PDF generated by "Newgen_elango"

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Mon Jan 19 2015, NEWGEN

CH A PT E R

29

Teachers’ Knowledge about Beginning Reading Development and Instruction

Anne E. Cunningham and Colleen Ryan O’Donnell

Abstract This chapter focuses on the body of disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge required to provide high-quality beginning reading instruction to young children. The chapter examines quality literacy instruction from a historical perspective, reviews what science tells us about the successful teaching of reading, explores why teachers are not consistently teaching beginning reading in ways that are aligned with best practices, and provides recommendations for how the field can support teachers in developing the knowledge needed to improve student reading outcomes. The goal is to provide research-based suggestions for strengthening both the content and delivery of teacher professional development in the area of literacy, and to demonstrate that these suggestions have the power to affect child outcomes. Key Words: teacher knowledge, teacher education, professional development, reading, word recognition

Those who can, do; those who understand, teach. —Shulman, 1986

In most academic subjects, it is obvious to the layperson why teachers need disciplinary competence in order to be effective. For example, most people would agree that it would be difficult to provide high-quality instruction about the principles and concepts of physics without deep knowledge and understanding of those principles and concepts. A physics teacher must be able to guide students in the creation of detailed conceptual frameworks, respond to student inquiries, and provide nuanced clarifications—tasks that would be impossible without deep understanding of the field. However, the need for discipline-specific knowledge or competence can be less obvious when considering a teacher’s ability to provide high-quality instruction in more fundamental academic tasks such as reading. It is easy to assume that being a skilled reader creates a sufficient knowledge base for providing reading

instruction. Although the connection may be less obvious, content-specific knowledge may be particularly important in the teaching of fundamental academic skills such as reading and associated skills including spelling and writing (Brady & Moats, 1997; Wong-Fillmore & Snow, 2003). A convincing body of empirical research provides strong evidence that successful reading instructors need to have highly specialized skills and knowledge—skills akin to those required of a physics teacher, but specific to literacy (Connor, Son, Hindman, & Morrison, 2005). High-quality reading instruction is partially defined by the knowledge that teachers of reading must possess to provide effective instruction for their students (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; National Reading Panel, 2000). Specifically, the research suggests that, like teachers of physics, teachers of reading require domain-specific knowledge and expertise—expertise, for example, in the language of instruction, knowledge about reading development

447

Book 1.indb 447

1/19/2015 9:41:48 PM


and its component skills, and the ability to use that knowledge in educational encounters with children (Connor et al., 2005; Cunningham & Zibulsky, 2009; Cunningham, Etter, Platas, Wheeler, & Campbell, in press; Foorman & Moats, 2004). The content knowledge required for effective instruction and intervention in the United States includes knowledge of the American English spelling system. English is a morphophonemic or deep alphabetic orthography (Venezky, 1999), which means that its spelling is bound by meaning (as in magician) as well as sound (as in magic). Although its spellings map onto speech sounds quite predictably, especially for words encountered during the earliest years of reading instruction, the correspondences can be complex and variable. In order to provide explicit and complete explanations of both predictable and less predictable relationships (only some of which are caused by meaning overriding predictable sound-symbol correspondences), we argue that teachers must be knowledgeable about the complex English spelling system (Moats, 1994; Wong-Fillmore & Snow, 2003). Because decoding problems underlie the difficulties of most primary grade students who struggle with reading (Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005), explicit and accurate word recognition instruction is necessary. Instruction of sound-symbol correspondences is particularly important, as well as instruction about less predictable words that are of high frequency (such as was or from). Knowledge of the spelling system, along with facility in methods known to be effective in teaching it, is fundamental background knowledge for teachers. Thus a prerequisite knowledge base for the delivery of high-quality beginning reading instruction in the United States must include understanding reading development, linguistic concepts, and features of the English language and its spelling. This type of specialized disciplinary knowledge, referred to as pedagogical content knowledge by Shulman (1987), captures the particular amalgam of disciplinary knowledge and pedagogy needed to effectively teach a skill such as literacy. Equipped with the understanding that there is indeed a prerequisite knowledge base for the delivery of quality literacy instruction, a complementary question is whether the average teacher recognizes the need for these competencies, possesses the required knowledge, and values the pursuit of this knowledge. The goal of this chapter is to review the literature regarding the disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge that is necessary to teach beginning reading in English to young children (see Goldman 448

Book 1.indb 448

& Snow, this volume, for discussion of teaching for adolescents, what teachers know, what information they lack, and what further opportunities they need in order to acquire this critical knowledge. We begin by examining quality reading instruction from a historical perspective, review what science tells us about the successful teaching of reading, and then define and contextualize aspects of learning to read and discuss teachers’ need for knowledge of American English spelling system. We then outline the prerequisite knowledge base for the delivery of quality beginning literacy instruction, explore why teachers are not consistently teaching reading in ways that are aligned with best practices, and provide recommendations for how the field can support teachers in developing knowledge needed to improve student reading outcomes.

%FmOJOH2VBMJUZ3FBEJOH*OTUSVDUJPO

High quality reading instruction makes a difference in the literacy development and performance of students, and in this section we discuss the nature of such instruction.

Historical Perspectives on Quality Reading Instruction

To provide context for our discussion of the current understanding of quality reading instruction, a brief historical perspective on the factors that have traditionally driven reading instruction in the United States may be helpful. For the better part of the twentieth century, prominent figures in the field of education debated vehemently about the most effective way to teach children to read (Chall, 1967, 1992; Stanovich & Stanovich, 1995). Theorists and educators generally adopted one of two perspectives with respect to their thinking about how children learn to read, and what unit of language (i.e., the sentence, word, or phoneme) should be the focus of instruction. In one camp were those who advocated a whole language approach, arguing that learning to read is analogous to learning to speak and that the most effective means of teaching children to read is to immerse them in print, eschewing more analytic approaches (Goodman, 1986 Smith, 1971). In the other camp were those who subscribed to the skill-based and more analytic phonics approach, which involves the direct teaching of letter-sound correspondences and combinations of letters and their corresponding sounds. Those in this camp emphasized the importance of providing children with direct instruction in the alphabetic principle. According to the alphabetic principle, letters and

TEAC HERS’ KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BEGINNING READING

1/19/2015 9:41:48 PM


combinations of letters are the symbols used to represent the speech sounds of a language based on systematic and predictable relationships between written letters, symbols, and spoken words (Adams, 1990; Bond & Dijkstra, 1967; Chall, 1967; Ehri, this volume).

