LaGrange College - a four year, private liberal arts ...



PHONICS INSTRUCTION: AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE READING CURRICULUMExcept where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information.________________________________________________________ Laurie FambroCertificate of Approval:____________________ ________________________Donald Livingston, Ed.D.Sharon Livingston, Ph.D.Thesis Co-ChairThesis Co-ChairEducation DepartmentEducation DepartmentPHONICS INSTRUCTION: AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE READING CURRICULUMA thesis submitted byLaurie FambrotoLaGrange College in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTERS OF EDUCATIONInCurriculum and InstructionLaGrange, GeorgiaMay 12, 2011Table of ContentsAbstract…………………………………………………...................................................iiiTable of Contents………………………………………………………………………....ivList of Table……………………………………………………………………………….vChapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………....1 Statement of the Problem …………………………………………………………...1 Significance of the Problem………………………………………………………...2 Impact on Student Learning ………………………………………………………..4 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………..4 Focus Questions…………………………………………………………………….6 Overview of Methodology………………………………………………………….6 Human as Researcher……………………………………………………………….7 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………….....................................................9 Introduction……………………………………………………………….………...9 Spelling Scores ……………………………………………………….….…………9 Reading Fluency…………………………………………………………..………12 Reading and Spelling Ability………………………………………………..…….13 Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………16 Research Design…………….……………………………………………………..16 Setting……………………….…………………………………………………….16 Subjects.………………………………………………….………………………..17 Procedures and Data Collection Methods………………………………………...18 Validity and Reliability Measures ………………………………………………..21 Analysis of Data ………………………………………………………………….21 Chapter 4: Analysis of Data…………………………………………………………………..26 Chapter 5: Results…………..…………………………….…………………………….33References ………………………………….……………………………………………40AbstractThis study provides data that supports phonemic awareness instruction as an important part of teaching reading. The purpose of this action research was to determine if phonemic awareness is an important part of reading instruction. The research specifically focused on basal readers and how affective they are at teaching phonic awareness. The research also focus on how the academic potential of improving reading fluency skills and spelling skill and achievement. The research also focuses on the relationship of reading and spelling, through a case study, and is there a connection between the two when you have a good reader/bad speller. The results indicated that there is a significant difference in spelling scores when teaching phonics from a basal reader. Reflective journal results showed that there is a relationship between being a poor reader and a poor speller. CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONStatement of the ProblemIs phonic awareness instruction an important part of reading instruction in early childhood education? Children learn to speak before they learn to read or write. As children develop their oral language skills, they learn speech sounds that are derived from the English alphabet. Phonemic awareness is important because English is based on the alphabetic principle (Bernstein & Ellis, 2000). This study will explore the history of phonic awareness instruction and its long debate with whole language instruction. It will also explore the connection between phonic awareness instruction and learning to read in early childhood education and seek to explain that a lack of phonemic awareness in a child can hinder a child’s reading fluency and spelling ability.Phonemic awareness instruction in early childhood has been competing with whole language instruction for high honors in educational curriculum for many years. There have been many different movements in the development of reading instruction over the years. For 30 years, 1940’s – 1970’s, the look-say method was used in classrooms (Quick, 1988). The 1980’s and 1990’s were characterized by the whole language movement and a call to reexamine beliefs and practices related to early childhood reading development (Quick, 1988). Phonics instruction started coming into the curriculum in the 1970’s. The emphasis on “basics” in the 1970’s was associated with higher reading achievement scores (Quick, 1988). There has always been a debate in schools and with teachers on how to teach reading. The debate is still as strong now as it ever has been. Counties, schools, and teachers continue to stand strongly on either side of the reading instruction debate. Is phonemic awareness instruction needed in current reading instruction? Evidence suggests that phonological awareness skills are very closely associated with the acquisition of early reading and spelling (Savage & Carless, 2005). If so, then phonemic awareness instruction should be part of the reading curriculum in early childhood education. One potentially important way to help teach young children the basic skills of reading and spelling is to help them to analyze or manipulate the speech sounds (phonemes) associated with letters or group of letters in words. Researchers have used the term ‘phonological awareness’ to describe the main cognitive skills needed to complete such tasks (Savage & Carless, 2005). If this important main cognitive skill is left out of reading instruction then teachers are not helping a student reach his/her full potential in learning to read fluently. Significance of the ProblemA child’s lack of phonemic awareness during early childhood, pre-k through second grade, can lead to reading difficulties in the primary grades, third through fifth grades. The English language has twenty six letters in its alphabet and those letters have forty five sounds, or phonemes, either alone or blended together. If a child can recognize the letters but not the phonemic sounds it has, then they usually have a difficult time with reading comprehension, fluency and spelling. Children without phonemic awareness who attempt to memorize visual holes may not understand how to use letter-sound correspondences (Bernstein & Ellis, 2000). A difficulty in reading can lead to many issues for a child in the primary grades. Those problems can range from behavior problems to an unwillingness to try. If this is an important cognitive skill for early childhood development, then how will teachers develop this skill in their students?There are many ramifications resulting from not having good phonemic awareness instruction in the reading curriculum. Accomplished readers are able to recognize phonemes and put them together to construct words and phrases (Bernstein & Ellis, 2000). Having children who lack phonemic awareness in the early childhood years can lead to lower test scores in reading, meaning that more children will need pull-out intervention classes instead of receiving instruction in a regular classroom. It may also lead to a student being tested for placement into special education resource classes resulting in a permanent label attached to this student’s school career. Teachers have different teaching styles and hold to specific philosophies when asked to teach phonemic awareness or phonics instruction. Teachers have to be willing to teach with more than just their philosophy so that they can reach all levels of learners in the classroom. Teachers may not be aware that phonemic awareness is an important cognitive skill that children need to develop in early childhood. Teachers may mistake phonemic awareness as phonics instructions. It is not the same. Phonemic awareness is the awareness that spoken language consists of a sequence of phonemes, the smallest unit of speech sound that makes a difference in communication (Yopp & Yopp, 2000). They simply may not know how to correctly teach phonics so therefore it is not taught. Some teachers may be a supporter of the whole language philosophy and not teach phonemic awareness at all. If they are made to teach phonics they do so reluctantly, with complaints and possibly incorrectly. Students who have difficulties in reading are put into intervention classes where phonemic awareness or phonics is taught to them. This intervention is sometimes, too little too late. How can we help teachers understand what phonemic awareness is and get students out of intervention classes