Teacher candidates' mastery of phoneme-grapheme ...

Ann. of Dyslexia DOI 10.1007/s11881-016-0126-2

Teacher candidates’ mastery of phoneme-grapheme correspondence: massed versus distributed practice in teacher education Kristin L. Sayeski 1 & Gentry A. Earle 1 & R. Paige Eslinger 1 & Jessy N. Whitenton 1

Received: 27 October 2015 / Accepted: 5 February 2016 # The International Dyslexia Association 2016

Abstract Matching phonemes (speech sounds) to graphemes (letters and letter combinations) is an important aspect of decoding (translating print to speech) and encoding (translating speech to print). Yet, many teacher candidates do not receive explicit training in phonemegrapheme correspondence. Difficulty with accurate phoneme production and/or lack of understanding of sound-symbol correspondence can make it challenging for teachers to (a) identify student errors on common assessments and (b) serve as a model for students when teaching beginning reading or providing remedial reading instruction. For students with dyslexia, lack of teacher proficiency in this area is particularly problematic. This study examined differences between two learning conditions (massed and distributed practice) on teacher candidates’ development of phoneme-grapheme correspondence knowledge and skills. An experimental, pretest-posttest-delayed test design was employed with teacher candidates (n = 52) to compare a massed practice condition (one, 60-min session) to a distributed practice condition (four, 15-min sessions distributed over 4 weeks) for learning phonemes associated with letters and letter combinations. Participants in the distributed practice condition significantly outperformed participants in the massed practice condition on their ability to correctly

* Kristin L. Sayeski [email protected] Gentry A. Earle [email protected] R. Paige Eslinger [email protected] Jessy N. Whitenton [email protected]

1

Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education, University of Georgia, 517 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA

K.L. Sayeski et al.

produce phonemes associated with different letters and letter combinations. Implications for teacher preparation are discussed. Keywords Beginning reading instruction . Distributed practice . Letter sounds . Phonemegrapheme correspondence . Phonology . Teacher preparation Moats (1994) identified a lack of basic language instruction within teacher preparation as problematic. Unfortunately, in the two decades since Moats’ recommendation, researchers continue to find that teachers do not possess critical knowledge and skills related to beginning reading (Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, & Stanovich, 2004; Spear-Swerling, Brucker, & Alfano, 2005; Washburn, Matesha Joshi, & Binks Cantrell, 2011). One area identified within the broad framework of basic language instruction is teachers’ understanding of phonemes (speech sounds) to graphemes (letters and letter combinations) and their relation to decoding (translating print to speech) and encoding (translating speech to print). As noted by Moats (2010), B…phoneme-grapheme relationships are the foundational building blocks of the orthographic code^ (p. 91). Teacher lack of knowledge related to phoneme-grapheme correspondence can inhibit their ability to support students’ reading development. Further, teachers’ lack of correct phoneme pronunciation can make it difficult for teachers to (a) identify student errors and (b) serve as a model for students when teaching beginning reading (Gormley & Ruhl, 2007). Yet, many teacher candidates do not receive explicit training in alphabetics including phoneme manipulation and accurate phoneme-grapheme production (Bursuck & Damer, 2015; Salinger et al., 2010). The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of two different models of instruction designed to teach elementary education teacher candidates how to identify and produce phonemes associated with different letters and letter combinations.

Importance of phoneme-grapheme correspondence knowledge Sound-symbol correspondence in English is complex. Single letters of the alphabet are insufficient for representing the approximately 44 phonemes in English; thus, letter combinations are also required to represent phonemes (e.g., ch, ng, oo, igh). Despite the complexity of English orthography, researchers have found that alphabet knowledge (knowledge of letter names and corresponding sounds) is one of the most durable predictors of later reading and spelling achievement (Hammill, 2004; Schatschneider, Fletcher, Francis, Carlson, & Foorman, 2004). Knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondence contributes to students’ grasp of the alphabetic principle, a dual understanding that written letters represent speech sounds and systematic and predictable relations between letters and sounds exist (Huang, Tortorelli, & Invernizzi, 2014). Thus, phoneme-grapheme correspondence knowledge is necessary for beginning decoding (the mapping of sounds to various graphemes) and contributes to students’ success with advanced word analysis. Research has shown failure to master sound-symbol correspondence is correlated with future difficulty in learning to read (Hammill, 2004). In addition, students who enter kindergarten with minimal knowledge of sounds associated with various letters (i.e., knowing only a few letter sounds) have been shown to be at risk for later reading difficulties (Huang et al., 2014). Given the important role of phoneme-grapheme knowledge, strong instruction is necessary, particularly for those at greatest risk—students

Candidates’ Mastery of Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence

from low socioeconomic backgrounds, second language learners, and students with disabilities (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). For students with dyslexia, for which research has demonstrated reduced neural integration of letters and speech sounds (Blau et al., 2010), explicit, intensive instruction in phoneme-grapheme correspondence is paramount (Moats, 2009). Although lack of phoneme-grapheme correspondence knowledge places students at a disadvantage for learning to read, researchers have found that explicit instruction can have a significant effect on student acquisition of alphabet knowledge (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Oudeans, 2003; Shaw & Sundberg, 2008). That is, these researchers have demonstrated that students, regardless of disability status or background, can make gains when provided explicit skill instruction. Yet, current practices associated with alphabet instruction (a) vary widely (Justice, Pence, Bowles, & Wiggins, 2006); (b) often employ a one-letter-per-week approach— a common, yet flawed practice (Jones et al., 2013); and (c) can be insufficient to meet the needs of students most at risk for reading failure (Piasta & Wagner, 2010). Thus, although studies have demonstrated the capacity of explicit, letter-sound instruction to result in gains in student learning, in order for strong instruction to occur at the K-12 level, teachers need to possess the knowledge and skills necessary for teaching phoneme-grapheme correspondence.

