognitive
skills are at risk for making little or no gain in letter knowledge skills. Results suggest
that public pre-kindergarten programs (which typically teach three and four year olds
together in large groups) are ineffective in teaching letter identification.
Research on entering kindergarteners also reveals the disparity in alphabet
knowledge between economically disadvantaged children and their peers from higher-
39
income families (Zill & West, 2001). The federally funded Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (Zill & West, 2001) recruited 22,000 firsttime kindergarteners, administered assessments in early reading skills, and scored
them according to five levels of proficiency. Assessment results (excluding 30%
Hispanic and 19% Asians due to limited English) demonstrated that 66% were
proficient at the first level; they could identify upper and lowercase alphabet letters by
name. Fewer children demonstrated proficiency at the second level; 29% could
associate letters with sounds at the beginning of words. Only 17% were proficient at
the third level, associating letters with sounds at the end of words. Conversely, 34% of
entering kindergarteners cannot identify alphabet letters by name, 61% cannot
associate letters with sounds at the beginning of words, and 83% cannot associate
letters with sounds at the end of words.
Findings indicated that the lowest scoring children have one or more of four
identified risk factors associated with poor academic achievement. For purposes of the
study, researchers identified risk factors as low maternal education, poverty, singleparent homes, and parents whose primary language is not English. Researchers found
that 46% of kindergartners have one or more of these risk factors, 31% have one, and
16% have two or more. Less than half of multiple risk children were at the first level
of proficiency. Forty-four percent of them could identify alphabet letters compared
with 57% of children in the single risk group and 75% of those in the no risk group.
Children who were proficient in identifying letters at kindergarten entry made more
40
progress in kindergarten and first grade, and scored higher on phonological and word
reading measures than children who were not proficient (Denton & West, 2002; West,
Denton, & Germino-Hausken, 2000). Furthermore, many children with multiple risks
had attended Head Start or a public pre-kindergarten program.
Instructional Sequence
Less research is available concerning alphabet letter instruction (Justice et al.,
2006; Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008). The National Early Literacy Panel’s meta-analysis
of code-focused interventions found only one study dealing with alphabet knowledge
by itself; it was most often included in training studies for phonological awareness
(Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008). Preschool literacy curricula offer a variety of
approaches to teaching the alphabet (Adams, 1990; Justice et al., 2006). Generally, the
instructional sequence recommended by experts begins with teaching letter names to
the point of mastery before introducing children to letter shapes followed by practice
printing letters. Instruction in letter-sound associations can begin when children can
easily recognize and identify letters.
Letter names. Adams (1990) recommends teaching letter names before
sounds and print for several reasons. First, historically instruction in letter names
precedes letter shapes, sounds, and print. Thus, there are precedents, materials (e.g.,
the alphabet song), and often generational support. Second, the letter name provides a
label for talking about letters and later the sounds of letters. Third, letter names
accelerate children’s awareness of critical differences in printed features of different
41
letters (A has a point at the top). In addition, letter names contain clues to their sounds
(Justice et al., 2006; Treiman & Rodriguez, 1999; Treiman, Tincoff, & RichmondWelty, 1996). Adams’ (1990) review of preschool studies shows that learning letter
names frequently turns into interest in their shapes and sounds; and that not knowing
letter names is associated with extreme difficulty in learning letter sounds and
beginning word recognition. Most children learn letter names by singing the alphabet
song (Adams, 1990; Bereiter & Engelmann, 1969; Ehri & Roberts, 2006). Letter
names are likely to be recalled by the song, just as the first few letters are usually
enough to remind children of the song.
Treiman et al. (1996) speculated that preschool children make connections
from print to speech by using links between letters in printed words (b in beach) and
letter names in the corresponding spoken words (the sound of /bi/ in the spoken word
beach). Children at this stage of development know that writing looks different from
drawing, but they do not know why. They have yet to develop the understanding that
alphabetic writing is a representation of spoken language. Evidence gathered in two
experiments with small samples of middle-class preschoolers illustrates the lettername effect upon associating sounds with their corresponding letters. In both
experiments, examiners asked children to give the first and last letters of words. A
screening process before the second experiment eliminated children who were unable
to give the initial letter of their first name because researchers found that children who
could not give the first initial of their first name were unlikely to be able to give the
42
beginning letter of other words. Most children in both experiments could tell that
beach and beaver began with b and deaf ended with f. Control words (not containing
the letter name in its pronunciation) such as bone, bonus and loaf proved more
difficult and most children failed at this task. Results indicate that letter-name
knowledge provides a clue to the sounds of letters.
Letter shapes. Once children have learned the names of alphabet letters, they
are ready to become acquainted with distinguishing characteristics of letter shapes
(Adams, 1990; Bereiter & Engelmann, 1969; Bowman et al., 2001; Ehri & Roberts,
2006; Snow et al., 1998).
Research differs about which letters to teach first. A recent study investigated
four hypotheses of the order for letter learning in a large sample of preschoolers
(Justice et al., 2006). Results of standardized assessments and a linear logistic analysis
confirmed the influence of all four hypotheses. The order of letter learning is not
random because some letters hold an advantage over others to influence their order of
learning. The most significant finding involved the own-name advantage, which
showed that children are one and a half times more likely to know letters in their own
name and seven times more likely to recognize their first initial. The letter-name
pronunciation effect also significantly influenced the order of letter learning. Children
were more likely to know letters whose names were contained in their pronunciation,
such as B and D. Justice and colleagues (2006) confirmed previous research
concerning the effect of letter-name pronunciation on children’s alphabet learning (see
43
Treiman et al., 1996). Furthermore, researchers found that the letters B, X, O, and A
were known by most of the children whereas V, U, N, and G were known by the
fewest. Instructional implications suggest that teachers should start with letter names
of easily distinguished letters, and then concentrate on letters that are not recognizable
by their name and letters not included in children’s names. Adams (1990) recommends
that the most commonly known letters (the first half of the alphabet) mark the starting
point for letter shape instruction followed by the least well-known (the second half of
the alphabet).
Upper- and lowercase letter introduction. Research differs regarding the
choice of whether to teach uppercase letters first or upper and lowercase
simultaneously. Adams (1990) suggests that children’s age or grade level could help
answer the question of which to teach first. Preschool children are likely to benefit
from instruction in uppercase first since these are more distinctive. Kindergartners and
first graders may benefit from instruction in lowercase letters first depending upon
when they are required to begin reading text.
Mastery versus exposure. Ehri and Roberts (2006) propose that at least 40
distinct letter shapes require instruction (after subtracting similar upper and lowercase
pairs). They agree with Adams’ (1990) recommendation of extensive practice “so that
children over learn and become fast and automatic at processing letters” (Ehri &
Roberts, 2006, p. 122). Adams (1990) states that “solid familiarity with the visual
shapes of the individual letters is an absolute prerequisite for learning to read” (p.
44
361). The ability to rapidly and automatically name letters from visual cues
consistently predicts ease of learning to read (Adams, 1990; National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, 2000). Children that are able to recognize and name
individual letters confidently and quickly have an easier time learning letter-sound
correspondences (Adams, 1990). Learning letter names and shapes is difficult and
time consuming due to arbitrary associations between meaningless bits of information,
which is another reason that experts advise extensive practice with letter names and
shapes to ensure over-learning to the point of mastery (Adams, 1990; Ehri & Roberts,
2006).
Practice printing letters. Several reading researchers (Adams, 1990; Bereiter
& Engelmann, 1969; Bowman et al., 2001; Ehri & Roberts, 2006; Snow et al., 1998)
suggest that writing promotes letter knowledge and phonemic awareness as it requires
beginners to “pull apart the sounds in words and represent them with plausible letters”
(Ehri & Roberts, 2006, p. 115). The California Preschool Learning Foundation (Abbot
et al., 2008) for writing advocates that by the end of preschool children should be able
to “write letters or letter-like shapes to represent words or ideas” as well as “write first
name nearly correctly” (Abbot et al., 2008, p. 70).
Drouin and Harmon (2009) caution early childhood educators that even though
children may be able to write their name, it is not indicative of alphabet knowledge.
Researchers tested the validity of name writing as a developmental assessment of preliteracy skills because of recommendations from early literacy experts. Participants
45
were 114 low- to- middle-income preschoolers in five preschool and childcare centers
in the Midwestern United States. None of the centers employed a standard literacy
curriculum. Instead, emergent literacy activities such as storybooks, letter play and
name recognition provided school readiness exercises. Explicit literacy instruction was
discouraged. A battery of literacy assessments including upper- and lowercase
naming, letter recognition, and name writing contributed data for analysis. Results
demonstrate a moderate to large correlation between name writing and letter
knowledge with noticeable incongruities. Almost half of the children (47%) showed
incongruities in name writing and corresponding letter knowledge. Of this group, 13%
could write all letters of their name but not recognize them, and 15% could recognize
letters in their name but not write them. A comparison analysis between these two
groups (controlling for effects of name length and letter difficulty of q, z, u, n, g, and
y) revealed that children who could recognize letters in their name but not write their
name have higher overall alphabet knowledge. Another comparison of children who
could write all letters in their name with a group who could write some letters reveals
that the group that could write all letters had no better alphabet knowledge than the
group who could write some. These results suggest that being able to write one’s own
name does not necessarily correspond with a literacy advantage. Thus, researchers
caution against early childhood educators use of name writing as anything other than
an assessment for mechanical skill.