and into regular classrooms?Having children with reading difficulties can lead to many problems in the classroom. When children can’t read they have trouble with working independently. This can lead to behavior issues for that child. A child that cannot read by second grade has the awareness that they are not meeting the expectations of that grade. They can begin to have a low self image and that can also lead to behavior issues and a disruption of the classroom. Impact on Student LearningThe purpose of this study is to improve student reading fluency and spelling. My overall belief is that students need to have phonemic instructions in the early childhood grade, pre-k – 2 so that they are prepared to become independent readers by second grade. Through this study, students were taught and assessed using the schools basal reading program. The study showed that students who come to third second grade having had phonemic awareness instruction in previous grades are better readers than those who did not receive good, sound phonemic awareness instruction. I believe that this study had a positive effect on the academic achievement of my students, my third grade teachers and my school. My research showed that teaching phonemic awareness in the early grades not only helps a child’s reading fluency and spelling but helped improve the teacher’s overall awareness of what phonemic awareness is and how important it is to early childhood curriculum.Theoretical and Conceptual FrameworksThis thesis on phonemic awareness instruction adheres to LaGrange College Educational Department’s (2009) third tenet of the Conceptual Framework, a caring and supportive classrooms and learning communities; creating caring and supportive classrooms and learning communities requires that teachers reflect on their professional responsibilities, make connection with others and take actions thoughtfully and carefully to benefit students and enhance their learning. The idea of teachers reflecting on their professional responsibilities is an important part of teaching students to read to the best of their abilities. It can be assumed that teachers who can make the connection between phonemic awareness and being a successful reader will thoughtfully and carefully use phonemic awareness instruction to enhance their students learning. It can be assumed that by teaching students phonemic awareness students will be successful readers in early childhood. The hope is that all children become successful readers and phonemic awareness is one key to helping a student reach his/her full potential as a successful reader. This study adheres to the 2009 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (as cited by the LaGrange College Education Department, 2009) standard 1: a: Content Knowledge for teacher candidates. In order to teach phonics appropriately a teacher must know the content in which they plan to teach and be able to explain the important concepts aligned with professional, state, and institutional standards. It is assumed that teachers who are teaching phonics know the standards for phonics and how to best teach their students. It is also important that teachers have an understanding of the relationship of content and content-specific pedagogy that is delineated in their professional, state; which aligns with standard, 1: b from National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, NCATE (as cited by the LaGrange College Education Department, 2009). A teacher must consider a child’s prior experience, the family and community and school contexts in order to provide meaningful and successful learning experience for each student. They must know each student and how that child learns and is willing to learn and continue to be informed of current research and policies as stated in NCATE’s standard 1: c. Students come to the classroom with many different experiences and needs. If these standards are being meet successfully in the classroom then student learning is going to be meaningful and a lifelong experience. Focus QuestionsThese three questions will be addressed in this research in order to show that phonemic awareness instruction is an important part of reading instruction in early childhood education.Do spelling scores increase when teaching phonemic awareness from a basal reading program? Is there a significant increase in fluency when using phonics with a basal reader?Does a student’s lack of phonemic awareness adversely affect the interrelationship between reading and spelling?Overview of MethodologyThis is an action research study using mixed methods of data collection. The research took place at a Title 1 school in a West Georgia County with a class of third graders ranging in ages from 8 to 9 over the course of one school year. The data used in this study included the DIBELS testing along with pre-post testing from current reading basal program. The qualitative and quantitative data from the data were analyzed for common patterns in spelling improvement using a phonics based program along with current basal reading program, reading scores increase with only basal readers and the relationship between reading and spelling. Human as ResearcherAs the researcher of this thesis I drew on my ten years as a teacher of early childhood education to help me with my research. My experiences with students who come to my classroom from diverse backgrounds helped aid me in my research. As a teacher of phonics and a student, who was not taught phonemic awareness as a child, I have seen the effects of a lack of phonemic awareness. I personally was a “slow reader” in elementary school due to my lack of fluency when reading. I struggled with reading throughout my early grades. As a teacher, I have taught students from families of all socio-economic levels. I have taught children of all intelligence levels and seen that intelligence has nothing to do with being able to read. Some of my most intelligent students have struggled with reading fluency because there was a lack of phonemic awareness taught to them in previous grades. I have felt their frustration and seen my own struggles with reading in those students. I can honestly sympathize with my students and have made it a personal commitment to help my students, with the best of my ability, to reach their full potential as young readers. As a teacher, and a struggling reader, I have a strong bias toward phonemic awareness instruction. I strongly believe phonemic awareness instruction is very important to a child’s early learning of reading. I also am aware that phonemic awareness instruction is not the answer to all reading problems. Students come to us with many outside influences as to why they cannot read or are struggling as readers. However, without an in depth effort to address the lack of a student’s awareness when coming into third grade and attitudes and beliefs on teaching phonemic awareness in early childhood, students will continue to be labeled slow learner, resource or just “placed” from grade to grade and not being able to reach their full potential as a lifelong reader. CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEWIntroductionThis paper explores the use of phonics as an important part of early childhood reading curriculum. In this paper, peer reviewed, journal articles were used to help research and answer three focus questions. The term phonics will be defined to include all of the five phonemic elements of the sounds of spoken words, phonics, phonetic spelling, phoneme awareness, phonological awareness and phonology. The curriculum for reading should include lesson for all areas, but in most basal reading programs there is only a short once a day mini-lesson. This study will look at research that deals with phonics instruction and spelling scores, reading fluency and direct instruction within a multi-sensory program and the use of a basal reading book’s program for letter sounds, phonics. Spelling ScoresSpelling instruction in American schools has traditionally proceeded on the basis that memorization of needed words is the most productive route to spelling ability (Hodges, 1984). So, what is spelling? Hodges (1984), states that spelling is the process of converting oral language to visual form by placing graphic symbols on some writing surface and because writing systems, or orthographies, are inventions, they can and do vary with respect to how a particular language is graphically represented. While spelling is its own subject in elementary education, it is also included in the reading programs in which most systems use basal programs. If