Toward a Scientific Definition of Quality Reading Instruction

Because the field of education in the 1970s and 1980s was yet to be influenced by the idea that instruction should be guided by scientific inquiry and converging empirical evidence, educators in the United States were easily persuaded by movements that were driven predominantly by deeply rooted philosophical perspectives, observation, and personal experience (Stanovich, 2000). Across much of his writing, Stanovich (e.g., 1993) maintained that a reliance on a political/ideological rather than a scientific model for making instructional decisions has created endless problems for reading education. He argued that the extreme pendulum swings that have characterized reading education in particular might be avoided by equipping teachers with a scientific model of decision-making. Concomitantly, the end of the twentieth century brought nationwide concern in the United States regarding academic achievement, especially among disadvantaged students (Lyon, 1999a; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1995). As a result, there was a push to end the “reading wars” and identify, from a scientific perspective, the most effective approaches to reading instruction.

Research Regarding the Critical Features of a Quality Reading Curriculum

One of the most notable large-scale investigations in the United States was conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) in 1998. Noting the increasing demand for literacy in a technologically advanced society and the repercussions for those who have low levels of literacy, the U.S. Department of Education and the US Department of Health and Human Services asked the National Academy of Sciences to establish a committee focused on determining, from an empirical perspective, how to best support the reading development of children and prevent reading difficulties. The committee reviewed the research on reading development and instruction, the factors associated with reading failure, and the interventions and instructional approaches known to prevent reading difficulties and promote optimal reading outcomes. In 449

Book 1.indb 449

summarizing the results of their research, the committee argued that a greater focus must be placed on improving the quality of reading instruction for both struggling readers and beginning readers. They noted that, although the needs of struggling readers vary depending upon their skills and abilities, effective teachers use evidence-based materials and strategies to craft an appropriate mix of learning opportunities for every student. The NRC (1998) argued that the ability to craft an ideal combination of instructional techniques requires, at a minimum, deep knowledge and understanding of reading development as well as familiarity and facility with the pedagogical strategies known to be most effective in supporting reading development (or remediating delay). Multiple skills have been shown to be essential for successful reading acquisition. These include phonological awareness (the ability to detect and manipulate the sounds or phonemes in language), print knowledge (the combination of elements of alphabet knowledge, concepts about print, and early decoding), fluency (the ability to quickly and efficiently process text), vocabulary, background knowledge, and comprehension (the ability to derive meaning from written text). For beginning reading acquisition, the NRC (1998) report highlighted the importance of accurate word identification and the role of explicit instruction to help children develop an appreciation for the sound structure of language to facilitate decoding. This included knowledge of specific letter-sound correspondences, common spelling patterns, and high-frequency irregular words. Additionally, according to the NRC report, repeated opportunities to practice both silent and oral reading in high-quality engaging texts promote children’s reading fluency. Moreover, when children receive explicit instruction in comprehension strategies, their understanding of texts is facilitated. Finally, the facilitative effects of reading exposure across a wide variety of topics provide a level of distributed practice that promotes fluency and reading comprehension. Such exposure across a variety of texts further promotes children’s vocabulary and conceptual knowledge.

Research Regarding the Pedagogical Methods Known to be Effective in Supporting Student Learning

The report of the NRC (1998) provides more than a theoretical approach to reading instruction. It draws attention to the fact that teachers must have deep understanding of the process of reading

TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BEGINNING READING

1/19/2015 9:41:48 PM


development and provides a synthesis of the research supporting the claim that teachers must be able to provide quality instruction in five areas: phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and oral language development including vocabulary. Although the report of the NRC (1998) provides an analysis of the skills, environments, and experiences that are critical to the acquisition of reading, the committee did not address the specific instructional approaches that are most efficacious in bringing about positive outcomes. Thus, Congress asked the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), in collaboration with the Secretary of Education, to convene a panel of experts to review the research on reading instruction, including the effectiveness of common approaches to teaching children to read. The National Reading Panel (2000) (NRP) engaged in a comprehensive review of the major variables found to contribute to skilled reading. Based on the consensus synthesis of the NRC (1998), the NRP (2000) focused on research pertaining to word recognition (i.e., phonological awareness, learning the alphabetic principle through phonics instruction, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension). This work differed from the NRC (1998) report in that it attempted to synthesize experimental and quasi-experimental work in reading instruction through a meta-analysis of the research on reading instruction. Meta-analyses are effective tools for summarizing the research in a specific area in that they provide a statistical analysis of the results of multiple individual studies and integrate findings more rigorously than traditional narrative or descriptive review methods (Glass, 1976). The NRP (2000) concluded that there was an impressive body of converging evidence in the area of the word recognition to guide the field. The meta-analysis suggests that specific skills must be mastered along the course of reading development and that not all strategies or forms of instruction are effective for all students at all levels of development. For example, the NRP found that teaching children to manipulate phonemes in words was highly effective and that teaching phonemic awareness improves reading significantly more than instruction that does not include instruction in segmenting and blending phonemes. Moreover, this finding extends to a variety of learners across a range of grade and age levels. Likewise, after reviewing 38 independent studies on the teaching of phonics, the NRP (2000) found that systematic phonics instruction benefits students in kindergarten through sixth grade who are having difficulty learning to read.

Yet phonics instruction had the greatest impact for students in kindergarten through second grade. The NRP argued, based on converging evidence from a variety of studies, that explicit, systematic phonics instruction that includes phonological awareness is an essential part of a beginning reading curriculum. In addition to word recognition, the NRP (2000) reviewed data on reading fluency and comprehension. One instructional procedure they found to be highly effective was guided repeated oral reading, which encourages students to read passages orally with systematic and explicit guidance and feedback from teachers. The NRP reviewed 16 studies of this approach and found that guided repeated oral-reading procedures had significant benefits (weighted effect size average of 0.41) for the development of word recognition, fluency, and comprehension across a range of grade levels. Furthermore, these results apply to all students, including those having difficulty reading. The NRP also reviewed 205 independent studies of reading comprehension and found that text comprehension improved when readers actively related the ideas in print to their own knowledge. There was substantial evidence to suggest the need for direct instruction in text comprehension strategies such as questioning, summarizing with words and pictures, drawing maps of stories, cooperative work, and monitoring one’s own comprehension. It was determined that a combination of comprehension strategies was most effective. Supporting reading comprehension through vocabulary development—both explicit teaching of vocabulary and incidental exposure to vocabulary—was also found to be critical. Across a number of domains, the National Reading Panel (2000) provided specific information about which instructional strategies were most effective at which level of development, for which specific reading skills, and with which types of students (e.g., typically developing children, children at risk for reading failure, and second language learners). These detailed findings highlight the importance of ensuring that teachers have a deep knowledge base that can be skillfully woven into the acts of teaching—from explicit instructional opportunities to the ability to supply fruitful explanations, analogies, examples, and materials to each student at the right time. That is, if teachers are to be effective, they must be equipped to evaluate, understand, and respond to each student’s instructional needs. Thus, when it comes to having demonstrated competence in reading instruction, it is insufficient for a teacher to be able to identify the essential CUNNINGHA M, O’DONNELL

Book 1.indb 450

450

1/19/2015 9:41:49 PM


components of an effective reading curriculum or define literacy-related terms. Instead, competence in teaching reading entails a wider variety of factors. In the area of word recognition, the primary focus of this chapter, teachers of beginning reading in the United States must possess a good knowledge about the American English spelling system to be able to provide this level of instruction (Moats, 1994; Brady & Moats, 1997).

