The Florida State University

DigiNole Commons
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

4-23-2010

Exploring Phonemic Awareness in Preschool Aged

English Language Learners
Douglas D. Bell
Florida State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

Recommended Citation
Bell, Douglas D., "Exploring Phonemic Awareness in Preschool Aged English Language Learners" (2010). Electronic Theses, Treatises
and Dissertations. Paper 1308.

This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at DigiNole Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigiNole Commons. For more information, please contact
lib-ir@fsu.edu.
 THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

EXPLORING PHONEMIC AWARENESS IN PRESCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE

LEARNERS

By

DOUGLAS D. BELL, JR.

A Dissertation submitted to the

School of Teacher Education
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2010

Copyright 2010
Douglas D. Bell, Jr.
All Rights Reserved
The members of the committee approve the dissertation of Douglas D. Bell, Jr. defended on April
23, 2010.

__________________________________
Ithel Jones
Professor Directing

__________________________________
Ronald Mullis
University Representative

__________________________________
Charles Wolfgang
Committee Member

__________________________________
Vickie Lake
Committee Member

Approved:
_____________________________________
Walt Wager, Director, School of Teacher Education

_____________________________________
Marcy Driscoll, PhD, Dean, College of Education

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members.
ii
I would like to dedicate this work to my wife and children: Berlinda, Betsy, and Brandy Bell. Without
their love, support, prayers, and encouragement I would never have been able to complete the task at
hand. Their continuing love and support gives me the strength to continue my efforts to improve
education for all young children. I deeply love and appreciate you all.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the support, contributions and assistance provided to me by the wonderful
professionals I have met on my journey. First to my wife and children Berlinda, Betsy, and Brandy Bell
for the many times they have proofread and edited. To my committee: Dr. Charles Wolfgang for his
wonderful insight and guidance; Dr Ithel Jones for helping me understand, appreciate and love my
research, Dr. Vickie Lake, for willingness to critique my work, provide guidance, and scaffold my
understanding; Dr. Ron Mullis for being the objective eye and helping me to see research for what it is.
Also, to Dr. Nancy Selken, who allowed me to pursue and better understand excellence for young
children. Each person has made great contributions to my understanding and provided expertise that
creates a sense of awe in me.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................................. vii

List of Figures ............................................................................................ viii
Abstract ................................................................................................ viii

1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 1

At risk learners and English Language Learners ................................... 2

Theoretical Framework .......................................................................... 3
Literacy and young children .................................................................. 5
Statement of the problem ....................................................................... 7
Purpose of the study ............................................................................... 8
Questions 8
Definitions of Terms. 9

2. Literature Review................................................................................... 10

Early literacy and phonemic awareness ................................................ 10

Phonemic awareness instruction ........................................................... 12
Teaching English Language Learners ................................................... 20
The English Language Learner ............................................................. 20
Approaches for teaching English Language Learners .......................... 24
Developmentally appropriate practices with young children ............... 31

3. Methodology .......................................................................................... 41

Research questions ................................................................................ 41

Participants ......................................................................................... 41
Study design .......................................................................................... 45
Materials ............................................................................................... 45
Procedures ............................................................................................. 48
Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 51

4. Results and Discussion. 55

Analysis of Question 1 .......................................................................... 55

Analysis of Question 2 .......................................................................... 66
Analysis of Question 3 .......................................................................... 69
Analysis of Question 4. . 71
Analysis of Question 5. . 73

v
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 77
Summary 78
Adherence to Scaffolded Learning Theory.. . 81
Educational Implications. . 82
Suggestions for Future Research.. 84
Conclusion. 85

APPENDICES ............................................................................................ 86

A Methodology Summary ............................................................... 86

B Workshop Outline ........................................................................ 88
C Workshop Plan ............................................................................. 90
D Frequency Count Chart ................................................................ 93
E D.I.B.E.L.S................................................................................... 95
F Parent Consent Form.................................................................... 123
G Teacher Consent Form ................................................................. 125
H Teacher Preparation Survey ......................................................... 128
I Teacher Literacy Knowledge Survey........................................... 130
J Approval for Change in Research Protocol 137
K Approval for Human Subjects Renewal.. 139
L Human Subjects Approval.. . 141

REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 142

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.. 152

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Preschool Aged ELL Participants ...................................................................... 62

Table 3.2: Stages of English Proficiency ............................................................................ 72

Table 4.1: Descriptives of Pre and Post Initial Sound Fluency .......................................... 82

Table 4.2: Descriptives of Pre and Post Phoneme Segmentation ....................................... 83

Table 4.3: Mean Ranks for Initial Sound Fluency .............................................................. 84

Table 4.4: Mean Ranks for Phoneme Segmentation ........................................................... 85

Table 4.5: Overall ECERS and ELLCO Means.................................................................. 91

Table 4.6: Language and Literacy Subscale Comparison ................................................... 94

Table 4.7: Summary of Pre and Post Tests ......................................................................... 97

Table 4.8: Mean Ranks of Phoneme Segmentation ............................................................ 98

Table 4.9: English Proficiency Increase ............................................................................. 101

Table 4.10: Literacy Knowledge and Segmentation Comparison ...................................... 105

Table 4.11: Teacher Literacy Prep Attitude and Segmentation Comparison ..................... 107

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Teacher Behavior Continuum .......................................................................... 54

Figure 4.1: Blending Repeated Measure. ............ 86

Figure 4.2: Frequency Count for Segmenting................. 87

Figure 4.3: Frequency Count for Treatment .. ................... 99

viii
 ABSTRACT

The importance of early literacy has been supported by research for many years. Children that are
English language learners are at particular risk for literacy difficulties. Phonemic awareness, particularly
segmentation and blending, is accepted as being an important factor in literacy ability. There are very
few studies that explore phonemic awareness as early as preschool. The present study explored the
facilitation of phonemic awareness with preschool English language learners. Developmentally
appropriate play based activities were used to scaffold phonemic awareness in the treatment group. The
teachers were scaffolded in the ability to provide this instruction either by training or coaching. The
results indicated a significant change in phonemic segmentation ability from the pretest to the post test.