Hodges’ definition is correct and with most school systems using a basal reading program to teach spelling, and because there is a demand for reading grades to rise to expectations on national tests, we need to know if those basal reading programs include enough phonics to teach spelling to our students. Basal reading programs are “hard cover readers with many consumable worksheets that use the whole language program model” (McCulloch, 2000) p. 4. They immerse the text of a story with a particular spelling pattern so that the words are used in context and are seen on a daily basis when reading the story. The Harcourt Basal Reading Program is one such program. It includes daily phonics support and offers a list of fifteen words spelled with a particular spelling pattern. It has consumable workbooks, (i.e. worksheets), which can be used along with the current story and word list. Basal reading programs use the rote memorization methods which according to Fresch (2007) is the pretesting of words, giving the students the words to study (memorize) and then post testing the words in hope that students will retain and apply words learned during spelling instruction spans grade levels. Do basal reader programs capture the student’s interest and allow them to retain the knowledge of spelling; or does it lead them to memorize for test and them dump afterwards, not really knowing how to spell the words? No, it has been just enough to convince both parents and teachers that they are teaching phonics (McCulloch, 2000). McCulloch (2000) also states that using worksheets with whole language literature will accomplish the same thing; it is too late, too inefficient, discriminates against the non-visual learner, and takes what little precious time teachers have for teaching or children have for learning. Fresch (2007) states that the curricular area once deemed a memorization skill is getting a renewed look as increasing writing demands are placed on students of all ages. Now the question is, should spelling be taught using the current basal reading programs or with an in-depth phonics program. How phonics is taught is probably more important than what phonics is taught. Phonics is an auditory skill. If a child is more auditory then basal readers fail that child. The English language is a sound/symbol system. However, if we are concerned with correct spelling then the phonetic organization becomes much more important. (McCulloch, 2000). So what and how should phonics and spelling be taught? That debate, after many years of being a passionate debate, is anything but settled. Roberts and Meiring (2006) stated in their report that The National Reading Panel concluded that although systematic phonics programs were significantly better than non-phonics programs, but for increasing spelling scores, there was no evidence of superiority of any one type of phonics program or any one specific program. The report noted thirteen important variations on both what is taught and how children are taught phonics (Roberts & Meiring, 2006). Most basal reading programs have an embedded phonics instruction and many differ on how embedded it should be. Embeddedness is the degree to which phonics instruction occurs in the context of actual text (Roberts & Meiring 2006). If spelling is directly related to phonics instructions, then spelling should be acquired through phonics that is embedded into a good basal reading program. Current reading basal programs have the whole language instruction which focus on developing readiness skills, on vocabulary and comprehension achievement at first grade (Griffith & Klesius, 1990). Griffith and Klesius (1990) state that children learn phonics skills indirectly through the examination of words with similar spellings. Fresch (2007) also states how children are viewed as learners is as significant to selection of instruction and material used is. Jean Piaget, as cited in Fresch 2007, claimed “the student does not just passively take in knowledge, but actively constructs it on the basis of his/her prior knowledge and experiences.” Then again, are basal reading programs enough when it comes to teaching phonics and spelling? This study will examine if basal reading programs embedded phonics instruction is a successful teaching tool. Reading FluencyFluency is an important reading skill for beginning readers. There are many reasons why children struggle with reading. One reason is they do not have basic phonics skills to help them to read. Children should be taught phonics, in a whole group setting using story text, basal readers and during a scheduled, direct phonics instruction time. According to Roberts and Meiring (2006), whole group settings help children increase their use of comprehension strategies and motivation to read and vocabulary knowledge. This does not help students who struggle with reading. Struggling readers often have issues with phonics. Phonics is essential to being able to read. Direct phonics instruction time is when students are taught specific mechanics of language. Students need to know the mechanics of language if they are to put them to use when reading (McCullough, 2000). When they are unable to “decode” words as they are reading, it affects their fluency and ability to comprehend what they have read. They are too busy worrying about how to say a word than being able to say it. Fluency and comprehension happens because children analyze, think, deduce, and create as they move through a text. Once decoding is automatic, the mind is “free” for full comprehension. There is no possibility for full comprehension when the student struggles with the automatic identity of each word (McCullough, 2000). Which is better, direct instruction of phonics to help with reading fluency or using whole group reading instructional time? Should there be a time set aside to teach phonics or is the regular reading instructional time enough to improve a student’s fluency? According to Roberts and Meiring (2006) the National Reading Panel concluded that although systematic phonics programs were significantly better than non-phonics programs, there was no evidence of superiority of any one type of phonics program or any one specific program. This report only noted thirteen important variations on what is taught and how children are taught and only examined three types of programs (Roberts & Meiring, 2006). Roberts and Meiring 2006, also state that children’s reading of literature can increase their use of comprehension strategies and motivation to read. In a study by Thompson, McKay, Fletcher-Flinn, Connelly, Kaa and Ewing, (2007) that cited the National Reading Panel report, there is evidence that systematic teaching of phonics for beginning reader increases gains in their accuracy of word reading, relative to gains in each of a range of comparison programs, including those described as basal reader, whole word and whole language programs. So which is the better instructional time for phonic, a whole group, embedded reading program or a direct instructional time strictly focused on phonics? This study will examine whether whole group instruction or a phonics based direct instruction program is best in increasing reading fluency.Reading and Spelling Ability A child’s reading ability and spelling ability must be related. If a child can read does this then mean they are also good spellers? In a report by Griffith and Klesius (1990) it was found that children who became poor readers usually entered first grade with little phonemic awareness, and would remain so at the end of fourth grade. Their growth in spelling-sound knowledge was initially slow and they never reached the level of the average and good readers (Griffith & Klesius, 1990). Usually slow readers are not very good spellers (Roberts & Meiring, 2006). Roberts and Meiring (2006) cited recent studies on the reciprocal nature of reading and spelling. They found that knowledge of the orthography of language is essential in both decoding words while reading and encoding word representations while spelling. Thompson et al. (2007) cite in their article that the child who has low proficiency on phonological recoding is expected to compensate by making more use of word identification cues from the context of the text. Ehri (1987) thinks that it is important to understand how skill at reading words develops. Ehri states that the mature readers are thought to use two sources of information, lexical knowledge and orthographic knowledge. Lexical knowledge is a result of experiences reading specific words repeatedly; information about