PHONICS INSTRUCTION: AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE READING

CURRICULUM

Except 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 Fambro

Certificate of Approval:

____________________ ________________________
Donald Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon Livingston, Ph.D.
Thesis Co-Chair Thesis Co-Chair
Education Department Education Department
 Phonics Instruction ii

PHONICS INSTRUCTION: AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE READING

CURRICULUM

A thesis submitted

by

Laurie Fambro

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

MASTERS OF EDUCATION

In

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

May 12, 2011

 Phonics Instruction iii

Table of Contents

Abstract...................................................iii

Table of Contents....iv

List of Table.v

Chapter 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: Methodology16
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....33

References .40
 Phonics Instruction iv

Abstract

This 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.

 Phonics Instruction 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Is 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 childs 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, 1940s 1970s, the look-say method was used in

classrooms (Quick, 1988). The 1980s and 1990s 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 1970s. The emphasis on basics in the 1970s 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
 Phonics Instruction 2

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 Problem

A childs 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?
 Phonics Instruction 3

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 students 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
 Phonics Instruction 4

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 cant 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 Learning

The 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 childs reading fluency and spelling but helped improve the

teachers overall awareness of what phonemic awareness is and how important it is to

early childhood curriculum.

 Phonics Instruction 5

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

This thesis on phonemic awareness instruction adheres to LaGrange College

Educational Departments (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

 Phonics Instruction 6

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 childs 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 NCATEs 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 Questions

These 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.

1. Do spelling scores increase when teaching phonemic awareness from a basal

reading program?

2. Is there a significant increase in fluency when using phonics with a basal

reader?

3. Does a students lack of phonemic awareness adversely affect the

interrelationship between reading and spelling?

Overview of Methodology

This 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
 Phonics Instruction 7

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 Researcher

As 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 childs early learning of reading. I also am aware that phonemic awareness
 Phonics Instruction 8

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 students 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.
 Phonics Instruction 9

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This 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 books program for letter sounds,

phonics.

Spelling Scores

Spelling 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
 Phonics Instruction 10

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 students 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.
 Phonics Instruction 11

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
 Phonics Instruction 12

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 Fluency

Fluency 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
 Phonics Instruction 13

set aside to teach phonics or is the regular reading instructional time enough to improve a

students 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 childrens 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 childs 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
 Phonics Instruction 14

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 Ehris (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;
 Phonics Instruction 15

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?

 Phonics Instruction 16

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The 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.

Setting

The 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

 Phonics Instruction 17

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.

Subjects

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

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
 Phonics Instruction 18

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 Collection

This 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 students 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
 Phonics Instruction 19

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

students 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
 Phonics Instruction 20

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 SHELL

Focus Question Literature Data Sources Why do these How are data
Sources data answer analyzed?
the question?
(validity)
Do spelling scores Harcourt Pre and Post test Data was Dependent t
increase when Reading Series assessment from gathered and Test
teaching phonemic (Basal reading reading series examined
awareness from a program) Pre and Post test using a
basal reading program 2001 from Direct statistical
or a Direct Instruction Groff, 2001 Instruction Multi-
test.
Phonics Program? Krause, Sensory Phonics
Moore Instruction
1997
Is there a significant Good & Comparing Data was Correlation
increase in fluency Kaminski, 2003 fluency test scores gathered and Coefficient
when using phonics Griffith from three time examined Test
with basal readers Klesius periods using using a
during reading 1990 DIBELS fluency statistical
instruction? test
test.
Does a students lack Ehri Comparison of Data was Correlation
of phonemic 1987 weekly fluency gathered and Coefficient
awareness adversely Griffith test with weekly examined Test
affect the Klesius spelling test using a
interrelationship of 1999 statistical
reading and spelling?
test.
 Phonics Instruction 21

Validity 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
 Phonics Instruction 22

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 students 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.
 Phonics Instruction 23

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 students reading fluency

increased during a specific time during which they were taught reading from Coweta
 Phonics Instruction 24

Countys 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 students 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.
 Phonics Instruction 25

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 Eisners 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 students 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.