ix
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

It is well established by teachers and researchers that early literacy is an important and influential
aspect of early education (Whitehurst, Zevenbergen, Crone, Velting, & Fischel, 1999). Literacy ability is
considered crucial for childrens success in school and in life (IRA & NAEYC, 1998). It follows that
providing appropriate and meaningful early literacy experiences can significantly increase the
probability that children will become fluent readers and writers (Whitehurst, et al, 1999). It is not
surprising, therefore, that a great deal of exploration and writing has taken place on various aspects of
the subject (Quick, 1998). Although researchers have focused on various aspects of literacy, most
studies are based on the premise that specific instructional strategies can improve childrens literacy
skills, and that this improvement is related to future successful learning (Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998).
Recent research findings have significantly increased our understanding of how children develop
their literacy skills (e.g., Ehri, 2005; NICHD/NIH, 2000; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). For example, we
know that most reading difficulties are caused by deficits in phonological processing, vocabulary, and
background knowledge (e.g., Adams, 1990; Hart & Risley, 2003; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998;
Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). There is evidence that the most important facilitator of literacy
development in young children is the extent to which parents are sensitive and responsive to childrens
literacy activities (e.g., Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Snow et al., 1991; Storch & Whitehurst, 2001).
Typically, however, studies have focused on how young children who are fluent English speakers
develop literacy, and few studies have been conducted with young English language learners. The
current study was therefore designed to determine whether a specific aspect of early literacy, namely
phonemic awareness, can be scaffolded with preschool aged English language learners.
The early years have been emphasized by educators and policymakers as important for
establishing a foundation for childrens literacy skills (Morris, Bloodgood, & Perney, 2003). The early
identification of reading difficulties is important because children who are having reading difficulties at
the end of first-grade are more likely to be poor readers at the end of fourth grade (Yeh, 2003). It is well
established that appropriate early literacy experiences can increase the possibility for later literacy
success. As a result teachers and researchers have become interested in studying and developing early
interventions for children who may be at risk of school failure. Indeed, it is now recognized that early

1
intervention is particularly useful and effective when children have, in some way, been identified at risk
for school failure. It follows that teachers have used a variety of instructional strategies when working
with at risk populations. While there are many strategies that teachers use to support early literacy
learning, the use of scaffolding has recently received considerable attention.
There are many aspects of early literacy being researched in an effort to provide support for
students who are challenged in various ways (Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, & Denckla,
2000). While there are many different ways that students have been identified as at risk for school
failure, being an English language learner presents unique challenges for educators. English language
learners (ELLs) are an at risk population that have received the attention of teachers and policymakers
across many states (Lee, 1996; Winsler, Diaz, Espinosa, & Rodriguez, 1999). Teachers are faced with a
challenge of scaffolding the literacy development of these students, and they are just beginning to find
support for the task in the literature.
At Risk Learners and English Language Learners
The early identification of risk factors and subsequent intervention for literacy success is
important for later academic achievement and reading ability (Pennington & Lefly, 2001). Typically, the
designation of at risk is used as an indicator for a child who will have increased probability of
experiencing school difficulties (Flood, et.al., 1991). While there may be many different types of school
difficulties, they are commonly related to reading or language problems. It is not surprising, therefore,
that the early identification of risk factors and intervention for literacy success is considered important
(Pennington & Lefly, 2001).
Early intervention with at risk populations is important for many reasons. One reason why
intervening as early as possible is needed is that the earlier the support is provided, the more likely the
child will be able to overcome the difficulties. Another reason to intervene early is because of the
Mathew Effect (Stanovich, 1986). The Mathew Effect is when childrens difficulties create even more
difficulties, and the associated negative impact tends to increase and perpetuate. This creates a wider
achievement gap between those at risk and those that are not. In this type of situation, there is a tendency
for those who started out at risk of difficulties or underachievement to not catch up. The hope is that if
intervention is provided prior to the gap being created, there is increased likelihood for success. That is,
early intervention in preschool should render the Mathew Effect obsolete. The Matthew Effect is as
powerful as it is largely due to development (Flood, et al., 1991). As children gain more experience with
literacy and language, they improve. This improvement is equally evident for both high-, and low-ability
children. Thus, students identified as at risk for school failure, such as children from low socio-

