Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten Web viewPhonics Instruction in Kindergarten. 2009. 1. 1. Phonics Instruction in the Kindergarten Classroom. Cheryl Serrill. RE 5040: Teacher as

1

Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009

Phonics Instruction in the Kindergarten Classroom

Cheryl Serrill

RE 5040: Teacher as Researcher

Dr. Moorman

There is a critical role for good decoding skills in early reading.

Systematic and structured teaching of alphabet and letter/sound

relationships has positive effects on early reading (Xue & Meisels, 2004).

2


Systematic phonics instruction leads to higher word reading and spelling

achievement. Kindergarten students need to be taught the alphabetic

principle. (Adams, M.J., 1990)

There are many different perspectives on phonics instruction. There is

much discussion, mostly centered on how to teach it. According to (Stahl &

Duffy-Hester, (1998), how people talk about phonics depends on their belief

about reading in general, which affects how they think about phonics

instruction. The National Reading Panel reported that systematic phonics

instruction enhances children’s success in learning to read. Students in

Kindergarten who received systematic phonics instruction had better

decoding skills and spelling skills in first grade. They also showed significant

gains in comprehension of text (National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development, 2000). We as teachers need to study the research on

systematic phonics so we can provide stronger and better prepared readers

in the first and second grade.

Many researchers stress the need for a systematic phonics approach,

but there are so many programs on the market. I have had mixed feeling

about phonics programs. My experience with phonics was not memorable for

me or the students. The programs were scripted and boring. The lessons

were drill and practice and worksheets. I did not enjoy teaching the lessons;

therefore the students did not enjoy learning. I support phonics in the

3


classroom and feel it is a necessary component to help young children learn

to read.

In our Kindergarten grade level meetings, my colleagues and I shared

our experiences with various phonics programs with each other and our

literacy coach. We had a multitude of experience with various phonics

programs. We had components we liked and disliked from each, but no one

expressed a passion for one particular program. We did not see strong

results evidenced over time. Student engagement and excitement were not

prevalent in our program experiences. During cross-curriculum planning, our

first and second grade teachers spoke of the many gaps in student ability to

decode text and that students entering were not well prepared for reading.

Currently, I have one second and one third grade student attending my

phonics lesson to address some skills that have not been mastered. I noticed

the confusions between long and short vowels and some letters and sounds.

I offered to complete a few running records on each of the students to better

learn their reading strengths and weaknesses. When I compared the two

students, both showed weaknesses in letter sounds and had letter confusions

which led to difficulty decoding. Their difficulty in being able to fluently

decode text interfered with student comprehension.

I wanted to examine our new phonics program because I have

Kindergarten students that are mastering alphabet letters and sounds in

remarkable time and several students are beginning to blend CVC words

4


together. These are skills which I see lacking in many second and third grade

students.

Another reason for my study was the continual low reading scores in

third grade. In the article, “Kindergarten predictors of first and second-grade

reading achievement”, Morris & Bloodgood (2003), found that alphabet

recognition, spelling, word recognition, and beginning consonant awareness

were significant predictors of first and second-grade reading achievement.

Our school has a high concentration of students from lower income

environments. Students from lower income environments with poor literacy

skills and children with reading disabilities benefit from direct phonics

instruction (Foster &Miller, 2007). Many students entered my classroom with

little to no literacy background. I became interested in how our new phonics

program would help all students achieve success with the alphabetic

principle. I wanted to know what “magic” does this particular phonics

program have that motivates students to learn. The presentation of the

material seems to capture student attention and motivation to get quick

results. What happens when a systematic phonics program is implemented

in Kindergarten? Will my low level learners and students with disabilities be

successful? What happens to my high level learners who have a solid letter

base knowledge?

Theoretical Perspective

5


Results of a recent U.S. National survey of elementary school teachers

indicated that 99% of K-2 teachers consider phonics instruction to be

essential(67%) or important (32%)(Baumann, Hoffman, Moon, & Duffy-

Hester, 1998). Good phonics instruction should constitute two main

components: alphabetic principle and phonological awareness. Students who

are successful readers understand that letters and sounds have a

relationship. Phonological awareness (sounds in spoken words) aid in the

development of the alphabetic principle, word recognition, and invented

spelling (Adams, 1990).