The Need for a Deep Knowledge of the American English Spelling System

Expert teaching of reading requires knowledge of language structure, and in this section we discuss the nature of American English spelling and teachers’ knowledge about it.

The Complex American English Spelling System

English is considered a deep orthography because it has a lower degree of letter-sound correspondence than many other alphabetic writing systems (Besner & Smith, 1992). This letter-sound irregularity leads to a complex spelling system, which is the main hurdle for beginning readers. The complex letter-sound system of English must be taught because it is not necessarily intuitive to beginning readers. Although describing each rule in the spelling system is beyond the scope of this chapter, two main concepts of the American English spelling system are discussed below. Cummings (1988) suggested that spelling rules are of at least two types, tactical and procedural. Tactical rules cover the rules for letter–sound correspondence and contextual constraints of spelling. For example, there are a number of ways to spell the /k/ sound (i.e., ‹c›, ‹k›, ‹ck›, ‹ch›, ‹q›, and ‹cq›), which, interestingly, depend on the context in which the phoneme occurs. Procedural rules govern the way prefixes, bases, and suffixes combine to form written words. In other words, procedural rules underlie the morphological structure of spelling. For example, the spelling of “running” is run+n+ing rather than run+ing, the doubling of the n serving to reinforce the pronunciation of the first syllable as closed (run) not open (ru). Cummings notes, “the important products of these tactical and procedural rules are correspondences, the conventionalized relationships that exist between sounds and their spellings” (p. 10). These relationships assist beginning readers learning new words, and instruction about these relationships should be based on a solid understanding of how 451

Book 1.indb 451

the spelling system works (see Kessler & Treiman, this volume).

Knowledge of the Spelling System Is Not Intuitive for Teachers

The knowledge and skills required to implement an effective early literacy curriculum are not necessarily intuitive to skilled readers. Once a reader becomes fluent, attention moves away from code translation toward comprehension (Oakhill, Berenhaus, & Cain, this volume). The vast majority of teachers became skilled readers far too long ago to rely on their intuitive knowledge of phonology and orthography as guides for instruction. Knowledge of conventional spelling can obscure the ability to attend to language at the sound level, thus making a teacher believe, for instance, that /s/ is the third sound in the word music rather than /z/. Consequently, awareness of subtleties of word structure needed to guide students is, ironically, often obscured by the teacher’s personal reading competencies. In her seminal study, Moats (1994) found that teachers’ knowledge of phonology, orthography, and morphology was “surprisingly poor”. She was one of the first to suggest that many teachers “understand too little about spoken and written language structure to be able to provide sufficient instruction in these areas” (p. 81). This does not mean that teachers lack reading and spelling ability; instead, her initial results suggested that teachers’ own literacy does not guarantee them detailed insights into structural aspects of phonology, orthography, and morphology. For example, when administered a series of multiple choice questions, Moats (1994) found that only 27% of the teachers could successfully count the number of morphemes in a word (e.g., salamander = 1, pies = 2, unbelievable=3). Also, only 10% could identify a consonant cluster (i.e., two or three consonants that blend together to make a distinct consonant sound such as /sk/ in scratch and /st/ in first), and 0% consistently identified consonant digraphs (i.e., two consonant letters that together make a single sound such as /θ/ in think). There was likewise substantial evidence that many experienced teachers have misconceptions about the principles of grapheme-phoneme correspondence, such as the number of ways to spell /k/, the reason for doubling the ‹m› in words such as comment and commitment, and the way in which the following vowel signals whether the letter ‹g› is pronounced as /g/, /dʒ/, or /ʒ, as in god, gem, and rouge.

TE ACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BEGINNING READING

1/19/2015 9:41:49 PM


Subsequent studies provided converging evidence that teachers generally lack sufficient knowledge of many of the linguistic concepts needed to successfully teach beginning readers (e.g., Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001; Cunningham, Zibulsky, & Callahan 2009; Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, Stanovich, & Chappell, 2001; Piasta, Connor, Fishman, & Morrison, 2009). These studies have similarly shown that teachers have difficulty counting phonemes and morphemes in words, recognizing phonetically irregular words, classifying words by syllable type (open, as in hi, closed as in him, r-controlled as in bird, silent-e as in mate, vowel team as in bread, consonant-le, as in lit/tle), and understanding how syllable-division patterns affect pronunciation (for example, a vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV) sequence can be divided in two ways to produce different syllable types—VC/V, as in wom/ an [the first syllable is closed] and V/CV, as in hu/ man [the first syllable is open]). The implications of this are that teachers are limited in their ability to interpret and respond to students’ errors, pick appropriate examples for teaching decoding and spelling, effectively organize and sequence instruction, use morphology to demystify various aspects of spelling, and integrate the components of literacy instruction (Cunningham, Zibulsky, Stanovich, & Stanovich, 2009; Moats, 1999).

Why Teachers Need Deep Knowledge of the American English Spelling System

To illustrate how limited knowledge of these concepts may result in weak instruction, consider the following examples. A teacher who cannot consistently count phonemes in a word might mistakenly believe that a child who spelled exit as ‹eksit› was not successfully representing each of the sounds in the spoken word in the spelling. A teacher who mistakenly believes that /θ/ is a blend of /t/ and /h/ might not provide corrective feedback to a student who attempts to sound out the written word thin by saying, /t/ /h/ / ɪ/ /n/. A teacher who does not know that ‹c› is pronounced like /s/ when followed by the letters ‹e›, ‹i›, and ‹y› is less equipped to support a student who haphazardly uses the sounds /k/ and /s/ when decoding. Or a teacher who is unable to consistently recognize an irregular word as irregular may cause confusion by including the word give as an example of a typical word with a silent ‹e› or encouraging a student to sound out the word was. These practices are problematic given that, as mentioned earlier, the ability to decode words is the source of reading difficulty

among many beginning readers (Catts et al., 2005; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997). Without training, many teachers cannot explain the underlying system of the English spelling system to students (Treiman, Kessler, & Evans, 2007).