2
economic families, are particularly vulnerable, and at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to their
peers from more affluent families.
The population of at risk learners that have received considerable attention in recent years is
English Language Learners (ELLs). Researchers suggest that there is a need to better prepare teachers
for working with ELLs (Bernhard, 1995; Garcia, 1986; Ford & Hassel, 1989; Markham, 1999; Stipek,
Ryan, & Alarcon, 2001). Many students who are learning the English language as a second language
also have other obstacles and disadvantages. That is, in addition to the language barrier, they also have
other risk factors in place (Johnson, 1987). These additional risk factors include low socio-economic
status, low family literacy rates and education levels, as well as being of minority ethnic status. When
schools accommodate large numbers of ELLs in their populations, the schools are labeled at risk schools
(Hunter, 1997). The ELL is also at risk for specific school related problems. These problems include low
motivation, poor attitudes, anxiety, and a lack of learning strategies (Sparks & Ganschow, 1993).
Theoretical Framework
Scaffolding the development and learning of children at risk, as well as those not identified at
risk, is an important part of an effective educational program with ELLs (Araugo, 2002). For the
purposes of this study scaffolded learning theory is used as a theoretical framework, and also as the
starting place for promoting literacy skills with young ELLs.
Scaffolded learning theory makes use of the childs known knowledge in order to increase
learning (Bruner, 1996). There is a very strong interactional tenet ingrained in the scaffolded learning
framework. This tenet emphasizes that the actual teacher does not hold all the power in scaffolding the
students learning. Rather, the students can scaffold each other as well.
The act of scaffolding is when one teacher, or more able peer, shares his or her knowledge with
another less able learner. The idea here is not the same as the stance of traditional western teaching
where the learner is not knowledgeable or totally without information, but rather the interaction itself
with the teacher enhances the learners knowledge (Bruner, 1996). This interaction does not impact the
student alone, but the teacher also experiences gain from the process. Learning and development is
somewhat dependant on the input and support from the teacher (Denham, Renwick, & Holt, 1991).
Teachers must sensitively regulate their support and children must take an active role (Winsler, Diaz, &
Montero, 1997).
Although language is not an absolute requirement for every scaffolding event, it does play an
important role in most. Language is an important part of higher level learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
Vygotsky (1962) regards language as a primary tool for learning. In fact, he regards language as the
most important tool humans create and learn to use. Language is important because it allows the learner
3
to participate in the social aspects of life in intelligent ways. Even more importantly however, language
facilitates the learners thinking, and cognitive development itself. This is achieved through self talk and
talking to others. The combination of speech and practical activity create an excellent source for the
development of learning and intelligence (Vygotsky, 1978).
Berk and Spuhl (1995) go as far as stating that at times verbal mediation is necessary for tapping
into a larger range of skills or understandings. Some common techniques of scaffolding are questioning,
modeling, and focusing the learners attention (Hess & McDevitt, 1984; Clarke-Stewart & Beck, 1999).
Explanation is also a popular scaffolding technique (Hess & McDevitt, 1984). Another form of
scaffolding that teachers use is channeling learners approximations (Hodapp, Goldfield, & Boyatzis,
1984). Offering suggestions can be one way to use this scaffolding technique (DeVries, 2005).
Socialization is a powerful component of the scaffolding theory. This theory combines aspects of
child development from both interactionist and cultural perspectives (Bakhurst & Shanker, 2001). One
of the main differences in a classroom based on scaffolded learning, in comparison to more traditional
classrooms, is the use of social interaction. The academic readiness of young children relies heavily on
the quality of the teacher and child relationship (Palermo, Hanish, Martin, Fabes, & Reiser, 2007). The
act of scaffolding is much less likely to occur if the learners are expected to sit quietly and work alone.
Rather, in scaffolded learning, there is a significant dependence upon learners working together and
taking advantage of one anothers knowledge and ability. Additionally, scaffolded learning theory
maintains that that the teachers interactions with their students are not the only effective process, as
they are in traditional western learning and teaching styles. The teacher is not viewed as the information
holder, but rather there is socialization between the teacher and children in a manner that is more open.
In turn, the students use this socialization to build their knowledge (Bruner, 1993; Vygotsky, 1962;
1978). Scaffolded learning recognizes the developmental relationship between intelligence and affect
(Vygotsky). The socialization aspect of scaffolding addresses this connection and possibly maximizes it
so that the learning is optimal. This is accomplished when there is an appropriate degree of structure or
control that supports transfer of understanding from the teacher to the child (Berk & Spuhl, 1995).
The teacher in a scaffolding event does not necessarily have to be an adult. As previously noted,
peers can be the teacher (Meyer, Klein, & Genishi, 1994). This means that scaffolding can sometimes be
done in groups rather than dyads (Haight, Wang, Fung, Willimas, & Mintz, 1999). The teachers role
can be filled by a peer or sibling as well. In fact it is well established that interactions among students
can be an important peer scaffolding tool for language development (Wong Fillmore, & Valdez, 1986).
This can be a powerful approach because young learners are often interested in group activities and they
enjoy collaborating with their peers (Asmitia & Hesser, 1993; Meyer, et al, 1994). Young English
4
speaking children working with ELLs can facilitate this scaffolding and, in turn, contribute to the
improvement of language skills (Pease-Alverez, Garcia, & Espinosa, 1991).
The intent of a scaffolding event is to share and connect experience, thought, or knowledge. This
sharing and connection is strengthened through language use and experience while relating content the
child is learning. This learning is not focused on remembered facts, but rather on meaning. This meaning
based idea of learning conveys that the understanding of content and learning is the target outcome in
the scaffolded learning theory (Bruner, 1996; Vygotsky, 1962). Without this scaffolding, it is possible
that the level of understanding and quality of learning may not be as high (Clarke-Stewart & Beck,
1999).
It is with this understanding of how learning takes place that this study was designed.
Scaffolding the learning process with young children was integrated into the methodology. Rather than
isolating learning in specific situations, the act of learning was scaffolded within the natural context of
the childs cultural environment. Instead of having set up lessons, the knowledge being taught was
scaffolded, because the teacher had the knowledge and knew how to scaffold the learning, regardless of
the situation. This theoretical framework suggests that the teacher, or more knowledgeable peer, has the
ability to scaffold the desired knowledge or learning process in the cultural context and setting, utilizing
language and cultural resources to promote the learning. In this sense, knowledge is constructed and
built by the learner himself or herself, not by the teacher (Bakhurst & Shanker, 2001).
Literacy and Young Children
Literacy in the early childhood stage of development has, for some time, been considered an
important topic by educators and researchers. The primary focus has been to support the development
and learning of early literacy skills (Erhi, et al, 2001; Johnston & Watson, 2004; Quick, 1998;
Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Early literacy skills comprise abilities that support the later development
of reading and writing (Whitehurst, et al, 1999). Supporting these skills with young children is known to
be beneficial for reading and for schooling in general (Quick, 1998). The variety of skills needed for
literacy success range from oral language skills to print related skills (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).
Oral language serves as the foundation for literacy ability (Beech & Harding, 1984; Cardoso-
Martins, 1995; Nation & Hulme, 1997; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1995). Literacy includes the ability to
read and write printed language. Oral language, on the other hand, is the ability to speak and understand
the spoken language (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Children with strong oral language skills often have
strong literacy skills. The oral language they use gives the student an understanding of the sounds and
structure of the language, as well as vocabulary. All of these abilities contribute to the students abilities
to decode and understand printed word (Araujo, 2002).
5
 It is known that there are relationships between oral language ability and literacy (Whitehurst &
Lonigan, 1998). It is important to note, however, that the relationships are not necessarily of a causal
nature (Ramos-Sanchez & Caudrado-Gordillo, 2004). In other words, strong oral language skills do not
guarantee strong reading skills, and conversely, poor oral language does not necessarily lead to poor or
weak reading skills.
Oral language skills that support later literacy skills fall under the categories of phonological
awareness and vocabulary. The phonological awareness skills facilitate mastery of the spoken language,
which makes it easier to manipulate written language in reading and writing (Ayers, 2006; Hatcher,
Hulme, & Ellis, 1994). Vocabulary is important because the more words children know and understand
the more comprehension is utilized when decoding in the literacy act. In other words, children are less
likely to decode a word correctly if they have not heard it before, or know its meaning.
Providing support for childrens oral language has been viewed as a positive approach that can
improve literacy ability for students identified at risk for school failure. In particular, early support has
been suggested as one way to promote easier transition to conventional literacy (Whitehurst & Lonigan,
1998). In fact, according to Whitehurst and Lonigan, phonological awareness is one of the strongest
predictors of early literacy ability. Young children with reading difficulties, and dyslexia, often show
lower performance in oral language ability early in life (Scarborough, 1990).
Promoting oral language skills has long been a goal and focus of high quality early education
programs, and has been positively supported by research (Ayers, 1995; Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994;
Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Support for exposure to language, having a language rich curriculum,
many focused interactions and conversations with children, singing songs, saying nursery rhymes, and
doing finger plays have all been determined useful for building early language and literacy skills (Byrne,
Fielding-Barnsley, & Ashley, 2000; Connor, Morrison, & Slominski, 2006).
Supporting the development of early literacy skills in young children has been adopted as a
challenge by some educators. Their efforts have focused primarily on supporting practices that are
developmentally appropriate (Quick, 1998; Vandervelden & Siegel, 1995). Examination of instructional
practices for developing early literacy skills, however, has generated a response from many child and
early education advocacy groups (IRA & NAEYC, 1998; Sayeski, Burgess, Planta, & Lloyd, 2001). The
NAEYC, for example, maintains that practices in scaffolding the literacy development of young children
must still be developmentally appropriate (NAEYC, 1996). This means that the practices should match
the developmental age and stage, the individual learning style, unique strengths, and the culture of the
child. Young children can learn early literacy skills when the program and the environment scaffold
them in developmentally appropriate ways (Yaden, et al, 2000). The concept of developmentally
6
appropriate practice is used by educators as a guideline (NAEYC, 1996; Quick, 1998) in an effort to
ensure that what is happening with children is understandable and beneficial. Developmentally
appropriate practices protect the children from being exposed to instructional strategies that may not
have lasting results, are above the level of comprehension for the children, and expose them to strategies
that can maximize potential and outcomes.
The theoretical lens of scaffolded learning is consistent with the concept of developmentally
appropriate early literacy intervention, and the potential impact it has on later development (Freppon &
Dahl, 1998). The major idea that this lens offers is that the interaction between a teacher and a learner is
required for learning to take place (Bruner, 1996). The teacher in this interaction can be a professional
educator, more knowledgeable peer, or vicarious teacher such as a book or computer program.
Sometimes the teacher can even be a situation. However, as Bruner espouses, it is through interaction
with others that children primarily discover their world. Vygotsky (1978) supports this position in his
writings. The interaction between the learner and teacher allows the learner to go beyond what he or she
knows and adds to the knowledge base (Bruner, 1996). The term used for this process, or interaction, is
scaffolding. Thus, the specific lens, from the area of social constructivism, which serves as a theoretical
framework for understanding early phonemic awareness in young English language learners is
scaffolded learning.
Statement of the Problem
There is much research that supports the need for early intervention in literacy training for
students. The research points to phonemic awareness as a strong predictor of later reading success
(Byrne, Fielding-Barnsley, & Ashley, 2000; Torgeson, Morgan, & Davis, 1992; Whitehurst & Lonigan,
1998). The importance of phonemic awareness, in particular blending and segmenting, in preliteracy and
early literacy development is supported by the early literacy literature (Anthony & Lonigan, 2004;
Nation & Hulme, 1997; Yeh, 2003). This is true for at risk learners, including the ELLs (Hayes &
Schrier, 2000; Peregoy & Boyle, 2000; Stewart, 2004).
Although the early intervention and outlining of important literacy skills are supported by
research (Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994), there is a gap in the literature. This gap is in the use of
phonemic awareness in the preschool stage of development. While there is a great deal of support for the
use of phonological awareness skills with preschool children, phonemic awareness is considered by
many to be an advanced form of phonological awareness (National Research Council (NRC), 1999) and
saved for older populations of children. In addition, phonemic awareness has been shown to help ELL
students in literacy development.