Teacher knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondence Teaching reading requires considerable knowledge and skill, yet researchers have consistently identified deficiencies associated with teacher preparation related to beginning reading instruction (Moats, 2009). When assessed, teacher candidates (Bos et al., 2001; Washburn, BinksCantrell, Joshi, Martin-Change, & Arrow, 2015), inservice teachers (Bos et al., 2001; Cheesman, McGuire, Shankweiler, & Coyne, 2009), and university-level reading instructors (Joshi et al., 2009) have demonstrated gaps in knowledge of basic language constructs such as phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, alphabet knowledge, phonics, and morphology. Limitations have been found in relation to conceptual knowledge (e.g., understanding of the alphabetic principle) and specific skills (e.g., the ability to identify phonemes within words). One area of beginning reading instruction that has been less frequently assessed is teachers’ knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondence and skill in producing phonemes associated with letters and letter combinations. Given the important role that phoneme-grapheme mapping plays in learner development, it is surprising that such limited attention has been placed on the assessment of teachers’ skills and knowledge in this area. Moats (2009) identified lack of explicit preparation of teachers in the speech-sound system and phoneme-grapheme correspondences as two barriers to the effective delivery of phonics instruction. In addition, as the majority of early literacy screening tools require teachers to identify student errors in the production of phonemes—either through phoneme segmentation tasks or grapheme-phoneme correspondence (i.e., letter-sound identification) tasks—teachers who lack proficiency in their ability to produce clear phonemes in isolation and/or are unfamiliar with phoneme-grapheme mapping are at a disadvantage for administering such screenings (Snowling, Duff, Petrou, Schiffeldrin, & Bailey, 2011). Finally, teachers serve as a critical model for students when teaching the phonemes associated with letters and letter combinations. When teachers produce incorrect sounds or fail to produce crisp, clear sounds (e.g., adding the schwa sound, / /, to a letter such as stating /buh/ for the letter b), students may experience difficulty applying their knowledge of phoneme-grapheme mapping to blending tasks required for decoding (e.g., blending the sounds in the word Bbig^ as /buh/-/i/-/g/ and stating Bbug^ rather than Bbig^).

K.L. Sayeski et al.

It is most likely assumed that teachers, as fluent readers, possess an understanding of phoneme-grapheme correspondence and skill in producing the phonemes associated with letters in isolation. A study by Gormley and Ruhl (2007), however, demonstrated significant letter-sound deficits of teacher candidates. For their study, teacher candidates were randomly assigned to either a control (no instruction) or experimental (explicit phoneme-grapheme instruction) group. Even though the explicit training program resulted in significant gains in the experimental group’s ability to produce accurate phonemes when presented with graphemes, candidates did not master all correspondences taught. Letters and letter combinations such as ng, oo, o, th, and a, in particular, presented challenges even after candidates completed the training program. The Gormley and Ruhl study demonstrated (a) the capacity of explicit instruction to improve the phoneme-grapheme knowledge of teacher candidates and (b) the need for further research to identify instructional methods within teacher preparation to facilitate even greater growth.

Need for research on instructional methodology within teacher preparation Although limited research has been conducted on the application of specific methodologies within teacher preparation for teaching aspects associated with reading development (see Sayeski, Gormley Budin, & Bennett, 2015 for an overview of promising practices), a great deal of research has been conducted on how people learn. Many of these learning principles can be applied within teacher preparation in order to enhance the knowledge and skills of teacher candidates. Two such concepts are the use of constant time delay for the acquisition of specific skills (Hughes, Fredrick, & Keel, 2002) and the application of distributed practice (Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013).

Constant time delay Explicit instruction occurs when learning tasks are clearly delineated and modeled and corrective feedback is provided (Archer & Hughes, 2011). Researchers have identified many features of explicit instruction that increase the likelihood of learning. Specifically, increased opportunities to respond (MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015; Szadokierski and Burns 2008) and the provision of timely, corrective feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Konold, Miller, & Konold, 2004) result in durable learning effects. One evidence-based strategy that employs both of these features is constant time delay. Constant time delay (CTD) is a method of teaching in which stimulus control is transferred from a controlling prompt (i.e., a model of the desired response) to a target stimulus (i.e., what initiates the response). For example, when learning phoneme-grapheme correspondence, a target stimulus could be the presentation of the letter b. The target skill is the production of the phoneme associated with that letter, /b/. CTD begins with the simultaneous, 0-s delay presentation of target stimulus (e.g., the letter b) and the controlling prompt (i.e., /b/). After students reliably respond to the target stimulus under the 0-s condition, a fixed delay (e.g., 3 s) between the presentation of the target stimulus and the controlling prompt is provided. Learners can either provide the correct response prior to the presentation of the controlling prompt or wait the 3 s until the controlling prompt is provided. CTD minimizes student error and promotes active student engagement through multiple opportunities to respond with immediate, corrective feedback. A large body of research has demonstrated the efficacy of CTD across student populations and tasks (Campbell & Mechling, 2009; Head, Collins, Schuster, & Ault, 2011; Hughes et al., 2002; Walker, 2008). For this study, it was hypothesized