46
Letter-sound associations. Preschool children who have learned letter names
and shapes can begin to use letters to acquire phonemic awareness (Ehri & Roberts,
2006; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Several
reading experts suggest that pre-kindergartners are capable of learning to recognize
and discriminate sounds at the beginning of words (Bowman et al., 2001; Ehri &
Roberts, 2006; Snow et al., 1998).
Integrated picture mnemonics. Integrated picture mnemonics incorporate
shapes of familiar objects into letter drawings (e.g., the letter S drawn as a snake, h as
a house with a chimney). Pairing instruction in letter-sound associations with
integrated picture mnemonics helps children retrieve sounds from memory when
presented with letters, thus reducing practice time (Adams, 1990; Ehri & Roberts,
2006).
Ehri, Defner, and Wilce (1984) examined the utility of integrated picture
mnemonics designed to link letters to sounds for easier recall. Two experiments
provide evidence for the effectiveness of integrated picture mnemonics in comparison
with a disassociated picture group and a control group without pictures.
Treatment group children learned five letter-sound associations, each
represented by a picture whose sound included the shape of the letter (e.g. f drawn in
the shape of a flower). Children in the disassociated-picture group learned the same
associations with pictures that were not included in the letter shape. The control group
also learned the same letter-sound associations with picture names but without
47
pictures. A comparison of pre-and post-test scores demonstrates the superiority of the
treatment group in learning letter-sound associations and more letter-picture
associations than the other groups. Experiment 1 test results show that the treatment
group correctly paired letter-sounds with pictures 98% of the time while the control
group correctly recalled sounds with pictures 78% of the time. For example, 100% of
the treatment group recalled /f/ drawn as a flower while only 16% of the control group
correctly paired f with /f/ and an unincorporated picture of a flower. Results suggest
that the ability to connect letter shapes with their sounds in memory was the key to
correct recall by the treatment group.
Mnemonics may be most useful for teaching children the sounds of letter
names that they do not already know as well as for teaching sounds that are not
contained in letter names, specifically, the short vowels and single consonants C, G,
H, W, and Y (Ehri & Roberts, 2006). This recommendation corresponds with Bereiter
and Engelmann’s (1969) suggestion that pre-kindergarten children learn all of the
short vowels and at least 15 consonant sounds.
Implicit Instruction
Traditional early childhood education policy and teacher preparation programs
encourage teacher beliefs that simply providing an abundance of materials, space, and
opportunities will foster literacy growth in young children through the process of selfdiscovery (Schickedanz, 2003). Proponents of the constructivist perspective (including
the California Preschool Learning Foundations, Abbot et al., 2008) advocate
48
developmentally appropriate practice comprised of informal activities, such as singing
the alphabet song, playing games with manipulative letters, having alphabet and
storybooks read to them, and watching videos (Abbot et al., 2010; Schickedanz, 2003;
Yopp & Yopp, 2009). The implicit assumption is that young children will make
inferences leading to deduction of the alphabetic principle.
Example of implicit instruction for letter recognition. Although provided as
an example of explicit instruction, it omits several important features making it a
better example of implicit instruction. Teachers play name games with children.
Teachers make a pair of identical name cards for each child. Name cards may include
helping photos, drawings or stickers. Teachers sort the cards into two sets. During
large group time, teachers hold up a card and ask, “Whose name is this?” Children
match their cards with the card held up by the teacher. Eventually, the teacher removes
the part of the card with the helping picture.
A variation played later on when children have become familiar with their own
name suggests that the teacher hang a Velcro strip on the wall near a box with name
cards containing a Velcro strip on the back. Children find their name each morning
and attach it to the Velcro strip. During circle time, the teacher reads the names with
the children discussing who is present and absent. She may select one or two names to
read again while pointing to each individual letter (Schickedanz, 2003, p. 68).
49
Explicit Instruction
Features of direct instruction include modeling or demonstration, guided
practice with corrective feedback, and review of previously taught material. At times,
experts suggest mastery of specific skills before progressing to the next level of
instruction. For example, the ability to name alphabet letters rapidly and automatically
greatly improves early decoding skills (Adams, 1990; Bereiter & Engelmann, 1969;
Ehri & Roberts, 2006; Snow et al., 1998). Hence, experts recommend teaching letter
recognition and identification skills to mastery.
Roberts (2003) demonstrated the suitability of direct instruction even for nonEnglish-speaking pre-kindergarten children from low-income families. After
determining with pre-tests that all 33 preschoolers had little to no letter knowledge,
Roberts randomly assigned children attending a state-funded pre-kindergarten to either
a letter-name treatment group or a control group. Children in the treatment group
participated in 16 weeks of direct instruction, three times a week, to learn letter names
for the first half of the alphabet (A-P). Meanwhile, the control group participated in
alphabet and storybook reading for comparison. Roberts wanted to confirm previous
research that children do not acquire alphabet knowledge through storybook reading
alone either at school or at home (Murray, Stahl, & Ivey, 1996).
After instruction, Roberts (2003) examined children’s ability to learn to read
three types word spellings; (a) words phonetically spelled with instructed letters (e.g.
BL for ball), (b) words phonetically spelled with uninstructed letters (e.g. ZR for
50
zipper), and (c) words with visually distinct letter spellings that were non-phonetic
(e.g. cN for ball). The treatment group outperformed the control group on post-test
letter-naming tasks indicating that explicit instruction in letter names resulted in a
34% advantage on end-of-treatment, letter-naming scores. Children in the letter-name
treatment group learned words phonetically spelled with instructed letters significantly
better than the control group. Children in the storybook group performed significantly
better on visually distinct words. The most significant finding is that children in the
storybook group remained in the pre-alphabetic phase while those in the letter-name
group advanced to the partial alphabetic phase. Results indicated that direct instruction
in letter-names is significantly more effective than informal learning experiences even
for English language learners.
Example of explicit instruction for letter names. Roberts (2003) study also
provides an example of explicit instruction for letter names. Lessons included the
direct instruction features of modeling, guided practice with corrective feedback, and
review of previously taught material.
Each day children came to the carpet singing the alphabet song. On Day 1, the
research assistant (acting as teacher) introduced the letter of the week by showing an
uppercase figure and having children say the name. A variety of activities followed,
such as making puzzles of the letter, finding the target letter among a bag of letters and
feeding it to a puppet, making letters from various materials, matching magnetic
letters and finding target letters in children’s names. Children remained actively
51
engaged with hands-on materials and choral response. Each child then received an
alphabet book opened to the page with the target letter. The research assistant guided
children in a discussion of the items and letter using child friendly language. Then
children “read” the alphabet book.
On days 2 and 3, the research assistant demonstrated writing the target letter
before distributing individual white boards and assisting children as they practiced
writing the target letter. Next, children gained further practice by participating in
additional activities from the first day’s lesson. Finally, the research assistant reviewed
letters taught during the week.
Example of explicit instruction for letter recognition. Rapid-paced practice
using the names of letters and locating distinctive characteristics (such as the point at
the top of the letter A) helps children become familiar with individual letters (Bereiter
& Engelmann, 1969). After first identifying it on a chart, the teacher prints a number
of A’s on the board of various sizes. The teacher says, “This letter is A. What letter is
this?” She points to different A’s and says, “This A is big” (or little) and asks children
to identify the letter and talk about its characteristics using complete sentences.
Most reading research concurs that precursors to code-related skills require
explicit instruction in a small group format (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1969; Ehri &
Roberts, 2006; Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008; Torgesen, 1998). The National Early
Literacy Panel’s (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008) meta-analysis found that, “there was no
evidence that effectiveness of code-focused interventions was influenced by age or
52
developmental level of the children” (p. 118). This suggests that activities and
procedures successful with kindergarten age children are also appropriate for prekindergarteners. Explicit instruction in alphabet knowledge helps build the foundation
for later reading by providing children with the prerequisite skills for developing
understanding of the alphabetic principle (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966; Ehri &
Roberts, 2006; Roberts, 2003; Snow et al, 1998).
Summary of alphabet knowledge. Alphabet knowledge refers to knowledge
of letter names, and some letter-sound correspondences. Research evidence clearly
demonstrates that young children do not learn precursors to code-related skills through
independent discovery (Ehri & Roberts, 2006; Molfese et al., 2006; Lonigan &
Shanahan, 2008). In fact, a recent report (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008) found that many
high-impact instructional strategies involved activities and procedures quite different
(explicit and systematic) from those typically seen in early childhood classrooms.
Direct instruction of alphabet knowledge produces substantial positive impacts
regardless of children’s age or prior literacy skills. Implicit instruction may be enough
for children who enter kindergarten having had thousands of hours of informal literacy
experiences guided by caring adults. However, for those without literacy rich early
environments, lacking in knowledge of letter names and sounds, there may be good
reason for concern that distinctions between letter names and sounds may become
confused (Adams, 1990). It is imperative that letter names and shapes are highly
53
familiar and discernable to children before beginning letter-sound instruction in order
to avoid confusion.