What Teachers Know BCPVU-JUFSBDZ*OTUSVDUJPO

As compared to disciplines such as mathematics and social studies, studies of teachers’ declarative knowledge in the domain of literacy are not well developed. With only a few exceptions, the majority of research in this area has occurred within the last two decades (Bos et al., 2001; Brady et al., 2009; Cunningham et al., 2001; Mather, Bos, & Babur, 2001; McCutchen et al., 2002; Moats, 1994). There has recently been a substantial increase in the amount of research going beyond the documentation of knowledge levels to investigating the underlying factors related to variations in teacher knowledge as they relate to classroom practice (e.g., Cheesman, McGuire, Shankweiler, & Coyne, 2009; Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, & Stanovich, 2004; Mather et al., 2001; Lopes, Spear-Swerling, Gabriela Velasquez, & Zibulsky, 2014; Spear-Swerling, Brucker, & Alfano, 2005). For example, Mather et al. (2001) examined the potential impact of years of experience on teachers’ attitudes and knowledge of effective classroom practices for the teaching of reading. They explored teachers’ awareness of the importance of direct, explicit, code-based literacy instruction and their knowledge of phonics terminology, such as consonant blend, diphthong, digraph, and schwa. Specifically, 293 teachers attending a university to receive their teaching credential (preservice teachers) and 131 teachers in the field (in-service teachers) were asked to complete a rating scale inquiring about their beliefs about various practices in literacy instruction along with an assessment of their knowledge of the structure of language. Results of the study suggested that more experienced teachers generally had a more positive view of the role that explicit, code-based instruction plays in supporting the reading development of children. Mather and her colleagues hypothesized that this finding might indicate that experiences with beginning and struggling readers increased teachers’ appreciation for the importance of code-based instruction. Less encouraging was that neither group of teachers had a clear understanding of the importance of letter-sound correspondences as a foundation for accurate word recognition. Instead, the large majority of teachers CUNNINGHA M, O’DONNELL

Book 1.indb 452

452

1/19/2015 9:41:49 PM


believed that the use of context was the most beneficial strategy for identifying an unknown word. Moreover, consistent with the findings of Moats (1994), neither preservice nor in-service teachers had sufficient knowledge of the phonological, orthographic, and morphological structures of the English language to effectively teach reading at a basic, code-based level. In other words, although experience may have supported teachers in the development of an appreciation for the importance of code-based instruction, it had less impact on the development of the knowledge required to successfully provide that instruction.

%P5FBDIFST,OPX8IBUǰFZ%POU,OPX

It is counterintuitive to think that teachers might recognize the importance of a particular instructional approach yet fail to develop their own skills in a manner that would enable them to provide that instruction. However, this recognition may be an important precursor to knowledge gain, and it is therefore crucial to evaluate whether teachers are aware of what they do not know (Cunningham et al., 2004). Cunningham et al. argued that it is only when individuals recognize gaps in their knowledge that they are inclined to seek out and attend to the information they do not possess. Well-calibrated thinking about one’s own knowledge has significant consequences in terms of how likely one is to improve the quality of instruction by targeting the areas of weakness through professional development. To investigate this aspect of teachers’ knowledge, Cunningham and her colleagues (2004) assessed the actual and perceived reading-related subject matter knowledge of 722 teachers of kindergarten through third-grade pupils. The researchers evaluated teachers’ actual knowledge through the use of direct measures of knowledge of phonemic awareness (e.g., the number of speech sounds heard in the word exit=5 and sun=3), and phonics (multiple choice questions related to concepts such as syllables and speech sounds). Perceived knowledge was evaluated by asking teachers to respond to the following questions: How would you describe your current skill level, based on past success, in your (1) knowledge of children’s literature, (2) ability to provide instruction in phonemic awareness, and (3) ability to provide instruction in phonics? Teachers were asked to make one of four choices: (1) no experience, (2) minimal skills, (3) proficient, or (4) expert. Based on their responses, two subgroups of teachers were identified for each category of knowledge. 453

Book 1.indb 453

Consistent with previous research, teachers had limited knowledge in all these domains. However, this study made an additional contribution to the literature: the majority of teachers overestimated their levels of knowledge in word recognition, but not children’s literature. Teachers were particularly poorly calibrated in the essential domains of phonemic awareness and phonics, with the majority of kindergarten to third-grade teachers failing to recognize the limits of their knowledge of skills known to be critical to quality literacy instruction. Spear-Swerling et al. (2005) replicated this study and obtained similar findings for general and special educators (teachers who educate atypical students). The limits of teacher knowledge in this area are not unique to elementary school teachers. Given their involvement with children at a critical time of language development, teachers of children aged three to five in preschool represent an important bridge to literacy acquisition. They are in a unique position to begin helping children develop an awareness of the linguistic elements of language. As the demands of schooling and literacy increase, preschool teachers are increasingly called on to provide explicit and systematic instruction that helps students develop the phonological skills necessary for later efficient word recognition. Cunningham, Zibulsky, and Callahan (2009) examined the knowledge of early childhood educators to determine whether they possess the necessary competencies to guide the literacy development of their students. Similar to the results of studies investigating the knowledge of elementary school teachers, Cunningham, Zibulsky, and Callahan (2009) found that preschool teachers lack the disciplinary knowledge required to promote early literacy and also overestimate what they know. The researchers made the case that overconfidence in one’s ability to teach young children essential language and literacy skills creates a potential obstacle for seeking additional information or professional training.

Attitudes Toward the Teaching of Phonics

The elusiveness of foundational concepts of language may affect teachers’ attitudes about their instructional responsibilities. Cunningham, Zibulsky, Stanovich, et al. (2009) investigated first-grade teachers’ priorities and preferences in beginning reading instruction, and showed that this group’s preferred time allocation for instruction typically did not conform to models of reading instruction substantiated by the National Reading Panel report (2000). Cunningham, Zibulsky, Stanovich, et al. (2009)

T EAC HERS’ KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BEGINNING READING

1/19/2015 9:41:49 PM


found that teachers preferred to spend their reading instruction time on literature-based activities and independent reading and writing. Although teachers with more knowledge of letter-sound correspondences were somewhat more inclined to spend time teaching phonics, the majority of teachers did not allocate their time in ways consistent with research recommendations. Surprisingly, even special education teachers’ overall content knowledge was quite low and they did not favor intensive code-based instruction for struggling readers. These findings have been replicated by Lopes et al. (2014).