7
 The reason for the lack of focus on phonemic awareness in the preschool years may be due to the
strong connection to the sounds the letters make, or the alphabetic principle (NRC, 1999). Many
professionals have moved away from the drill and practice strategies associated with traditional alphabet
teaching that often dominates preschool curricula. This connection may have also led to steering away
from teaching phonemic awareness in preschool classrooms. This is the case even though many states
recognize the need for phonemic awareness instruction and include it in their standards (Gambrell,
Morrow, & Pressley, 2007). Even though research supports the teaching of phonemic awareness after
children learn the alphabet, this does not mean that it cannot be taught prior to learning the alphabet.
The lack of early phonemic awareness instruction may be an unidentified problem for our
educational programs. Young children, developmentally, are able to embrace and understand phonemic
awareness concepts. The research clearly shows a strong correlation between young childrens
phonemic awareness abilities and positive reading outcomes when they are in the elementary grades, as
well as between phonological awareness in preschool and later reading fluency (Anthony & Lonigan,
2004; Stewart, 2004). If phonemic awareness instruction is emphasized with preschool English
Language learners (ELL) then it should lead to an improvement in their reading ability when they are in
the primary grades. There is therefore a need to identify a method of teaching these literacy skills in a
way that that matches the development of the young child, or is developmentally appropriate (Quick,
1998). The methodology used for teaching phonemic awareness must match the way young children
learn and be developmentally appropriate if it is expected to have a lasting impact on childrens future
literacy skills.
Purpose of the Study
The study was conducted to explore how play and play like activities can be used as vehicles for
scaffolding phonemic awareness in preschool aged English Language Learners (ELLs). The major focus
of the study was phonemic awareness in an at risk population of preschool English Language Learners.
Questions
The study was of an exploratory nature because it investigated a new aspect of early literacy
learning. For this reason a smaller sample of participants was examined, and the study was guided by
research questions as opposed specific hypotheses. One goal of the study was to understand how specific
practices help young ELLs develop discrete aspects of early literacy. Thus, the intent was not to seek
findings that were generalizable, but rather provide information that can serve as the basis of future
research with young ELLs.
The study was guided by the following research questions:

8
 1. Can phonemic awareness levels be increased in preschool aged ELL children through embedding
the phonemic awareness skills in play or play like activities?
2. Can explicit teacher training in promoting phonemic awareness in developmentally appropriate
ways increase phonemic awareness instruction for preschool aged ELLs?
3. Does the level of English proficiency influence the rate of increase of phonemic awareness in
preschool aged ELLs?
4. What is the relationship between general teacher knowledge of literacy and phonemic awareness
levels in preschool aged ELLs?
5. What is the relationship between teacher attitudes about literacy education preparation and
phonemic awareness levels in preschool aged ELLs?
Definition of Terms
The following terms have been identified and defined for the purposes of this study:
At risk. Children that have risk factors in their lives that can contribute to potential school
failure.
Developmentally appropriate practices. Using teaching practices that are appropriate of the
age, individual stage, and culture of the child.
Explicit instruction. Teaching with a goal in mind and making it clear to the learner that this is
what they are learning.
Implicit instruction.Teaching in a manner in which the learner is not told what is being taught,
often embedded in other activities.
Literacy. Reading and writing ability.
Matthew Effect. When childrens difficulties create more difficulties and the negative impact of
the difficulties snowball.
Phoneme. The smallest unit of sound in a word.
Phonemic awareness. Sensitivity to the smallest unit of sound in language and the ability to
manipulate those sounds.
Phonological awareness. Sensitivity to the sounds in language.
Play. Child selected, child lead, and child controlled fun activities that are engaged in for
pleasure.
Play like activities. Activities that are fun in nature but somewhat controlled by the teacher.
Realia. The use of real objects to support the learning process.
Scaffolding. When one teacher, or more able peer, shares his or her knowledge with another less
able learner in an effort to supporting learning.
9
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study was to explore if play and play-like activities could be used as a
vehicle for scaffolding phonemic awareness in preschool-aged English language learners (ELLs).
Examination of three major bodies of literature was required to undertake this exploration. The first area
to be examined was early literacy, especially in relation to phonemic awareness. The next body of
literature to be examined was the understanding and teaching of the young ELLs. The third body of
literature to be examined was the use of developmentally appropriate best practices in teaching and
caring for young children. Each of the bodies of literature has methods and theories to support best
practices in promoting phonemic awareness in young ELLs. This study, however, explored the literature
in each discipline through the lens of working with young children specifically as it relates to the
preschool ages, coupled with the lens of scaffolding theory. The literature on early literacy and
phonemic awareness, the English language learner, and developmentally appropriate practices is
discussed in this chapter.
Early Literacy and Phonemic Awareness
The research in the field of literacy is very clear about the importance of a good early foundation
in literacy ability (Fountain & Wood, 2000; Lonigan, Bergess, & Anthony, 2000; Tramontana, Hooper,
& Selzer, 1988). When young children have a solid foundation in early literacy, the benefits reach into
later literacy and schooling. There are a great many contributors to a good early literacy foundation;
ranging from going to a quality preschool (Dunn, 1993; Dunn, Beach, & Kontos, 1994; Fountain &
Wood, 2000) to reading at home with the family (Bennett, Weigel, & Martin, 2002; Elliott & Olliff,
2008; Fountain & Wood, 2000; Sharif, Ozuah, Dinkevich, Mulvihill, 2003). Although there is no one
agreed upon method, there is consensus that waiting until children enter school in kindergarten to focus
on literacy can be too late (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). When children enter school they bring with
them a large schema about the world and everything in it. Exposure to quality early literacy experiences
in the preschool years expands that childs schema in the literacy acts needed for school (Justice,
Mashburn, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008).
The literature also suggests that when children come to school with limited literacy experiences,
they start off the schooling process at a lower level in comparison to their more able peers, and never