54
Chapter 3
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Research in early literacy development and standards from the California
Preschool Learning Foundations (Abbot et al., 2008) provide the basis for an
evaluation of code-related precursors in Houghton-Mifflin Pre-Kindergarten Language
and Literacy (Bredekamp et al., 2006). This chapter describes the development of
rubrics used to guide an examination of phonological awareness and alphabet
knowledge components. Following the section describing instrument development is
an account of the materials used extensively, including teacher guides. This chapter
concludes with a description of the procedure for analyzing learning objectives and
instruction in code-related precursors.
Instruments
Four rubrics developed to guide this evaluation include two that focus on
learning objectives for phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge, and two that
focus on characteristics of instructional delivery, again for phonological awareness
and alphabet knowledge.
Learning Objective Rubric Development
Phonological awareness. A comprehensive review of research and state
standards identified two dimensions of phonological awareness; the size of the sound
unit and the degree of task difficulty, which are influential in determining children’s
55
successful performance of phonological tasks (see Table 1). In general, task sequence
should progress from simple to complex.
Table 1
Two Dimensions of Phonological Awareness
Task
Sound unit
Syllables
Onset-rime
Isolate
Beginning
Middle
Final
/f/ unny
fu /n/ y
funn /ee/
Blend
2 phonemes
3 phonemes
fun-ny = funny
Segment
2 phonemes
3 phonemes
funny = fun-ny
Manipulate
Addition
Deletion
Substitution
Phonemes
f-un / n-y = funny
/a/ /t/
/f/ /a/ /t/
funny = f-un / n-y
at = /a/ /t/
fat = /f/ /a/ /t/
fat + /l/ = flat
fat – /f/ = at
fat - /f/ + /m =
mat
Phonological awareness objective rubrics include the above dimensions with
modifications (see Table 1). Words are included because research stresses the need for
young children to develop an awareness of words as discrete units of meaning prior to
working with words. Rhyme sensitivity develops early and rather quickly, provided
56
enough exposure to language, and is measurable in young children. Rhyming and
alliteration tasks may occur together in a scope and sequence, or alliteration might
follow syllables because alliteration tasks require children to pay attention to discrete
phonemes that may be difficult to discern within the speech stream. However,
according to Adams (1990), alliteration follows rhyme in degree of task difficulty,
hence, is a separate ability. Adams (1990) five levels of phonemic awareness
development, also recommended by several reading experts, provided the base for the
task sequence outlined in this rubric. The third column identifies curriculum
objectives. The number in parentheses indicates the total number of lessons that focus
on a particular sound unit. Citations for researchers are numbered and named at the
bottom of the table. Dashes indicate that research objectives are missing from the
curriculum.
Alphabet knowledge. Although research and state standards determined major
content categories, the variety of recommendations led to a different organization.
Represented in the form of sentences or phrases, the objectives range from broad, for
example, begin to recognize that letters have sounds (Abbot et al., 2008), to specific,
for example, begin instruction with familiar letters (A, B, C), then teach the least
familiar letters, in all capitals (Adams, 1990). The first column heading identifies
content (what children need to learn), which includes letter names, letter shapes, lettersounds, and practice printing letters. The second column identifies learning objectives
derived from research and state standards. The third column identifies curriculum
57
objectives including those pertaining to alphabet knowledge but found in the
curriculum under print concepts or writing, as indicated in parentheses.
Table 2
Phonological Awareness Objectives
Sound unit
Words in
sentences
Rhyme
Alliteratio
n
Syllables
Onset-rime
Phoneme
Isolation
Phoneme
Research task
Count (1,3,4)
Same or dif. (1)
Blend (2)
Delete (2)
Recite (1,7)
Identify (1,7)
Produce(1,3,4,7)
Repeat (1, 3)
Identify(1,3)
Produce (1, 3)
Blend (1,2,3,4)
Seg. (1,3,4)
Delete (2)
Blend (2,5,7)
Segment (4,5,7)
Delete (2)
Beg. (1,3,4,6)
End (1,4,6,)
Blend 2 (1,2,4)
Blend 3(1,2,3,4,6)
Segment 2 (4,6)
Segment 3 (4,6)
Manipulate(1,3,4,6)
HM task
Weeks of
instruction
Total #
lessons
Average #
lessons/wk
Count (PC)
Same/dif.
Repeat
Identify
Produce
Listen
Match
Produce
Blend
Segment
Blend
Segment
Beg.
End
Blend 2
Blend 3
Segment 2
Segment 3
Substitute
Notes. 1= Adams, 1990; 2= California Department of Education, 2009; 3=
Engelmann, 1969; 4= Snider, 1995; 5= Treiman & Zukowski, 1991; 6= Yopp, 1992;
7= Yopp & Yopp, 2009. -- = missing from curriculum. (PC) = Print Concept
58
Table 3
Alphabet Knowledge Objectives
Focus
Research Objective
HM Objective
Knows that letters can
be named
Letter
Name
Over-learn letter
names before shapes
(print) (Adams, 1990)
Knows order & recites
in sequence
Identifies 10 or more
letters by name
Identifies all 26 letters
by name, in random
order
Recognize own name
or other common
words in print (CDE,
2008)
Letter
Name
and
Shape
Begin instruction with
familiar letters A, B,
C, then less familiar,
in all capitals. (Adams,
1990).
Rapid and automatic
naming of letters from
visual cues (Adams,
1990; Ehri & Roberts,
2006; National
Institute of Child
Health and Human
Development, 2000).
Recognizes similarities
and differences
Recognizes own written
name
Notices the beginning
letters of familiar words
Identifies upper- and
lowercase letters
Order of letters: Ss, Pp,
Tt, Oo, Xx, Uu, Yy,
Ww, Ff, Aa, Zz, Bb,
Mm, Rr, Cc, Qq, Vv, Jj,
Hh, Ii, Gg, Ee, Dd, Ll,
Nn, Kk
Matches upper- and
lowercase letters
Week
# of
lesson
Ave. #
les/wk
59
Focus
Letter
Name
and
Shape
Letter
Sound
Research Objective
Match more than half
of upper- and
lowercase letter names
to their printed form
(CDE, 2008)
Associate letter names
with shapes
Pair instruction with
integrated picture
mnemonics (Adams,
1990; Ehri & Roberts,
2006).
Order of letter-sounds:
/f/, /a/, /z/, /b/, /m/, /r/, c
/k/, q /kw/, /v/, /j/, /h/,
/i/, g /g/, /e/, /d/, /l/, /n/,
/k/
Begin to recognize
that letters have
sounds (CDE, 2008)
Notices initial sound
Be familiar with all
short vowels and at
least 15 consonants
(Bereiter &
Engelmann, 1966).
Writes first name
nearly correctly (CDE,
2008)
Print
HM Objective
Practice printing
promotes letter
knowledge and
phonemic awareness
(Adams, 1990;
Bereiter &
Engelmann, 1969;
Bowman, Donovan, &
Burns, 2001; Ehri &
Roberts, 2006)
Writes letters or letterlike shapes to
represent words or
ideas (CDE, 2008)
Selects 8-10 letters to
stand for sounds
Matches some letters
with their sounds
Knows that letters form
words (PC)
Writes own name using
upper- and lowercase
letters (W)
Distinguishes letters
from numbers (PC)
Uses known letters to
represent written
language (W)
Knows that words are
separated by spaces
(PC)
Writes five or more
recognizable letters (W)
Note, (PC) = Print Concepts; (W) = Writing
Week
# of
lesson
Ave. #
les/wk
60
Sequence and frequency. In addition to content, instruction should follow a
logical, sequential pattern of task difficulty in order to ensure successful acquisition.
Column headings for learning objective rubrics contain information concerning when
the lesson occurs as well as how often it occurs because practicing a task helps to
secure it in memory and some tasks are more difficult than others are, thus require
more practice.
Instructional Delivery Rubric Development
Based on principles of effective instruction for code-related precursors,
instructional delivery rubrics include headings that reflect the five features of direct
instruction, teacher modeling, guided practice, corrective feedback, review and
reteach, and progress monitoring.
61
Table 4
Instructional Delivery for Phonological Awareness
Sound Unit
Objective
Count (PC)
Words
Same or dif
Repeat
Rhyme
Identify
Produce
Listen
Alliteration
Match
Produce
Syllables
Blend
Segment
Blend
Onset-rime
Segment
Isolate
Phoneme
Blend
Segment
Total
Model
Guided
Practice
Corrective
Feedback
Review/
Reteach
Monitor
Progress
62
Table 5
Instructional Delivery for Alphabet Knowledge
Content
Letter
Names
Letter
Names and
Shapes
Objective
Model
Guided
Practice
Corrective
Feedback
Review/
Reteach
Monitor
Progress
Recite
Recognize
Identify
Match
Beginning
Letter
Sounds
Vowels
Consonants
Print
Practice
Total
Materials
Basic components in Houghton-Mifflin Pre-Kindergarten Language and
Literacy (Bredekamp et al., 2006) are a series of 10 teacher guides (each comprising
three weeks of instruction), big books, an alphafriend package that includes the ABC
Wall Display, and letter, picture, and oral language cards. Each theme includes three
big books, one read-aloud book, seven oral language cards, four rhyme and chant
posters, one audio compact disc for literature and music, and one teacher guide.