 Phonics Instruction 26

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The 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 weeks 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.

 Phonics Instruction 27

Table 4.1 Dependent t-Test: Basal Reader

Program with embedded phonics lessons
Paired Two Sample for Means

Pre-test Post -test

Mean 54.14285714 84.71428571
Variance 317.6703297 358.3736264
Observations 14 14
Pearson Correlation 0.690003396
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
Df 13
t Stat 7.885672527
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.30846E-06
t Critical one-tail 1.770933383
P(T<=t) two-tail 2.61692E-06
t Critical two-tail 2.160368652

According 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 Gillinghams

Multisensory (OG) program was used to teach the spelling words that week. The students
 Phonics Instruction 28

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 Program

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Pre-test Post-test
Mean 54.8 99.13333333
Variance 371.4571429 63.6952381
Observations 15 15
Pearson Correlation 0.468735045
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
Df 14
t Stat 10.06618848
P(T<=t) one-tail 4.30394E-08
t Critical one-tail 1.761310115
P(T<=t) two-tail 8.60789E-08
t Critical two-tail 2.144786681

According 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
 Phonics Instruction 29

hypothesis cannot be accepted. Therefore, the difference in test scores is due to a certain

factor. The students 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 weeks 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 Countys current reading basal reading program,

Harcourt Reading Series that has embedded phonics lessons with each story. The results

are presented in Table 4.3.

 Phonics Instruction 30

Table 4.3 Dependent t-Test Harcourt Reading Series

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

DIBELS Pre DIBELS Post

Mean 59.5 86.6875
Variance 621.7333333 1018.629167
Observations 16 16
Pearson Correlation 0.893385933
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Df 15
t Stat -7.358240039
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.18695E-06
t Critical one-tail 1.753050325
P(T<=t) two-tail 2.37391E-06
t Critical two-tail 2.131449536

According to the data gathered from the fluency tests, Table 4.3 shows that there

was significance between a students 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 students

fluency achievements from the beginning of the year to their current scores. Therefore the
 Phonics Instruction 31

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 students lack of phonemic awareness adversely

affect the interrelationship between reading and spelling? Data was gathered from

students 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 students 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 Test Spelling Test

Fluency Test 1
Spelling Test 0.383318269 1

Spelling Test
120
100
80
60
Spelling Test
40
Linear (Spelling Test)
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

According to the data gathered from the samples from the effect size r correlation

coefficient test ran there was significance dependence between the interrelationship of
 Phonics Instruction 32

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.

 Phonics Instruction 33

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESUTS

This 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 students 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 Results

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

two pre and post tests both derived from my counts 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
 Phonics Instruction 34

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 ones 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 twos 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
 Phonics Instruction 35

consistent with what McCulloch (2000) stats about basal reading programs. She stated

that basal reading programs do not capture the students 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 participants 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 students lack of phonemic awareness adversely

affect the interrelationship between reading and spelling, I used the students 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
 Phonics Instruction 36

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
 Phonics Instruction 37

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.

Implications

The 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.

 Phonics Instruction 38

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 didnt 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
 Phonics Instruction 39

engage my students in their learning and acquire permission to use the direct phonics

instruction alongside the countys basal reading program.

Recommendations for Future Research

Further 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 years spelling and fluency scores of the low reading

class to the current years 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.

 Phonics Instruction 40

References

Bernstein, 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 Publications

Ehri, L. C., (1987). Movement in word reading and spelling: How spelling contributes to

reading. Illinois University, Center for the Study of Reading

Eisner, 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 childrens 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 House

 Phonics Instruction 41

LaGrange 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 childrens

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

Publications

Savage, R., & Carless, S. (2005). Learning support assistants can deliver effective

reading interventions for at-risk children. Educational Research, 47(1), 45-61

Thompson, 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.

 Phonics Instruction 42

Yopp, H. K., Yopp, R. H. (2000). Supporting phonemic awareness development in the

classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54 ( 2), 130-143.