Effective phonics instruction should provide a thorough familiarity with

letters, children should recognize letters immediately. My research study will

investigate a phonics program that helps children learn letters and sounds

quickly and recognize them on sight with no hesitation. The program offers

continual repetition and is tiered for all stages of learning.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s much instructional time was devoted to

having students complete workbooks. A typical phonics lesson consisted of a

brief introduction to a skill followed by student practice on worksheets. The

average reader spent 6 minutes/day reading text. Children with reading

problems spent considerably less (Gambrell, Wilson, & Gantt, 1981).

Students who spent little time with connected text and most of their

instructional time on worksheets are not able to make the connection

between letters and sounds. The lessons are not engaging and do not

6


maintain student interest. Phonics does not need to use worksheets, teach

rules, or be boring (Clymer, 1963, reprinted 1996).

It is no surprise that many children struggle with learning to read in

first grade, and once they have fallen behind, have difficulty catching up to

their peers(Clay, 1991). This research has led reading educators to

emphasize early intervention in early primary grades. Scarborough (1998)

found that print related measures (e.g., letter-identification, letter-sound

knowledge, and print concepts) were the best indicators of later reading

ability. (Whitehurst and Lonigan, 2001) supported her findings by

acknowledging that letter-identification and letter-sound knowledge drive

reading development in the early stages.

Review of Literature

Xue Y. & Meisels S.J. (2004) found that overall students learned a great

deal in their Kindergarten year. Their extensive research showed that

children’s initial status as they enter Kindergarten is a powerful predictor of

scores at the end of Kindergarten. The more time that students are exposed

to instruction, the more they developed cognitively. Students entering with

less instructional skills benefited greatly with a systematic phonics approach.

Stahl, S., Duffy-Hester, A., & Dougherty-Stahl, K. (1998) convey that

good phonics instruction should develop the alphabetic principle. When

students understand the relationship between letters and sounds, they are

able to decode words. Their study compared students using traditional and

7


contemporary phonics approaches. The traditional phonics approaches were

mostly basal and scripted lessons with the majority of student practice in

workbooks. The students who were in the contemporary phonics group

examined words and word patterns through sorting and categorizing

pictures. Students made words with word cards and magnetic letters. The

students in the contemporary group performed better on literacy

assessments than those in the traditional group.

They concluded that children try to make sense of words in reading

and writing. Children construct a network of information about letters. Some

children learn much of what they need to know from exposure; but most

need support. Support can be in context, embedded phonics instruction;

analogy based or direct instruction.

Because children construct knowledge about words, it confirms why

differences among phonics programs are small. It does not matter how much

you teach it, as long as it is early, systematic good instruction.

Foster W. & Miller M. (2007) completed a study to develop a course for

phonics and comprehension of children from Kindergarten through third

grade. The findings were similar to Xue and Meisels. High literacy readiness

groups entering Kindergarten exhibited higher scores than the average and

low readiness groups.

A startling finding from their data revealed a literacy gap that begins

when students enter Kindergarten which impacts third grade reading. The

8


phonics gap begins when students enter Kindergarten and does not close

until third grade. Unfortunately by his point a comprehension gap has begun.

Foster and Miller’s research proves the need to address a strong phonics

program and early interventions in Kindergarten.

Bloodgood and Perney (2003) found that Kindergarten pre-reading

tasks predict reading and achievement at the end of first and second grade.

They discovered that certain pre-reading tasks exert maximum power at

certain times of the year. They sampled students from four different classes

with various SES populations. Students were assessed individually at five

points in their first three years of school, Sept., Feb., and May of

Kindergarten, May of first grade, and May of second grade. Students were

assessed on alphabet recognition, beginning consonant awareness, concept

of a word, spelling, phoneme segmentation, and word recognition.

At the beginning of Kindergarten, alphabet recognition and concept of

a word were 2 significant predictors of 1st grade reading, with alphabet

recognition being more important. In the middle of Kindergarten, letter

recognition and spelling were good predictors of reading. At the end of

Kindergarten, letter recognition was no longer the most important predictor.