Assessment materials include individual and classroom observation checklists as well
as benchmark assessments.
63
Teacher guides provide detailed information of what children are to learn
(content), when they are to learn it (timing and sequence), and how it is taught
(method). Essential elements of the curriculum examination, teacher guides include
the scope and sequence, theme, weekly, and daily learning objectives. Teacher guides
also contain daily large group lessons in phonological awareness and alphabet
knowledge with one small group lesson each week. Each teacher guide contains
information for observations of children’s performance indicating growth with
checklists to record children’s progress.
Procedure
Literature Search for Rubric Development
First, a search of relevant literature including reviews of seminal works, recent
research on early literacy development, national reports, and the California preschool
standards provided background for rubric development. To begin, clear definitions of
phonological awareness (sometimes confused with phonemic awareness) and alphabet
knowledge (some think it means the ability to identify and name some letters) seemed
essential. Then, content objectives (what to teach) and instructional sequence (when to
teach it) taken from the literature became the basis for the construction of learning
objective rubrics. Recommendations for effective instruction as being explicit with
identifiable features led to the construction of rubrics designed to examine
instructional delivery (how to teach it).
64
Curriculum Analysis
Objectives. I examined the curriculum objectives, first for phonological
awareness, and then alphabet knowledge. Using the learning objective rubric as a
guide, I examined the scope and sequence to identify the major goals of instruction.
Next, I examined theme, weekly, and daily learning goals for the entire academic year
to record information on incremental goals, and confirm that lessons progressed in a
logical manner. Then, I recorded the weeks of instruction identified in the scope and
sequence, and checked each week to get information about which objectives received
instructional priority. Finally, I counted the lessons for each objective and calculated
the average to ascertain lesson frequency and determine if children receive enough
opportunities to practice higher-level skills.
Alphabet knowledge objectives number seventeen including those found in the
scope and sequence, weekly, and daily goals, as well as some taken from print
concepts and writing because practice printing letters promotes letter knowledge.
Appendix A includes all objectives while the rubrics focused on those that receive
instructional emphasis.
Instruction. I examined 64 daily lessons covering each objective over the
course of the academic year to gather evidence of explicit instruction features, first for
phonological awareness, and then alphabet knowledge. Using the instructional rubric
as a guide, I tallied each instance of explicit instruction for each feature. I totaled the
instances and averaged them for overall evidence of explicit instruction.
65
Modeling. For teacher modeling, I scrutinized introductory lessons for
evidence that the teacher shows or demonstrates the new task instead of telling
children what to do. I paid close attention to the first few lessons because children may
need more than one demonstration. As well as the use of “show” or “demonstrate” in
lessons, evidence counted as modeling behavior if the teacher performed the task
before asking children to do so, such as skywriting letters. For the purpose of this
study, statements such as “encourage children to join in” did not count as an example
of explicit modeling.
Guided practice. In guided practice, the teacher may perform the task with
children or observe and assist as needed. In either case, the teacher enables successful
task completion by scaffolding instruction (providing clues and simplifying tasks),
gradually releasing responsibility of task performance to the children. An example of
guided practice might be the teacher giving clues to help children identify a specific
letter such as, “Capital A has a point on top”. For the purpose of this study, telling
children words and asking if they rhyme did not count as guided practice.
Corrective feedback. Corrective feedback provides teachers with suggestions
that help children successfully complete educational tasks. Randomly placed extra
support suggestions counted as corrective feedback if they explicitly stated what
teachers were to do or say to assist children having difficulty completing a task
successfully.
66
Review and reteach. Opportunities for review of previously learned material
helps to secure new information in memory. Revisiting material provides opportunities
for extra practice and reinforcement of concepts or skills. Acceptable evidence of
review could be in the form of statements to remind children of something previously
taught such as, “Rhyming words sound the same in the middle and at the end”. For
children having difficulty, the teacher may reteach the skill by simplifying it and
scaffolding instruction. For example, if children are having difficulty identifying
rhyming words with choices, the teacher may reduce the number of choices and say
the targeted word before each choice such as, “street, feet; street, house”.
Progress monitoring. Strategies for progress monitoring inform instruction
and ensure that children master easier skills before attempting those that are more
difficult. While observational checklists can be useful for this purpose, observed skills
should be measureable and occur frequently. Closing tasks or activities related to the
objective provide teachers with a quick assessment of whether or not the lesson
successfully enabled a child to meet the learning objective. For example, the teacher
might hold up capital letter card S and ask a small group of children to find the
matching lowercase letter from a group of cards. The teacher can use this information
to modify the next day’s instruction by reteaching the letter shape.
The next chapter reveals findings from the curriculum examination for
objectives and instruction in phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge.
67
Chapter 4
RESULTS
This chapter presents the findings from an evaluation of Houghton Mifflin PreKindergarten Language and Literacy Program (Bredekamp et al., 2006) for coderelated precursors. It begins with an evaluation of phonological awareness objectives
in the curriculum with recommendations from research and the California Preschool
Learning Foundations (Abbot et al., 2008). Next is an evaluation of the evidence for
features of explicit instruction in phonological awareness lessons. Then, research
recommendations form the basis for an evaluation of alphabet knowledge objectives in
the curriculum. This chapter concludes with an evaluation of explicit instruction
features in the alphabet knowledge component.
Phonological Awareness Objectives
Table 6 summarizes results of the curriculum examination for phonological
awareness objectives. The curriculum covers an academic year (30 weeks) with a
lesson in phonological awareness each day and one small group lesson each week.
Houghton-Mifflin Pre-Kindergarten Language and Literacy Program (Bredekamp et
al., 2006) identifies two or more teaching objectives each day totaling 265 lessons in
phonological awareness. This organization shows learning tasks that receive
instructional priority and allows the curriculum to be evaluated using the rubric based
on research and state standards (California Preschool Learning Foundations, Abbot et
al., 2008).
68
Table 6
Phonological Awareness Objectives - Results
Sound unit
Research task
HM task
Weeks of
instruction
17, 26
1-6
--1-3
4-10
8, 9, 28
10-13
13-19
16,19,20,29
6-10,12, 13
10, 12, 13
-7,22-25, 30
23, 24, 30
-19-22, 29
29
25-27
26, 30
30
30
30
Total #
lessons
2
12
--19
33
10
18
37
4
15
9
-25
9
-21
6
16
18
-6
5
Average #
lessons/wk
1/2
2/6
--6/3
5/7
3/3
4/4
5/7
1/4
2/7
3/3
-5/5
3/3
-4/5
6/1
5/3
6/2
-6/1
5/1
Count (1,3,4)
Count (PC)
Same or dif. (1)
Same/dif.
Words in
sentences (14)
Blend (2)
-Delete (2)
-Recite (1,7)
Repeat
Rhyme (62)
Identify (1,7)
Identify
Produce(1,3,4,7)
Produce
Repeat (1, 3)
Listen
Identify(1,3)
Match
Alliteration (59)
Produce (1, 3)
Produce
Blend (1,2,3,4)
Blend
Syllables (24)
Seg. (1,3,4)
Segment
Delete (2)
-Blend (2,5,7)
Blend
Onset-rime (34)
Segment (4,5,7)
Segment
Delete (2)
-Beg.
(1,3,4,6)
Beg.
Phoneme
isolation (27)
End (1,4,6,)
End
Blend 2 (1,2,4)
Blend 2
Blend 3(1,2,3,4,6)
Blend 3
Phoneme (45)
Segment 2 (4,6)
Segment 2
Segment 3 (4,6)
Segment 3
Manipulate(1,3,4,6
Substitute
)
Note. 1= Adams, 1990; 2= California Department of Education, 2009; 3= Engelmann,
1969; 4= Snider, 1995; 5= Treiman & Zukowski, 1991; 6= Yopp, 1992; 7= Yopp &
Yopp, 2009. -- = missing from curriculum.
69
Content
Curriculum objectives address each level of development along the continuum
of phonological awareness. Two tasks are missing at two levels, deletion of syllables
from words, and deletion of the onset from the rime part of a word. However, in the
research literature reviewed for this study, only the California Preschool Learning
Foundations (Abbot et al., 2008) identified deletion of syllables and onsets as an
important skill to develop.
Sequence
The instructional sequence in the curriculum agrees with research
recommendations except for developing word awareness. Research suggests that a
brief, intensive course in word awareness at the beginning of the school year may be
necessary for disadvantaged children. Teaching children to count words in sentences
helps them understand the concept of words as separate units of meaning. The
curriculum does include both research objectives for word awareness, but the
sequence is backwards. Instruction begins with children learning to tell whether a
word is the same or different and does not teach children to count words in sentences
until weeks 17 and 26. At this point, children have been working with words at least
half of the school year, possibly without having a clear understanding of the concept.