spellings of words is retained in memory and associated with their pronunciations and meanings. These words are read by retrieving these associations from memory (Ehri 1987). Ehri (1987) explains orthographic knowledge as how the spelling system works its rule and regularities, how spellings map phonemes and morphemes in speech. The findings of Ehri’s (1987) study suggested that phonetic cue reading is possible at the outset when children first begin reading words out of context, and that visual cue reading characterizes how pre-readers read words. Also, the study suggests that learning to spell contributed to beginners’ ability to ready words, enabling children to process phonetic cues in the words (Ehri, 1987). In a Groff study (2001) he states that it is difficult to identify a cause of reading-spelling disparities. Groff (2001) cites the 1995 Hildreth study which found that good reader/poor spellers place greater reliance on context cues than do good readers/good spellers. Groff (2001) continues to say that from a study as recently as 1991; experimental evidence suggests that good readers who spell poorly “suffer a mild phonological defect which impedes the development of encoding and decoding skills.” (p. 296). It appears that many of these students rely on good visual memory and general language abilities to compensate for weak decoding (Groff, 2001). Spelling does have some influence on reading. To develop students’ phonics knowledge, reading instruction authorities tend to support a combination, balance, or merging of speech-sound-to-letter and letter-to-speech-sound approaches (Groff, 2001). Unfortunately, Groff states that literacy instruction lacks a body of experimental research examining the validity of combining these approaches into a single integrated approach. As cited by Groff, Perfetti argued that spelling and reading are two sides of a coin because a logical symmetry exists between them. If they are two sides of the same coin how can a good reader/bad speller become a good speller or bad reader/good speller become a good reader? CHAPTER 3METHODOLOGYResearch DesignThe overall arching design of this study is an action research design. In an action research design, the principle of pedagogical action research is clear according to Norton (2009); to improve some aspects of the student learning through clear and precise research in planning, taking action, monitoring and reflecting on the data that is gathered. This study is being done to discover if there is a significant relationship between lack of phonic awareness and fluency and the interrelationship between reading and spelling ability. Data will be gathered through pre and post spelling test, reading fluency data from a pre and post DIBELS test scores. Independent and dependent t test will be used to organize and analyze data gathered through pre and post testing. Correlation Coefficient Effect Size r test will also be used to analyze data from this study.SettingThe dependent t tests will be given to a group of seventeen third graders in a reading/phonics flex group class at a Title 1 elementary school in the West Georgia county of Coweta. This school and class were chosen because the third grade class at this school is a class that has been set up according to their reading ability. It is a class with at risk students only. All students are in this class based on their current reading levels and current CRCT Scores. The class is taught using a basal reading series where phonics is embedded into the reading story selection for the week, but also has small group direct instructions phonics. Gaining access to these student involves several steps. First, an application was submitted to Coweta County School System with an explanation of research topic and process. In order to conduct this research on the students in Coweta County School System the superintendent must grant permission. Next, an application was submitted to LaGrange College Institutional Review Board to ensure that LaGrange College policies were followed and that none of the student participants were harmed through this study. Finally, all applications were granted and permission from principal was given so that research could be done. SubjectsThe participants used in this study are a reading flex group based on their second grade CRCT scores. Their ages range from 8 to 10 years. The flex group participants that will be used are in the low to below grade level flex group. They are also the Early Intervention Group as they are at risk students. The seventeen participants are a diverse group with varying learning styles. Of the seventeen, eight are black, three are Hispanic, one is Asian and five are white. There are 10 boys and seven are girls. One student is a repeater to third grade. One of these students one has Cerebral Palsy and the three Hispanic students are also English Language Learners.The children in this study are below in their third grade developmental skills. According to their current CRCT score and current Third Grade Georgia Performance Standards, they have not met the standards required of them by the third grade. The students are taught and assessed on the third grade GPS and the majority of this class does not meet those standards. This class contains very low achieving, and very immature, students compared to other third grade classes and they sometimes do not interact very well with one another. However, most still have a desire to learn and do try their best. Because they are a small EIP group I am able to teach them our standards and help to improve their reading comprehension and fluency along with spelling skills. Procedures and Data CollectionThis study was an action research design and the methods included both qualitative and quantitative studies (see Table 3.1). To answer focus question 1, pre and post tests were chosen from the Harcourt Publishers Trophies basal reading program that was used in Coweta County at the time of this study. This series was aligned with the Georgia Performance Standards and is based on the spelling pattern for the week. There were twenty words, fifteen of which were words based on the spelling pattern; two were review words from the previous weeks spelling list pattern and the last three were high frequency words. The pretest helped me understand how many students do not have an understanding of the spelling pattern and will allow me to develop my lesson plans accordingly. The post test helped me determine whether there was a significant increase in the student’s knowledge of the spelling pattern and if mastery was achieved. I gave the test on Monday and then used the basal reading book to help develop lessons that would increase the students’ knowledge of the spelling pattern. I administered the posttest on a Friday with the hope of showing that there was a significant increase in spelling scores when using a basal reading program. Another pre and post test was administered the following week and was chosen from the Multi-Sensory phonics program. The pretest consisted of 20 words of a specific pattern and was given to the students on Monday. The pre test helped me understand how many students did not have an understanding of the spelling pattern and allowed me to use the multi-sensory activities accordingly. They were then be taught all week using the multi-sensory activities from the program and then given a post test on Friday. Like with the basal reading program pre-post test, the multi-sensory post test helped me determine whether there was a significant increase in the student’s knowledge of the spelling pattern and if mastery was achieved.To answer focus question 2, a fluency pre test was chosen from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills or DIBELS program that Coweta County used to determine reading fluency levels in the lower grades. This program test is described as a brief but powerful measure of the critical skills that underlie early reading success (Good & Kaminski, 2003). This test gave me a good indication as to the fluency level and the possible reasons behind a participant being below grade level. The pretest was administered on a Monday and then participants were instructed for two weeks on fluency skills using the current basal reading program, Harcourt Publishers Trophies Series. The participants were post tested to see if there is a significant difference in fluency when taught only in a regular, non-pull out reading class using an embedded phonics program. To answer focus question 3, a comparison of weekly fluency and spelling test was assessed using