10
really catch up (Justice, et al, 2008; Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000; Tramontana, Hooper, &
Selzer, 1988; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Although the risk is increased for being illiterate,
dysfunctional, or failing, these outcomes are not certain; the children may just not have the advantage
their peers have (Hart & Risely, 1995).
Phonological awareness, or sensitivity to the sounds of ones language, has been very strongly
supported as an important precursor to successful literacy (Burgess & Lonigan, 1998; Evans, Bell,
Shaw, Moretti, & Page, 2006; Sprugevica & Hoien, 2003; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Phonological
awareness can be defined as the sensitivity and ability to manipulate phonological segments in words
(Burgess & Lonigan, 1998; Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000). Phonological awareness happens on
several levels that range from whole to part (Bernhardt & Stoel-Gammon, 1994), and is described as the
ability to break down words into smaller parts. While development of these skills happens
simultaneously, Anthony and Lonigan (2004) indicate that mastery occurs for the most part in the order
presented.
The first and lowest level of phonological awareness is the word level (Whitehurst & Lonigan,
1998). At this level, children understand that what is being spoken is a whole word. Also at this level, as
developmentally appropriate, children are able to finish sentences with whole words or tell if words are
left out of sentences.
The next level of phonological awareness is the syllable level (Fox & Routh, 1975; Bernhardt &
Stoel-Gammon, 1994). At the syllable level, children can break words down into syllable chunks. Skills
related to this level are counting syllables, syllable segmentation, syllable completion, syllable identity,
and syllable deletion.
The third level of phonological awareness is the onset and rime level (Bernhardt & Stoel-
Gammon, 1994; Fox & Routh, 1975; Maclean, Bryant, & Bradley, 1987; Wagner, Torgesen, Laughon,
Simmons, & Rashotte, 1993). At this level, children are able to identify the first sound of the word (the
onset) and the following word ending or rest of the word (the rime). The skills associated with this level
of phonemic awareness are recognition, detection, and generation of rhymes. Additionally, blending
onsets with rimes to make words is a skill on this level (Wagner, et al, 1993).
Under the umbrella of phonological awareness, on the fourth and fifth levels, is the concept of
phonemic awareness. The phonemic awareness level is also known as the skeletal and segmented level
(Bernhardt & Stoel-Gammon, 1994; Wagner, Torgesen, Laughon, Simmons, & Rashotte, 1993).
Phonemic awareness is the sensitivity and ability to manipulate the smallest unit of sound within a
language (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). This smallest unit of sound is known as a phoneme. Research
indicates that successful readers have strong phonemic awareness ability (Tunmer, Herriman, &
11
Nesdale, 1988). Phonemic awareness has been identified as very important skill that leads to later
reading success (Byrne & Fielding-Barnesley, 1995; Foorman, et al., 2003; Sprugevica & Hoien, 2003).
Some skills that are exhibited on the phonemic awareness levels are: alliteration, phoneme matching,
phoneme isolation, phoneme completion, phoneme blending, phoneme deletion, phoneme segmentation,
phoneme manipulation and reversals (Bernhardt & Stoel-Gammon, 1994; Wagner, et al, 1993). In an
effort to determine the most effective instruction in phonemic awareness young English Language
Learners, phonemic awareness and phonemic awareness instruction should be explored.
Phonemic Awareness
Phonemic awareness, being a higher-level phonological awareness skill, is an oral language
ability (Beckman & Edwards, 2000; Wagner, et al, 1993; Bernhardt & Stoel-Gammon, 1994). The
presence of print or text is not necessary for phonemic awareness to be used. It is important however, to
understand that while it is an oral language ability, there is a strong relationship between phonemic
awareness and text reading (Stahl & Murray, 1994). This relationship is reciprocal; reading strengthens
phonemic awareness ability. Though this relationship exists, it is erroneous to maintain that reading text
is required to develop phonemic awareness because it is actually an auditory discrimination skill
(Backman, 1983).
Phonemic awareness was discovered by Pennington and Lefly (2001) as one of the main
predictors of later literacy ability. A strong ability in phonemic awareness is necessary for successful
reading (Foorman, et al, 2003; Juel, 1988; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988). Ball and Blachman
(1991) found that kindergarten reading skills were greatly improved when phonemic instruction was
provided. Beech and Harding (1984) found that low levels of phonemic awareness were associated with
a development lag in early elementary children; these children had difficulty on all tests that included
phonemic awareness processing skills. In other words, poor readers have phonemic processing
difficulties. Phonemic awareness alone is not sufficient for reading success; however, the findings
concerning the power and importance of phonemic awareness supports the teaching of the skill,
combined with a holistic literacy program (Foorman, et al, 2003).
Phonemic awareness moves in levels from simple or low level abilities to higher levels and more
complex abilities (Beckman & Edwards, 2000; McFadden, 1998; Ukrainetz, Cooney, Dyer, Kysar, &
Harris, 2000). The levels of difficulty are determined by the actual phonemic skill (Beckman &
Edwards, 2000). Early, or low-level phonemic awareness skills are related to those present in simple
word play common to young children. The later emerging levels, which are considered higher, would be
the skills that older students would be metacognitively aware of (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). For
example, a young child may notice that two words begin with the same sound, but an older child will
12
notice that if you take out one sound and replace it with another, it creates a new specific word.
Complexity is also indicated in phonemic awareness by the number of phonemes in a word; the fewer
the phonemes, the simpler the complexity.
The phonemic awareness ability indicates that children metalinguistically and metacognitively
understand that spoken words are made up of a sequence of phonemes (Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale,
1988; Yeh, 2003). In other words, children have to be conscious of the sounds in the words and parts of
the words. This ability later supports the recognition and connection of the symbolic representation of
these sounds in written words and enhances the readers decoding ability. Sprugevica and Hoien (2003)
found that phonemic awareness has an impact on word identification and sentence comprehension in
emergent readers. Phonemic awareness was found to have an impact on word reading and reading
comprehension (Erhi, et al., 2001). Erhi, et al (2001) also found that phonemic awareness instruction
improves reading ability for many kinds of students including typically developing readers, struggling
readers, children with disabilities, and a variety of age groups and grade levels.
There are several phonemic awareness sub-skills that the literature supports as having value in
reading ability (Erhi, et al, 2001). Though all of the phonemic awareness sub-skills are helpful for
reading, some of the sub-skills have a particular connection to later reading success (Nation & Hulme,
1997). Segmenting and blending of phonemes have a stronger correlation with later reading ability as
opposed other phonemic awareness skills (Backman, 1983). In a study of early readers, Backman (1983)
found that children who could read before school entry and formal instruction had strong phonemic
segmentation and blending ability. Segmentation instruction provided for first grade students led to an
improvement in their reading ability (Uhry & Shepherd, 1993). Children in Brazil showed a positive
correlation between phonemic segmentation and their reading and spelling ability (Cardoso-Martins,
1995).
Phonemic Awareness Instruction
The teaching of phonemic awareness is important because it is not as natural a phenomenon
developmentally as are the other levels of phonological awareness (Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988).
Phonemic awareness does not develop in young children spontaneously, consequently, instruction is
necessary to ensure that it is mastered (Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988). When reviewing the
literature for this study, the impact of phonemic awareness instruction, phonemic awareness instruction
with preschoolers, and strategies of phonemic awareness instruction were explored.
Impact of Phonemic Awareness Instruction
Instruction in phonemic awareness has been found to be effective in improving the reading
ability of struggling readers (Ayres, 1995; Cardoso-Martins, 1995; Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994;
13
Vandervelden & Siegel, 1997). Teaching phonemic awareness skills to at-risk kindergarteners was a
powerful predictor for reading success (Walpole, Chow, & Justice, 2004; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).
First graders who had phonemic instruction in kindergarten had better outcomes on reading tests and had
fewer reading problems (Reading & Van Deuren, 2007).
Often, curriculum for young children in reading readiness has a strong focus on alphabetic
knowledge, but Foorman, et al (2003) found that alphabet based instruction was less effective than
combined alphabetic instruction and phonemic awareness instruction. When phonemic awareness
training is added to alphabetic instruction, results improve (Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994). This
supports the need for phonemic awareness instruction. When it is combined with a full literacy
instruction program, reading ability is improved. This was further supported when Ball and Blackman
(1991) examined at-risk kindergarteners and discovered that they greatly improve in word recognition
and spelling when phonemic segmenting was connected with letter recognition activities, rather than just
letter recognition alone. Byrne, Fielding-Barnsley, & Ashley (2000) report the positive effects of
phonemic awareness instruction six years after the instruction was given. The positive effects of
phonemic awareness instruction impacts at-risk learners, including ELL students (Vandervelden &
Siegel, 1997).
Phonemic Awareness Instruction in Preschool
Phonemic awareness has not often been represented as an instructional area with preschool
children in the research (Juel, 1988; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988). The majority of research that
explores phonemic awareness has been with the primary aged child. Additionally, some of the research
that does express work with preschool and phonemic awareness really explores phonological awareness
at lower levels of kindergarten (calling it preschool).
This is of concern because there is such strong support for early literacy intervention with the
preschool population (Juel, 1988). Children who entered kindergarten with more literacy experiences in
preschool had higher success in reading and spelling in comparison to those who did not (Walpole,
Chow, & Justice, 2004). Yeh (2003) allowed Head Start preschool children to be exposed to
segmentation, which they would not usually have exposure to. This offered them scaffolding in a skill
for they would not be expected to develop alone or without assistance. In this Head Start study the
preschoolers showed an ability to learn segmentation. It seems that Phonemic awareness can be
developed in preschool without the use of alphabet teaching and usage (Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen,
1988). It is recommended that phonological awareness be taught to preschoolers to ensure later reading
ability (Backman, 1983; Stewart, 2004); including the higher levels of phonemic awareness which are
considered phonemic awareness (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000). Pennington and Lefly (2001)
14
found that children with reading disabilities were identified as developing phonemic awareness two
years later than children without reading disabilities, and they suggest earlier instruction to ameliorate