*NQBDUPG5FBDIFST,OPXMFEHF on Practices and Student Outcomes

In response to evidence that teachers lack the knowledge to provide quality instruction in early literacy, research efforts turned toward investigations of the relationship between teachers’ knowledge, classroom practices and students’ outcomes. McCutchen et al. (2002) proposed that if knowledge of phonology is essential for children as they acquire literacy (Adams, 1990; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; National Reading Panel, 2000), then knowledge in this area must likewise be important for teachers. They examined the content knowledge of teachers of children ages six to nine in phonology, evaluating the extent to which teachers’ knowledge varied based on grade level or classroom placement (i.e., regular education vs. classrooms of children with special needs) and investigated the impact of teacher knowledge on student’s learning. Results of this study provided further evidence that all grade level teachers generally lack sufficient knowledge of phonology (McCutchen et al., 2002). Furthermore, significant relationships were observed between teacher content knowledge and instructional practices. Across all three grades, teachers’ reading-related content knowledge was correlated with their observed instructional practices. For example, knowledge of phonology was related to the instructional practices utilized in focusing children’s attention on sounds and letter-sound relationships. However, in exploring the relationship between teachers’ content knowledge and student outcomes significant relationships were only observed between kindergarten teachers’ phonological knowledge and their students’ reading achievement (i.e., the more teachers knew about phonology, the better the performance of their students). This linkage was not observed among first- and second-grade teachers. The researchers argued this finding may be due to

methodological reasons. They also noted that the link between kindergarten teachers’ phonological knowledge and their students’ reading performance was troubling because overall, teachers’ phonological knowledge was quite low. Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2004) conducted a study involving 147 novice teachers of special education students. They examined the impact of teacher training and direct instruction emphasizing basic linguistic concepts on teacher knowledge and the progress of their students in the development of basic reading and spelling skills. Teacher instruction was focused on the importance of systematic and explicit teaching of word decoding to beginning readers and children with reading difficulties. Teachers were also taught about the characteristics of language that are reflected in the writing system such as phonemes, graphemes, and morphemes. Additional central concepts included phonemic awareness, the role of orthographic and morphemic units in reading and spelling, common syllable types in English, multi-syllable words, and common phonetically irregular words. The results of the study suggested that teachers who received direct instruction about the English spelling system had greater knowledge of how writing reflects language than teachers who had not received such instruction. A similar pattern of results were observed by McCutchen, Green, Abbott, and Sanders (2009) following teacher training among a sample of teachers of older students (ages 10–12 years old). They found that teachers’ linguistic knowledge uniquely predicted lower-performing students’ end-of-year performance in reading, spelling, writing, and vocabulary. Although some of the data suggest a link between teacher knowledge and student outcomes, investigations of this nature have also produced null results. For example, two experimental studies by Carlisle and her colleagues (Carlisle, Correnti, Phelps, & Zeng, 2009; Carlisle, Kelcey, Rowan, & Phelps, 2011) demonstrated only small and nonsignificant relationships between teachers’ knowledge of early literacy and students’ performance on tests of decoding, word recognition and reading comprehension. In interpreting these results, the researchers point to methodological weaknesses in the field’s approach to studying teacher knowledge and to the complexity of the factors that influence teacher knowledge acquisition. For example, Carlisle and colleagues highlight the potential for limited alignment between measures of teacher knowledge (e.g., knowledge of linguistics) and their knowledge of CUNNINGHA M, O’DONNELL

Book 1.indb 454

454

1/19/2015 9:41:49 PM


how to effectively embed this information into their reading instruction (e.g., understanding of how to effectively utilize knowledge of linguistics in instructing students, or what Shulman, 1987 described as pedagogical content knowledge). Piasta et al. (2009) sought to examine these linkages between teacher knowledge, classroom practice, and student growth. They examined first-grade teachers’ knowledge about early literacy concepts such as phonological awareness and the alphabetic principle, the amount and type of decoding instruction teachers provide, and their students’ outcomes. Piasta et al. hypothesized that teachers’ knowledge impacts students’ outcomes through the type of instruction teachers provide. Their results suggested that students’ gains were predicted by the interaction between the teachers’ knowledge and the amount of explicit decoding instruction students received. Students with more knowledgeable teachers demonstrated stronger gains with increased time in explicit instruction. Conversely, even with an explicit code-focused curriculum, teachers possessing low levels of knowledge produced weaker gains in skill with increased time in explicit phonics instruction. Piasta et al. maintained that their data demonstrated that explicit code-focused curricula cannot replace the expert teaching of highly knowledgeable teachers.

Explaining Gaps in Teacher Knowledge

As the science of reading development has matured over the past thirty years, a convincing body of evidence has emerged regarding how children learn to read and best practices in the teaching of reading. This research base is now coupled with a growing literature suggesting that many teachers do not possess the knowledge and skills needed to provide quality early reading instruction. In many ways, the field of teacher education has not kept up with the literature on reading development and instruction. Necessarily, we turn to the role that teacher preparation at the university level may play in the development of disciplinary content knowledge. For over a decade, researchers and policymakers have been investigating the types of educational opportunities that are afforded to and required of trainee teachers. Lyon (1999b) cautioned that most teachers receive insufficient formal instruction in reading development and reading disabilities or disorders during their undergraduate preparation. Specifically, the average teacher completes just one or two reading courses prior to receiving a degree. Although noted to be insufficient, the statistics 455

Book 1.indb 455

presented by Lyon also beg the question of whether the courses offered to or taken by preservice teachers align with our knowledge of instructional best practices. Additionally, it is unclear whether the content of these courses provides the necessary instruction in reading development, the effective components of literacy instruction, and sufficient knowledge of the English language (Walsh, Glaser, & Wilcox, 2006). In 2001, a study of teacher preparation programs was ordered by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance at the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). In addition to a direct evaluation of preservice teachers’ knowledge about the essential components of early reading instruction, the study included a survey of preservice teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which their training programs focused on the essential components of literacy instruction. Specifically, 2,237 preservice teachers from 99 institutions responded to a survey inquiring about the degree to which their teacher education programs emphasized the five essential components of effective reading instruction of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000), and provided field based practica. On average, preservice teachers rated their training programs as placing only little or moderate emphasis on the essential components of reading instruction. Interestingly, preservice teachers were twice as likely to report that there was a stronger focus on the essential components of reading in their field experiences, whereas they reported the opposite emphasis when answering about their coursework. The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) (2006) also examined what preservice teachers learn about reading instruction in their undergraduate teacher preparation programs. In this study, analyses were not limited to preservice teacher’s perceptions of their coursework. Rather, NCTQ (2006) examined the content of coursework by reviewing the course syllabi and texts for the reading-related courses required of students training to be teachers of children ages six to twelve years old at 72 of the nation’s 1,271 elementary education programs. Courses were analyzed to assess the extent to which they provided instruction in the five essential components of effective reading instruction. The results suggested that education schools are not consistently teaching the principles and practices that recent evidence has demonstrated to be effective. Of the 72 randomly selected schools, 85%