Word recognition and spelling were the best predictors. Of the 6

Kindergarten abilities measured, only alphabet recognition and concept of a

word predicted 1st grade reading achievement at the beginning, middle, and

end of Kindergarten. Spelling was significant at the middle and end of

Kindergarten. Word recognition and consonant awareness are predictors at

9


the end of Kindergarten. Phoneme segmentation was NOT a significant at

any point in the year in Kindergarten. I found this information significant

because it mirrors the timeline in which Kindergarten students as assessed in

these six predictor areas in our county.

Alphabet knowledge and recognition influences all aspects of print

knowledge and is a variable for richness in preschool literacy experiences.

Concept of a word is a vehicle that allows emerging phonological and letter

sound knowledge to be used in the act of reading. If children cannot

accurately point to words while reading, they will have trouble establishing

initial sight words and letter/sound cues to decode words. Alphabet

knowledge is a precursor to beginning consonant awareness. Strong

alphabet knowledge seems to be the baseline for determining student’s

reading success in later years.

Spelling is a big predictor for pre-reading children; it is a type of

phoneme segmentation. It measures a simpler form of phoneme

segmentation which is more sensitive to early literacy development. Oral

segmentation of 3 phoneme words is an abstract and artificial task for pre-

reading kindergarteners. Nowhere in his/her past has a child been asked to

think about speech in a decontextualized way. Spelling words is not as

challenging. Students are familiar with paper pencil and as children write

letter by letter, it slows down the process of phoneme segmentation. After

the child writes the first letter it freezes in place so he can focus on the other

phonemes. In later developing students beg/ending consonants would not be

10


a good predictor until the end of the year. For fast developing students

beginning and ending sounds is not a good predictor because students “top

out’. Spelling with beginning, middle, and ending sounds is a better

predictor.

Their findings concluded that alphabet recognition and spelling

predicted whether students could or could not read at the end of first grade.

The research shows that we are empowered with knowledge to identify our

“low level” learners based on these predictors. This means children at risk

for reading failure can be identified at midyear Kindergarten and placed in

individual or small group interventions to improve their chances for success.

One article I researched shared a point of view very different from

many other researchers. In the article “A new factor in the phonics debate”,

Gibson F. (1991) shares his phonics experience in his first grade classroom.

He compared his students who attended the reading specialist for forty

minutes per day with the remaining twenty-two students in the class in a

systematic phonics program. At first the twenty-two students seemed to

make excellent progress. As time passed, however, a few students began to

falter. As students began to fall behind, they were sent to the reading

specialist. He sent five more students to the reading specialist and kept the

remaining seventeen students. At the end of the year, all students took the

California Achievement Test. He predicted that the phonics group would

make outstanding progress, which they did. He was surprised that the

students that did not fare well in phonics also made good progress in

11


reading. The specialist used a fun and games approach which he had, never

considered.

Gibson (1991) concluded that some students are phonetic learners and

some are not. He quoted, ” No study that fails to take differences in learning

styles into account can possibly yield valid results except by chance.” If most

of the students in the phonics group happen to be non-phonetic learners

they will not succeed, because each student’s learning style, not the method

will be the determining factor. Further observations concluded that phonetic

learners have great difficulty with non-phonetic approaches, yet when

changed to a systematic program make dramatic gains. This leads to the

need to identify who is a phonetic learner and who is not. I found this

interesting because our phonics program utilizes a multisensory approach for

all learners and I never thought of it from this angle.

As I reviewed the literature, I used the information I gathered to help

me think about my research study. I found similar threads about the

importance of the alphabetic principle and the factors that predict reading

ability in later years. I am interested to see how successful my low level

learners become and how long it takes them to fluently master the alphabet

and alphabet sound.

I am curious to see if this phonics program will continue to hold the

interest of my high level learners who already know the alphabet. Will they

be bored? I am interested to see if the majority of my students have

mastered the alphabetic principle by the end of my study.

