Knowledge, skills, and practices concerning phonological awareness among early childhood education teachers.

Knowledge, skills, and practices concerning phonological awareness among early childhood education teachers. A sample of 83 kindergarten teachers participated in this study toexamine their knowledge, skills, and classroom practices concerningphonological awareness. Analyses of data revealed significant gapsbetween knowledge and practice, knowledge and skills, and skills andpractice. The gap between knowledge and skills, on one hand, andclassroom practices, on the other hand, was significantly noticeable, anindication that participants did not practice, in reality, significantproportions of their knowledge and skills during teaching. Analysesshowed that in-service training affected the result of this study andthat skills in phonological awareness predicted classroom practices. Keywords: kindergarten teachers, observations, phonologicalawareness, practice, self-reporting ********** Researchers revealed that children who do not receive good literacypreparation and come from homes with poor literacy experiences may be atrisk for reading failure as they progress in schools (e.g., Dickinson& Tabors, 2001; see Justice & Ezell, 2001). One important aspectof literacy preparations is teaching children phonological awareness(PA) (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Blachman, Tangel, Ball, Black, &McGraw, 1999; Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000), which deals withthe degree of sensitivity that children have toward sounds in thelanguage being used. Children who possess good PA have the ability tomanipulate and detect sounds in words, independent of their meanings. Researchers have identified the significant role of PA instructionin developing children's reading abilities (e.g., Ball &Blachman, 1991; Lyon & Moats, 1997; Pratt & Brady, 1988;Stanovich, 1991; Torgesen, 2002; Wood, 1999, 2000). After conducting a2-year study, Bradley and Bryant (1983) reported that receiving explicitinstruction in PA positively influenced reading ability. Authorsmentioned that training in alphabetic principles, rhyming,identification of words, and alliteration strongly and positivelyaffected children's reading ability. Stanovich (1986) mentionedthat children with higher levels of PA skills progressed in theirlanguage skills better and quicker than those who started with little orlow levels of PA skills. Peterson and Haines (1992) found that theeffects of teaching kindergarten children PA skills in the form oforthographic analogies, based on alliteration and rhyming, variedaccording to whether or not the children were able to segment words.Orthographic analogy is performed by giving children a clue word (e.g.,"beak") to help them read a new word (e.g., "peak")that shares a rime unit or an onset unit (e.g.,"beak"-"bean") with the clue word. It amounts todecoding unknown words, phoneme by phoneme, based on knowledge ofspelling patterns of known words. Foorman and Moats (2004) reviewedresearch-based practices in early reading instruction and found thatPA--along with letter-sound identification and rapid naming, vocabularyknowledge, and word reading--are valid predictors for the identificationof children at risk for reading problems (see also Torgesen, 2002).Finally, Vloedgraven and Verhoeven (2007) found, in a recent study, thatrhyming performance, phoneme blending, phoneme identification, andphoneme segmentation are vital aspects of PA. These authors revealedthat phoneme segmentation appears to be the most difficult anddiscriminating task, yet informative of children's PA ability,while rhyming performance appears to be the easiest task. However, theauthors stated that the discriminating power of phoneme segmentationdeclined considerably as children enhanced their PA abilities in firstgrade, due to the start of literacy instruction with a focus on phonics. In this context, instruction in PA and in phonological skillssignificantly improves reading and spelling, not only in normallydeveloping children who have no academic problems, but also in poorreaders who need special attention (National Institute of Child Healthand Human Development, 2000). THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHERS' KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND PRACTICESOF PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS Teachers' instructional approaches should be determined by theknowledge that children come to schools with diverse culturalbackgrounds and experiences, and varied levels of abilities and exposureto literacy practices (Justice & Pullen, 2003). The researchreviewed in this article indicates that teachers' knowledge of PAand their practical instructional skills to enhance it are necessary tohelp children succeed in early reading endeavors (e.g., Ball &Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1993). The researchsuggests that incorporating PA instruction into classroom teachingpractices is one solution to literacy difficulties in reading (e.g.,McCutchen, Abbott et al., 2002), that PA is strongly related to literacydevelopment (e.g., Anthony & Francis, 2005), and that kindergartnersmust attain a certain level of phoneme awareness to benefit from formalreading instruction (e.g., Stanovich, 1986, 1994). Several studies have emphasized teachers' knowledge and skillsand on the importance of PA in reading acquisition (e.g., Kleeck,Gillam, & McFadden, 1998) as have by leading education agencies andorganizations (e.g., American Federation of Teachers, 1999; LearningFirst Alliance, 2000; National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities,2000). For example, the National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel revealed thatproviding early intervention in PA skills may significantly decreaselater reading difficulties, improve early reading skills, and reduce thenumber of children who read below grade level. This emphasis, however,has not been met with an influx of research on what teachers know aboutlanguage and reading and how they utilize their knowledge in teachingsituations. Initial studies (e.g., McCutchen, Abbott, et al., 2002;McCutchen, Harry, et al., 2002; Moats & Foorman, 2003) revealed thatmany teachers were not knowledgeable about English phonology andorthography; they lack the sophisticated knowledge and skills of PA.Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, and Stanovich (2004) found that teachersfrom kindergarten to third grade demonstrated limited knowledge ofchildren' s literature, tended to overestimate their knowledge inPA and phonics, and were not aware of what they know and do not know. Asa result, literacy development in young children may not be supported(especially among those at risk for developing reading problems) whenteachers do not have sufficient knowledge and skills linked to beginningreading instruction. Further studies raised some concern about the ability of teachercandidates to teach basic reading skills (e.g., Spear-Swerling &Brucker, 2006) and reported a scarcity of PA instruction in preschoolclassrooms (e.g., Phillips, Clancy-Menchetti, & Lonigan, 2008), suchthat teachers have not incorporated this instruction into their dailyroutine teaching practices. Spencer, Schuele, Guillot, and Lee (2008)compared the PA skills of groups of teachers and found that althoughspeech and language pathologists performed better than other groups,their performance was not proficient. The authors found that the PAskills of reading and special education teachers were comparable to thatof kindergarten and first-grade teachers. Spencer et al. recommended anincrease in the PA skills of all teachers. THE IMPORTANCE OF EXAMINING PA FOR ARABIC-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN THECURRENT STUDY The literature reviewed for the current study revealed thatresearch into the various aspects of PA is available in English languageand in English-speaking countries, such as the United States of America.This kind of research, however, is lacking in Arabic and inArabic-speaking countries, particularly the United Arab Emirates (UAE),even with the knowledge that PA influences children's readingperformances. We did not find studies in this area at the kindergartenlevel with Arabic-speaking teachers. The one study we found wasconducted with elementary schoolteachers, and it reported that teachersin the first, second, and third grades had low levels of PA knowledgeand skills and were not prepared to teach this important subject matter(Tibi, 2005). During our search, we found that the meager teachingmaterials used for teaching PA are translations from English languagewith adaptations to fit Arabic language. The scarcity of Arabic PAteaching materials and programs could be due to the fact that teachingPA was not incorporated into any level of education in this part ofworld. Until recently, the instructional focus has been on a whole-wordapproach to develop sight reading. With the exception of foreign schools(i.e., English or American schools), Arabic schools do not pay muchattention to PA. As components of the current curriculum for preschoolers in UAE arespecified and mainstreamed to expose all students to the same contentsand experiences, research that addresses teachers' knowledge andskills in PA is lacking. This issue takes the front stage whenconsidering that new trends in education policies (e.g., The No ChildLeft Behind Act and the Individuals With Disabilities EducationImprovement Act of 2004) affect the Arab world as well. These educationpolicies advocate direct and explicit teaching of language and academiccompetencies in systematic manners to raise student achievement. Thus,one of the goals of preschool education becomes helping children developadequate PA skills to benefit from language instruction in later years.To achieve this goal, we wanted to know in this current study if Arabteachers have the requisite PA knowledge and skills, and whether theypractice them in class to assist children in the area of reading. Our current study provides an international perspective onteachers' knowledge, skills, and classroom practices in PA,focusing on the Arabic-speaking country of the UAE. It addressesquestions related to whether or not significant differences existbetween the teachers' knowledge domain, the skills domain, and theclassroom practice domain in PA, based on years of teaching experience,the number of students in class, and in-service PA training. The currentstudy also addresses the question of determining which variablessignificantly influence and account for the teachers' actualclassroom practices. We hypothesized that significant differences would be found amongthe three domains when examined in relation to years of teachingexperience, the number of students in class, and the in-service PAtraining. We also hypothesized that the knowledge and skills domains arethe variables that would account for a significant variance inteachers' classroom practices. METHOD Participants Participants were 83 female kindergarten public school teachers inthe UAE. Of these, 25% had 1 to 3 years of teaching experience, 24% had4 to 6 years of teaching experience, 23% had 7 to 9 years of teachingexperience, and 28% had more than 10 years of teaching experience.Teachers' class sizes varied as well: 8% of the participants had aclass load of 10 to 15 students, compared to 51% who had 16 to 21students, 34% who had 22 to 27 students, and 7% with 28 students ormore. Of the total sample, 22% mentioned they had training in PA,compared to 78% who did not. Forty-three participants (nearly 52%) wereexpatriates who had earned academic degrees from educationalinstitutions located in other Arabic-speaking countries. Instrumentation We employed two methods to collect the data for the current study.First, we used two forms of a 4-point Likert-type questionnaire: onegathered information on the teachers' knowledge of PA, whereas theother one was used to gauge the teacher's PA skills. The currentstudy was informed by the mutual work of the first author and hiscolleague (Tibi, 2005) in the Department of Special Education at UnitedArab Emirates University. Both researchers constructed the questionnairein Arabic, based upon extensive English literature in the field (i.e.,Mather, Bos, & Babur, 2001; McCutchen, Abbott et al., 2002; Moats& Foorman, 2003; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2003). In theknowledge questionnaire form, participants responded to 18 items wordedin Arabic. Responses on this form were 1 = do not know at all, 2 = knowsomewhat, 3 = know fairly, and 4 = know a lot. The skills questionnaire consisted of the same 18 items from theknowledge questionnaire form (also worded in Arabic). Knowledge items,such as "I am familiar with drills on breaking words into syllables(e.g., telephone: te/le/phone)," were rephrased to become a skillitem, such as "I do drills on breaking words into syllables (e.g.,telephone : te/le/phone)." Participants were asked to rate each ofthe 18 items on a 4-point Likert-type scale to indicate bow often theyperformed these skills during teaching. Participants' responseswere 1 = never