1/19/2015 9:41:49 PM


earned what the study called a failing grade for their instruction of students in the scientific evidence related to reading development and instruction. This finding is noteworthy given that schools could earn a passing grade even if less than 20% of the lectures in a reading-related course were devoted to the science of reading. Additionally, passing grades merely mandated that course materials reference each of the five essential components of reading instruction and did not require any demonstration that the information was presented accurately or sufficiently. What is perhaps of greater concern is that much of the instruction discussed approaches to literacy instruction that were not scientifically based as if they were as effective as approaches which research does support. The NCQT (2006) report made the additional point that not only are the majority of teacher candidates not receiving sufficient exposure to scientifically based methods of reading instruction but that teacher candidates are often advised to develop their own unique approach to teaching reading. One hypothesized explanation for why teacher preparation programs are not adequately preparing their students is that the professors who teach the students lack sufficient awareness or knowledge of these critical elements of reading development and instruction. In a 2009 investigation, Joshi et al. examined whether instructors in teacher training programs have sufficient knowledge of reading development, linguistic concepts, and features of the English language and spelling system. Joshi et al. found that although teachers in these training programs could provide the definition of and manipulate syllables, many had insufficient knowledge of phonemes and concepts related to morphemes. In addition, many instructors of preservice teachers were unable to define phonological awareness (erroneously identifying it as letter-sound correspondence) and failed to recognize phonics as a desirable method for beginning reading instruction. Joshi et al. concluded that professional development opportunities for professors and instructors in teacher preparation programs may be necessary for ensuring proper training of elementary school teachers (see also Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi, & Hougen, 2012). Teacher preparation programs are not solely to blame for the fact that teachers lack sufficient knowledge to provide quality literacy instruction. In order to be considered highly qualified under the laws established in the United States, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: No Child

Left Behind (2002), teachers must not only hold a degree from a four-year institution but must also be fully certified or licensed by the state in which they work and demonstrate competency in the core academic subjects in which they teach. Thus, teacher preparation programs do not operate in isolation. Licensing criteria and licensing exams must also do their part to verify that teachers have sufficient knowledge. Although in the United States there are state-by-state differences in licensing exams and the requirements for the number of reading courses that must be taken, research by Stotsky (2009) suggests that in general, licensing exams do not adequately assess the extent to which teachers know the critical information they must possess in order to effectively teach reading (Wayne & Youngs, 2003).

8IFSF%P8F(P'SPN)FSF

Having established that many teachers lack the skills to provide quality reading instruction, we must now address the gaps in teachers’ content knowledge. Teacher preparation programs are the first line of defense. Highly specified training in empirically based understanding of literacy development, effective literacy instruction, and the elements of the English language should be required components of any teacher preparation program. However, adjustments to professional education programs are only effective in ensuring that future teachers have adequate disciplinary knowledge and concept mastery. In isolation, this approach fails to target current educators, some of who may be in the classroom for 30 or 40 more years. Additionally, simply targeting preservice teachers fails to anticipate that our understanding of the teaching of reading will continue to develop. As a result, we must also rely on the education of teachers through ongoing professional development.

Developing Effective Professional Development Interventions

Professional development refers to the acquisition of skills and knowledge, both for personal development and for career advancement. There are numerous models, including training provided by outside experts such as consultation and coaching, communities of practice (educators working collaboratively to achieve better learning outcome of students), lesson study (small group, inquiry-based approach), mentoring, and reflective supervision (Kennedy, 2005). Because research demonstrates that isolated professional development experiences, such as one-day workshops taught by outside professionals, CUNNINGHA M, O’DONNELL

Book 1.indb 456

456

1/19/2015 9:41:50 PM


do not generally result in lasting change in teacher practices and student achievement (for a review see Joyce & Showers, 1995; Lonigan, Farver, Phillips, & Clancy-Menchetti, 2011), alternative approaches to professional development must be explored. Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to address this topic in depth, recent syntheses of adult learning and teacher development have identified several key features of effective professional development. Professional development is most successful when it (1) is intensive and ongoing, (2) includes a sequence of active learning experiences such as explaining to a peer what one has learned or practicing teaching activities that build on each other, (3) emphasizes specific skills and goals rather than general ones, (4) provides opportunities for application and practice of newly acquired knowledge and skills, and (5) incorporates feedback to participants about their errors or successes as well as reflection and self-assessment (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Fukkink & Lont, 2007). As the demand in the field for skilled and responsive teachers grows, systematic and sustained models of professional development with the above components are needed. An examination of current models to identify the active features involved in teachers’ development of targeted competencies, leading to improvements in children’s school readiness, is also necessary. Because researchers in the field of teacher professional development have called for a shift away from isolated, single, or one-day workshops and training as the primary mode of delivery, a movement toward more sustained models as exemplified by relationship-based professional development models has grown (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001; Fukkink & Lont, 2007). Relationship-based professional development refers to using relationships to improve the quality of adult learning and can take the form of mentoring, coaching, professional learning communities, and consultation. The goal of relationship-based professional development is to use the skills of experts to provide support and opportunities for learning to those who are less experienced, to promote change, and to support improvement in professional knowledge and pedagogy (National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), 2008). Differences in the type of relationship-based professional development are based on the form of relationship, the purpose of the activity, and how information is shared between the expert and teachers (NCCI, 2008). Research suggests that relationship-based professional 457

Book 1.indb 457

development approaches can increase teachers’ knowledge and use of effective classroom practices (e.g., Cunningham et al., in press; Hepburn et al., 2007; Isner et al., 2011; Neuman & Cunningham, 2009; Powell, Diamond, Burchinal, & Koehler, 2010). In addition to these general features of effective professional development, research has indicated that there are additional characteristics of professional development designed to promote student’s emergent literacy and language skills. In a recent review of 37 studies evaluating professional development programs focused on emergent literacy and language among prekindergarten and kindergarten age students, Zaslow, Tout, Halle, Whittaker, and Lavelle (2010) identified several promising practices. First, successful programs provided teachers with recommendations for research-based practices and also encouraged teachers to set their own goals and engage in self-reflection. The provision of instructional resources was another key element. Providing teachers with useful, accessible materials such as activity guides, references for further reading, and summaries of key principles may increase the likelihood of sustainability and fidelity to the approach. Another common thread among effective professional development programs is the notion of establishing a cohort of educators, often from the same school, who collaborate toward a shared long-term goal and learn from each other.