12


Methods

Subjects:

I conducted my research study in a regular education

Kindergarten class with 20 students (10 boys and 10 girls). Through parent

surveys and observations I learned that the majority of my students are

visual and auditory learners who enjoy music. Ethnic backgrounds include 16

Caucasian, 1 American Indian, 1 African American, 1 Hispanic, and 1 Bi-

Racial student.

Student cognitive, social, and overall academic abilities vary

drastically. One student is repeating Kindergarten, one student is a special

needs student, one student receives ELL services, and two students receive

speech services. Several students visit the Library weekly and enjoy listening

to stories. Nine students entered with no Literacy background knowledge.

These students identified less than eight letters on the K-2 Literacy

assessment. 17 of the 20 students could not identify any letter sounds and 3

students identified most or all of the 26 letter sounds.

Data:

I obtained data from a variety of resources. I began by

conducting the letter recognition and letter sounds component of the K-2

Literacy Assessment in early September. Students were given the 26

lowercase alphabet letters in random order. Students were then shown the

26 uppercase letters in random order and were asked to point and identify.

13


Students achieved a score based on the number correct out of 52 letters (26

uppercase and 26 lowercase).

Letter sounds were assessed by showing the student the lowercase

letters in random order and asking them to point and give the letter sound.

One point was awarded for each sound given correctly. Students scores were

based on the number correct out of the 26 letter sounds.

I organized my data in a spreadsheet so I could look at the whole class

as well as individual students. I used the spreadsheet to create a graph with

the data so I can share the information with parents in a way that would

have more meaning. I sent the graphs home every nine weeks to show

student growth.

Data was obtained from the Book and Print Awareness section of the K-

2 Literacy test. Students were given a book to identify their familiarity with

print. Pieces of the assessment included parts of the book, identifying letters,

identifying punctuation, voice print match, directionality, concept of first and

last, and differentiating between letters and words. Students were given one

point for each answer correct out of a possible 20 points.

Students were administered the RTI (Response to Intervention) test in

the middle of September to determine student ability to name letters

fluently. Students were given a sheet of upper and lowercase letters

randomly mixed and timed for one minute. Student scores were based on

the number answered correctly during one minute. Students were expected

14


to achieve a minimum score of 16 letters in one minute to be proficient at

this point in the year.

My class was separated into categories based on student performance

on the RTI assessment. Students who identified 3 or less were in the “red

area” and needed immediate intense intervention. Students who scored 4 to

7 letters were in the “yellow area” and need intense interventions. Students

who achieved 8-15 letters were in the average range but would need

interventions because they did not achieve the minimum score. Students

were average if they achieved 16-27 letters and did not need an

intervention, just continued instruction. Students in the “blue area” were

above average and needed differentiated instruction. Students in the “white

area” were well above average and need individualized specialized

instruction. Overall 11 of my 20 students were below the target score of 16.

7 students fell into the yellow and red areas. 4 students fell in the below

average green range with a score between 5 and 15. 6 students fell in the

average range (green area), 1 student, who is repeating Kindergarten, fell

into the above average range (blue), and 2 students scored extremely high

in the white area. These students were already in my plans for differentiated

instruction and had begun reading small leveled books.

I obtained data from daily writing samples. “Children who are

encouraged to draw and scribble “stories” at an early age will later learn to

compose more easily, more effectively, and with greater confidence.” This

finding is based on research literature reported by the U.S. Dept. of

15


Education (What Works: Research about Teaching and Learning, second

edition, 1987).

One of my most important sources of data was my ongoing class

observations. Throughout my entire study I listened to student conversations

and asked questions. I listened to students sing songs about Letterland (our

current phonics program). I watched their responses during instruction. I

observed students interacting with each other and how they helped one

another learn the characters during instructional and non-instructional time.

Most importantly, was the parent feedback I received about Letterland.

Students were teaching their parents the songs and characters they were

learning.

Procedures:

I implemented the Letterland phonics program daily for 40

minutes, 5 days a week, over an 8 week period. Before I began

implementation, I analyzed all assessment data I obtained early in the year

from their K-2 Literacy Assessment and RTI assessment. This provided a

framework for students who would need additional small group support.

Based on the data, I knew which students would need additional small group

instruction.