this problem.
Although the importance of early intervention has been established, and that early intervention
with preschool is possible, there is very limited research in the area of preschool phonemic awareness.
Though there is no current study that provides an explanation for this, there were two patterns in the
literature that offered some reason: developmental understanding (Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988)
and developmentally appropriate practice (Yeh, 2003).
Preschoolers often lack the ability to consciously manipulate the phonemes of their language
(Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988). It is accepted that because phonemic awareness is a metacognitive
and metalinguistic skill, young children are unable to perform the skill. Phonemic awareness is not a
natural or spontaneously rising skill.
There is also literature that supports the thought that phonemic awareness instruction would be
considered developmentally inappropriate (Edwards, 1974; Locke, 1971; Yeh, 2003). There was a time
when early literacy teaching had too much reliance on the traditional look and say approach (Fowler,
1964). There is a fear that this type of instruction would lead teachers of young children to move toward
more developmentally inappropriate practices (Yeh, 2003). It is believed by many that there is a need for
letter sound correspondences and drill and practice with letters to build phonemic awareness. The field
of early education has worked for over twenty years to move away from these inappropriate practices
(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Backman (1983) and Fowler, however, (1964) indicate that these ideas
are erroneous because phonemic awareness is an auditory discrimination ability and literacy can be
taught and developed through play. Elliott and Olliff (2008) found that young childrens literacy ability
expectations should be raised, and their instruction is imperative to meet the increasing educational
demands on them. Yeh (2003) reported that dramatic phonemic segmentation gains occurred in
preschool when explicit instruction was used. When teaching the skills to preschool children, phonemic
awareness can be effective when included in fun listening games and play like activities in
developmentally appropriate ways (Fowler, 1964; Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988; Yeh, 2003).
Training early childhood teachers to carry these activities out in appropriate ways will avoid the
realization of the fear of the wide-spread use of developmentally inappropriate practices.
Training teachers of preschoolers to appropriately implement early literacy is crucial to the
success of teaching preschool phonemic awareness (Justice et al, 2008; Saracho, 2004). Teachers of
preschoolers can be trained to identify stages of literacy and the ways young children develop them, thus
implementing appropriate phonemic awareness instruction. Even with minimal training, volunteers and
15
college students were able to significantly raise reading outcomes for first and second grade children in a
tutoring program (Fitzgerald, 2001). Podhajski and Nathan (2005) found that when child care providers
were given specific training in implementing literacy skills to young children, the children made
significant gains in pre-literacy ability and many even came out of the at-risk category.
Approaches and Strategies of Phonemic Awareness Instruction
Phonemic awareness instruction can be carried out both explicitly and implicitly (Foorman, et al,
2003; Ukrainetz, Cooney, Dyer, Kysar, & Harris, 2000). Phonemic awareness skills can be embedded
and integrated into other activities that go on in the classroom (Fowler, 1964; Ukrainetz, Cooney, Dyer,
Kysar, & Harris, 2000). Ukrainetz, et al discovered that when phonemic segmentation and deletion
training were embedded in story sharing, phonemic awareness levels increased in kindergarten children.
Saracho (2004), as well as Roskos and Neuman (1993), support the use of implicit and embedded
phonemic awareness instruction, as the drill and practice of traditional phonemic awareness training is
inappropriate and less beneficial for young children (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Embedded and
implicit phonemic awareness instruction is helpful because the children learning the skill learn it in a
natural way and within natural contexts and environments (Roskos & Neuman, 1993; Saracho, 2004;
Ukrainetz, et al, 2000). Ukrainetz, et al effectively used implicit and embedded instruction to promote
literacy skills, including phonemic awareness, with five and six-year-olds. The challenge with embedded
implicit instruction is that the skill of the teacher is heavily relied on for effectiveness.
Explicit instruction of phonemic awareness skills is also necessary for the most effective
outcomes (Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994; Al Otaiba, Kosanovich-Grek, Torgesen, Hassler, & Wahl,
2005). Explicit instruction is necessary due to the lack of spontaneous development of phonemic
awareness abilities, especially those with the highest effect on later reading (Lundberg, Frost, &
Peterson, 1988; McGee & Purcell-Gates, 1997). However, explicit instruction can still take place in a
natural context (Ukrainetz, et al, 2000).
The use of explicit and implicit approaches of teaching can only be effective if the instruction is
carefully thought out and systematic (Freppon & Dahl, 1998; Al Otaiba, Kosanovich-Grek, Torgesen,
Hassler, & Wahl, 2005). An example of well thought out and systematic instruction in phonemic
awareness teaching is that skills would be taught in sequence of development (Juel & Minden-Cupp,
2000).
Though all of the phonemic awareness skills are helpful for the development of reading ability,
outcomes are stronger when only two or three skills are focused on during the instructional program
(Allor, 2002). Focus on more than two or three skills can confuse the student and makes it less likely
that significant ability will be developed and retained. When selecting which phonemic awareness skills
16
to focus on, blending and segmenting are the skills that most support positive reading outcomes (Allor,
2002; Oudeans, 2003; Cardoso-Martins, 1995; Nation & Hulme, 1997; Snowling & Hulme, 1994).
Phonemic blending and segmenting are even more powerful predictors of successful later reading than
phonological rhyming and alliteration (Yeh, 2003).
The styles for teaching phonemic awareness appear to move from more teacher controlled to less
teacher controlled (Saracho, 2004). The approaches that are more teacher controlled have contrived
activities that are set up and designed to promote a certain skill (Reading & Van Deuren, 2007; Saracho,
2004; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). This approach contains an explicit approach and may include
strategies such as small sequenced steps (Reading & Van Deuren, 2007) and specific practice exercises
or games utilizing a specific group and a specific period of time (Lundberg, Frost, & Peter-Peterson,
1988; Torgesen, et al, 1992).
Instructional styles that are less teacher controlled have activities that are more natural and
authentic to the childs day (Roskos & Neuman, 1993; Saracho, 2004; Ukrainetz, Cooney, Dyer, Kysar,
& Harris, 2000). The approach can be either implicit or explicit (Ukrainetz, et al , 2000). Some strategies
and activities that this style utilizes are word talks during stories or play (Ukrainetz, et al, 2000),
modeling and noticing (Saracho, 2004), and conversations (Justice, Mashburn, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008).
Regardless of the style used, the scaffolding that is needed requires the teacher to meet the
individual students learning needs in relation to his/her literacy ability (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley,
1991; Ukrainetz, et al, 2000; Vandervelden & Siegel, 1995; Whitehurst, et al, 1999). This scaffolding
includes the use of repetition of learning opportunities (Ukrainetz, et al, 2000; Vandervelden & Siegel,
1995), and the eventual and gradual withdrawal of support as students take on mastery (Yeh, 2003),
permitting an active role on the part of the child (Whitehurst, et al, 1999).
In addition to skill and approach, instructional strategies have been identified by research to be
useful in teaching phonemic awareness. A systematic and intentional teaching of phonemic segmenting
and blending is the best approach (Al Otaiba, Kosanovich-Grek, Torgesen, Hassler, & Wahl, 2005;
Freppon & Dahl, 1998), however the specific ways that these approaches are integrated into the
curriculum and are scaffolded impact the learning of phonemic awareness. The literature identifies three
categories of scaffolding through the use of centers, play, and stories or noticing.
Centers. Learning centers are a helpful strategy for phonemic awareness and literacy instruction
(Genisio & Drecktrah, 1999). Centers allow children to choose from a variety of activities to promote
literacy and phonemic awareness rather than just whole group instruction which limits choices and
reduces motivation (Elliott & Olliff, 2008). Elliott and Olliff and Ukrainetz, et al (2000) suggest that real
world applications that use centers enhance skills development. Elliott and Olliff (2008) also point out
17
that the use of centers to promote literacy integrates the literacy skill with other skills in a meaningful
way. Interaction with young children in centers allows teachers, environments, and activities to scaffold
literacy development and phonemic awareness (Genisio & Drecktrah, 1999; Saracho, 2004). Thus,
center teaching falls in-line with the theoretical perspective of scaffolded learning (Genisio & Drecktrah,
1999). The teacher role during centers encourages the scaffolding (Saracho, 2004), and the teacher can
be a participant, promoter, monitor, and instructional guide.
Play and play like activities. Play is the major vehicle through which learning takes place for
young children (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Literacy rich play promotes large increases in literacy
ability with young children (Roskos & Neuman, 1993). Literacy and phonemic awareness can also be
effectively taught through play (Fowler, 1964; Saracho, 2004). Using play and play like activities
creates an authentic realm through which literacy and phonemic awareness can take place (Roskos &
Neuman, 1993; Saracho, 2004; Elliott & Olliff, 2008). Exploration of a literacy rich play environment
can strengthen educational goals, including literacy and phonemic awareness (Justice, et al; Roskos &
Neuman; Saracho). The students can explore concrete materials and make connections. When Elliot and
Ollif adapted a curriculum designed for pre-primary and primary grade students toward a more
developmentally appropriate and play-like program by changing the activities to be play oriented, young
children increased in their pre-literacy skills. The adaptations included an emphasis on gross motor
activity, incorporating literacy into all aspects of the program, as well as the use of developmentally
appropriate thematic activities, manipulatives, realia, and real world applications that the children could
understand. Ukrainetz, et al (2000) effectively used the childs natural play and routine as a vehicle for
promoting literacy skills with kindergarteners. Play is a very useful vehicle for phonemic awareness and
literacy instruction because it creates an interaction with context and the literacy skill that authenticates
it for the child (Ukrainetz, et al, 2000; Saracho, 2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and literacy to
very young children relies heavily on play because the child can grasp the concepts being taught when
integrated in play (Fowler, 1964).
Play becomes an even more powerful strategy for teaching phonemic awareness when the
teacher scaffolds the learning through the play (Roskos & Neuman, 1993; Saracho, 2004) through direct
and active support and guidance. During play, the teacher asks questions and describes concepts being
used to make connections for the children with the literacy ability (Ukrainetz, et al, 2000; Justice, et al,
2008). Saracho found that teachers scaffolded literacy with play when they asked questions, pointed out
a concept, and provided visual props. Justice, et al described a high quality literacy instruction as
including modeling and conversations, as well as questions in the literacy play environment. The