The Teacher Study Group Model

The teacher study group model provides a framework for incorporating the features of effective professional development that we have outlined. This approach is in keeping with principles of relationship-based professional development. In this form of professional development, a small group of teachers meet regularly with a highly trained, knowledgeable facilitator. The goal is to work collaboratively toward deepening content knowledge and integrating research-based practices into teaching. Teachers participating in teacher study groups at the elementary school level reported strong, positive attitudes toward the experience of being included in a supportive, collaborative, and reciprocal professional learning environment and appreciated the opportunity to gain knowledge of research-based strategies to promote children’s literacy development (Foorman & Moats, 2004; Gersten, Dimino, Jayanthi, Kim, & Santoro, 2010). In addition to teachers’ positive responses to this approach, teacher study groups have been


1/19/2015 9:41:50 PM


shown to increase teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge, transform pedagogical practices in the classroom, and positively influence child outcomes (Cunningham et al., in press; Foorman & Moats, 2004; Gersten et al., 2010; Saunders et al., 2001). For example, Cunningham et al. (in press) conducted a study of the teacher study group model of professional development. Their goal was to support teachers’ development of the knowledge and practices that promote children’s emergent literacy in the preschool classroom. Three sequential cohorts involving a total of 19 teachers in a high-need community participated in yearlong interventions. There was no comparison group. Two-hour meetings were held twice monthly, for a total of 16 sessions over the academic year. In the biweekly meetings, disciplinary and pedagogical content knowledge in oral language, phonological awareness, and print knowledge was explored. Outcome measures included teacher knowledge and observational measures of instructional practice and child outcomes for 101 randomly selected preschool children. Consistent with previous research, teachers demonstrated low initial levels of knowledge of phonological awareness, and phonological awareness activities in classrooms were of low quantity and quality. However, pre-, and post-test analyses revealed significant changes in teachers’ own phonological awareness ability, content knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. Increases were also observed in the quantity and quality of phonological awareness activities in the classroom. The preschool children were assessed on a standardized measure of phonological awareness, the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL; Lonigan, Wagner, Torgesen, & Raschotte (2007). Before intervention, 64% of the children scored in the below average range or lower. According to the TOPEL test developers, scores in this range “indicate that a child is below the expected developmental trajectory on at least one of the key skills that predict success in learning to read and write” (Lonigan et al., 2007, p. 20). After the intervention, the number of children who scored below average or lower decreased to 36%. Paired-sample t-tests comparing pre- and post-test standardized TOPEL scores indicated that the children’s phonological awareness abilities improved significantly (pretest M = 86.42, SD = 11.58, posttest M = 91.99, SD = 11.58; t(100) = 5.12, p < .001). The mean change represents a movement from the twenty-third percentile to the thirty-fourth percentile. Although the study lacks a control group, the results offer initial support

for the use of relationship-based models of professional development as a means to address many of the challenges inherent in providing teachers with the knowledge needed to affect child outcomes in literacy. To date, the majority of legislation aimed at educational reform has focused on improving student outcomes by mandating quality instruction. Policymakers must now turn their attention toward building an infrastructure for supporting the development of teachers at both the preservice and in-service level in order to ensure that they are equipped with the skills they need to provide that quality instruction (Aaron, Joshi, & Quatroche, 2008).

Conclusion

In an appendix to George Bernard Shaw’s Man and Superman (1903), he wrote, “He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.” It is not known in what fit of pique George Bernard Shaw wrote these words), but they have plagued the teaching profession since they were offered. The statement assumes a complete separation between knowing and teaching, as if the two were somehow irrevocably separated. Almost a century later, Lee Shulman (1986) reframed Shaw’s words to provide a less damning aphorism: “Those who can, do; those who understand, teach” (p. 14). Here the division between knowledge and teaching is restored, for as Shulman suggests, in order to teach, one must know. Shulman (1986) proffers a conception of teaching and teacher knowledge that includes content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational contexts (i.e., the workings of the classroom, the district, and the character and culture of the community), and knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values. If we consider the movement toward quality teaching and quality educational opportunities, we can see that the split between knowing and teaching has finally gone by the wayside: To teach, one must know. As a research community, we are well on our way to understanding the types of educational experiences that students need to become competent readers. Likewise, we have made great strides in our understanding of what teachers must know in order to provide students with the opportunities that lead to positive outcomes. Despite these advances, there is much work to be done. The 2013 National Assessment CUNNINGHA M, O’DONNELL

Book 1.indb 458

458

1/19/2015 9:41:50 PM


of Education Progress report on reading (NAEP, 2013) showed that only 34% of US students scored at the proficient level, suggesting a level of reading skill commensurate with grade level expectations. It appears that we have fallen short in seeing to it that our research serves its ultimate purpose of informing practice. The research–practice divide may be knitted together by employing a common metric or method for educational decision-making. The first step may be to expose teachers to scientific research on reading in their preservice or in-service preparation programs (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 2001). By sharing the values and methods of science—such as gathering evidence through systematic observation and testing and considering alternative explanations—powerful tools for settling disputes and for educational decision-making will be available to teachers. As Stanovich (1993) pointed out, reliance on a political/ideological rather than a scientific model for making decisions has hampered the field of reading education. The controversies that have plagued the field would have been better adjudicated by equipping teachers with a scientific model of decision-making. The second step in bridging theory and practice is ensuring that all teachers in the United States are exposed to the aspects of language discussed in this chapter. The types of professional development we provide our preservice and in-service teachers should be reconsidered. We recognize that the evidence surrounding the most effective content and methods to teach teachers is far less robust than the base of evidence on reading development and instruction. But an emerging body of research is demonstrating that certain aspects of language related to the teaching of reading are elusive concepts to many teachers. We also recognize that most of the work examining teachers’ knowledge of their spelling system has been conducted in the United States (cf. Lopes et al., 2014). The relationship between teachers’ knowledge of more shallow orthographies (e.g., Spanish, German, Turkish) and children’s reading growth may be different than that observed in the less transparent English spelling system. Third, methods to impart this knowledge to teachers must be explored. Many research-based professional development programs give teachers the what to do, but often neglect to provide the why or how—the critical background knowledge needed for effective teaching of reading. There is a growing recognition that teachers require mentoring in order 459

Book 1.indb 459

to grasp these concepts. Just as teacher–child relationships are integral to children’s learning (Curby, Rimm-Kaufman, & Ponitz, 2009; Mashburn et al., 2008), relationship-based models of professional development may serve as a means to address many of the challenges discussed. Recognizing the communal nature of adult learning, and fostering supportive, collaborative, and reciprocal professional learning environments, may help teachers gain knowledge of research-based strategies to promote children’s literacy development. As Moats argued in her seminal work Teaching Reading Really is Rocket Science (1999), the field has come to acknowledge the complexities of what teachers of reading should know and do. Just as we would not expect a physics teacher to be successful without deep content knowledge and training from supportive and knowledgeable mentors, we should expect the same level of knowledge is necessary for teachers of reading. Efforts must now be made to ensure that this critical information makes its way into the hands of those responsible for the provision of quality literacy instruction, that is, teachers.

Author Note

This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through the Goal 2 Development & Innovation Grant R305A090183 to PI Anne Cunningham, University of California, Berkeley. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education. We gratefully acknowledge the careful reviews of this manuscript provided by Dr. Ruth Nathan, Dr. Jamie Zibulsky, and Yi-Jui Chen.

