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.
Thesis Co-Chair
Education Department

________________________
Sharon Livingston, Ph.D.
Thesis Co-Chair
Education Department

Phonics Instruction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
this study included the DIBELS testing along with pre-post testing from current reading

Phonics Instruction

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
instruction is not the answer to all reading problems. Students come to us with many

Phonics Instruction
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.

CHAPTER 2

Phonics Instruction

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 multisensory 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
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.

Phonics Instruction

10

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.
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.

Phonics Instruction

11

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 nonphonics programs, but for increasing spelling scores, there was no evidence of superiority
of any one type of phonics program or any one specific program. The report noted
thirteen important variations on both what is taught and how children are taught phonics
(Roberts & Meiring, 2006). Most basal reading programs have an embedded phonics
instruction and many differ on how embedded it should be. Embeddedness is the degree
to which phonics instruction occurs in the context of actual text (Roberts & Meiring
2006). If spelling is directly related to phonics instructions, then spelling should be
acquired through phonics that is embedded into a good basal reading program. Current
reading basal programs have the whole language instruction which focus on developing
readiness skills, on vocabulary and comprehension achievement at first grade (Griffith &
Klesius, 1990). Griffith and Klesius (1990) state that children learn phonics skills
indirectly through the examination of words with similar spellings.
Fresch (2007) also states how children are viewed as learners is as significant to
selection of instruction and material used is. Jean Piaget, as cited in Fresch 2007, claimed
the student does not just passively take in knowledge, but actively constructs it on the
basis of his/her prior knowledge and experiences. Then again, are basal reading
programs enough when it comes to teaching phonics and spelling? This study will

Phonics Instruction

12

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
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

Phonics Instruction

13

concluded that although systematic phonics programs were significantly better than nonphonics 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
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

Phonics Instruction

14

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 readingspelling disparities. Groff (2001) cites the 1995 Hildreth study which found that good
reader/poor spellers place greater reliance on context cues than do good readers/good
spellers. Groff (2001) continues to say that from a study as recently as 1991;
experimental evidence suggests that good readers who spell poorly suffer a mild
phonological defect which impedes the development of encoding and decoding skills.
(p. 296). It appears that many of these students rely on good visual memory and general

Phonics Instruction

15

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 multisensory 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
Sources

Data Sources

Why do these
data answer
the question?
(validity)

How are data

analyzed?

Do spelling scores
increase when
teaching phonemic
awareness from a
basal reading program
or a Direct Instruction
Phonics Program?

Harcourt
Reading Series
(Basal reading
program)
2001
Groff, 2001
Krause,
Moore
1997

Pre and Post test

assessment from
reading series
Pre and Post test
from Direct
Instruction MultiSensory Phonics
Instruction

Data was
gathered and
examined
using a
statistical
test.

Dependent t
Test

Is there a significant
increase in fluency
when using phonics
with basal readers
during reading
instruction?

Comparing
Good &
Data was
Kaminski, 2003 fluency test scores gathered and
from three time
Griffith
examined
periods using
Klesius
using a
DIBELS fluency
1990
statistical
test
test.
Ehri
Comparison of
Data was
1987
weekly fluency
gathered and
Griffith
test with weekly examined
Klesius
spelling test
using a
1999
statistical
test.

Does a students lack

of phonemic
awareness adversely
affect the
interrelationship of
reading and spelling?

Correlation
Coefficient
Test

Correlation
Coefficient
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.

CHAPTER 4

Phonics Instruction

26

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.

Table 4.1 Dependent t-Test:

Basal Reader Program with
embedded phonics lessons

Phonics Instruction

27

Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

Pre-test
54.14285
714
317.6703
297
14
0.690003
396

Post -test
84.71428571
358.3736264
14

0
13
7.885672
527
1.30846E06
1.770933
383
2.61692E06
2.160368
652

reliability r =.69
effect Size r = .63
t (13) = 7.88, p < .05

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

Phonics Instruction

28

Multisensory (OG) program was used to teach the spelling words that week. The students
were taught using only the OG program; not the basal reading phonics lessons. The words
did follow a specific spelling pattern again for week two lessons. The data from the test
scores from the pre and post test were then analyzed to determine if there was a
significant difference in achievement in spelling scores. The results are presented in Table
4.2.
Table 4.2 Dependent t-Test Orton Gillingham Multisensory Program

Phonics Instruction

29

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for

Means
Pre-test
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

54.8
371.4571
429
15
0.468735
045

Post-test
99.133333
33
63.695238
1
15

0
14
10.06618
848
4.30394E08
1.761310
115
8.60789E08
2.144786
681

Reliability r= .468
Effect Size = .83
t (14) = 10.06 , p < .05

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 <

Phonics Instruction

30

0.5. The obtained value (2.145) is greater than the critical value (-10.066); the null
hypothesis cannot be accepted. Therefore, the difference in test scores is due to a certain
factor. The 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

31

Table 4.3 Dependent t-Test Harcourt Reading Series

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

DIBELS Pre
59.5
621.73333
33
16
0.8933859
33

DIBELS Post
86.6875
1018.629167
16

0
15
7.3582400
39
1.18695E06
1.7530503
25
2.37391E06
2.1314495
36

Effect Size r= 0.43

% non overlap = 55.4%
large effect size r =0.37
or. larger.
Reliability r= .89

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

Phonics Instruction

32

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
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
Fluency
Test
Spelling
Test

1
0.3833182
69

r (17) = .3833, p
< .05

Spelling Test

Phonics Instruction

33

Spelling Test
120
100
Spelling Test

80

Linear (Spelling Test)

60
40
20
0
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 120

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
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

34

Phonics Instruction

35

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

36

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

37

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

38

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

39

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

40

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

41

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

42

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

43

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
Yopp, H. K., Yopp, R. H. (2000). Supporting phonemic awareness development in the
classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54 ( 2), 130-143.

44