Another significant difference between research and the curriculum is apparent
from phonemic awareness instruction during the last week of school. Research
recommends that children work on no more than two tasks at a time, while the
70
curriculum suggests children work on several at once. During the last week of school,
children work on blending two phoneme words and onsets with rimes, segmenting two
and three phoneme words and onsets from rimes, as well as the phoneme manipulation
task of substitution, which is the most difficult. The risk of confusion increases with
each additional task potentially delaying phonemic awareness development and
acquisition of the alphabetic principle.
Frequency
Figure 1 shows the amount of instructional time allotted for each level of
phonological awareness. On the positive side, the curriculum does allot 27% of
instructional time to developing phonemic awareness. Also positive is the fact that
tasks at the phoneme level focus on isolation (10%) and blending (13%), two skills
important to develop prior to kindergarten entry. Research suggests that although
important, rhyme and alliteration skills are also the easiest to acquire. Yet, Figure 2
shows that rhyme and alliteration tasks receive instructional priority over syllable level
tasks. Research recommends that children master skills at the syllable level before
beginning to work with phonemes. Yet, tasks at the syllable level receive only nine per
cent of instructional time while those at the rhyme and alliteration level receive 46%
of instructional time. Furthermore, syllable level tasks receive less instructional time
than onset-rime tasks, even though research suggests that it is not necessary for
children to master onset-rime tasks. A further breakdown shows that children work on
71
syllable segmentation only three per cent of the time. This suggests that it is highly
unlikely that children will master syllable level tasks.
5%
27%
23%
Word
Rhyme
Alliteration
Syllables
Onset-rime
13%
Phoneme
23%
9%
Figure 1. Frequency of Instruction for Phonological Awareness Levels.
Instructional Delivery for Phonological Awareness
Table 7 displays the results of an in-depth examination of 64 daily lessons
covering each objective over the course of the academic year. The number of instances
found for each feature indicates the presence of direct instruction. The total number of
instances for each feature is at the end of the column along with the overall percentage
for its presence in the curriculum. The predominant approach to instruction appears to
be implicit as indicated by the overall percentage of instances found in the curriculum
(15%). Next, is a consideration of findings for each feature of direct instruction.
72
Table 7
Instructional Delivery for Phonological Awareness - Results
Sound Unit
Words
Rhyme
Alliteration
Syllables
Onset-rime
Phoneme
Total
Objective
Model
Guided
Practice
Corrective
Feedback
Review
Monitor
Progress
Count
--
--
1
--
--
Same or dif
--
--
--
--
--
Repeat
--
--
--
--
--
Identify
1
--
1
5
--
Produce
--
1
2
--
--
Listen
--
2
1
--
--
Match
--
4
1
--
--
Produce
--
2
--
--
--
Blend
3
5
2
--
--
Segment
--
--
--
--
--
Blend
2
1
--
--
--
Segment
3
1
--
--
--
Isolate
1
1
1
--
--
Blend
--
--
--
--
--
Segment
--
--
--
--
--
10 = 16%
5 = 7%
--
64 Lessons
10 = 16% 18 = 28%
Note, -- indicates absence of the feature from the curriculum.
73
Modeling. There was little evidence of teacher modeling behavior as indicated
by the use of words such as “show”, “demonstrate”, or “model”. Sixteen percent of the
64 lessons showed evidence of the teacher performing a task, although not always
before asking children to do it. For example, the teacher asks children if mother and
brother rhyme before the explaining that rhyming words sound alike in the middle and
at the end. The curriculum used words such as “tell”, “explain”, and “encourage”,
without providing teachers the content.
Guided practice. Twenty-eight percent of the 64 lessons showed evidence of
guided practice. If the curriculum advised teachers to give clues or help children
perform a task, it counted as evidence for guided practice. For example, the teacher
says the word build – ing, and then asks the children if they know what she said. The
curriculum tells the teacher to blend the syllables to help them name the word. The
teacher alternately tells children to help her put the word together or to blend the word
without explaining the term blend. However, if the teacher simply asks children to do
something without providing clues or assistance, it did not count as guided practice.
For example, the teacher said two words (shoe, shoe) and asked children if they were
the same or different.
Corrective feedback. Sixteen percent of the 64 lessons showed evidence of
corrective feedback. These were in the form of intermittent extra support suggestions;
otherwise, the curriculum did not provide teachers with ideas for correcting children’s
efforts. The curriculum appears to expect that children will perform the task
74
successfully the first time because the teacher usually responds by saying, “That’s
right!”
Review and reteach. The curriculum provides opportunities for reviewing
phonological tasks only 7% of the time. Only rhyme identification tasks include
suggestions for teachers to remind children that rhyming words sound alike in the
middle and at the end. Reteaching is included here because review may provide
opportunities for the teacher to determine whether reteaching is necessary, although
the curriculum does not provide any suggestions on how to reteach.
Progress monitoring. The curriculum does not provide specific closing tasks
that allow teachers to assess whether children successfully have met lessons
objectives. The only guidance for progress monitoring is observation checklists
included with each theme and six notes in sidebars with suggestions of things to look
for that might indicate growth in meeting benchmarks. Benchmark assessments are
scripted, individual tests for word parts and beginning sounds. The 19-item word part
test consists of three practice items before showing a picture and asking the child to
say the first part of a word. The 19-item beginning sound test also has three practice
items. Then the examiner points to a picture, names it, and asks the child to say the
first sound in the picture.
Alphabet Knowledge Objectives
Houghton-Mifflin Pre-Kindergarten Language and Literacy Program
(Bredekamp et al., 2006) includes all of the alphabet knowledge content identified by
75
research as important to develop prior to kindergarten. Curriculum content agrees with
research recommendations in that it offers teachers guidance for instructing children in
letter names, letter shapes, letter-sound associations, and practice printing letters.
Table 8 summarizes results of the curriculum analysis for objectives and affords a
comparison with objectives from research (see Appendix A for a complete list). This
section presents a few concerns. Then, Table 8 presents results of the curriculum
examination for features of explicit instruction.
Content
Teaching objectives state instructional goals and should be measureable to
record student progress. A complete list of objectives in the appendix includes three
that are too specific, (a) “identifies 10 or more letters by name”, (b) identifies all 26
letters by name, in random order”, and (c) “selects 8-10 letters to stand for sounds”
(they actually assess student knowledge). Objectives that are or should be emphasized
according to research have been included in Table 8. Two areas that prompted some
concern were “notice letters or sounds at the beginning of words”, and the introduction
of three short vowel sounds, /a/, /e/, and /i/.
It is difficult to determine if children “notice” letters or sounds. If children
point to letters and name them, the task actually measures knowledge of letter names
and their printed form. The objective “notice initial sounds” prompts the same
concern; it is vague and has more than one connotation. Recent research suggests that
pre-kindergarten children are able to learn to recognize and discriminate sounds with
76
letters at the beginning of words, yet 61% of entering kindergartners cannot do so (Zill
& West, 2001). A more specific objective such as, “demonstrates the ability to
associate sounds with letters at the beginning of words” would be useful.
Table 8
Alphabet Knowledge Objectives - Results
Content
Research
Letter
Names
Over-learn letter
names before print
(Adams, 1990)
Letter
Names and
Shapes
Begin instruction
with familiar letters,
then less familiar, in
all capitals (Adams,
l990).
Recognize own
name or other
common words in
print (CDE, 2008)
Average
# of
less/wk
HM
Week
# of
lessons
Knows order &
recites in
sequence
17, 28
2
1/2
Recognizes
similarities and
differences
1,2,4
10
3/3
Recognizes own
written name
1,3
8
4/2
Notices the
beginning letters
of familiar words
3,5,6,10- 89
30
4/23
Associate letter
names with
shapes
7-9, 12,
20-21,
23-24,
26-27
2/20
20
77
# of
lessons
Average
# of
less/wk
4, 6-16,
19-30
26
1/23
Matches upperand lowercase
letters
5-30
74
3/25
Introduced to
letter-sounds
13-30
85
5/17
Notices initial
sound
13-30
40
2/17
22, 29
2
1/2
Content
Research
HM
Week
Identifies upperand lowercase
letters
Letter
Names and
Shapes
Rapid and automatic
naming of letters
from visual cues
(Adams, 1990; Ehri
& Roberts, 2006;
National Institute of
Child Health and
Human
Development, 2000).
Match more than
half of upper- and
lowercase letter
names to their
printed form (CDE,
2008)
Pair instruction with
integrated picture
mnemonics (Adams,
1990; Ehri &
Roberts, 2006).
Begin to recognize
that letters have
sounds (CDE, 2008)
Letter
Sounds
Associate sounds
with letters at the
beginning of words
(Bowman, Donovan,
& Burns, 2001;
Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998; Zill &
West, 2001)
Be familiar with all
vowels and at least
15 consonants
(Bereiter &
Engelmann, 1966).