perform, 2 = sometimes perform, 3 = often perform, and 4= always perform. (See Table 1 for the 18 core items, which werereworded to reflect the knowledge, skills, and observation domains. Forbrevity purposes, we did not include separate tables for each domain.) The knowledge form and the skills form of the questionnaire weregiven to six faculty members in the Special Education Department at UAEUniversity, as well as to 15 special and general education teachers andsupervisors at UAE Ministry of Education and Youth, for review andcomments. Both forms of the questionnaire were revised based on thefeedback obtained from this piloting process. The primary revisioninvolved rewriting some items for clarity. Items in the knowledge formyielded a reliability coefficient alpha of .94, and those in the skillsform yielded a reliability coefficient alpha of .89. In addition, teachers in our sample were asked to provide furtherinformation on the number of years of teaching experience, whether ornot they had training in PA, and the number of students in theirclassrooms. The second method of data collection was observation, used to findwhether participants practiced their self-reported PA skills duringactual teaching situations. The first author conducted two observationtraining sessions for data collectors, one for supervisors and one forpracticum students. Each training session lasted about 3 hours andcovered steps of collecting data using the observation form. Datacollectors were asked to observe and record the items mentioned in thephonological skills form that participants had already filled out (seethe 18 core items mentioned in Table 1). Based on daily lesson plans andobjectives, we estimated the need to conduct four consecutiveobservation periods for each of the 83 participants, over 4 days, to seeif they modeled PA skills in class. Thus, the total number ofobservations totaled 332 sessions of group teaching, each of whichlasted for a whole class period. The first author, along with 10supervisors from three regional school districts and 13 practicumstudents from the college of education at UAE University, conducted the332 observations in the second half of the school year. Supervisorscollected data from their local schools, while practicum studentscollected data from the schools designated for their training. Only 10random inter-rater reliability checks were conducted in the three schooldistricts, yielding about 90% to 100% agreement between the two scores.Table 1 presents the 18 core items used for double-coding the classroomobservations. Data collected from this interrater reliability processwere used in the final analysis, due to the small number ofparticipating teachers (i.e., 83). Efforts had been exerted to minimize the time gaps betweencollecting data for knowledge, skills, and practice domains. Therefore,observation started no more than 1 to 2 weeks after the teachers hadcompleted the knowledge and skills questionnaires. Procedure The first author obtained permission from three regional schooldistricts to distribute to potential participants the questionnaireknowledge form, followed by the questionnaire skills form. Oncepermission was granted, a cover letter was sent to that district'sparticipants asking them if they were willing to take part in the lastphase of the current study which involved classroom observations. Thefirst author and/or one of the data collectors assured the participantsthat observations would be conducted in a confidential and anonymousmanner. The first author sent 55 questionnaires to participatingteachers, with the help of practicum students who were student teachingin these regional schools. He also sent 73 questionnaires throughsupervisors in these three school districts to obtain more participatingteachers. He received responses from 104 out of 128 teachers. Of these,the authors excluded responses from 21 participants, due to missinginformation or to participants declining to take part in the classroomobservation phase. The final number of participants involved in thisstudy was 83 (about 65% of all initially targeted participants). During observation periods, data collectors rated each of the 18items mentioned in the skills form to indicate how often participatingteachers practiced them throughout actual teaching. Since the items wereoriginally on a 4-point Likert-type scale, data collectors'responses to participating teachers' classroom instructions rangedfrom 1 = never perform the stated skill to 4 = always perform the statedskill. Data collectors used one observation form for each observationsession and computed, on a separate form, the average of markedresponses for each of the 18 items, after the fourth observationsession. This was one way to quantify the observation data forcomparison purposes. Data collectors selected 4 = always perform as aresponse to skills practiced about four times and selected 3 = oftenperform if skills were practiced about three times. They selected 2 =sometimes perform if skills were practiced once or twice and selectedthe option 1 = never perform for any skill left unpracticed by the endof the fourth observation period. The data collectors focused on thefrequency of skills taught in a class period and not on how much timethe teachers took to teach each practiced skill. We did not use zero toindicate the absence of performance of PA skills, because observationwas limited to four sessions (i.e., teachers received four ratings, onefor each day), and we were not absolutely sure if teachers really didnot perform these skills. RESULTS We calculated means and standard deviations for the knowledge,skills, and practice domains. Participants obtained the highest meanscore in the knowledge domain (M = 58.60, SD = 14.13), then in theskills domain (M = 55.04, SD = 11.35) and finally in the practice domain(M = 39.30, SD = 8.28). We conducted three separate MANOVAs withrepeated measures to examine the apparent differences in performances inthe knowledge, skills, and practice domains in relation to thedemographic variables. We used scores in the three domains aswithin-subjects variables and used each of the following demographicdata as between-subjects variables: participants' years of teachingexperience, number of students in class, and whether or not participantsreceived in-service PA training. We carried out the first MANOVA with repeated measures, usingscores in the three domains as within-subjects variables and usingparticipants' years of teaching experiences as between-subjectsvariables. We divided participants into four groups, based on teachingexperience: 1 to 3 years of teaching experience formed the first group(n = 21), 4 to 6 years of teaching experience formed the second group (n= 20), 7 to 9 years of teaching experience formed the third group (n =19), and 10 or more of teaching experience formed the fourth group (n =23). The MANOVA analysis identified significant differences in thescores obtained in the three domains, Hotelling's F(2, 78) =74.987, p < .001 (eta squared = .658), but the interaction of thethree domains with participants' years of teaching experiences wasnot significant, Hotelling's F(6, 154) = .501, p =. 