that use of CTD procedures would support teacher candidate acquisition of phonemegrapheme correspondence knowledge (i.e., the letter c can represent two sounds, /k/ or /s/; diagraphs are two-letter combinations that represent a single phoneme) and skill (i.e., pronunciation of /k/ and /s/; /th/ and /sh/).

Distributed practice Distributed practice refers to the establishment of a schedule of practice and engagement with material over time and across sessions (Dunlosky et al., 2013); in contrast, massed practice occurs when material is presented repeatedly within a short period of time (Logan, Castel, Haber, & Viehman, 2012). Research has demonstrated the utility of distributed practice, yet instruction within higher education, in general, and teacher preparation, specifically, tends to reflect massed practice (Seabrook, Brown, & Solity, 2005). That is, in teacher preparation programs students receive concentrated weekly or bi-weekly instruction and engagement on a topic prior to moving on to new topics in subsequent sessions. Although some themes may run across sessions, engagement around specific topics and instructional practices related to those topics is typically massed within one or two class sessions. One of the first studies to examine the effects of distributed practice was conducted in 1885. Ebbinghaus (1885/1964) found fewer learning trials were required when learning sessions were distributed across time in contrast to presentation within a single study session. Since Ebbinghaus’ original study, a large and varied body of research has confirmed this learning phenomenon (Bude et al., 2011; Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006; Hocevar & Zimmer, 1994; Janiszewski, Noel, & Sawyer, 2003). For example, Cepeda et al.’s (2006) meta-analysis identified 317 experiments and 839 assessments of distributed practice. Cepeda et al. found, on average, that the distribution of learning across weeks or months resulted in 15 % greater learning when compared to massed practice. Research on distributed practice typically reflects Bbetween sessions designs^ (Haq & Kodak, 2015; Kupper-Tetzel, 2014). For between session research, participants (a) are introduced to the content during an initial learning session followed by an inter-study interval (ISI), which can range from minutes to days to weeks or longer; (b) engage in one or more relearning sessions followed by a retention interval (RI) of varying or standardized duration; and (c) are assessed on target content (see Fig. 1). Some studies will assess students immediately following the final relearning session to determine initial acquisition. Delayed assessment after the RI indicates participant retention of the content. For this study, we sought to determine if the spacing of instruction (i.e., distributed versus massed) would have an impact on candidate learning. As teacher preparation tends to reflect massed practice, we were particularly interested in determining if changing the distribution of learning—dividing it into brief sessions distributed across weeks—would produce meaningful learning effects. Further, it was hypothesized that employing an explicit teaching technique Initial Session

Relearning Session(s) (singular or multiple)

Inter-study Interval (ISI) min-years

Fig. 1 Between-sessions distributed practice

ISI

Delayed Test

Retention Interval (RI) standard or varying duration

K.L. Sayeski et al.

(i.e., CTD) would increase the learning of participants in both conditions (massed and distributed) and, therefore, allow for a rigorous examination of spacing of instruction. In sum, we believed that CTD teaching would result in all candidates improving their phoneme-grapheme correspondence knowledge and production of phonemes associated with graphemes but were interested in examining if differences in spacing of instruction would produce a measurable, differential effect on learning. Guiding research questions were as follows: 1. Do conditions for learning (distributed versus massed practice) result in differences in the acquisition of phoneme-grapheme knowledge and skills? 2. Do conditions for learning (distributed versus massed practice) result in differences in retention of phoneme-grapheme knowledge and skills?

Methods Participants Fifty-two students enrolled in a special education methods course at a large public university in the Southeast of the United States agreed to participate in the study. All participants were enrolled in a general education, elementary education preparation program and required to take one special education course. Two students were male and 50 were female. For race and ethnicity, the participants were allowed to select all races and ethnicities that applied to them. The following race and ethnicities were represented: White (n = 42), Hispanic or Latino (n = 4), Asian (n = 3), Black or African American (n = 2), and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (n = 1). The majority of participants were between the ages of 20–22 (n = 28), with 18 between the ages 17–19, two participants between the ages 23–25, and two participants older than 25; two participants did not provide their age. Finally, one participant was a graduate student and all others were undergraduates.

Procedures An experimental, pretest-posttest-delayed test design was used to address the research questions. Prior to the start of the semester, participants in the early childhood (elementary education) program were randomly assigned to sections of the course; students in two of the sections were invited to participate in the study. One section was assigned to the distributed practice condition (group 1), and the other section was assigned to the massed practice condition (group 2).