Matches some
letters with their
sounds
78
Content
Print
Research
HM
Week
Practice printing
promotes letter
knowledge and
phonemic awareness
(Adams, 1990;
Bereiter &
Engelmann, 1969;
Bowman, Donovan,
& Burns, 2001; Ehri
& Roberts, 2006)
Uses known
letters to
represent written
language (W)
8-16,
19-22,
# of
lessons
Average
# of
less/wk
64
3/20
Consistent with research (at least 15 consonant sounds), the curriculum
introduces children to 17 consonant sounds. However, three of the five short vowel
sounds are introduced, /a/, /e/, and /i/. A problem with teaching /i/ and /e/ together is
that they sound alike and may confuse children, especially English language learners
whose primary language is Spanish. It might be better to teach /a/, /i/, and /o/.
Sequence
Results point out a significant difference between research recommendations
and the sequence of instruction in the curriculum. Instruction in letter names, shapes,
and sounds is concurrent rather than sequential. The order of letter learning for both
shapes and sounds appears to be random. Recommendations from research suggest
that instruction for letter shapes should begin with easily distinguished letters known
by many children, such as letters that are recognizable by their name, or letters
included in children’s names.
79
Letter names and shapes. Using the ABC Wall, the curriculum introduces
children to letter names and shapes (both upper- and lowercase) for the entire alphabet
on the first day of school. Research recommends that children over-learn letter names
before introduction to shapes for several reasons and several suggest teaching
uppercase first because they are more distinctive. Research points out that learning
letter shapes is difficult because of the arbitrary associations between letter names and
shapes. Children need abundant opportunities to practice before they become
automatic at letter naming.
Letter-sounds. The curriculum introduces children to learn letter-sound
associations in the 13th week of school, when many are still trying to grasp letter
names and shapes. Research suggests that children be able to name randomly
presented letters rapidly and automatically before instruction in letter-sounds.
Frequency
As shown in Figure 2, letter names and shapes receive priority in alphabet
knowledge instruction. While research recommends that children have many
opportunities to practice associating letter names and shapes, a prerequisite is overlearning letter names. Since letter name instruction alone comprises less than 1% of
the curriculum, it is unlikely that children will have the opportunity to over-learn
them. Although children begin to print letters during alphabet instruction, practice
occurs in the writing center so it is not included in this data. Noticing initial sounds of
words comprises approximately 12% of instructional time. Research has pointed out
80
that the ability to associate sounds at the beginning of words is lacking in the majority
of entering kindergarteners. This indicates that more instructional time spent on
recognizing and discriminating beginning sounds may be beneficial as children
develop this skill.
Instructional Delivery for Alphabet Knowledge
Houghton-Mifflin Pre-Kindergarten Language and Literacy Program
(Bredekamp et al., 2006) uses the letter of the week approach to teach letter
knowledge. Table 9 summarizes findings from an examination of 40 lessons over the
course of the academic year for evidence of five instructional features.
0%
37%
Letter Names >1%
Letter Names & Shapes 62%
Letter Sounds 37%
62%
Figure 2. Frequency of Alphabet Knowledge Instruction.
81
Modeling. Twenty-eight of 40 lessons (approximately 70%) exhibited explicit
evidence of teacher modeling. Activities counted as modeling if the teacher sang or
recited the alphabet, which was the case in 18 lessons. It also counted as evidence of
teacher modeling if the teacher demonstrated a task before asking children to do it,
such as skywriting or tracing letters. However, simply encouraging children to join in
singing the alphabet song did not count as teacher modeling.
Table 9
Instructional Delivery for Alphabet Knowledge - Results
Model
Guided
Practice
Corrective
Feedback
Review
Monitor
Progress
Recite
11
--
--
--
1
Recognize
1
4
2
4
6
Identify
2
8
6
6
6
Match
--
3
1
2
4
Beginning
2
3
--
1
1
Vowels
1
1
--
1
1
--
--
--
2
1
Print
Consonant
s
Practice
3
2
--
1
--
Total
40 Lessons
28 = 70%
21 = 52%
9 = 23%
17 = 43%
20 = 50%
Content
Names
Letter
Shapes
Letter
Sounds
Objective
Note, -- indicates absence of the feature from the curriculum.
Guided practice. Twenty-one of 40 lessons (52%) showed evidence of guided
practice. Instruction counted as guided practice when the teacher provided clues that
82
helped children perform a task such as finding letters on the wall display or when the
teacher provided explicit guidance to remember letter shapes, (it goes straight down,
makes a curve, and goes straight up). It did not count as guided practice when the
teacher asks questions and waits for a response (where is capital G on the wall
display).
Corrective feedback. Suggestions for corrective feedback are conspicuously
absent from the alphabet knowledge strand of the curriculum. The only suggestions for
corrective feedback are sidebars called Extra Support, nine of which are included
across forty lessons (23%). For example, if children are having difficulty finding the
letters Ss in book titles, then the teacher tells them to focus only on the first letter of
words in titles.
Review. Friday lessons that include a review for the letter of the week
comprise 17 of 40 lessons (43%), yet evidence points to an adequate rather than strong
rating. On Friday, the teacher asks children if they remember the name of the targeted
letter, says the letter name with children, and then has children look for words that
begin with the targeted letter in books, as well as match magnetic letters to the Big
Book. A daily review might reinforce new information and be more appropriate for
pre-kindergarten. In addition, previously introduced letters need constant review.
Progress monitoring. Strategies for monitoring children’s progress in
alphabet knowledge include observational checklists and benchmark assessments.
Teachers may collect work samples in a student portfolio as well. Twenty of forty
83
(50%) lessons include side notes with specific things to look for in children’s task
performance to gauge progress. For example, while copying their name from name
cards in the writing center, the curriculum directs teachers to observe if children are
able to identify letters in their own name. The benchmark assessment for alphabet
knowledge consists of a letter recognition test administered three times a year.
Students point to and name letters presented in random order, a variety of sizes, with
upper- and lowercase together. The curriculum did not contain specific closing tasks
that measure how well children met lesson objectives and provide teachers with
information to tailor instruction to children’s needs.
Summary
Houghton-Mifflin Pre-Kindergarten Language and Literacy Program
(Bredekamp et al., 2006) includes all content and phonological units as recommended
by research. A significant weakness in the phonological awareness component is a
lack of adequate lessons at the syllable level. The alphabet knowledge component also
includes all content, however the concurrent teaching of letter names and shapes does
not agree with research recommendations. Furthermore, letter sound instruction begins
before children have had a chance to master letter names and shapes, which may lead
to confusion. The next chapter presents a discussion and recommendations.
84
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Findings from this examination of Houghton-Mifflin Pre-Kindergarten
Language and Literacy Program (Bredekamp et al., 2006) reveal significant
weaknesses in the curriculum’s treatment of phonological awareness and alphabet
knowledge. This chapter begins with a review of strengths then discusses areas of
concern. Next, survey results from a small sample of teachers gives their opinion of
the curriculum’s effectiveness at providing instructional guidance for code-related
precursors. Finally, a conclusion and recommendations complete this chapter.
Phonological Awareness
Objectives
Content included in the curriculum covers each level of phonological
awareness in a sequence that agrees with research except for word awareness. Word
counting exercises occur in the middle and at the end of the year (weeks 17 and 26).
This contrasts with research, which recommends an intensive course in word
awareness before beginning instruction in phonological awareness, especially for
disadvantaged children.
A significant weakness concerning instructional priority is that syllable level
skills receive only nine per cent of instructional time, while rhyme and alliteration
activities take up 46% of instructional time. While sensitivity to rhyme and alliteration
develops early and relatively easily (Adams, 1990), syllable blending and
85
segmentation skills require more practice to achieve mastery before phonemic
awareness instruction (Adams, 1990; Snider, 1995). Syllabic awareness is an essential
link between rhyme sensitivity and the ability to recognize individual phonemes,
therefore syllables warrant more attention than the curriculum gives.
Instruction
The predominant instructional approach is implicit, consisting mainly of songs,
rhymes, chants, and games. Proponents of the constructivist perspective believe that
child-directed activities are more developmentally appropriate for pre-kindergarten
children. This does not preclude explicit instruction for code-related precursors,
however, and there is no reason why both approaches cannot coexist in the prekindergarten classroom.
Alphabet Knowledge
Objectives
The curriculum includes all alphabet knowledge content recommended by
research including practice in printing letters. However, one area of concern in the
scope and sequence is concurrent instruction for letter names and shapes. Introduction
to letter-sound associations before children they have mastered letter naming skills
may lead to confusion. Introducing children to print and letter- sounds before they
have reached automaticity in letter naming may also lead to confusion. Confusion may
result in delays and difficulty acquiring the alphabetic principle (Adams, 1990; Ehri &
Roberts, 2006).