807 (etasquared = .019). Using Bonferroni follow-up procedure revealedsignificant differences between the knowledge and practice domains, theknowledge and skills domains, and the skills and practice domains. Thisindicates the existence of a significant gap among the three domains.Although the gap between knowledge and skills is small (mean difference= 3.56) but significant, the gaps between knowledge and practice (meandifference = 19.30) and between skills and practice (mean difference =15.74) are significantly larger. We performed the second MANOVA with repeated measures, using scoresin the three domains as within-subjects variables and using the numberof students in class as between-subjects variable. We dividedparticipants into four groups, based on class loads: participants with aclass load of 10 to 15 students formed the first group (n = 7),participants with a class load of 16 to 21 students formed the secondgroup (n = 42), participants with a class load of 22 to 27 studentsformed the third group (n = 28), and those with a class load of 28 ormore students formed the fourth group (n = 6). The MANOVA analysisshowed significant differences in the scores obtained in the threedomains, Hotelling's F(2, 78) = 45.982, p < .001 (eta squared =.541), but the interaction of the three domains with class loads was notsignificant, Hotelling's F(6, 154) = .575, p = .750 (eta squared =.022). Using Bonferroni follow-up procedure revealed significantdifferences between the knowledge and practice domains, the knowledgeand skills domains, and the skills and practice domains. For the last MANOVA analysis with repeated measures, we used scoresin the three domains as within-subjects variables and whether or notparticipants received in-service training in PA as between-subjectsvariable. Those who received PA training formed the first group (n = 18)and those who did not formed the second group (n = 65). MANOVA analysisshowed significant differences in the scores obtained in the threedomains, Hotelling's F(2, 80) = 46.887, p < .001 (eta squared =.540), but the interaction of the three domains with whether or notparticipants received in-service training in PA was not significant,Hotelling's F(2, 80) = .634, p =. 533 (eta squared = .016). TheBonferroni follow-up procedure revealed no significant differencesbetween scores in the knowledge and skills domains, but scores in thesetwo self-reported domains were significantly higher than scores obtainedby conducting classroom observations (i.e., the practice domain). Itseems that the in-service training variable, unlike years of teachingexperience and class loads variables, has an effect in the currentstudy. We calculated Pearson product-moment correlations to identify anysignificant correlations among the knowledge, skills, practice, years ofteaching experience, number of students in class, and in-service PAtraining variables (see Table 2). Table 2 shows significant correlationsonly between the knowledge and skills domains (r = .69, p < .001) andbetween the skills and practice domains (r = .28, p < .010), anindication that a gap exists between teachers' self-reportedknowledge and their practice. The table reveals that years of teachingexperience, number of students in class, and in-service PA trainingvariables are not significantly associated with the knowledge, skills,and practice domains. We calculated another Pearson product-moment correlations betweenitems used in the knowledge and skills domains, knowledge and practicedomains, and skills and practice domains, to identify which items showsignificant correlations across domains. Table 1 shows four itemscorrelating significantly in the knowledge and practice domains. Thismeans about 22% of what teachers know, based on teachers'self-reported knowledge in PA, are associated with actual classroompractices. Table 1 also shows eight items correlating significantlybetween the skills and practice domains. This means about 44% of theskills that teachers think they possess is being related to actualclassroom practices. Finally, Table 1 shows 17 items correlatingsignificantly between the knowledge and skills domains, representingabout 94% of teachers' self-reported knowledge. This table showsthree items, representing about 17%, correlating significantly acrossthe three domains. These three items represented the knowledge andskills that are significantly practiced during actual teaching. Thesecorrelation results appear to indicate disparity in teachers'self-reported knowledge and skills, compared to their actual teachingpractices. It appears that classroom observation is the key to determinewhether or not teachers practice their self-reported knowledge andskills. We conducted a multiple regression analysis to determine thevariables that may account for teachers' PA practice duringteaching. We entered practice scores as the dependent variable andentered years of teaching experience, number of students in class,scores in the skills and knowledge domains and whether or not teachersreceived in-service PA training as predictors into the regressionequation. Table 3 shows that the multiple regression equation predictingpractice scores was significant and that the skills domain was the onlyvariable that accounted for a significant amount of unique variance. DISCUSSION We conducted the current study to examine differences in PA interms of knowledge, skills, and practice in a sample of kindergartenteachers. We examined these probable differences in relation toteachers' years of teaching experiences, class loads, andin-service training. We further looked at the variables that couldplausibly influence and account for a significant variance in PAclassroom practices. Results showed significant differences between theknowledge and practice domains, the knowledge and skills domains, andthe skills and practice domains, regardless of years of teachingexperience and the number of students in class. When scores in the threedomains were examined in relation to whether