Michael Lemke
RE 5710
Question 2 Paper
Phonemic Awareness; What Is It and Who Is Teaching It?
Introduction
Educators are regularly asked if college prepared them for the realities of life as a classroom teacher. Typically, after a moment of laughter, the person replies with an emphatic, “No.” Is it possible for a pre-service teacher to learn everything needed to be an effective classroom teacher during the four years of undergraduate coursework?If it is not possible to learn everything, how should universities prioritize what is to be included in the coursework for future educators? What courses and needed skills should be included on the required list? Reflecting on my undergraduate preparation with the expectations of student achievement at each grade level, and the needs of individual students; I have come to the realization I was not properly prepared to instruct primary students through the reading process. I had no concept of the differences between phonemic awareness and phonics. While I made a noble attempt to create a balanced literacy environment, I came up short on a few foundation skills. One of those skills was phonemic awareness. It was not until a number of years into my teaching career I realized the value and importance of phonemic awareness. During my career I have encounter many different philosophies on the definition of phonemic awareness. This led me to ponder the question:What truly is phonemic awareness and who is prepared to effectively teach it?
The Research
Walsh, R. (2009). Word games: the importance of defining phonemic awareness for professional discourse. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32(3), 211-225.
Definitions of phonemic awareness vary from broad and vague to quite specific (Walsh, 2009.) One such specific definition, defines phonemic awareness as identifying phonemes and their sequence. While other broad definitions define it as sensitivity to speech sounds. Other examples listed expanded the idea of phonemic awareness to include; phonological awareness, phonemic processing, and phonological processing skills. Processing is used with a meaning that confuses this automatic understanding of spoken words with conscious awareness of sounds (Walsh, 2009.) Walsh continued to state that a return to the source of these words-definitions that are derived from phonology, the scientific study of spoken words and their features, is required to improve clarity. Being able to make a clear distinction between phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, and phonemic skills became the central idea for the remainder of the article. Phonemic awareness referred to the conscious awareness that spoken words are made up of individual sounds (Walsh, 2009.) Phonological awareness is the conscious awareness of the sound structure of spoken words, e.g. syllable beats, rhymes, onset-rimes, and individual sounds (Walsh, 2009.) Phonemic skills are applying the above stated skills to the context of printed text (Walsh, 2009.) The article concluded by stating, instruction about the phonological and orthographic systems of English needs to be given increased priority in teachers’ pre-service education. Walsh continued to state if teachers were equipped with such information, they could respond accurately to students’ explorations of sounds, letters and words. After reading this journal article I feel I have a greater understanding of the specific definition of phonemic awareness. I also feel I can contrast this to the additional concepts of phonological awareness and phonemic skills. My understanding of these concepts though does not run as deep as it probably should. There seems to be some “fine lines” that delineated the differences of these terms. One of these was, whether the task was being applied to spoken or printed words. Another difference centers on the fact of looking at individual sounds in words or larger chunks of the word. With so many specific and important differences in these skills, how is an educator to know where to place a struggling reader? While the teacher may recognize where the breakdown is happening for the reader, do they know the correct instruction that needs to occur to ensure the development of all reading skills? I fear many educators place phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, and phonemic skills into one category and call it phonics. Educators, specifically those in primary grades since they are creating afoundation in reading, need to have an understanding of the many layers that make up a child’s letter-sound knowledge. Many educators may see spending time understanding the differences between the above stated terms as “nit-picking”, but if we do not pay attention to the definitions we simply do not know what we are talking about. Our practices as educators are driven by the knowledge we have attained. While delivering lessons to our students we are applying the concepts we hold in our knowledge base. To provide our students with the systematic and explicit instruction needed, we as a profession must fully grasp the differences between the concepts. Collaborating and dialoging with peers provides an opportunity for clarification of skills. This collaboration also allows time to process errors readers are making and plan a course of action to scaffold the reader’s knowledge. For example, collaborating with the speech pathologist in your building could prove to be beneficial. Phonemic awareness is a key concept in their work with students. They are experts in language and could begin to clarify what phonemic awareness encompasses.
Cheeseman, E., McQuire, J., Shankweiler, D., & Coyne, M. (2009).First-year teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness and its intruction.Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(3), 270-289.