Phoneme-grapheme correspondence assessment An assessment of participants’ phoneme-grapheme correspondence knowledge (i.e., some letters represent more than one phoneme) and skill in producing phonemes associated with graphemes (i.e., b is pronounced /b/) was conducted as the pretest, posttest, and delayed test. This oral assessment was conducted individually, and all participant responses were recorded using the Voice Record Pro app (Dayana Networks Ltd., 2015). For the Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence Assessment, participants were presented with a page of letters and letter combinations (see


Appendix A) and directed to produce a sound or sounds associated with each letter or letter combination. Therefore, the assessment captured participants’ knowledge of the number of sounds a letter or letter combination could represent and the capacity to produce a crisp, clear representation of the sound. The order of the presentation of the letters and letter combinations varied from time 1 (pretest) to time 2 (posttest) to time 3 (delayed test), but all assessment points included the same set of letters and letter combinations. To score the audio recording, all assessments were first scored by a speech-language pathologist, who was blind to participant condition. This original coding established the training materials for rater 1 (first author) and rater 2 (second author); again, raters were blind to condition as only participant codes were used. Inter-rater agreement was coded for 20 % of the assessments. Cohen’s kappa (κ) statistic was performed to determine consistency. There was strong agreement between the ratings, κ = 0.92, 95 % CI [.906, .934], p < .0001.

Intervention Both groups received 1.5 h of instruction (interactive lecture) on the topic of the alphabetic principle and learning the CTD procedures prior to engaging in practice sessions. The Binteractive lecture^ consisted of students reading information, instructor delivery of content via a slide-show presentation, and group and individual practice and feedback on study-related skills. Specifically, participants first read a brief chapter on the alphabetic principle—Phonics and Word Study (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2004). Second, the first author introduced the following terms and concepts: alphabetic principle, phonemes, phonemic awareness, and graphemes. Third, initial instruction in phoneme-grapheme production was provided. During this instruction, participants were taught that phonemes represent speech sounds characterized by articulatory features such as the difference between the production and function of vowels (e.g., produced with a relatively unobstructed vocal tract) and consonants (e.g., produced with constriction). Other articulatory features taught included the difference between voiced and unvoiced sounds (e.g., /v/ and /f/, /d/ and /t/, /b/ and /p/) and Blong^ (tense) and Bshort^ (lax) vowels. Likewise, graphemes were taught as Bletter or letter combinations that spell a single phoneme in English^ (Moats, 2010, p. 275). In addition, concepts such as tricks to not producing the schwa sound when pronouncing phonemes in isolation and novel pronunciations (e.g., /kww/ for the digraph qu and /yee/ for the letter y) were presented. Finally, CTD and its components, 0-s trials and 3-s trials, were modeled and practiced.

Preetest + Interactive Leecture 1.5 hours

Study Session #1 15 min


Inter-study Interval (I 7 days


udy Inter-stu Interval (ISI) 7 dayss

Study Session #4 15 min + Posttest

Inter-study Interval (ISI) 7 day s

Delayyed Test

Retention Interval (RI) 4 weeks

Fig. 2 Participants in the distributed practice condition engaged in four study sessions (15 min in duration) followed by a 7-day ISI. A posttest was administered immediately following the final study session. A retention interval of 4 weeks was provided prior to delivery of the delayed test

K.L. Sayeski et al.

After initial instruction, which was the same for both conditions, the participants engaged in different schedules of practice. Participants in group 1, the distributed condition, engaged in four, subsequent, 15-min practice sessions over a period of 4 weeks (see Fig. 2). Participants in group 2, the massed practice condition, engaged in one, 60-min practice session (see Fig. 3). For both groups, retention data were collected 4 weeks after the intervention ended. For the practice session(s), participants followed a modified CTD procedure to learn to correctly produce the phonemes associated with various letters and letter combinations. To employ the CTD procedure, participants received the following materials: (a) an iPad mini opened to audio-enabled, electronic flashcard sets (quizlet.com) and (b) a data collection sheet (see Appendix A for a copy of the CTD data sheet). Each letter and letter combination to be taught was presented on one side of the electronic flashcard, and a cue for the pronunciation of sound(s) associated with the letter or letter combination was presented on the back. In addition, under the 0-s condition, presentation of the letter or letter combination was immediately paired with an audio presentation of the pronunciation(s) associated with the letter or letters. For example, for the letter y, the audio pronunciation would be B/yeee/, /ī/, /ē/^, and the cue was B/yeee/ as in ‘yellow’, /ī/ as in ‘cry’, /ē/ as in ‘baby’.^ It is important to note that, for each grapheme, the most common phoneme associated with the grapheme was presented. However, for some graphemes additional phonemes were also taught as the intent of the study was to reinforce the concept that phonemes can be represented by more than one spelling pattern. Therefore, participants were presented with 56 graphemes and taught 75 corresponding phonemes (e.g., f = /f/ as in Bfun,^ ph = /f/ as in Bphone^). The letter and letter combinations were divided into five groups. For the practice session(s), participants were randomly assigned to a partner; one participant would serve as the tutor and record the tutee’s performance for the first set and then roles would be reversed prior to moving on to the second set. For the 0-s second condition, the tutee would activate the flashcard, thus activating the audio presentation of the phoneme(s). Tutees would then repeat the phoneme(s). Tutors would indicate correct and incorrect pronunciations on the data collection sheet and provide immediate, corrective feedback by replaying the phoneme(s), if needed. After participants correctly produced phonemes correctly under the 0-s second condition, participants turned off the audio and employed a 3-s delay condition. If a tutee did not respond within 3 s, the tutor turned on the audio to play the sound as a model. The tutee would then state the phoneme(s) associated with the letter or letter combination. Participants in the distributed condition were provided 15 min of practice at the beginning of their class each week for 4 weeks. Upon arrival to class, iPads were open to the quizlet.com flashcards, partners were pre-assigned via name cards at each table, and materials for data recording were on each table. At the end of 15 min, participants were directed to return all Pretest + Interactiv Lecture 1.5 hours