The first two weeks were a basic introduction to the Letterland

characters. This “fast track” provided a brief introduction to the Letterland

characters. Fast track is a “lift off” strategy which gives students a quick

“alphabet immersion”. Students get an early acquaintance with 26 lowercase

16


letter shapes and sounds. Students learned 3 alliterative words for each

letter visually, verbally, and conceptually with picture cards. Students built

an awareness of phonemes, ex: “Annie Apple, /a/”. Characters are associated

visually with letter shapes and alliteratively with the phoneme. Students

impersonated letters through role play. These activities provided

opportunities for personal and social development.

After the 2 week Fast Track, I began the letter and character study in

more depth. Each character was taught in two days. I began the first day

with the character introduction and the song. I show the plain letter, say the

letter name, and give the letter sound and the action trick to help students

remember the sound. Students listened to a story about the character.

I used computer software to introduce vocabulary and to bring the

character to life in the imaginary setting of Letterland. Students sang letter

sound songs and learned the handwriting songs for each character while

watching animated characters on the T.V. screen. Students used visual

discriminations skills to identify the letter shapes among a series of letters

on the computer. The computer software is an animated way to bring to

characters and Letterland alive. Everything seems real to the students.

On day 2 of the letter introduction I review the letters previously

learned through a game called quick dash. I flash the Letterland character on

a card and count to three to give all students a chance to think and ask who

it is. After students respond, I flip it over to the plain letter and count to three

and ask what sound does he/she make. This “quick dash” review is done

17


daily and becomes longer as more characters and letters are learned. I

review yesterday’s character, letter, and sound and introduce the capital

letter. A review is done with an alliteration game where students name

things that begin with that sound. I usually vary my games with each letter

to maintain student interest. Children’s interest is central to the curriculum,

because capturing interest is considered important for learning to endure.

(Xue & Meisels, 2004).

One of my favorite games I use to review letter sounds is “pop up”. I

tell students what sound they need to listen for in a word. Students crouch in

knee position. When students hear the sound in a word, they “pop up” in the

air. Students love it and it involves auditory and kinesthetic movement to

keep all students involved in a fun way.

Handwriting of letter shapes is introduced with a song and “skywriting”

in the air. Students listen to the song while making the letter shape in the air

with their finger. Students draw the letter and character in their Letterland

booklets. In the early lessons, I model with students watching so they can

learn the procedure. When I finish drawing, students draw the letter and

character in their books. I allow students to lie on the floor or work wherever

they are comfortable. I encourage student talk to facilitate knowledge of

letter formation and character knowledge. As students become independent

learners, I hang an already drawn letter and character on the easel and

students draw and copy at their leisure so I can focus more time on guided

handwriting.

18


I assessed students every four weeks both formally and informally in

the classroom. I administered the letter recognition and letter sounds

component of the K-2 Literacy Assessment and the RTI assessment two more

times before the conclusion of my study. These assessments gave me

current data to compare to my baseline data before I began my study.

Data Anaylsis:

I analyzed my data in several different ways. I examined the data

on a class level and an individual level. I focused on the growth that students

made every four weeks. I added the data to my established database and

constructed a graph to see student growth in targeted areas. I evaluated

letter recognition and letter sounds. I felt it important to analyze to evaluate

the data from the RTI Assessment to measure student ability to recall letters

quickly and fluently.

To evaluate to student interest, I reviewed my anecdotal notes I kept

during my study. I saved shared notes from parents about Letterland and the

pictures that students drew of the characters at home.

I looked at pictures that I had taken of students during the lesson. I

compared student expressions from the beginning of the study to those at

the end of the study.

I analyzed student daily writing samples. A way to observe children’s

growth of the alphabetic principle is to look at invented spellings. Initially a

child may spell a word by drawing a picture or scribbling something that

looks like writing (Harste, Burke, & Woodward, (1982). As children learn that

19


words need letters, they may use random letters to represent a word. Gillet

and Temple (1990) called this prephonemic stage. At this point, the writers

themselves are the only ones who can read what they have written.