The research questions posed by this study were the following; What is the level of knowledge about phonemic awareness and phonemic awareness skills of first-year teachers, can first-year teachers distinguish between phonemic awareness and phonics, and will there be differences in knowledge about phonemic awareness, phonemic awareness skills, and the ability to distinguish between phonemic awareness and phonics among first-year teachers initially certified in comprehensive special education, elementary education, or early childhood education (Cheeseman, McQuire, Shankweiler, & Coyne, 2009?) The authors surveyed two hundred and twenty three first-year teachers with a fifteen question multiple choice survey. The results of the survey indicated significant numbers of beginning special and general education teachers are inadequately prepared for phonemic awareness instruction, have limited knowledge of phonemic awareness, confuse phonemic awareness with phonics, and are unable to select appropriate material or activities (Cheeseman, McQuire, Shankweiler, & Coyne, 2009.) The teachers also lacked skill in analyzing written words into phonemes (Cheeseman, Mcquire, Shankweiler, &Coyne, 2009.) This research study confirmed my hypothesis about teachers being inadequately prepared to teach beginning readers. University programs cannot teach pre-service teachers everything about phonemic awareness and instruction, but an understanding of the concept can be introduced. Once pre-service teachers have this understanding, after completing their program of study, they can apply it to classroom practice. Moats states, “professors of education and special education who have a thorough knowledge of language structure themselves and who are skilled at teaching it to educators are uncommon” (Moats 1996.) If teachers are not entering the career with a proper foundation in the reading process, how can this knowledge and instruction gap close? Walsh states, “If schools of education do not sufficiently prepare teachers to provide comprehensive reading instruction, the burden of educating teacher’s shifts to individual school districts (Walsh, 2006.) If the “burden” of educating these teachers’ falls on the districts, my question becomes, Who will be doing the educating of the teachers? With budget cuts looming who will be qualified at the district level to provide professional development to the teachers? I fear with the attention and focus on state testing this important area will be overlooked and the end results will show in the poor reading abilities of the students. For children who struggle with reading acquisition, effective phonemic awareness instruction requires a teacher, who thoroughly understands its implications for reading achievement (Cheeseman, McQuire, Shankweiler, &Coyne, 2009.) If there are a large number of educators entering the career with limited knowledge of phonemic awareness instruction, to me it seems the amount of struggling readers would increase. If that is not the case, readers who are not progressing as they should be would not receive the interventions needed due to the lack of teacher knowledge. It seems as though an epidemic would be created from this cycle of lack of instruction and an increasing gap in student achievement. If teacher preparation is a strong correlation to student achievement, pre-service educator programs should provide a solid foundation in phonemic awareness, so that district level experts can continue to facilitate professional development to increase student achievement.
Chappell, J., Stephens, T., Kinnison, L., & Pettigrew, J. (2009).Educational diagnosticians' understanding of phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and reading fluency.Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(1), 24-33.
The goal of this study was to survey educational diagnosticians about their perceived knowledge of early reading development and assessment of early literacy skills. The research questions posed were; to what extent do diagnosticians have knowledge about which assessment tools are most appropriate to measure phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and fluency, and to what extent do diagnosticians perceive that they are adequately trained in the processes of learning to read and in determining early reading difficulty (Chappell, Stephens, Kinnison, & Pettigrew, 2009.) The authors of this study surveyed one hundred fifty educational diagnosticians through email. Those surveyed represented diagnosticians who received their degree through university programs or through some alternative means. The number of years of service as a classroom teacher and as a diagnostician varied as well. The survey used was developed to assess their general knowledge of early reading skills (Chappell, Stephens, Kinnison, &Pettigrew, 2009.) The results of the survey indicated the diagnosticians do not feel they are sufficiently educated in reading and the stages of phonemic awareness (Chappell, Stephens, Kinnison, &Pettigrew, 2009.) This research study supported my initial hypothesis as well. Educators do not have a complete knowledge, or at least, a solid foundation of phonemic awareness. Forty percent of the diagnosticians were unable to provide the correct definition of phonemic awareness (Chappell, Stephens, Kinnison, &Pettigrew, 2009.) The definition the authors were hoping for was not mentioned. Since there is much debate over the exact definition of phonemic awareness this may have been a source of the problem. However, the participants of this study were diagnosticians, not classroom teachers. These educators had received additional certification from a university or other program. If they are struggling with their base knowledge of reading progression, what