Stu y Sessio #1 60 mi + Postt s

Delayed Test

Retent on Interval (RI) 4 weeks

Fig. 3 Participants in the massed practice condition engaged in one study session (60 min in duration). A posttest was administered immediately following the study session. A retention interval of 4 weeks was provided prior to delivery of the delayed test


materials. Given the individual pace of the partners, not all participants engaged in the same number of trials, but the amount of practice time was held constant for each participant in this condition. Participants in the massed condition received the same materials and directions for practice. In contrast to the distributed condition, however, they received one, 60-min block of time for practice. Similar to the distributed practice condition, the number of trials engaged in by the partners varied, but all participants received a total of 60 min of practice time. The posttest was conducted immediately following the final practice session for participants in the distributed practice condition and after the single practice session for participants in the massed practice condition. For both groups, a delayed test was administered 4 weeks after the posttest.

Results A repeated measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) was conducted to examine differences in participant performance across time and condition. A compound symmetry correlation structure was assumed for the within-subject measurements; the compound symmetry correlation structure assumes that within a single subject, measures are correlated, but across subjects, measures are not correlated. Analysis confirmed that the compound symmetry covariance structure resulted in the smallest Bayesian information criterion (BIC). The RMANOVA demonstrated an interaction of time and condition. Thus, different conditions resulted in differences in performance over time to a statistically significant degree, F(2, 72) = 13.66, p < .0001. In order to address research questions related to the differential effect of the treatments (i.e., distributed and massed practice), post hoc tests were run. To adjust for multiple testing, the Tukey-Kramer procedure was employed for post hoc analysis.

Pretest to posttest results First contrasts were run to determine if the groups were different at time 1. For the pretest, there were no significant differences between the two groups, t(72) = 0.47, p = 0.997. Participants in both treatment groups made significant gains from pretest to posttest, t(72) = −19.42, p < .0001 [distributed practice] and t(72) = −9.92, p < .0001 [massed practice], indicating the effectiveness of explicit instruction (i.e., CTD instruction) for both groups. When examining differences between groups from pretest to posttest, however, results demonstrated statistically significant gains by candidates in the distributed practice group when compared with gains made by candidates in the massed practice, t(72) = 4.70, p < .0001. Therefore, although both groups improved in their ability to correctly produce phonemes when presented with letters and letter combinations, the distributed practice had a statistically significant effect on candidates’ ability to correctly produce phonemes. Delayed test To determine if the two conditions for learning resulted in differences in retention of phoneme-grapheme knowledge and production skills, several contrasts were run. First, between-group differences from pretest (time 1) to delayed test (time 3) were statistically significant, t(72) = 4.15, p < .0001, indicating that 4 weeks after the intervention, candidates in the distributed practice group were able to produce more correct phonemes than candidates in the massed practice group. However, both groups produced fewer correct phonemes on the delayed test in comparison to the posttest (see Fig. 4). In order to determine

K.L. Sayeski et al.

Fig. 4 Differences across time by condition

if there was a differential rate in decrease of scores, a second contrast was run; this contrast demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the two groups, t(72) = −0.28, p = 0.78. That is, although both groups’ scores dropped, they dropped at a similar rate (see Fig. 4).

Effect size calculations Finally, in order to determine the magnitude of the difference between the distributed and massed conditions, standardized mean effects were calculated using means and standard deviations (Table 1) for time 2 (posttest) and time 3. For the posttest, differences between the distributed and massed conditions resulted in a Cohen’s effect size value of d = 1.79, indicating a large effect. Similarly, on the delay test, the effect size was d = 1.80.

Table 1 Pretest, posttest, and delayed test means and standard deviations

Distributed practice condition Massed practice condition

Pretest M (SD)

Posttest M (SD)

Delayed test M (SD)

36.61 (11.09) 33.80 (9.86)

65.22 (5.74) 52.13 (8.58)

60.67 (4.95) 47.67 (8.94)


