phonics instruction in kindergarten web viewphonics instruction in kindergarten. 2009. 1. 1. phonics...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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 Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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 Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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.
28
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009
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
Phonics Instruction in Kindergarten 2009