Results

The data from the K-2 Literacy Assessment revealed that my class

overall made significant gains in each of the four week assessments. The

baseline data showed nine students with letter recognition scores ranging

from 0 to 8 and two students recognizing 50 or more letters. At the end of 4

weeks, only one student had a score of 0 and all other students had a

minimum score of 19. Six students recognized 50 or more letters. By the

end of the 8 weeks, the lowest letter recognition score was 3 and all students

recognized 40 or more letters. 9 students had a perfect 52/52 letter

recognition.

It appears from the data that one of my students had not made any

growth because his letter recognition score was very low. It is important for

me to note that if he did not remember the letter name, he substituted the

Letterland character. For example, when he saw “k”, he said “Kicking King”

and gave the sounds too. This shows the child made the connection to the

letter and he is just moving at a slower pace than the others. I am watching

his growth carefully to see if he will need further testing.

The letter sound component of the K-2 Literacy Assessment revealed

higher success in student knowledge of letter sounds. At the end of the first

four weeks ten students knew 20 or more letter sounds, four students knew

20


all letter sounds five students knew 8 or more sounds and one student knew

1 sound. By the end of the 8 weeks, one student knew 9 letters sounds and

all 19 students knew 20 or more letter sounds. 10 of the students knew all 26

letter sounds.

The RTI assessment was only administered to students in the red,

yellow and below target green areas. I continued to informally assess and

observe the students who scored above the expected range of 16 to ensure

that adequate growth was being made. After 4 weeks, only 5 students were

below the target area. At the end of the 8 week study, only 2 students were

below the target area, one in the yellow and the other in the low green area.

Several students who were below the target area in early September have

moved to the high average range scoring 35 letters fluently in one minute.

One student has made progress, but it is very minimal and he is now

being tested more often and receiving more intense interventions. The RTI

assessment is designed to catch students with learning difficulties and put

interventions in place early. According to (Bloodgood & Perney, 2003),

alphabet recognition is a good predictor of first and second grade reading at

the beginning and middle of the year. This student is considerably lower than

other students and is not making adequate growth with the current

interventions. I have targeted him for possible testing for the exceptional

children’s program.

When I observed students during the lessons they were excited to

learn about Letterland by the expressions on their faces. The day after the

21


first lesson one student greeted me at the door in the morning and asked,

“Are we were going to Letterland today? I love that place!” This student is

very unemotional and rarely gets excited about anything. Letterland was his

favorite thing.

Several times my students were getting very loud in the classroom

and when I went to quiet them down a little, I heard conversations about

Letterland. Students were teaching and learning from each other through

casual conversations. I heard things such as”Yes, I have Lucy Lamplight in

my name too, she says /l/. That is the letter “l”.

I heard my students singing the Letterland songs at all points during

the day. Students sang at lunch, during recess, and even in the bathroom.

Bus drivers would tell me they know the Letterland songs because my

students sang them on the bus. Parents sent me notes and shared in

conferences that their child sings the songs all night long.

Mark Wendon, the son of Lyne Wendon, the creator of Letterland,

dressed as Harry Hat man and visited our classroom. He shared about his

“hat house” on a hill in Letterland where he makes all his hats while he

watches his horses. He sang the “Harry Hat” man songs with the students

and took pictures. He listened to students share about their favorite part

about Letterland and sing songs with the action sound tricks. He commented

to me how excited the students were and how much they knew. His

comments supported my observations about student learning.

22


Our county Letterland trainer, Kathy Oliver, visited our school to

present Letterland story time to our students. She brought props and

costumes and students had the opportunity to role play. Students dressed as

their favorite characters and shared stories. Students successfully

demonstrated knowledge of letters and sounds through role play and word

building. On the way back to the classroom several students asked if we can

have “that kind” of story time every day.

I compared and analyzed students’ daily writing samples over the eight

week study. Student pictures became more clear and vivid. Students, who

once scribbled, now had letter strings and formations on the page. Students

who had some letter knowledge evidenced beginning sounds in their stories.

My higher students wrote sight words and CVC words in their stories. Difficult

words were represented with six or more correct letter sounds.