86
Instruction
Basic curriculum materials include an Alphafriend package that integrates
mnemonics with letters as recommended by research. However, research recommends
explicit instruction for code-related precursors and the curriculum’s predominant
approach is informal. Features of explicit instruction, such as teacher modeling are
weak. For example, the curriculum tells teachers to sing or say the alphabet while
pointing to letters on the wall display. The assumption is that children are correctly
associating letter names with letters to which the teacher is pointing. However, as
Bodrova et al. (1999) found, kindergarteners often assign letter names to the letter
either before or after the correct letter. It is difficult for teachers to monitor where
children are focusing their eyes during large group instruction, particularly if she has
to turn her back to the children to point to the letters. Children’s misconceptions may
continue unchecked, making it difficult to remedy in primary school.
Teacher Survey
Results of a small teacher survey demonstrate that five out of seven are
satisfied with the curriculum’s guidance for phonological awareness and alphabet
knowledge instruction. Only one teacher expressed strong dissatisfaction with the
curriculum’s guidance for phonological awareness instruction. All teachers reported
gains in student progress; however, they attributed it to supplemental materials. One
teacher reported working with a speech therapist on a special project that involved
87
teaching children phoneme identity. Others reported using ideas from Creative
Curriculum and LLEAPS training to supplement the curriculum. All teachers reported
using puzzles, games, art and craft projects, and manipulatives to enhance the
curriculum.
Conclusion
This descriptive study reveals significant discrepancies between research
recommendations and the Houghton-Mifflin Pre-Kindergarten Language and Literacy
Program (Bredekamp et al., 2006) curriculum’s approach to instruction. Although it
claims to be research based, the evidence suggests that the predominant instructional
approach appears to be implicit rather than explicit. The curriculum adheres to the
constructivist perspective and child rather than teacher-directed activities. Recent
research and federal guidelines recommend explicit instruction for code-related
precursors to reading. If state-funded pre-kindergarten programs designed to close the
achievement gap are to succeed, high-quality curriculum that incorporates features of
explicit instruction for the code-related precursors of phonological awareness and
alphabet knowledge is an essential tool.
Study limitations temper conclusions. First, the small sample of teachers as
wells as the fact that only the teacher manuals and instructional materials were
examined do not permit conclusions regarding implementation. Second, minimumtraining requirements for pre-kindergarten teachers in California imply that their
judgment of program effectiveness may be less sophisticated than that of a teacher
88
with more professional knowledge. Third, possible design flaws in the rubrics
themselves may have inadvertently caused me to miss an important subtlety in the
curriculum, which may have affected results.
Recommendations
Teachers may need to complement the curriculum with supplemental materials
and explicit teaching strategies. Modeling, extra practice, corrective feedback, and
frequent progress checks (especially of syllable level skills and letter naming) to
ensure student mastery may improve child outcomes. Teachers may need to modify
the instructional sequence for alphabet knowledge by delaying exposure to printed
letters until children can name letters rapidly and automatically. Professional
development could help teachers adapt curriculum to align with research
recommendations.
State-funded pre-kindergarten programs typically instruct large groups of
mixed age children. Two reasons justify separating four-year-olds who will be
attending kindergarten the next year from three-year-olds, and instructing them in
small groups. First, skills in code-related precursors that four-year-olds need to
develop may be too difficult for three-year-olds. Second, research recommends a small
group format for instruction in code-related precursors. Studies with small groups
produced the most significant effects on children’s outcomes (National Institute for
Literacy, 2009).
89
Future research that includes observational studies of how teachers vary in
their interpretation of a curriculum could add to the existing knowledge base and aid
future evaluations. More information on how often and with what materials teachers
supplement the curriculum may be helpful to curriculum publishers and adoption
boards. Finally, raising teacher-training requirements in California to the national
benchmark of a bachelor’s degree with specialized training may improve child
outcomes for code-related precursors.
90
APPENDIX A
Alphabet Knowledge Objectives
91
Alphabet Knowledge Objectives
Focus
Letter
Name
Research Objective
Over-learn letter names
before shapes (print)
(Adams, 1990)
Recognize own name or
other common words in
print (CDE, 2008)
Letter
Name
and
Shape
Begin instruction with
familiar letters A, B, C,
then X, O, and Z in all
capitals. (Adams, 1990).
Rapid and automatic
naming of letters from
visual cues (Adams,
1990; Ehri & Roberts,
2006; National Institute
of Child Health and
Human Development,
2000).
Match more than half of
upper- and lowercase
letter names to their
printed form (CDE,
2008)
HM Objective
Week
# of
lesson
Ave. #
les/wk
Knows that letters can be
named
1-4
7
2/4
Knows order & recites in
sequence
17, 28
2
1/2
Identifies 10 or more
letters by name
17
1
1/1
Identifies all 26 letters
by name, in random
order
18
1
1/1
Recognizes similarities
and differences
1,2,4
10
3/3
Recognizes own written
name
1,3
8
4/2
Notices the beginning
letters of familiar words
3,5,6,1
0-30
89
4/23
Identifies upper- and
lowercase letters
Order of letters: Ss, Pp,
Tt, Oo, Xx, Uu, Yy, Ww,
Ff, Aa, Zz, Bb, Mm, Rr,
Cc, Qq, Vv, Jj, Hh, Ii,
Gg, Ee, Dd, Ll, Nn, Kk
4, 6-16,
19-30
26
1/23
5-30
125
5/25
5-30
74
3/25
Matches upper- and
lowercase letters
92
Focus
Research Objective
# of
lesson
Ave. #
les/wk
20
2/20
7-9
12,202
1,2324,
2627
Pair instruction with
integrated picture
mnemonics (Adams,
1990; Ehri & Roberts,
2006).
Order of letter-sounds:
/f/, /a/, /z/, /b/, /m/, /r/, c
/k/, q /kw/, /v/, /j/, /h/,
/i/, g /g/, /e/, /d/, /l/, /n/,
/k/
13-30
85
5/17
Begin to recognize that
letters have sounds
(CDE, 2008)
Notices initial sound
13-30
40
2/17
17
1
1/1
Be familiar with all
vowels and at least 15
consonants (Bereiter &
Engelmann, 1966).
Writes first name nearly
correctly (CDE, 2008)
Print
Week
Associate letter names
with shapes
Letter
Name
and
Shape
Letter
Sound
HM Objective
Practice printing
promotes letter
knowledge and
phonemic awareness
(Adams, 1990; Bereiter
& Engelmann, 1969;
Bowman, Donovan, &
Burns, 2001; Ehri &
Roberts, 2006)
Writes letters or letterlike shapes to represent
words or ideas (CDE,
2008)
Selects 8-10 letters to
stand for sounds
Matches some letters
with their sounds
Knows that letters form
words (PC)
Writes own name using
upper- and lowercase
letters (W)
22, 29
Distinguishes letters
from numbers (PC)
Uses known letters to
represent written
language (W)
Knows that words are
separated by spaces (W)
Writes five or more
recognizable letters (W)
2
1/2
4,5,6,1
6,20,22
6
1/6
7, 12,
14, 29
5
1/4
11
1
1/1
8-16,
19-22,
24-30
64
3/20
13, 25
2
2/2
26
2
2/1
93
APPENDIX B
Teacher Opinion Survey
94
Teacher Opinion Survey
Phonological Awareness
1. I depend on HM Pre-K curriculum for guidance/teaching suggestions in
phonological awareness.
___strongly agree
___ agree
___ disagree
___strongly disagree
2. I use HM Pre-K for instruction in phonological awareness with the following
modifications:
_________________________________________________________________
3. Assessment suggestions are sufficient to monitor student progress in phonological
awareness.
___strongly agree
___agree
___disagree
___strongly disagree
4. HM provides sufficient guidance for re-teaching phonological awareness skills.
___strongly agree
___agree
___disagree
___strongly disagree
5. With the help of HM Pre-K, the majority of my students have made substantial
gains in phonological awareness this school year.
___strongly agree
___agree
___disagree
___strongly disagree
Additional Comments regarding HM Pre-K instruction in phonological awareness:
__________________________________________________________________
95
Alphabet Knowledge
6. I depend on HM Pre-K curriculum for guidance/teaching suggestions in alphabet
knowledge.
___strongly agree
___agree
___disagree
___strongly disagree
7. I use HM Pre-K for instruction in alphabet knowledge with the following
modifications:
_________________________________________________________________
8. Assessment suggestions are sufficient to monitor student progress in alphabet
knowledge.
___strongly agree
9.
___agree
___disagree
___strongly disagree
HM provides sufficient guidance for re-teaching alphabet knowledge.
___strongly agree
___agree
___disagree
___strongly disagree
10. With the help of HM Pre-K, the majority of my students have made substantial
gains in alphabet knowledge for this school year.
___strongly agree
___agree
___disagree
___strongly disagree
Additional Comments regarding HM Pre-K instruction in alphabet
knowledge:__________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
96
REFERENCES
Abbot, D., Lundin, J., & Ong, F. (Eds.). (2008). California preschool learning
foundations Volume 1. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education,
Child Development Division. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/psfoundations.asp
Adams, M. J. (1990). Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Adams, M., Foorman, B., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). A classroom curriculum:
Phonemic awareness in young children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
American Federation of Teachers. (2002, July). Early childhood education: Building a
strong foundation for the future (Issue Brief No. 15). Washington, DC: Author.