References

Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., & Quatroche, D. (2008). Becoming a professional reading teacher: What to teach, how to teach, why it matters. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Learning and thinking about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Besner, D., & Smith, M. C. (1992). Basic processes in reading: Is the orthographic depth hypothesis sinking? In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 45–66). New York, NY: Elsevier. Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers, Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 526–536. Bond, G. L., & Dijkstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 5–42. Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97–120.


1/19/2015 9:41:50 PM


Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brady, S., & Moats, L. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation. Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association. Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Lowe E., . . . Wilder, T. D. (2009). First grade teachers’ knowledge of phonological awareness and code concepts: Examining gains from an intensive form of professional development and corresponding teacher attitudes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 425–455. Carlisle, J. F., Correnti, R., Phelps, G., & Zeng, J. (2009). Exploration of the contribution of teachers’ knowledge about reading to their students’ improvement in reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 457–486. Carlisle, J. F., Kelcey, B., Rowan, B., & Phelps, G. (2011). Teachers’ knowledge about early reading: Effects on students’ gains in reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 289–321. Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Chall, J. S. (1992). The new reading debates: Evidence from science, art, and ideology. The Teachers College Record, 94, 315–328. Cheesman, E. A., McGuire, J. M., Shankweiler, D., & Coyne, M. (2009). First-year teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness and its Instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 270–289. Connor, C. M., Son, S., Hindman, A. H., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Teacher qualifications, classroom practices, family characteristics, and preschool experience: Complex effects on first graders’ vocabulary and early reading outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 343–375. Cummings, D. W. (1988). American English spelling. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Cunningham, A. E., Etter, K., Platas, L., Wheeler, S., & Campbell, K. (in press). Professional development in emergent literacy: An examination of teacher study groups. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 139–167. Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., Stanovich, P. J., & Chappell, M. (2001). Is teachers’ knowledge of important declarative knowledge of reading well calibrated? Poster presented at the 8th Annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, June 1–3, 2001, Denver, CO. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945. Cunningham, A. E., & Zibulsky, J. (2009). Perspectives on teachers’ disciplinary knowledge of reading processes, development, and pedagogy. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 375–378. Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., & Callahan, M. (2009). Starting small: Building preschool teacher knowledge that

supports early literacy development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 487–510. Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2009). How teachers would spend their time teaching language arts: The mismatch between self-reported and best practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 418–430. Curby, T. W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ponitz, C. C. (2009). Teacher–child interactions and children’s achievement trajectories across kindergarten and first grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 912–925. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council. Foorman, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 51–60. Fukkink, R. G., & Lont, A. (2007). Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 294–311. Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Kim, J. S., & Santoro, L. E. (2010). Teacher study group: Impact of the professional development model on reading instruction and student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 694–739. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8. Goodman, K. (1986). What’s whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hepburn, K. S., Kauffman, R. K., Perry, D. F., Allen, M. D., Brennan, E. M., & Green, B. L. (2007). Early childhood mental health consultation: An evaluation tool kit. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Isner, T., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Soli, M., Quinn, K., Rothenberg, L., & Burkhauser, M. (2011). Coaching in early care and education programs and quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS): Identifying promising features. Washington, DC: Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County. Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Graham, L., Ocker-Dean, E., Smith, D. L., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2009). Do textbooks used in university reading education courses conform to the instructional recommendations of the National Reading Panel? Journal of Learning Disabilities. 42, 458–463. Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 392–402. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of continuing professional development: A framework for analysis Journal of In-Service Education, 31, 235–250. Lonigan, C. J., Farver, J. M., Phillips, B. M., & Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2011). Promoting the development of preschool children’s emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 305–337. Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2007). The test of preschool early literacy (TOPEL). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc. Lopes, J., Spear-Swerling, L., Oliveira, C., Velasquez, M. G., & Zibulsky, J. (2014). Actual disciplinary knowledge, perceived

CUNNINGHA M, O’DONNELL

Book 1.indb 460

460

1/19/2015 9:41:50 PM


disciplinary knowledge, teaching experience and teacher’s training for reading instruction: A study with primary Portuguese and American teachers. Revista de Psicodidactica, 19, 45–65. Lyon, G. R. (1999a, July, 27). Hearing on Title I (Education of the Disadvantaged) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Workforce United States House of Representative. Electronic mailing list message. http://archives.republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/ hearings/106th/fc/esea72799/lyon.htm. Lyon, G. R. (1999b). In celebration of science in the study of reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction: The NICHD perspective. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 5, 85–115. Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., . . . Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79, 732–749. Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 472–482. McCutchen, D., Green, L., Abbott, R. D., & Sanders, E. A. (2009). Further evidence for teacher knowledge: Supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 401–423. McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox. S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. E. (2002). Reading teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207–228. Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–101. Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do? Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1995). NAEP Facts: Listening to children read aloud: Oral fluency. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics (2013). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2013 Mathematics and Reading Assessments. http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/ student-groups. National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI). (2008). State requirements for minimum preservice qualifications for child care center teachers and master teachers in 2007. National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center. Washington, DC. National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren’t learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research

461

Book 1.indb 461

literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. National Research Council (NRC). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Neuman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development and coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 532–566. No Child Left Behind. (2002). No child left behind act. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 224–248. Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on head start teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 299–312. Saunders, B., O’Brien, G., Hasenstab, K., Marcelletti, D., Saldivar, T., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Getting the most out of school-based professional development. In P. Schmidt & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Reconceptualizing literacy in the new age of pluralism and multiculturalism (pp. 289–320). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Shaw, G. B. (1903). Man and superman: Maxims for revolutionists. London, England: Penguin Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review 57, 1–21. Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 332–364. Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What science offers teachers of reading. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 51–57. Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, A. M. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge and self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 266–296. Stanovich, K. E. (1993). Romance and reality. Reading Teacher, 47, 280–280. Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (1995). How research might inform the debate about early reading acquisition. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 87–105. Stotsky, S. (2009). Licensure tests for special education teachers: How well they assess knowledge of reading instruction and mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 464–474. Treiman, R., Kessler, B., & Evans, R. (2007). Anticipatory conditioning of spelling-to-sound translation. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 229–245.

TE ACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BEGINNING READING

1/19/2015 9:41:51 PM


Venezky, R. L. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English orthography. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren’t learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89–122.

Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. E. (2003). What teachers need to know about language. In C. T. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7–54). McHenry, IL: Delta System Co. Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Whittaker, J. V., & Lavelle, B. (2010). Toward the identification of features of effective professional development for early childhood educators: Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education.

CUNNINGHA M, O’DONNELL

Book 1.indb 462

462

1/19/2015 9:41:51 PM