Discussion

In this study there is evidence to show that Letterland, a systematic

phonics approach has impacted literacy in a positive way in the Kindergarten

classroom. The assessment data shows tremendous growth in alphabet

knowledge and letter sound knowledge. Students not only gained knowledge

of letters and sounds, but improved their fluency as evidenced in the RTI

Assessment. Research suggests that students should be able to recognize

letters and give the letter sounds fluently and quickly without hesitation

(Stahl & Duffy-Hester, 1998). I believe that the multi-sensory activities cater

to all learners and activate all learning channels. The friendly letter

23


characters give students strong visual memory clues so they can learn and

retain phoneme/grapheme correspondences.

I was very intrigued by Gibson’s (1991) research about students who

are phonetic learners. He shares that the student’s learning styles drives

student learning. This leads me to believe that my students had great

success for one of two reasons. One explanation could be Letterland’s multi-

sensory approach reaches all styles of learning therefore ensuring success

for students. The other possibility could be that students are all phonetic

learners. In my opinion, I feel that some of my students are phonetic learners

based on their ability to use letter sounds to build words. I feel that it is too

early in the year to discover who is and who is not a phonetic learner.

It is clear that student motivation drives student learning. Student

conversations at home and in the classroom were abuzz with Letterland

characters and sounds. I was amazed to see students respond to learning

and continue to carry it throughout the day. Their faces lit up when they

talked about who their favorite character was and why they liked him/her.

Some liked “Fix it Max” because he was the only child in Letterland. Several

liked “Kicking King” because when they made his sound they got to kick their

legs high in the air.

This supports the research (Xue & Meisels, 2004) that student interest

is central to the curriculum and is important for learning to endure. I believe

that if students are not interested, they will not learn. This holds true for

anyone, no one wants to learn something if it is boring. This particular

24


phonics program captures student interest and maintains it throughout each

lesson, day after day.

I was concerned about the success of my Exceptional student and low

level learners. The student who is currently in the program was very slow to

show growth. He was not grasping the Letterland characters immediately

and I shared my concerns with his EC teacher. She uses Letterland in her

class so he was getting double the instruction. I began to see growth in letter

and sound knowledge after 7 weeks. Research has show me that not all

students learn at the same rate and those who have not had any exposure

need more time to build literacy knowledge.

The student who has made the slowest progress has just started to

grasp an understanding of the characters at the end of the study. Based on

family history, it is possible this student has an extremely low IQ. I am

unsure why this student is not as successful as the student who is currently

in the EC program. The Letterland program was developed especially for the

special needs students. In my opinion it is not a cure for all students, but it is

better than the basal and worksheet programs that teach to one learning

style. This student is very kinesthetic and auditory and I know he would not

have had success with a different program.

The students demonstrated a strong understanding of the alphabetic

principle in their daily writing samples. Low level learners began using letter

sound knowledge in their stories. High level learners were segmenting and

blending to write more difficult words. Their stories were so clear that I could

25


read them without assistance from the student. Many students wrote stories

about living and visiting Letterland in their daily writing.

An advantage of the Letterland program is the method of instructional

delivery and the capacity to which students learn letters and sounds. My low

SES students have greatly benefited from the systematic phonics program as

researched by (Foster & Miller, 2007).

In the study conducted by Bloodgood & Perney (2003), I was surprised

to learn that phoneme segmentation was not a determining factor in

predicting the success of reading in the first and second grades. Most

phonics programs have students segment to figure out what the word is.

Ironically, segmentation is a part of the Letterland phonics program. The RTI

Assessment conducted in January assesses phoneme segmentation as part

of the benchmark. Students who do not meet the target score will be placed

in intervention groups. Maybe this supports the research by Gibson (1991)

that not all students are phonetic learners. Some students just read the word

and do not need to phonetically sound it out.

One drawback to this particular phonics program is the minuscule

focus on letter naming. The program’s main focus is letter sounds, not the

letter names. This is contradicting to the requirement that all Kindergarten

students be able to fluently and rapidly name all 26 upper and lowercase

letter of the alphabet. Adams (1990), Scarborough (1998), Clay (1991), (and

Whitehurst & Lonigan (2001) all agree that alphabet recognition and letter

sounds are the predictors of successful reading in first and second grade.