Discussion As noted by Bursuck and Damer (2015), BAn often neglected key to teaching phonics effectively is the careful pronunciation of letter sounds.^ (p. 84). Findings from this study indicated that prior to instruction teacher candidates were not able to accurately and fluently produce phonemes associated with specific graphemes, but instruction (i.e., a modified CTD procedure) increased candidates’ knowledge and skill related to correct phoneme production. In relation to the research questions, data demonstrated the differential effect of distributed practice over massed practice for teaching phoneme-grapheme correspondence. A delayed test demonstrated that although gains made through distributed practice were maintained, the rate at which scores dropped was similar for participants’ in both the massed and distributed condition. The learning gains achieved by participants in the distributed practice condition can also be quantified in terms of the percentage of material learned. For this study, the pretest to posttest scores were M = 36.61 and M = 65.22 (distributed condition) and M = 33.80 and M = 52.13 (massed condition). Participants in the distributed condition grew by 78 % and participants in the massed condition grew by 54 %. Therefore, participants in the distributed practice condition grew 24 percentage points or 44 % more than participants in the massed practice group. This number is above the average gain of 15 % identified by Cepeda et al. (2006) in their meta-analysis of distributed practice research. One of the benefits frequently identified in the literature on distributed practice is its capacity to flatten the Bforgetting curve^—a decline in memory over time (Averell & Heathcote, 2011). Although variations in complexity of content to be learned, duration of ISI, and duration of RI impact the degree to which forgetting is reduced or even eliminated (Cepeda et al., 2009), in general, researchers have found that spacing learning aids in initial learning and retention of learning (Logan et al., 2012). Given this prior research, it was hypothesized that participants in the distributed practice condition would retain their phoneme-grapheme correspondence knowledge to a greater degree than participants in the massed condition. This, however, was not the case. Although participants in the distributed practice condition were able to correctly produce more letter sounds than participants in the massed condition on the delayed test, loss occurred at a similar rate. To enhance an understanding of this phenomenon, future research should explore the effects of (a) adding a second delayed test to see if rate of decline continued to be similar, (b) extending the initial intervention period (i.e., more 15-min study sessions), or (c) increasing or decreasing the inter-study interval.

Limitations When considering the findings from this study, limitations should be considered. First, the study involved the presentation of graphemes (letters and letter combinations) for which participants were to produce a singular or predetermined set of phonemes associated with the graphemes. Recommendations for providing structured literacy instruction involve the teaching of phonology, which would include the accurate pronunciation of phonemes, and then teaching sound-symbol association (Moats et al., 2010). Therefore, presenting sound-symbol correspondence by rote outside of a comprehensive approach to reading instruction may have limited participants’ understanding of effective reading instruction—one that facilitates pattern recognition. This limitation holds particularly true for when less common associations and

K.L. Sayeski et al.

positional graphemes (e.g., Bdge^) were presented. Future research should include contextual information on a developmental sequence of instruction that moves from phonology (identification, pronunciation, and classification of phonemes) to phoneme-grapheme mapping and blending of regular, one-syllable correspondence patterns to the instruction of more complex spelling patterns. Instruction of this kind would help facilitate generalization to application of the knowledge in context—teaching reading. Second, the Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence Assessment was administered in hallways and empty classrooms near participants’ classrooms. Although the voice recording app was sensitive to low voices, occasional background noise interfered with the ability to capture .001 % (n = 12 responses out of over 8000) of participants’ responses. Analyses were only conducted using available data, but the conditions may have affected participant performance. Future research should ensure a quiet space for assessment. Another limitation is the lack of a second delayed test. Given that participants in both groups demonstrated a similar rate of forgetting (the same slope), the provision of a second, delayed test would have demonstrated if the slope at which participants in the distributed and massed conditions lost or Bforgot^ phoneme-grapheme knowledge would have continued on the same trajectory or if, similar to other distributed practice research, there would have been a flattening of the Bcurve of forgetting.^ Ideally, a second delayed test within the same semester and a test a year later would provide important information to teacher educators regarding the durability of the methods and/or the need to provide additional review throughout a program.

Conclusion Phoneme-grapheme mapping instruction is an important aspect of beginning reading instruction. Teachers who are fluent in their ability to produce crisp, clear phonemes in isolation and are more knowledgeable about phoneme-grapheme correspondence are more likely to (a) serve as a strong model for blending sounds; (b) identify student errors in the production, isolation, or manipulation of phonemes; and (c) help students understand the relation between phonemes and graphemes for both reading and spelling. As noted by Moats (2009): BPhoneme-grapheme mapping instruction …requires precise knowledge of both speech sounds and the letters and letter combinations that represent them^ (p. 385). Thus, focused instruction in phoneme-grapheme correspondence is warranted within teacher preparation. Findings from this study demonstrate the value of employing distributed practice to create a robust learning experience for teacher candidates. Given the findings from this study, the issue of what should be addressed regarding beginning literacy within teacher preparation (see Moats et al., 2010) should also be informed by how it is addressed. The current study addressed a foundational, yet narrow, element of beginning reading and demonstrated the capacity of candidates to attain phoneme-grapheme correspondence knowledge and skill. Continued research, however, is required to help teacher educators identify those methods of teacher preparation that increase the likelihood of mastering and retaining the wide range of content and skills required of beginning and remedial reading teachers. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Jennifer Lindstrom for her valuable feedback on the development of the study and manuscript and Bethany Hamilton-Jones for her support in study implementation.