impact is that having on their interactions with students and teachers? The learning process should include instruction, monitoring, assessment, and instruction based on assessment performance. In order for the cycle to be successful proper assessments must be administered and interpreted. After the interpretation of the assessment, instructional recommendations need to be made as well. Diagnosticians should have a full grasp of this process to ensure students are receiving the needed prescriptive instruction. Less than fifty percent of those surveyed indicated they believed they had the skills to effectively select and administer tests, interpret data, and make instructional recommendations for phonological and phonemic awareness (Chappell, Stephens, Kinnison, &Pettigrew, 2009.) If the diagnosticians are not sure of the correct assessments and plan of action to take, where does that leave the students? One area of improvement would be ensuring certification programs for both teachers and diagnosticians were educating professionals on all of the components of reading development and assessments that would inform them of the student’s progress. By using an assessment that will assess a specific area of reading development, student needs can be precisely identified. However, after the assessment has been given, analysis of the assessment should occur. Diagnosticians should work closely with other professionals to gather the data and more importantly, evaluate the data. Working with the classroom teacher to evaluate the formative assessments and reading inventory assessment will help give a thorough picture of the child’s reading abilities. With all this information, a proper plan of instruction can be prepared.
Morris, D., Bloodgood, J., Lomax, R., & Perney, J. (2003). Developmental steps in learning to read: a longitudinal study in kindergarten and first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 302-328.
Morris points out in the 1960’s researchers demonstrated that individual phonemes or speech sounds are difficult to perceive because they fuse or blend together within a spoke syllable. He continues to say that phonemic awareness, or the conscious attention to individual sounds within a spoken word, might be a critical factor in learning to read. One can think of concept of word in text and phoneme awareness as developing in parallel, with gains in one area leading to gains in the other (Morris, Bloodgood, Lomax, &Perney, 2003.) Participants of the study were one hundred two kindergarten students from the mountain region of North Carolina. The study was conducted over a two year period. Students were assessed using seven separate measures. The measures used were; Alphabet knowledge, Beginning consonant awareness, Concept of word in text, Spelling with beginning and ending consonants, Phoneme segmentation, Word recognition, and Contextual reading. The authors suggested the previously mentioned assessments as ability areas in the development of reading. Their research concluded the theoretical model proposed was successful (Morris, Bloodgood, Lomax& Perney, 2003.) Concept of word followed beginning consonant awareness and preceded full phonemic segmentation of a syllable. This suggests that concept of word in text may play a linchpin role in reading development, helping to bridge an early form of phoneme awareness with a latter form (Morris, Bloodgood, Lomax, & Perney, 2003.) This study revealed the concept of the developmental sequence of early reading acquisition. Children will progress through these seven stages as different rates and at different success levels. Even though the students may pass through these stages at different rates and success levels, all the above stages are needed for early reading acquisition. While students may be successful with beginning consonant awareness, it is not until they have concept of word that they have the ability to have ending and medial phonemic awareness. At this point, they can apply their beginning consonant knowledge in tracking printed words, and, as the word begins “to stand still” for analysis, they can attend to other letter-sound properties within the word unit (Morris, Bloodgood,Lomax & Perney, 2003.) If concept of word can aide students in progressing to more advanced phonemic awareness, what classroom instruction should beoccurring to support studentdevelopment? One instructional strategy that should be implemented is teacher modeling. When the teacher models finger pointing, or matching one written word to one spoken word the students can begin to see concept of word. When they apply the same skill to simple and engaging text they begin to develop their own concept of word. Once concept of word is secure, students can then begin to manipulate ending and medial sounds in written words, thus advancing them to a higher level of phonemic awareness. Another instructional strategy that will aide concept of word and full phonemic awareness development is writing. Students should write regularly in the classroom. While students are composing their writing they are using inventive spelling or “stretching out” words so they can hear all the sounds in a particular word. While they are listening for the sounds and recording what they hear on their paper, phonemic awareness is being used to identify the phonemes contained within the word. Classroom teachers should be utilizing small group instruction to ensure all students in their room have the ability to finger point while reading text. By doing so student’s phonemic awareness may improve. Instructional methods used with the whole group could be taught within a small group setting. Lessons that are engaging and meaningful will have a lasting impact on the students reading development.
