Instalación de los cables principales de CC a barras

Research shows that explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and

phonologically-based decoding strategies is an effective intervention strategy for struggling readers (Ehri et al., 2001; Greaney & Arrow, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2004; Ryder et al., 2008; Torgesen et al., 2001). In order to meet the learning needs of these struggling readers, teachers need to have knowledge and

understanding of phonemic awareness. A large proportion of the teachers who participated in this study demonstrated limited knowledge and understanding of phonemic awareness. One of the main implications therefore is that these teachers may not have the phonemic awareness knowledge and skills required to explicitly teach those children who are struggling to learn to read (Bos et al., 2001). Furthermore because of participants’ tendency to overestimate their

knowledge, they are not necessarily aware that they do not possess this knowledge and will not recognise the need for further training (Cunningham et al., 2004). Fifty-two percent of the online survey participants and three of the four

interviewees confused phonemic awareness with phonics. Five of the eight survey participants who could define phonemic awareness confused phonemic awareness instruction with phonics instruction, citing phonics programmes as their method of teaching phonemic awareness. A major implication of this, especially combined with teachers’ tendency to overestimate their actual knowledge, is the potential for those teachers to believe that they are actually teaching phonemic awareness when in fact they are not. This is reflected in 94% of the survey participants and three of the four interviewees believing that phonemic awareness is a part of their reading programme.

Poor teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness has implications for

classroom practice. Without the necessary phonemic awareness knowledge, when teaching phonemic awareness, teachers will not be able to select appropriate

activities, use accurate examples, give appropriate feedback to students, assess students’ learning needs accurately, nor differentiate instruction to meet their students’ learning needs (Brady et al., 2009; Carroll, 2006; Cunningham et al., 2004; Moats, 1994, 2009; Piasta et al., 2009; Spear-Swerling et al., 2005).

The level of teachers’ phonological knowledge has been linked to teachers use of, and the amount of time they spend on explicitly teaching phonologically-based decoding strategies as well as gains in students’ reading achievement

(McCutchen, Abbott, et al., 2002; McCutchen, Harry, et al., 2002; Piasta et al., 2009). Spear-Swerling and Zibulsky (2014) specifically found that teachers’ knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonics was associated with the amount of time teachers allocated to phonemic awareness and phonics instruction. The results of the present study imply that teachers who participated in this study may not allocate the time to explicit phonemic awareness instruction their struggling readers need due to their own poor knowledge of phonemic awareness.

A further implication is that in order to be able to provide the effective phonemic awareness instruction their struggling readers need, the teachers who participated in this study would need to increase their knowledge of phonemic awareness, and their understanding of its role in learning to read. Research studies have shown that teachers’ phonological knowledge can be increased through professional development (PD) that includes explicit phonemic awareness instruction (Brady et al., 2009; McCutchen, Abbott, et al., 2002; Moats &

Foorman, 2003). There are also implications for teacher education programmes in New Zealand. The question arises as to whether current programmes give pre- service teachers the knowledge of phonemic awareness, and the understanding of its role in learning to read, that they need to meet the learning needs of all children in their classrooms, particularly those children struggling to learn to read. Carroll (2006) suggests they do not and that there is a need for the inclusion of explicit phonological awareness, especially phonemic awareness instruction, in teacher education programmes in New Zealand.

Another implication of the findings is in relation to New Zealand’s tail of literacy underachievement. The consistency of the findings of this research with

other studies which investigated teachers’ linguistic knowledge, conducted in New Zealand and overseas, is concerning in terms of the literacy achievement gap between good and poor readers in New Zealand primary schools identified in international assessments (Mullis et al., 2012; Tunmer et al., 2008, 2013a). There is a danger that this gap might not reduce, but continue to widen, or at least maintain the status quo, unless the Ministry of Education reviews its current policies on literacy practice in New Zealand primary schools (Patel, 2010; Tunmer et al., 2013a). New Zealand’s mean scores have remained stable; the literacy achievement gap between good and poor readers has not reduced, and the same top-down constructivist whole language approach to teaching literacy, which emphasises meaning-based instruction, has continued to be maintained. The Literacy Experts Group (1999) and the Education and Science Committee (2001) both advocated the inclusion of phonological instruction in their reports to the Ministry of Education. Consistent with findings from overseas studies, research studies conducted in New Zealand demonstrated that explicit instruction in phonemic awareness helps struggling readers learn to read and helps to negate the effects of differences in the literate cultural capital children bring when they start school (Greaney & Arrow, 2012; Nicholson, 2003; Ryder et al., 2008). For all children to have an equal opportunity for success in reading, educational practices must respond to the differences in the literate cultural capital that children begin school with (Nicholson, 2003; Ryder et al., 2008; Tunmer et al., 2013a). However, under New Zealand’s current approach to teaching literacy it is dependent on the phonemic awareness knowledge of the teacher, and their

understanding of its role in learning to read, as to whether those struggling readers have access to explicit phonemic awareness instruction. The researcher does not intend to suggest that explicit phonemic awareness or phonological-based

decoding instruction on its own will reduce the gap, but rather that the inclusion of explicit phonemic awareness instruction and decoding instruction into the current whole language approach would result in a more balanced approach to teaching literacy, allowing teachers to have the knowledge necessary in all areas to meet the differing learning needs of all children, particularly struggling readers (Patel, 2010; Pressley, 2006; Tunmer et al., 2013a, 2003). To be successful at teaching reading, teachers need to have access to all the knowledge and essential tools they need to be able to differentiate their instruction (Patel, 2010).