Appendix Table 2 Phoneme-grapheme correspondence assessment t

oi

j

ey

f

ur

ph

ou

sh

e

b

i

v

ea

aw

c

dge

au

or

z

p

x

qu

r

ai

k

igh

w

th

oo

h

ee

m

oy

s

a

l

ew

ch

y

ow

gh

u

wh

oa

ng

o

g

ay

oe

ir

d

er

n

ar

ck

Table 3 Constant time delay scoring sheet Set no. 1: Letter(s) m ou

Phoneme

Letter(s)

Phoneme

___ /m/ as in Bman^ ___ /ou/ as in Bshout^

ph u

___ /f/ as in Bphone^ ___ /ŭ/ as in Bup^ ___ /yū/ as in Bmule^

ck e

___ /k/ as in Bsock^ ___ /ĕ/ as in Bbet^ ___ /ē/ as in BPete^

b

___ /b/ as in Bbat^

y

___ /yeee/ as in Byellow^ ___ /ī/ as in Bcry^ ___ /ē/ as in Bbaby^

x

___ /ks/ as in Bfox^

oe

___ /ō/ as in Btoe^

___ /j/ as in Bjug^

ee ERRORS

___ /ē/ as in Bfree^

s

___ /s/ as in Bsnake^ ___ /z/ as in Bbugs^

i

___ /ĭ/ as in Bitch^ ___ /ī/ as in Bpine^

p

___ /p/ as in Bpan^

h

___ /h/ as in Bhat^

g

___ /g/ as in Bgame^ ___ /j/ as in Bgem^ ___ /ī/ as in Bsigh^

ar

___ /ar/ as in Bcar^ ___ / r/ as in Bdollar^ ___ /oy/ as in boy

j ERRORS Set no. 2

igh

oy

oo

___ /ü/ as in Bmoon^ ___ /oo/ as in Bbook^

a

___ /ă/ as in Bapple^ ___ /ā/ as in Bsafe^

w

___ /w/ as in Bwind^

ch

___ /ch/ as in Bchin^ ___ /sh/ as in Bchute^

ERRORS

ERRORS

Set no. 3 oi qu

___ /oy/ as in Boil^ ___ /kww/ as in Bqueen^

z ai

___ /z/ as in Bzebra^ ___ /ā/ as in Btail^

t

___ /t/ as in Btop^

ng

___ /ng/ as in Bfang^

wh

___ /wh/ as in Bwhite^

ir

___ / r/ as in Bbird^

K.L. Sayeski et al. Table 3 (continued) dge

___ /j/ as in Bdodge^

au

___ /ô/ as in Bhaul^

c

___ /k/ as in Bcat^ ___ /s/ as in Bcity^

th

___ /th/ as in Bthumb^ ___ /th/ Bthese^

ERRORS Set no. 4 er

ERRORS

___ / r/ as in Bher^

r

___ /r/ as in Brat^

ea

___ /ē/ as in Beat^ ___ /ĕ/ as in Bhead^

ow

__ /ou/ as in Bcow^ ___ /ō/ as in Btow^

l

___ /l/ as in Blamp^

k

___ /k/ as in Bkite^

gh

___ /g/ as in Bghost^ ___ /f/ as in Blaugh^

ew

___ /oo/ as in Bstew^ ___ /yū/ as in Bfew^

n

___ /n/ as in Bnut^

sh

___ /sh/ as in Bship^

ERRORS

ERRORS

Set no. 5 v

___ /v/ as in Bvan^

d

___ /d/ as in Bdog^

ur

___ / r/ as in Bburn^

oa

___ /ō/ as in Boat^

aw

___ /ô/ as in Bclaw^

f

___ /f/ as in Bfun^

ay

___ /ā/ as in Bplay^

or

___ /or/ as in Bhorn^

o

___ /ŏ/ as in Boctopus^ ___ /ō/ as in Bcone^

ey

___ /ā/ as in Bhey^ ___ /ē/ as in Bvalley^

ERRORS

ERRORS

References Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: effective and efficient teaching. New York: The Guilford Press. Averell, L., & Heathcote, A. (2011). The form of the forgetting curve and the fate of memories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55, 25–35. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2010.08.009. Ball, A., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66. Blau, V., Reithler, J., van Atteveldt, N., Seitz, J., Gerretsen, P., Goebel, R., & Blomert, L. (2010). Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 133, 868–879. doi:10.1093/ brain/awp308. 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. Bude, L., Imbos, T., Van De Wiel, M., & Berger, M. (2011). The effect of distributed practice on students’ conceptual understanding of statistics. The Journal of Higher Education, 62, 69–79. Bursuck, W. D., & Damer, M. (2015). Teaching reading to students who are at risk or have disabilities: a multitier, RTI approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson. Campbell, M. L., & Mechling, L. C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction with SMART board technology: an investigation of observational and incidental learning of nontarget information. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 47–57. Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing distributed practice: theoretical analysis and practical implications. Experimental Psychology, 56, 236–246. doi:10. 1027/1618-3169.56.4.236. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: a review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354.