a correlation coefficient effect size r test. Students were given a weekly fluency test to assess if they have increased their reading fluency. They were also given a weekly spelling test. Comparing these two tests gave me a good indication as to the interrelationship of the students reading and spelling abilities. I chose these two tests because they are prescript and on grade level. Each student will be given the same tests in both reading fluency and spelling. There was no presence of bias because the students were given the fluency test one on one and timed the same amount of time as in line with the third grade Georgia Performance Standard for fluency; and each student was given the same spelling list and tested in same whole group setting, having all week to study and taught lessons using those words. The students are familiar with this routine as it is one they have followed all year. TABLE 3.1 DATA SHELLFocus QuestionLiterature SourcesData SourcesWhy do these data answer the question? (validity)How are data analyzed?Do spelling scores increase when teaching phonemic awareness from a basal reading program or a Direct Instruction Phonics Program? Harcourt Reading Series (Basal reading program)2001Groff, 2001Krause,Moore1997Pre and Post test assessment from reading seriesPre and Post test from Direct Instruction Multi-Sensory Phonics InstructionData was gathered and examined using a statistical test.Dependent t Test Is there a significant increase in fluency when using phonics with basal readers during reading instruction? Good & Kaminski, 2003GriffithKlesius1990Comparing fluency test scores from three time periods using DIBELS fluency test Data was gathered and examined using a statistical test.Correlation Coefficient TestDoes a student’s lack of phonemic awareness adversely affect the interrelationship of reading and spelling? Ehri1987GriffithKlesius1999Comparison of weekly fluency test with weekly spelling testData was gathered and examined using a statistical test.Correlation Coefficient TestValidity and Reliability For focus question one, do spelling test scores increase when teaching phonemic awareness from a basal reading program or a direct instruction phonics program? I did a pre and post test of the same words and used assessment dependent t-test for the interval data. A t-test indicates that a single group of the same subjects is being studied under the same two conditions, before the beginning of the experiment and at its conclusion (Salkind, 2010). The tests given to the participants were valid and reliable. There were no violations of the guidelines of testing (Popham, 2008). All questions were true and complete. All tests are well constructed and have measured outcomes and are fair and authentic assessments. I felt that the pre and post tests for the participants did have some bias as it is designed to measure students who are performing on grade level and there were only three in the group who were performing on grade level. Therefore there is some bias based on Popham (2008) to those students not performing on grade level, based on grade level performances.The pre and post test data was compared using a dependent t-test, (Salkind, 2010) to see if significant gains were made between the two tests. Data will show a significant difference in the pre and post test scores so one can infer that instruction was successful for these groups. The test is valid in that it is grade level appropriate and all students participating are performing on the same level in spelling. The students will not see the words before pre-testing time so it is a fair and true test of their spelling ability. It is important for a teacher to know more about her students’ status in respect to certain educationally relevant variables; the more a teacher knows the better the educational decisions made regarding those students (Popham, 2008). The pre and post test will give me this type of data and will allow me to better help my students spelling achievement. For focus question two, does reading fluency increase when using phonics from a basal reader during reading instruction? Qualitative data was gathered by using the DIBELS fluency testing. DIBLES is a phonics program that determines words per minute read and mistakes made while reading a grade level appropriate passage. These tests follow along with the current basal reading program that Coweta County has chosen for third grade. I again sought content validity. These tests are valid in that they are grade level appropriate and all students participating are performing on the same level in reading. The students do not see the passage before reading so it is a fair and true test of their reading fluency. A correlation coefficient effect size r test was used to compare the growth, or lack of growth, in the participants.For focus question three, does a student’s lack of phonemic awareness adversely affect the interrelationship between reading and spelling? Quantitative data was gathered from a correlation coefficient effect size r test comparing reading scores to spelling scores. The reading test were pre-made by the DIBELS program and spelling words were pre-made and chosen by Harcourt Reading Series, both of which have been adopted by Coweta County and aligned with state third grade standards, therefore there is no bias in these tests. According to Pophan (2008) content validity refers to the adequacy with which the content of a test represents the content of the curricular aim. The tests are valid and reliable as they are grade level appropriate and all students participating are reading within the same reading levels. The students did not see the reading test or spelling words before testing so it is a fair and true test of their reading and spelling abilities. Data Analysis For focus question one, do spelling test scores increase when teaching phonemic awareness from a basal reading program or a direct instruction phonics program, I used an assessment. A dependent t-test was used for pre/post test assessments using the phonics instruction from the basal reading program. Significance would be determined if the p< .05, as a result of the pre/post assessments. The same results were expected for the participants using a dependent t -test, (p< .05), with the words chosen from a Direct Instruction Phonics program again using the pre and post tests. It is also hoped that the p value shows that treatment is successful. I determined if students were more successful being taught spelling using a basal reading program with phonics imbedded into the lessons or if they were more successful when taught using a direct instruction phonics program. I used this information to make comparisons on how and why participants did or did not make any gains and to determine which treatment was the most successful teaching program. For focus question two, does reading fluency increase when using phonics from a basal reader during reading instruction, I again used an assessment. A correlation coefficient effect size r test was used for comparison of data taken from the DIBELS phonics program adapted by Coweta County. Significance would be determined when p<.05 from the results of the comparisons of fluency test though out the year when being taught phonics from a basal reading program. I determined if there was a significant difference between the same participants when given the same assessment at the beginning and end of the experiment. I determined if the student’s reading fluency increased during a specific time during which they were taught reading from Coweta County’s current reading basal program. Students read a grade level appropriate passage, participated in basal reading program instruction and read another grade level appropriate reading passage to determine if there was any increase in fluency.For focus question three, does a student’s lack of phonemic awareness adversely affect the interrelationship between reading and spelling? The research method used was an assessment. A correlation coefficient effect size r test was used to compare two variables, reading scores and spelling scores. Again significance was determined if p<.05 from the results of the comparison of the participants reading grade and spelling grade both tests taken from current reading basal series. Students were taught a reading selection from the reading basal program that includes the spelling words imbedded into the reading story. They were given the reading end of selection test and spelling test at the end of the lesson. I determined if there was any interrelationship between the reading and spelling scores of the same participants when given the assessments at the end of the experiment. I determined if the participants’ lack of phonemic awareness adversely affected the interrelationship between reading and spelling. My study is dependable as it was closely related to the concepts of accuracy and consistency. Eisner (1991) calls the faculty review process ‘Consensual Validation,’ an agreement among competent others that the description, interpretation, evaluation and thematic are right. Denzin and Lincoln (1980) describe the cycling back to your literature review as ‘Epistemological Validation,’ a place where I can convince the reader that I have remained consistent with the theoretical perspectives I used in the review of literature.Evidence of credibility in my research is with the use of multiple data sources. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘structural corroboration,’ where a confluence of evidence come together to form a compelling whole. Within Eisner’s definition are embedded concepts of fairness and precision. To be fair and precise, I used the same assessments for my pre and post tests and those assessments were given to the same sample of students. My study has transferability because it was useful and can easily transfer to another content area or grade level. Eisner calls this process ‘referential adequacy,’ where perception and understanding by others will increase because of my research into lack of phonemic awareness and a student’s ability to read and spell by third grade. Catalytic validity is the degree to which you anticipate your study to shape and transform your participants, subject and school. My study showed that while using a basal reading program with embedded phonics lessons is good, using direct instruction phonics lessons everyday alongside the basal reading program increases student achievement in reading and spelling ability. CHAPTER 4 RESULTSThe research in this study was conducted during a two week period using a basal reader unit lesson only in the first week and then using a direct instruction phonics program with the basal program. The participants used in this study are a reading flex group based on their second grade CRCT scores. Their ages range from 8 to 10 years. The flex group participants that were used are in the low to below grade level flex group. They are also the Early Intervention Group as they are at risk students. They have all been in this class since the beginning of the school year. During this two week period pre and post tests were administered, a current fluency test was given, and fluency scores and spelling scores were taken and compared. For Focus Question One, do spelling test scores increase when teaching phonemic awareness from a basal reading program or a direct instruction phonics program; a dependent t test was administered. Students were administered pre and post assessment from the basal reading unit for one week. The students were taught using the basal reading book with the embedded phonics spelling pattern specific to that week’s lessons. The data from the test scores from the pre and post test were then analyzed to determine if there was a significant difference in achievement in spelling scores. The results are presented in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Dependent t-Test: Basal Reader Program with embedded phonics lessons Paired Two Sample for Means?Pre-testPost -testMean54.1428571484.71428571Variance317.6703297358.3736264Observations1414Pearson Correlation0.690003396Hypothesized Mean Difference0Df13t Stat7.885672527P(T<=t) one-tail1.30846E-06t Critical one-tail1.770933383P(T<=t) two-tail2.61692E-06t Critical two-tail2.160368652?reliability r =.69effect Size r = .63t (13) = 7.88, p < .05According to the data gathered on the first week, there was significance between the pre and post test when using a basal reading program with embedded phonics lessons. The value needed for rejection of the null hypothesis is 2.161. The obtained value calculated from these scores is 7.886. The results show significance at t(13) = 1.308, p < 0.5. The obtained value (2.161) is greater than the critical value (1.308); the null hypothesis cannot be accepted. Therefore, the difference in test scores is due to a certain factor. Students were administered pre and post assessment from the basal reading unit for week two; however a direct instruction phonics program, Orton Gillingham’s Multisensory (OG) program was used to teach the spelling words that week. The students were taught using only the OG program; not the basal reading phonics lessons. The words did follow a specific spelling pattern again for week two lessons. The data from the test scores from the pre and post test were then analyzed to determine if there was a significant difference in achievement in spelling scores. The results are presented in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Dependent t-Test Orton Gillingham Multisensory Programt-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means?Pre-testPost-testMean54.899.13333333Variance371.457142963.6952381Observations1515Pearson Correlation0.468735045Hypothesized Mean Difference0Df14t Stat10.06618848P(T<=t) one-tail4.30394E-08t Critical one-tail1.761310115P(T<=t) two-tail8.60789E-08t Critical two-tail2.144786681?Reliability r= .468Effect Size = .83t (14) = 10.06 , p < .05According to the data gathered on the second week, Table 4.2 shows that there was significance between the pre and post test when using a direct instruction phonics program. The value needed for rejection of the null hypothesis is 2.145. The obtained value calculated from these scores is -10.066. The results show significance at t(14) = , p < 0.5. The obtained value (2.145) is greater than the critical value (-10.066); the null hypothesis cannot be accepted. Therefore, the difference in test scores is due to a certain factor. The student’s spelling scores increased due to the program multisensory program that actively engages the students in their learning. Their spelling scores did not increase by chance.Each week’s pre and post tests showed significance in student achievement but week two, using a direct instruction program along with current basal program, increased student achievement by 14.4% over week one. Observations over the course of each week I saw students who were not engaged in the lessons the first week become very engaged and excited about the learning process during the second week when using the direct instruction lessons.For Focus Question Two, does reading fluency increase when using phonics from a basal reader during reading instruction; students were administered a current third grade fluency test, DIBELS. This test determines if achievement in fluency had improved from the beginning of school, when only the current basal reading program has been used. The data gathered from this test was then compared, using an effect size calculation of paired two samples of data to determine if there was a non overlap with data, from the first test taken at the beginning of the school year. The students had been taught since the beginning of school from Coweta County’s current reading basal reading program, Harcourt Reading Series that has embedded phonics lessons with each story. The results are presented in Table 4.3.Table 4.3 Dependent t-Test Harcourt Reading Series t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means?DIBELS PreDIBELS PostMean59.586.6875Variance621.73333331018.629167Observations1616Pearson Correlation0.893385933Hypothesized Mean Difference0Df15t Stat-7.358240039P(T<=t) one-tail1.18695E-06t Critical one-tail1.753050325P(T<=t) two-tail2.37391E-06t Critical two-tail2.131449536?Effect Size r= 0.43% non overlap = 55.4%large effect size r =?0.37 or. larger.Reliability r= .89According to the data gathered from the fluency tests, Table 4.3 shows that there was significance between a student’s fluency achievements when using a basal reading program with embedded phonics lessons. The value needed for rejection of the null hypothesis is 1.753. The obtained value calculated from these scores is 7.35. The results show significance at t(30) = 1.753, p < 0.5. The obtained value (7.35) is greater than the critical value (1.753); the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, the difference in test scores is NOT due to chance. The data was then compared through an effect size calculation. The effect size r= 0.43 which is a % non overlap of 55.4% which is a large effect size r = .89. This also shows that there was a significant difference