or not participants hadin-service training, results revealed no significant differences betweenscores in the knowledge and skills domains but did show that scores inthese two domains were significantly higher than scores in the practicedomain. These results reveal a gap between the knowledge and skillsdomains, on the one hand, and the classroom practice domain, on theother hand. This gap is an indication that participants did not apply asignificant portion of their knowledge and skills during their classroomteaching. This conclusion could be related to the fact that about halfof the participating teachers studied in different countries in theMiddle East region and therefore followed different study plans duringthe course of their teacher preparation program. The correlationsresults reported in Table 1 showing disparity in teachers'self-reported knowledge and skills vis-a-vis their actual teachingpractices resonate throughout the literature and are not limited to thiscurrent study. Mather et al. (2001) reported that although in-serviceteachers outperformed preservice teachers in their knowledge of thestructure of the English language, neither group had sufficientknowledge about concepts of English language structure and phonicsterminology, and neither was well prepared to handle the instructionalneeds of children with reading difficulties. Mather and colleaguesrevealed in their study a disparity between teachers' beliefs thatthey ought to know how to teach PA and phonics, on the one hand, andtheir preparation and readiness for this task, on the other hand (seealso Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2006). The current study revealed that the in-service training variable,unlike the years of teaching experience and class loads variables,affected the result of the current study. This variable showed amoderating effect on the self-reported knowledge and skills, but not onthe observed practices. An explanation of the no significant effect forthe in-service training variable on classroom practices could be due tothe small number of participants (n = 18, constituting about 22% of thetotal 83 participants) who had such training. We found in the currentstudy that the majority of teachers with the most teaching experiencedid not have in-service training. This is apparent when we dividedparticipants into groups based on years of teaching experience and onwhether or not they received in-service PA training. We found 4 (i.e.,about 17%) out of 23 participants had in-service training in the groupthat had 10 years or more of teaching experience; 2 (i.e., about 11%)out of 19 participants had in-service training in the group that had 7to 9 years of teaching experience; 5 (25%) out of 20 participants hadin-service training in the group that had 4 to 6 years of teachingexperience; and 7 (33%) out of 21 participants had in-service trainingin the group that had 1 to 3 years of teaching experience. This groupingof participants shows a trend that those with less teaching experiencehad more in-service PA training compared to those with more teachingexperience. This could be due to the modest awareness of the importanceof PA in kindergarten education among the relatively new teacherscompared to veteran ones who, unexpectedly, did not show marked andsignificant PA classroom practices. The importance of teachers' in-service training forchildren's achievement comes from our literature review, whichindicates that students of teachers who received extensive professionalin-service training outperformed students of other teachers (Carpenter,Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, & Loef, 1989). Teachers' in-servicetraining positively influenced students' achievement, and teacherswith better grasp of their content area (after receiving training) haveaffected students' learning the most (Kennedy, 1998). Foorman andMoats (2004) documented that in-service professional development, whenconducted appropriately, improved children's academic outcomes, ledto in-depth insight into the process of teaching reading, and madematerial support available to teachers. Implementing better programs inthis area requires adequate answers to many questions, including theimportant elements of in-service training, the frequency of coaching ormentoring needed to influence students' learning, and determiningthe location (i.e., school-based or off-site) of in-service training(Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008). The lack of significant effects of class loads on teachers'self-reported knowledge and skills, and on the observed classroomteaching practices, indicate that practicing PA is not significantlyinfluenced by the number of students in class. Practicing PA could takeplace in any size classes. Whether students have a better chance oflearning and mastering PA skills regardless of their numbers in class,however, is another issue. As a rule, students have a better chance oflearning and mastering PA in small classes, compared to large ones, dueto frequent assistance, supervision, monitoring, and attention to theirwork and progress during the learning process. Classes with smallnumbers of students guarantee more time devoted to each student whenteachers introduce skills, request in-class task completion, check andrecheck work and understanding, solicit answers, and demand modeling ofa presented skill. Phillips et al. (2008) reported important findings inthis regard. They found that individual or small-group, explicitinstruction is very effective in teaching PA to schoolchildren. Noevidence was found on the effectiveness of whole-group and implicitinstruction of PA. Results of the current study revealed that only teachers'reported skills in PA accounted for a significant variance in theirclassroom practices. It appears that PA knowledge does not automaticallyand naturally translate to PA classroom practices. What leads topracticing PA in class are skills in PA. This gap between knowledge andpractice is reminiscent of the gap between research and practice,whereby knowledge drawn from research findings is not routinelypracticed in classroom settings (A1-Hilawani, 2003). It appears thatmastering needed skills, which leads to students' enhancedperformance, is one of the important requirements that can help bridgethe gap between knowledge and practice. This current study suggests that inadequate teacher-preparationprograms manifested by disparity in knowledge, skills, and classroompractices concerning PA could negatively influence students'reading performance in subsequent grade levels. Research suggests