Candidates’ Mastery of Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence Cheesman, E. A., McGuire, J. M., Shankweiler, D., & Coyne, M. (2009). First-year teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness and its instruction. Teacher Education & Special Education, 32, 270–289. Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. I. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 139–167. Dayana Networks Ltd. (2015). Voice Record Pro [mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://itunes. apple.com Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266. Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (H. A. Ruger, C. E. Bussenius, & E. R. Hilgard, Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1885). Gormley, S. & Ruhl, K. (2007). Language structure knowledge of preservice teachers: Connecting speech to print. Teacher Education and Special Education,30(2), 83–92. Hammill, D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 453–468. Haq, S. S., & Kodak, T. (2015). Evaluating the effects of massed and distributed practice on acquisition and maintenance of tacts and textual behavior with typically developing children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 85–95. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Head, K. D., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Ault, M. J. (2011). A comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching state capitals. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 182–202. doi:10.1007/s10864-011-9127-8. Hocevar, D., & Zimmer, J. (1994). Effects of massed versus distributed practice of test taking on achievement and test anxiety. Psychological Reports, 74, 915–919. Huang, F. L., Tortorelli, L. S., & Invernizzi, M. A. (2014). An investigation of factors associated with letter-sound knowledge at kindergarten entry. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 182–192. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq. 2014.02.001. Hughes, T. A., Fredrick, L. D., & Keel, M. C. (2002). Learning to effectively implement constant time delay procedures to teach spelling. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 209–220. Janiszewski, C., Noel, H., & Sawyer, A. G. (2003). A meta-analysis of the spacing effect in verbal learning: implications for research on advertising repetition and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 138–149. Jones, C., Clark, S., & Reutzel, D. (2013). Enhancing alphabet knowledge instruction: research implications and practical strategies for early childhood educators. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(2), 81–89. doi:10. 1007/s10643-012-0534-9. Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M. E., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. L. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 392–402. Justice, L. M., Pence, K., Bowles, R. B., & Wiggins, A. (2006). An investigation of four hypotheses concerning the order by which 4-year-old children learn the alphabet letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 374–389. Konold, K. E., Miller, S. P., & Konold, K. B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 64–69. Kupper-Tetzel, C. (2014). Understanding the distributed practice effect: strong effects on weak theoretical grounds. American Psychological Association, 222(2), 71–80. Logan, J., Castel, A., Haber, S., & Viehman, E. (2012). Metacognition and the spacing effect: the role of repetition, feedback, and instruction on judgments of learning for massed and spaced rehearsal. Metacognition & Learning, 7, 175–195. doi:10.1007/s11409-012-9090-3. MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Simonsen, B. (2015). Examining the effects of teacher-directed opportunities to respond on student outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Education & Treatment of Children, 38, 211–239. Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–102. Moats, L. C. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 379–399. Moats, L. C. (2010). Speech to print: language essentials for teachers (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes. Moats, L., Carreker, S., Davis, R., Meisel, P., Spear-Swerling, L., & Wilson, B. (2010). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. Baltimore: International Dyslexia Association. Oudeans, M. K. (2003). Integration of letter-sound correspondences and phonological awareness skills of blending and segmenting: a pilot study examining the effects of instructional sequences on word reading for kindergarten children with low phonological awareness. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(4), 258–280.

K.L. Sayeski et al. Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Learning letter names and sounds: effects of instruction, letter type, and phonological processing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 324–344. doi:10.1016/j.jecp. 2009.12.008. Salinger, T., Mueller, L., Song, M., Jin, Y., Zmach, C., Toplitz, M., ... Bickford, A. (2010). Study of teacher preparation in early reading instruction (NCEE 2010-4036). Jessup: National Center For Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Sayeski, K. L., Gormely Budin, S. E., & Bennett, K. (2015). Promising practices in the preparation of special educators to provide reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51, 82–89. doi:10.1177/ 1053451215579266. Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., & Foorman, B. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: a longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–282. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.265. Seabrook, R., Brown, G. D. A., & Solity, J. E. (2005). Distributed and massed practice: from laboratory to classroom. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 107–122. doi:10.1002/acp.1066. Shaw, D. M., & Sundberg, M. L. (2008). How a neurologically integrated approach which teaches sound-symbol correspondence and legible letter formations impacts at-risk first graders. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 14(1), 13–21. Snowling, M. J., Duff, F., Petrou, A., Schiffeldrin, J., & Bailey, A. M. (2011). Identification of children at risk of dyslexia: the validity of teacher judgments using ‘phonic phases’. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 157– 170. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01492.x. Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge and selfperceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 266–296. Storch, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934. Szadokierski, I., & Burns, M. K. (2008). Analogue evaluation of the effects of opportunities to respond and ratios of known items within drill rehearsal of Esperanto words. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 593–609. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.004. Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Phonics and word study. Research-based methods of reading instruction: Grades K-3 (pp. 30–48). Alexandria: ASCD. Walker, G. (2008). Constant and progressive time delay procedures for teaching children with autism: a literature review. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 38, 261–275. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0390-4. Washburn, E. K., Binks-Cantrell, E. S., Joshi, R. M., Martin-Chang, S., & Arrow, A. (2015). Preservice teacher knowledge of basic language constructs in Canada, England, New Zealand, and the USA. Annals of Dyslexia. doi:10.1007/s11881-015-0115-x. Washburn, E. K., Matesha Joshi, R., & Binks Cantrell, E. (2011). Are preservice teachers prepared to teach struggling readers? Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 21–43. doi:10.1007/s11881-010-0040-y.