in the student’s fluency achievements from the beginning of the year to their current scores. Therefore the reliability r =.89 and the null is again rejected and shows that the differences in test scores is not due to chance.For Focus Question Three, does a student’s lack of phonemic awareness adversely affect the interrelationship between reading and spelling? Data was gathered from student’s current fluency and spelling tests given during week two of this study. The data was compared using a Correlation Coefficient Test to see if these two samples were dependent upon one another in student’s achievement in reading and spelling. According to Salkind (2010) the correlation of determination is the percentage of variance in one variable that is accounted for by the variance in the other variable. The results are presented in Table 4.4.Table 4.4 Interrelationship of Reading and Spelling ?Fluency TestSpelling Test Fluency Test1Spelling Test0.3833182691r (17) = .3833, p < .05According to the data gathered from the samples from the effect size r correlation coefficient test ran there was significance dependence between the interrelationship of reading and spelling achievement. The hypothesis is rejected as the data, effect size r, r(17) = .3833, p< .05, shows that there is a positive Correlation of .38 which is less than p<.05 so when students who struggle with spelling due to a lack of phonemic awareness it also affects their reading achievement. The effect size for these data is which categorizes it as a medium effect size. This means that my test samples have a 45% commonality. This also shows a lack of phonemic awareness can have an effect on reading and spelling achievement. CHAPTER 5ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESUTSThis study was designed as an action research. Research was carried out with careful and precise preparation, action, monitoring and reflection of the data gathered. The study is a quantitative examination of a student’s lack of phonemic awareness on their reading fluency and spelling achievement. I, as the observer, looked back on the pre and post test assessments taken from the Harcourt Basal Reading Program used by Coweta County. I also reviewed the pre and post test from a direct instruction phonic program, Orton Gillingham Multisensory Program and the first fluency test of the school year. The pre and post test assessments were analyzed by using a dependent t-test. Focus question two was analyzed using a dependent t-test on two samples assuming equal variances. An Effect size r test was also run on focus question two to determine if there is correlation between reading fluency achievement when teaching from a basal reading program only. Focus question three was analyzed using correlation coefficient effect size r to determine the magnitude of dependence of spelling and reading achievement. Analysis of ResultsFor Focus Question one, do spelling test scores increase when teaching phonemic awareness from a basal reading program or a direct instruction phonics program? I used two pre and post tests both derived from my count’s current Harcourt Basal Reading Program. The data were analyzed to determine if there were significant differences in student achievement in spelling when using just the basal and then using a direct instruction program along with the basal reading program. According to the data there was significance difference in both pre and post tests so the null was rejected. The P one tail from the basal reading only pre and post test was 1.30846 and the P two tail was 2.6192. The data shows a significant difference therefore rejecting the null hypothesis. The data shows that no matter the treatment, basal only or basal plus direct instruction, a student can improve his or her spelling scores when the time is taken to teach the required lesson in the classroom by the teacher. During week one’s treatment, on Monday, students were pre-tested and graded. They were given the words for the week. I followed the basal readers daily lessons that incorporate the spelling words into daily activities, which are worksheet/workbook based and they saw the words daily in homework assignments and when reading them in that weeks reading story. The students were then post tested on Friday of the same week. During week two’s treatment, students were again pre-tested on Monday, given the spelling words for the work. Along with following the basal readers weekly lessons for spelling, using the workbook/worksheets the students received a fifteen to 20 minute direct instruction phonics lesson. These lessons included multisensory activities such as writing the words in sand, touching opposing arms or tapping out the words with fingers and then pounding and saying the word after it is spelled. By using the direct instruction program along with the basal reading program, the students became actively involved in their own learning. The lessons used all learning strategies to help them practice and retain spelling knowledge. They then transfer that knowledge when encountering new words; allowing the student to be actively involved in their own learning is supported by Jean Piaget. As sited in my literature review by Fresch 2007, Piaget claimed “the student does not just passively take in knowledge, but actively constructs it on the basis of his/her prior knowledge and experiences.” This is also consistent with what McCulloch (2000) stats about basal reading programs. She stated that basal reading programs do not capture the student’s interest and allow for retention of the knowledge of spelling; it only is enough to convince both parents and teacher that they are teaching phonics. While both treatments show growth in spelling scores, the basal reading along with the direct instruction treat showed the most significance. For Focus Question two, does reading fluency increase when using phonics from a basal reader during reading instruction? I used the participant’s fluency scores from the beginning of the year and their current score taken in the second week of this study. The students have been taught reading and phonics using only the basal reading program in a whole group setting all year. The Effect Size r = 0.43 with a percentage non overlap= 55.4%. The hypothesis was null and therefore accepted as there was no significant change in reading scores when being taught with a basal reading program with embedded phonics lessons. The data is also consistent with Roberts and Meiring (2006) cited from the National Reading Panel that although systematic phonics programs were significantly better than non-phonics programs, there was no evidence of superiority of any one type of phonics program or any one specific program. In observing the data the students did move forward in their reading fluency but not enough to show significance. For Focus Question three, does a student’s lack of phonemic awareness adversely affect the interrelationship between reading and spelling, I used the student’s current reading fluency test scores compared to their current spelling scores. The fluency test given the participants came from the DIBELS program. It is a third grade level test for below level readers. The spelling test used was from the second week of the study when the direct phonics program was used along with the basal reader. I ran a correlation coefficient effect size calculation was done and it was determined to have an effect size of .3833, p < .05, which according to Salkind (2010) is a medium size effect. A medium effect size means that the reading and spelling scores overlap about 45%, having some interrelationship. The data shows that there is significance in the interrelationship between reading and spelling so the hypothesis is rejected. These findings are consistent with the Groff (2001) study which states that it is difficult to identify a cause of reading spelling disparities but also states that spelling does have some influence on reading. The data is also consistent with a Roberts and Meiring (2006) study on the reciprocal nature of reading and spelling. They found that knowledge of the orthography of language is essential in both decoding words while reading and encoding word representations while spelling.Discussion This study was a strong study because I used multiple data sources. The process of using multiple data sources is called “structural corroboration,” by Eisner (1991). It is where a confluence of evidence comes together to form a compelling whole, fairness and precision are embedded within his concepts. Credibility of my study comes from the pre