26


I know there is much debate about if students really need to know the

letter names when they read, because the sounds are enough. I disagree

because students might not need to know it when they read, but they will

need to know it when they write. My colleagues and I have had several

discussions on which are correct. Knowing that Letterland talks about the

letter name, but stresses more on knowing the letter sounds, therefore, I

incorporate letter recognition lessons in other ways throughout my

instruction.

Conclusion

This research study has made me aware how important a good

systematic phonics program is in the classroom. I was not a strong advocate

of systematic phonics programs before this study. I have not seen success in

later years from the phonics programs I had used previously. This program

has shown me other possibilities and methods that help students master the

alphabetic principle.

I did not know the research on the impact that the alphabetic principle

and the role it plays in impacting reading in first and second grade. I

disagree that interventions should begin in Kindergarten. It is too late

because students are entering with a gap already in place. We need to figure

out a way to target and support students before they arrive. Preschools are a

good start, but there needs to be something else. That is a big dilemma, how

to get into the homes and educate parents.

27


As with all research, one study of a snippet in time provides baseline

data and cannot be considered as gospel. There are many factors which

influence the reliability and validity of the study. Results vary with different

subject, teachers, schools, and classrooms. This study has left me wanting to

continue the study over the next several years.

At the conclusion of my study, I found that I have more questions

regarding the literacy instruction of my students. Who are my phonetic

learners? If students are not phonetic learners, how will I need to adjust

instruction to meet their needs? Conducting this study has taught me to

reflect deeper about my literacy instruction. I need to constantly assess,

monitor, and question the literacy needs of my students. I have a need to

research and learn more about phonetic learners.

References

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Baumann, J.F., Hoffman, J.V., Moon, J., & Duffy-Hester, A.M. (1998). Where are Teachers' voices in the

phonics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of the U.S. elementary classroom teachers. The

Reading Teacher, 51, 636-650.

Bausch, L. S. (2001). The Story of their lives: understanding our student's literacy practices and events.

Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 4(2), Retrieved from

http://journals.library.wisc.edu/index.php/networks/article/view/42/46

Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. (1993). An Observation survey of early literacy achievement. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.

Clymer, T. (1963). The utility of phonics generalizations in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 16,

252-258.

http://journals.library.wisc.edu/index.php/networks/article/view/42/46

28


Clymer, T. (1996). The utility of phonics generalizations in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 50,

182-187.

Erhi, L.C., Nunes, S., Willows, D., Schuster, B., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic

awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s metanalysis.

Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.

Foster, W.A., & Miller, M. (2007). Development of the literacy achievement gap: a longitudinal study of

kindergarten through third grade. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 173-181.

Gambrell, L.B., Wilson, R.M., & Gantt, W.N. (1981). Classroom observations of task-attending behaviors of

good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 400-404.

Gibson, F. (1991). A new factor in the phonics debate. The Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 402.

Morris, D., Bloodgood, J., & Perney, J. (2003). Kindergarten predictors of first and second grade reading

achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 93-105.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidenced-based assessment of the scientific

research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction(reports of the

subgroups).Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Piekarz, J. (1964). Common sense about phonics. The Reading Teacher, 18(2), 114-117.

Scarborough, H. (1998). Early Identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological

awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. Shapiro, P. Accardo, & A. Capute(Eds.), Specific reading

disablilty: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75-119). Timonium, MD: York.

Stahl, S., & Duffy-Hester, A.M. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics(but were afraid to

ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 338-355.

Whitehurst, G. & Lonigan, C. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to readers. In S.

Neuman & D. Dickenson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11-29). New York: Guilford.

Xue, Y., & Meisels, S.J. (2004). Early literacy instruction and learning in kindergarten: evidence from the

early childhood longitudinal study: kindergarten class of 1998-1999. American Educational Research Journal,

41(1), 191-229.

29


Documents

Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten Web viewPhonics Instruction in Kindergarten. 2009. 1. 1. Phonics Instruction in the Kindergarten Classroom. Cheryl Serrill. RE 5040: Teacher as