Barnett, W. S. (2002). Preschool education for economically disadvantaged children:
Effects on reading achievement and related outcomes. In D. Dickinson & S.
Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Volume 1, pp. 421-443).
New York: Guilford Press.
Barnett, W. S. (2003). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked
to teacher qualifications, preschool policy matters, 2. National Institute for
Early Education Policy Briefs 2. Retrieved from
http://nieer.org/resourrces/policybriefs/2.pdf
Barnett, W. S., Epstein, D. J., Friedman, A. H., Sansanelli, R., & Hustedt, J. T. (2009).
The state of preschool 2009. National Institute for Early Education Research.
Retrieved from http://nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/yearbook/pdf
97
Barnett, W. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2003). Preschool: The most important grade.
Educational Leadership, 60(7), 54-58.
Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966). Teaching disadvantaged children in the
preschool. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bodrova, E., Leong, D., & Paynter, D. (1999). Literacy standards for preschool
learners. Educational Leadership, 57(2), 42-46.
Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn:
Educating our preschoolers (Report of the National Research Council).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal
connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.
Bredekamp, S., Morrow, L. M., & Pikulski, J. J. (2006). Houghton-Mifflin prekindergarten language and literacy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1990). Acquiring the alphabetic principle: A case
for teaching recognition of phonemic identity. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(4), 805-812.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991a). Sound foundations: An introduction to
prereading skills. Sydney, Australia: Peter Leyden Educational.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991b). Evaluation of a program to teach
phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83(4), 451-455.
98
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic
awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(1), 104-111.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic
awareness to young children: A 2- and 3- year follow-up and a new preschool
trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 488-503.
Byrne, B., Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Ashley, L. (2000). Effects of preschool phoneme
identity training after six years: Outcome level distinguished from rate of
response. Journal of Education Psychology, 92(4), 659-667.
Chaille, C. (2008). Constructivism across the curriculum in early childhood
classrooms: Big ideas as inspiration. Boston: Pearson.
Core purpose. (2010). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/index.asp
Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in
kindergarten and first grade (NCES 2002125). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002125.pdf
Dickinson, D., McCabe, A., & Essex, M. (2006). A window of opportunity we must
open to all: The case for preschool with high-quality support for language and
literacy. In D. Dickinson & S. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
research (Volume 2, pp. 11-28). New York: Guilford Press.
99
Drouin, M., & Harmon, J. (2009). Name writing and letter knowledge in preschool:
Incongruities in skills and the usefulness of name writing as a developmental
indicator. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 263-270.
Ehri, L., Deffner, N., & Wilce, L. (1984). Pictorial mnemonics for phonics. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 65(5), 880-893.
Ehri, L., & Roberts, T. (2006). The roots of learning to read and write: Acquisition of
letters and phonemic awareness. In D. Dickinson & S. Neuman (Eds.),
Handbook of early literacy research (Volume 2, pp. 113-131). New York:
Guilford Press.
Elbro, C., Borstrom, I., & Petersen, D. (1998). Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten:
The importance of distinctness of phonological representations of lexical
items. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 36-60.
Engelmann, S. (1969). Preventing failure in the primary grades. Chicago: Science
Research Associates.
Engelmann, S. (1997). The benefits of direct instruction: Affirmative action for at-risk
students. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 77-79.
Gallagher, A., Frith, U., & Snowling, M. J. (2000). Precursors of literacy delay among
children at genetic risk of dyslexia. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 41(2), 203-213.
100
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from
first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437447.
Justice, L. M., Pence, K., Bowles, R. B., & Wiggins, A. (2006). An investigation of
four hypotheses concerning the order by which 4-year-old children learn the
alphabet letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 374-389.
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable
and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 18(2), 201-212.
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. A., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent
literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latentvariable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 596-613.
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. L., & Barker, T. A. (1998). Development
of phonological sensitivity in 2-to 5-year old children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(2), 294-311.
Lonigan, C. J., & Shanahan, T. (2008). Developing early literacy: A scientific
synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention
(Executive Summary, Report of the National Early Literacy Panel). Retrieved
from http://www.nifl.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport0009.pdf
101
Molfese, V. J., Modglin, A. A., Beswick, J. L., Neamon, J. D., Berg, S. A., Berg, C. J.,
& Molnar, A. (2006). Letter knowledge, phonological processing, and print
knowledge: Skill development in non-reading preschool children. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 39(4), 296-305.
Murray, B., Stahl, S., & Ivey, M. (1996). Developing phoneme awareness through
alphabet books. Reading and Writing, 8(4), 307-322.
National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Association of
Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2002). Early
learning standards: Creating the conditions for success (A Joint Position
Statement). Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/earlyLearningStandards.pdf
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2003). Early childhood
curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective,
accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8 (Position
statement with expanded resources). Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/files//naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf
102
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). 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 (Report of the National Reading Panel, NIH Publication No. 004754). Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/upload/Ch21.pdf
Neuman, S. B. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications for early education. In D.
Dickinson & S. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Volume
2, pp. 29-40). New York: Guilford Press.
Neuman, S. B. (2009). Changing the odds for children at risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Neuman, S. B., & Dwyer, J. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in prekindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 62(5), 384-392.
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008). Effects of preschool
curriculum programs on school readiness (NCER 2008-2009). Retrieved from
http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncer/pubs/index.asp
Roberts, T. A. (2003). Effects of alphabet-letter instruction on young children’s wordrecognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 41-51.
Rosenshine, B. (1986). A synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational
Leadership, 43(7), 60-69.
Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of
Educational Research, 88(5), 262-268.
103
Schickedanz, J. (2003). Engaging preschoolers in code learning: Some thoughts about
preschool teachers concerns. In D. Barone & L. Morrow (Eds.) Literacy and
young children. New York: Guilford.
Schweinhart, L., & Weikart, D. (1998). Why curriculum matters in early childhood
education. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 57-60.
Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S., & Frelow, V. (2003). Creating the conditions for success
with early learning standards: Results from a national study of state-level
standards for children’s learning prior to kindergarten. Early Childhood
Research and Practice. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc,edu/v5n2/little.html
12/06/2009
Smith, C. (Ed.) (2003). Grammar and language skills: The benefits of direct
instruction. ERIC Topical Bibliography and Commentary. (TBC-03008; ED
480887). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and
Communication.
Snider, V. (1995). A primer on phonemic awareness: What it is, why it’s important,
and how to teach it. School Psychology Review, 24(3), 443-456.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties
in young children (Report of the National Research Council). Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
104
Stallings, J. (1987, May). Longitudinal findings for early childhood programs: Focus
on direct instruction. In B. R. Woolner (Ed.), The Lipman papers: Appropriate
programs for four-year-olds (Accession No. ED297874). Symposium
conducted at the Barbara K. Lipman Early Childhood Research Institute,
Memphis, TN. Abstract retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.csus.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=110&sid
=a4ae38c4-199b-46cf-865e0886eaa82a91%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d
%3d#db=eric&AN=ED297874
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4),
360-407.
Storch, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to
reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental
Psychology, 38(6), 934-947.
Strickland, D. S., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2004). Learning about print in preschool:
Working with letters, words, and beginning links with phonemic awareness.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
105
Torgesen, J. (1998). Catch them before they fail: Identification and assessment to
prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, 22(1 and 2).
Retrieved from
http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/springsummer1998/index.cfm
Treiman, R. (1985a). Onsets and rimes as units of spoken syllables: Evidence from
children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39, 161-181.
Treiman, R., & Rodriguez, K. (1999). Young children use letter names to read words.
Psychological Science, 10(4), 334-338.
Treiman, R., Tincoff, R., & Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1996). Letter names help
children connect print to speech. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 505-514.
Treiman, R., & Zukowski, A. (1991). Levels of phonological awareness. In S. Brady
& D. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to
Isabelle Liberman (pp. 67-83), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences. (2010). What works
clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://www.ies.ed.gov./ncee/wwc/reports
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families. (2006). Good start, grow smart. Retrieved from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/initiatives/gsgs/fedpubs/GSGSBooklet.p
df
106
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation. (2003). Strengthening Head Start: What the evidence
shows. Retrieved from
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/StrengthenHeadStart03/indexhtm
Waber, B. (1997). Bearsie bear and the surprise sleepover party. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.
West, J., Denton, K., & Germino-Hausken, E. (2000). America’s kindergarteners
(NCES Publication No. 2000-070). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000070.pdf
Whitehurst, G., & Lonigan, C. (2001). Get ready to read! Columbus, OH: Pearson
Early Learning.
Wilkinson, G. (1993). The Wide Range Achievement Test (3rd ed.). Wilmington, DE:
Jastek.
Yeh, S. (2003). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to
children in Head Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(4), 513-529.
Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading
Teacher, 45(9), 696-703.
Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. (2009, January). Phonological awareness is child’s play!
Beyond the journal: Young children on the web. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200901/BTJPhonological Awareness.pdf
107
Zill, N., & West, J. (2001). Entering kindergarten: A portrait of American children
when they begin school: findings from the condition of education 2000 (NCES
2001-035). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ubs2001/2001035.pdf