Cummings, K., Kaminiski, R., Good, R., & O'Neil, M. (2011).Assessing phonemic awareness in preschool and kindergarten: development and intiial validation of first sound fluency.Assessment for Effective Instruction, 36(2), 94-106.
So far we have seen the import role phonemic awareness plays in a child’s reading development. If the ability to attend to the individual phonemes in written and spoken words aides in the reading process, should assessment occur to monitor a child’s progress? The following study took a closer look at determining one form of assessment that may provide the means for such monitoring. The authors of this study assessed students with multiple phonemic awareness assessments, such as initial sound fluency, phoneme segmentation fluency, and nonsense word fluency. They also included an additional assessment of first sound fluency. It is important to note the authors of this study are connected to the University of Oregon, where the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment was created. Concerns have been raised over the use of DIBELS and the impacts it has on literacy instruction. However, using the assessment as an additional tool to gain a better understanding of the needs of a child could be a beneficial use of the assessment tool. The first sound fluency assessment required the student to produce the initial sound in a spoken word. Seventeen schools were used for this study. Each prekindergarten and kindergarten classroom was utilized for the phonemic awareness assessments. One of the research questions posed by the authors was; What is the reliability of first sound fluency data across grade levels (Cummings, Kaminski, Good, & O’Neil, 2011.) Their results proved to be successful by detecting valid changes in early phonemic awareness skills in both prekindergarten and kindergarten students (Cummings, Kaminski, Good, &O’Neil, 2011.) The authors also discovered the scores from first sound fluency assessments related strongly to phoneme segmentation fluency assessment. This study was difficult for me to internalize since it was written by DIBELS creators. The controversy surrounding the assessment makes it difficult to objectively look at this current study. However, I do believe there is some effective information to extract from this study. The first sound fluency assessment required the student to produce the initial sound of a spoken word. The student had to make the initial sound, not just point to a picture with a matching initial sound; they had to produce an auditable sound. If phonemic awareness is being able to attend to and manipulate the phonemes of words, to me an effective means of assessing such a skill would require the students to produce a sound. While for some educators the “simple” difference of pointing rather than speaking may not seem like a difference that could be noticeable, it is a difference we should look into. A final caution to data collected from the above mentioned assessments is; this is an indicator of a child’s ability, not a complete look into their reading abilities and the results should drive instruction accordingly. Conclusion There has been a lot of data and instructional recommendations presented in the research mentioned above. While it may seem as though the scope of the topic covered was too broad; understanding what phonemic awareness is, being prepared to teach phonemic awareness, and assessing phonemic awareness, my goal was to provide the reader with a glimpse of the importance of phonemic awareness on a child’s reading development. By looking at the research indicating a relationship between phonemic awareness development and contextual reading success it is alarming so many educators are entering the profession with limited to no knowledge of phonemic awareness or instructional practices that would facilitate proper support. Not only do beginning teachers feel unprepared to scaffold a reader’s phonemic awareness development, but diagnosticians are lacking knowledge and preparedness as well. Diagnosticians should work with a classroom teacher to assess, analyze, and prescribe instruction for a reader based on their needs. I fear if this is not happening, schools are producing poor readers who lack needed skills that would allow them to become independent and motivated readers. While there may be additional needs of these struggling readers, the ability to attend to all the individual phonemes of a word is critical to a child’s reading development. As a beginning teacher in primary grades I did not have the complete knowledge base of reading development. I lacked information about the reader’s progression from beginning to final to medial sounds of words. My phonics instruction may have been weak, but my writing instruction was more systematic and purposeful. It is through this writer’s workshop approach, I believe, my beginning readers and writers developed concept of word and refined their phonemic awareness skills. Daily modeling and conferencing with students allowed them to use invented spelling and segment words to attend to the individual phonemes. Teaching is a profession that requires a lot of on the job training. Professional development is critical for educators to continue the refinement of their “craft.” While my undergraduate program did not fully prepare me for every situation I experienced as a classroom teacher, I do feel it helped me develop my philosophy of education. I feel it is through a strong philosophy of education the remaining “gaps” in professional knowledge are filled.