thatproper preparation of teachers helps children, including children atrisk, develop adequate reading skills (e.g., Bos, Mather, Narr, &Babur, 1999; McCutchen & Berninger, 1999; O'Connor, 1999).Given the accumulated knowledge on the importance of teachingphonological awareness and phonics--not only to normally developingchildren, but also to struggling readers, including those withdyslexia--it becomes imperative that teachers gain the foundationalpractical knowledge and skills necessary to provide early systematicreading instruction to diverse learners. Thus, evaluatingteacher-preparation programs in the area of reading is critical if weare to ensure a balanced instruction to all children, special andnon-special-education students alike (Chard & Osborn, 1999; Moats,2000). Research (e.g., Bos et al., 1999; McCutchen, Abbott et al., 2002)showed that teachers who have proper preparation can provide childrenwith better instruction and change classroom practices to improvestudents' learning opportunities. Knowing that good readers havebetter PA and can manipulate phonemes more effectively than childrenwith reading difficulties (see Humphrey & Hanley, 2004; Wood, 2000)makes preparing teachers to teach and train students in PA essential tochildren's reading acquisition (see National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development, 2000). The current study has several limitations. The self-reportingtechnique was used to collect the data, with observations of classroompractices being limited to four times. Although the focus of datacollectors was on rating how often participating teachers practiced PAskills during the actual teaching process, the teachers were alsointroducing other content from the kindergarten (KG) curriculum tostudents, and so their attention could have been diverted fromintroducing more of PA skills. Future research may extend observationperiods, focus on the duration of teaching each skill in class (i.e.,determining the time teachers took to teach each skill in class), andcover more aspects of PA assessment by including further items onknowledge, skills, and practice, the results of which constitute aconstructed tool suitable for research and classroom observations. IMPLICATIONS PA is positively associated with decoding skills and considered animportant predictor and indicator of early reading and spellingdevelopment (see Ball & Blachman, 1991; Brady, Fowler, Stone, &Winbury, 1994; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991; Rack, Snowling,& Olsen, 1992; Stanovich, 1992, 1994; Torgesen & Wagner, 1998,for reviews). Thus, ignoring teaching PA at the kindergarten level willbe a disservice to children. Along with this line of thought, assessingPA is also important. Vloedgraven and Verhoeven (2007) stressed the needto assess PA in kindergarten and in the early half of first grade toidentify early reading problems such as dyslexia. Authors stated thatassessment is required to differentiate PA problems stemming frominstructional deficits from those due to cognitive deficits, to provideappropriate interventions. We need to prepare teachers who have the knowledge and skills topractice PA. Teachers then would be more likely to deliver appropriateteaching and assessment services and make more children ready fordecoding skills and reduce, as a result, the number of thoseexperiencing reading failure. Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2006) reporteda gap in preteachers' knowledge of word structure and found thatthose who received instruction in this area outperformed, whenposttested, those who did not receive such instruction. Preparingteachers who understand how knowledge, skills, and practice concerningPA relates to literacy instruction also could be achieved by designing,for example, performance-based teacher preparation programs that conformto the standards and principles of such organizations as the NationalCouncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and theInterstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC).Reviewing the standards and principles of these two U.S.-based educationorganizations to design teacher-preparation programs reveals thatpracticing knowledge and skills are at the center of accredited teacherpreparation programs that prepare highly competent teachers. Thestandards and principles of these two organizations indicate thatteachers must be not only knowledgeable in subject matter content, butalso skilled in delivering this content to children. These standards andprinciples reveal clearly that reaching the desired level ofperformance-based teaching is feasible through structuring meaningfuloutcome-oriented field experiences, coaching, ongoing feedback,intensive training, consultations, collaborations, and professionaldevelopment programs. This leads to one important implication, which isthat teachers must be not only knowledgeable, but also practitioners whoknow and are able to do whatever is necessary to ensure students'mastery of presented knowledge and skills through meaningful engagementand practice. Restructuring teacher-preparation programs based on the standardsand principles of specialty organizations surely helps overcome some ofthe obstacles to effective instruction. It reduces the significant gapbetween what teachers perceive they know and could do, on the one hand,and their actual classroom practices, on the other hand. It would beinteresting to replicate this study to determine whether the newkindergarten teachers who are graduating from the college of educationat United Arab Emirates University, and who are replacing retiring andexpatriate teachers, are better practitioners of PA skills after thecollege of education has restructured its academic programs to meetNCATE standards. DOI: 10.1080/02568541003635276 Submitted May 19, 2009; accepted August 17, 2009. REFERENCES Al-Hilawani, Y. (2003). Clinical examination of three methods ofteaching reading comprehension to deaf and hard-of-hearing students:From research to classroom applications. Journal of Deaf Studies andDeaf Education, 8(2), 146-156. American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Teaching reading is arocket science. Washington, DC: Author. Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Development ofphonological awareness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14,255-259. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awarenesstraining in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition anddevelopmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66. Blachman, B. A., Tangel, D. M., Ball, E. W., Black, R., &McGraw, C. K. (1999). Developing phonological awareness and wordrecognition skills: A two-year intervention with low-income, inner-citychildren. Reading and Writing, 11, 239-273. Bos, C., Mather, N., Narr, R. F., & Babur, N. (1999).Interactive, collaborative professional development in early literacyinstruction: Supporting the balancing act. Learning DisabilitiesResearch & Practice, 14, 215-226. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds andlearning to read--A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421. Brady, S., Fowler, A., Stone, B., & Winbury, N. (1994).Training phonological awareness: A study with inner-city kindergartenchildren. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 26-59. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of aprogram to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 83, 451-455. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of aprogram to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 1 -yearfollow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 104-111. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P.,& Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematicsthinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 26, 499-531. Chard, D. J., & Osborn, J. (1999). Phonics and word recognitioninstruction in early reading programs: Guidelines for accessibility.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 107-117. Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich,P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledgecalibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1),139-166. Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacywith language. Baltimore: Brookes. Foorrnan, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions forsustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction.Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 51-60. Humphrey, N., & Hanley, J. R. (2004). The role of orthographicanalogies in reading for meaning: Evidence from readers with dyslexia.Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 265-280. Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2001). Written languageawareness in preschool children from low-income households: Adescriptive analysis. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22, 123-134. Justice, L. M., & Pullen, P. C. P. (2003). Promisingintervention for promoting emergent literacy skills: Threeevidence-based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,23, 99-114. Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance of inservice teachereducation (Research Monograph No. 13). Madison: University ofWisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education. Kleeck, A. V., Gillam, R. B., & McFadden, T. U. (1998). A studyof classroom-based phonological awareness training for preschoolers withspeech and/or language disorders. American Journal of Speech-LanguagePathology, 7, 65-76. Learning First Alliance. (2000). Every child reading: Aprofessional development guide. Washington, DC: Author. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000).Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschoolchildren: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study.Developmental Psychology, 36, 596-613. Lyon, G., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual andmethodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 30, 578-588. Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions andknowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early literacyinstruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 472-482. McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox,S., Potter, N. S., et al. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links amongteacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 35, 69-86. McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V. W. (1999). Those who know, teachwell: Helping teachers master literacy-related subject-matter knowledge.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 215-226. McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox, S., Sidman,S., & Covill, A. E. (2002). Reading teachers' knowledge ofchildren's literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia,52,207-226. Moats, L. C. (2000). Whole language lives on: The illusion of"balanced" reading instruction. New York: Thomas B. FordhamFoundation. Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers'content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53,23-45. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: Anevidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature onreading and its implication for reading instruction (NIH Publication No.00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2000).Professional development for teachers: A report from the National JointCommittee on Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 23,2-6. O'Connor, R. (1999). Teachers learning Ladders to Literacy.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), 203-214. Peterson, M. E., & Haines, L. P. (1992). Orthographic analogytraining with kindergarten children: Effects on analogy use, phonemicsegmentation, and letter-sound knowledge. Journal of Reading Behavior,24, 109-127. Phillips, B. M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2008).Successful phonological awareness instruction with preschool children:Lessons from the classroom. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,28(1), 3-17. Pratt, C., & Brady, S. (1988). Relationship of phonologicalawareness to reading disability in children and adults. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 80, 319-323. Rack, J. P., Snowling, M. J., & Olsen, R. K. (1992). Thenonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 27(1), 29-53. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2003). Teachers'acquisition of knowledge about English word structure. Annals ofDyslexia, 53, 72-103. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2006). Teacher-educationstudents' reading abilities and their knowledge about wordstructure. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(2), 116-126. Spencer, E. J., Schuele, C. M., Guillot, K. M., & Lee, M. W.(2008). Phonemic awareness skill of speech-language pathologists andother educators. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39,512-520. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Someconsequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly, 21,360-407. Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Conceptual and empirical problems withdiscrepancy definitions of reading disabilities. Learning DisabilitiesQuarterly, 14, 269-280. Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculations on the causes andconsequences of individual differences in early reading acquisition. InP. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition(pp. 307-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Romance and reality. Reading Teacher, 47,280-291. Tibi, S. (2005). Teachers' knowledge and skills inphonological awareness in United Arab Emirates. International Journal ofSpecial Education, 20(1), 60-66. Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties.Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 7-26. Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (1998). Alternative diagnosticapproaches for specific developmental reading disabilities. LearningDisabilities Research and Practice, 13, 220-232. Vloedgraven, J. M. T., & Verhoeven, L. (2007). Screening ofphonological awareness in the early elementary grades: An IRT approach.Annals of Dyslexia, 57, 33-50. Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S.(2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives andmethods. Educational Researcher, 37, 469-479. Wood, C. (1999). The contribution of analogical problem solving andphonemic awareness to children's ability to make orthographicanalogies when reading. Educational Psychology, 19, 277-286. Wood, C. (2000). Rhyme awareness, orthographic analogy use,phonemic awareness and reading: An examination of relationships.Educational Psychology, 20, 5-15. Emad M. Alghazo Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman Yasser A. Al-Hilawani Kuwait University, Kaifan, Kuwait Address correspondence to Dr. Yasser A. Al-Hilawani, Department ofEducational Psychology, College of Education, Kuwait University, P.O.Box 13281, Kaifan, Code No. 71953, Kuwait. E-mail:yhilawani@netscape.netTABLE 1Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between Knowledge, Skills, andPractice Domains Correlations Between Variables Knowledge and KnowledgeCore Items Skills and Practice1. Breaking words into syllables .79 ** p < .001 .17 p = .130 (e.g., telephone: te. le. phone)2. Breaking words into sounds .69 ** p < .001 .13 p = .251 (e.g.. cat: "k. a. P")3. Blending syllables (e.g., te. .62 ** p < .001 .23 * p < .03 le. phone: telephone)4. Blending sounds to form words .52 ** p < .001 16 p =. 150 (e.g., k.a.t: cat)5. Drilling on rhyming words .69 ** p < .001 .12 p = .267 (e.g., bat, rat, mat /cup)6. Drilling on detecting the first .47 ** p < .001 -.05 p = .633 sound in a word (e.g., "k": car)7. Drilling on detecting the last .56 ** p < .001 .14 p = .200 sound in a word (e.g., "g": clog)8. Forming meaningful words out of .47 ** p < .001 .08 p = .487 letters sequenced randomly (e.g., r-a-c: car)9. Reversing letters to form .50 ** p < .001 .18 P =. 111 meaningful words (e.g., Dog: god; mug: gum)10. Using different colors to .53 ** p < .001 -.05 p = .682 represent different letters in a word (e.g., Using the [d] letter in the word Dad in a red block and the [a] letter in a blue block)11. Using nursery rhymes in class .60 ** p < .001 .01 P = .90012. Using storybooks that contain .43 ** p < .001 .21 p = .06 rhymes (e.g., Dr. Seuss)13. Using tapes to teach letters, .57 ** p < .001 .41 ** p < .001 rhymes, and other activities related to literacy.14. Using flashcards to introduce .67 ** p < .001 -.01 p = .964 new vocabulary15. Asking students to copy texts .21 p = .06 .13 p = .244 from books16. Asking students to use new .30 ** p < .006 -.20 p = .06 vocabularies in sentences17. Requesting students to write .37 ** p < .001 .23 * p <.04 their own stories18. Giving a spelling test at .50 ** p < .001 .24 * p < .03 least once a week Correlations Between Variables Skill andCore Items Practice1. Breaking words into syllables 33 ** p < .002 (e.g., telephone: te. le. phone)2. Breaking words into sounds -.01 p = .918 (e.g.. cat: "k. a. P")3. Blending syllables (e.g., te. .49 ** p < .001 le. phone: telephone)4. Blending sounds to form words .44 ** p < .001 (e.g., k.a.t: cat)5. Drilling on rhyming words .39 ** p < .001 (e.g., bat, rat, mat /cup)6. Drilling on detecting the first -.11 p = .334 sound in a word (e.g., "k": car)7. Drilling on detecting the last .14 p = .208 sound in a word (e.g., "g": clog)8. Forming meaningful words out of .23 * p < .04 letters sequenced randomly (e.g., r-a-c: car)9. Reversing letters to form .08 p = .490 meaningful words (e.g., Dog: god; mug: gum)10. Using different colors to .05 p = .683 represent different letters in a word (e.g., Using the [d] letter in the word Dad in a red block and the [a] letter in a blue block)11. Using nursery rhymes in class .02 p = .86112. Using storybooks that contain .64 ** p < .001 rhymes (e.g., Dr. Seuss)13. Using tapes to teach letters, .54 ** p < .001 rhymes, and other activities related to literacy.14. Using flashcards to introduce .08 p = .497 new vocabulary15. Asking students to copy texts -.02 p = .863 from books16. Asking students to use new .21 p = .06 vocabularies in sentences17. Requesting students to write .05 p = .672 their own stories18. Giving a spelling test at .37 ** least once a weekP < .001 * p < .05, ** p <.01.TABLE 2Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Among the Knowledge Domain, theSkills Domain, the Practice Domain, Years of Teaching Experience, theNumber of Students in Class, and the In-service Phonological AwarenessTrainingVariables 1 2 31. Knowledge domain 1.002. Skills domain .69 ** 1.003. Practice domain .09 .28 * 1.004. Years of teaching experience .11 .03 -.085. Number of students in class .04 .02 .166. In-service phonological awareness training .09 .02 -.07Variables 4 5 61. Knowledge domain2. Skills domain3. Practice domain4. Years of teaching experience 1.005. Number of students in class .04 1.006. In-service phonological awareness training .17 .09 1.00* p < .05, ** p < .01.TABLE 3Multiple Regression Analysis With Practice Domain as the DependentVariablePredictor Beta t RPractice scores as the criterionvariablel. Skills domain 0.407 2.764 *2. Knowledge domain -0.182 -1.2223. Years of teaching experience -0.062 -0.5744. Number of students in class 0.163 1.5315. In-service training in phonological awareness -0.066 -0.612Constant 4.475 **Overall 0.364 AdjustedPredictor [R.sup.2] [R.sup.2] Overall FPractice scores as the criterionvariablel. Skills domain2. Knowledge domain3. Years of teaching experience4. Number of students in class5. In-service training in phonological awarenessConstantOverall 0.133 0.077 2.36** p < .01, ** p < .001.