and post test that I administered using the Harcourt basal reader series as well as the use of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, or DIBELS fluency test. The same assessments were given at the beginning of treatment and at the end of treatment. The students worked hard during both weeks. The data shows achievement in spelling and fluency. I was not surprised by this outcome. It confirms that students can learn with either program; but students learned better and enjoyed learning when they were actively involved in the process when using a direct phonics instruction program along with the basal reading. They had ownership of the learning process when they were actively engaged in the lessons and all learning styles were used. Precision was shown in the use of the dependent and independent t-test on the pre and post testing; and through the effect size calculations used to compare fluency scores and an interrelationship between reading and spelling achievement. What did surprise me was the fluency and spelling data when compared. Although achievement grew in both areas, as the independent t-test show; it was the effect size calculation that showed only a 45% effect size or medium size which means the two variables were not closely interrelated as I had hoped they would be. I have seen a growth, in the students learning to like reading as well as their excitement when they do well on assignments or with just being able to read better than the beginning of the school year. I still believe that using only a basal reading program is not the best practice for students with poor phonics ability or low readers. ImplicationsThe results of this study were almost what I expected. In Focus Question One the expectation was that there would be a significant difference in spelling achievement when using a direct phonics instruction program alongside the basal reader, and, the study proved that. What I did not expect, due to my lack of faith in the use of basal readers alone for teaching phonics and spelling, was that there was significant growth in spelling achievement with the use of only the basal reading program with its embedded phonics lessons. The data confirms that spelling skills and the way in which they are taught need to be addressed and changed. Fresch (2007) states in her article, the curricular area once deemed a memorization skill is getting a renewed look as increasing writing demands are placed on students of all ages. I was also surprised by the medium effect size calculation run on focus question three. I expected to see a closer, smaller, and overlapping of the interrelationship between low reading scores and low spelling scores. Overall the results were what I expected, as it confirms the point argued by Groff (2001) that spelling and reading are two sides of a coin because a logical symmetry exists between them. The results from the pre and post assessments, as well as the other assessments in this study, can be generalized and used with other, larger populations. The tests were given at a time when there were no other obligations or testing that needed to be admistered and no other pressures were put on the students to perform differently than any other week in class. The catalytic validity of the study was evident in that the students showed a growth in all areas assessed. The students were actively involved and engaged in their learning and enjoyed the direct phonics instructions along with their normal activities associated with the basal reading program. It was very rewarding to the students to see at the end of this study that learning can be fun and they can be successful. The smiles on their faces when they were given back their test said more than any data could ever tell them. They were proud of themselves. As a teacher, I too have to enjoy what I am teaching and these lessons made it easy to enjoy. I found it much easier than I first expected to add the direct instruction to my already busy reading lessons. The hardest part for me as a teacher is that I wanted to make sure they didn’t make a mess or get to loud and disturb neighboring classrooms. Another surprise for me as the teacher, the direct phonics instruction gave me another way to assess which students understood, or did not understand, the spelling pattern and sounds. I was able to better assist the students who needed the help. As a teacher, I will continue to find ways to actively engage my students in their learning and acquire permission to use the direct phonics instruction alongside the county’s basal reading program.Recommendations for Future ResearchFurther research is recommended due to the long standing debate that still lingers in schools and with teachers on how to teach reading. A suggestion for further research would be to compare the previous year’s spelling and fluency scores of the low reading class to the current year’s students. Surveys of teachers in kindergarten through second grade should be taken to find out their preference to teaching or not teaching phonics or how do they teach phonics. Another suggestion for further research would be to compare two third grade classes, equal learning levels, one using only the basal reading program and the other using the basal and direct phonics instruction to better compare the significance in having students actively involved in their learning. I strongly believe that students learn better when they are engaged in their learning. Working to find better ways to help facilitate active engagement in student learning can be done across grade levels, especially the early grades, through collaboration and training. ReferencesBernstein, L. & Ellis, N., (2000, Fall). There are three sounds in the word CAT: How phonemic awareness works to facilitate reading acquisition. Dominican University of California School of Education. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsEhri, L. C., (1987). Movement in word reading and spelling: How spelling contributes to reading. Illinois University, Center for the Study of ReadingEisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.Fresch (2007). Teachers’ concerns about spelling instruction: A national survey. Reading Psychology, 28:301-330. Good, R. & Kaminski, R. (2003) DEBELS: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills 6th Edition. Longmont, Co. Sopris West Griffith, P. L. & Klesius, J. P. (1999). The effect of phonemic awareness ability and reading instructional approach on first grade children’s acquisition of spelling and decoding skills. Presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, Florida.Groff, Patrick, Ed.D. (2001). Teaching phonics: Letter-to-phoneme, phoneme-to letter, or both? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 297-306.Hodges (1984). Spelling. ERIC Digest. [electronic resource]. Reading and communication skills. ERIC Clearing HouseLaGrange College Education Department (2009). The Conceptual Framework LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College McCulloch, Myrna T. (2000).Helping children learn “phonemic” and graphemic” awareness. The Riggs Institute, Opinion Papers Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning [electronic resource]: A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. New York, NY: Routledge.Quick, B, N. (1998). Beginning reading and developmentally appropriate practice (DAP): Past, present, and future. Peabody Journal of Education, 253-268.Popham, J. W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. (5th ed.) Pearson Education, Inc. Roberts, T. A., & Meiring, A. (2006). Teaching phonics in the context of children’s literature or spelling: Influences on first-grade reading, spelling, and writing and fifth-grade comprehension. Journal of Education Psychology, 98(4), 690-713.Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for People Who Think They Hate Statistics. (2nd ed.). Sage PublicationsSavage, R., & Carless, S. (2005). Learning support assistants can deliver effective reading interventions for ‘at-risk’ children. Educational Research, 47(1), 45-61Thompson, G. B., McKay, M., F., Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., Connelly, V., & Kaa, R.T., (2007). Do children who acquire word reading without explicit phonics employ compensatory learning? Issues of phonological recoding, lexical orthography, and fluency. Springer Science Business Media B.V.Yopp, H. K., Yopp, R. H. (2000). Supporting phonemic awareness development in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54 ( 2), 130-143. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download