18
teachers role in play to promote literacy is considered to be an active role. Play, therefore, could be
considered a match with the scaffolded learning theory as a teaching strategy (Roskos & Neuman).
Stories and noticing. The inclusion of phonemic awareness instruction integrated into story
sharing and reading is an effective teaching strategy for improving phonemic awareness (Hatcher,
Hulme, & Ellis, 1994). It was found that when phonological and phonemic referencing was made during
the reading process with first grade emergent readers, the phonological and phonemic awareness skills
increased. Referencing refers to the acknowledgement and explicit pointing out of phonemic concepts
identified within the contexts of reading a story. This is done through noticing the concept and
commenting on it. Hatcher, et al (1994) found that this combined strategy was more effective than stand
alone phonological and phonemic training. Ukrainetz, et al (2000) concurred with this notion. They
found that when teachers of kindergarten aged children were engaged in story sharing and the teacher
had mini sound talks during the story, the children increased in phonemic awareness ability. Higher
level phonemic awareness ability, such as segmenting, increased with these sound talks in story sharing.
The combined engagement of phonemic awareness instruction with meaningful text appears to have a
positive impact on phonemic awareness ability with young children (Ukrainetz, et al). This particular
strategy is in keeping with the scaffolded learning theory because it is an activity that can be done with
the help of a teacher, repeats the opportunity for learning the task, and allows the removal of support
when appropriate (Ukrainetz, et al). The specific techniques of scaffolding that can take place during
story reading are noticing concepts, asking questions, allowing children to make concepts and add to the
story or ask questions, modeling language use, and exaggerating sounds or phonemes (Justice, et al,
2008; Ukrainetz, et al; Whitehurst, et al, 1999; Yeh, 2003;)
Eclectic Approach
This study implemented several of the approaches and strategies mentioned in this review of
literature. Although these strategies have been effective for other aspects of literacy, or for other age
groups, this study explored the implementation of the approaches with the teaching of phonemic
awareness for preschool children. The instructional approach that would be most appropriate for
preschool aged children would be implemented naturally, integrated in the environment or embedded in
routines, but also combined with explicit strategies (Ukrainetz, et al, 2000). Teachers of young children
utilized the scaffolding techniques of commenting, questioning, exaggerating sounds, and modeling
(Ukrainetz, et al; Whitehurst, et al, 1999; Yeh, 2003; Justice, et al, 2008) to highlight phonemic
awareness segmenting and blending. This scaffolding occurred in centers, play, and story time with the
preschool children.

19
 Teaching English Language Learners
Because the purpose of this study is to explore if play and play like activities can be used to
increase the phonemic awareness of the preschool aged English language learner (ell), it is necessary to
discuss the literature available in teaching ell. There are professionals in the field of teaching English as
a second language and the field of linguistics that argues the preschool child is not officially learning a
second language. Rather, they are learning two languages at the same time, or are becoming
simultaneously bilingual (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). For the purposes of this study, preschoolers who are
learning English along with their primary or native language will be discussed, so ELL fits well.
According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children, NAEYC, (1995) the
numbers of linguistically diverse children under the age of six years in group settings have been
increasing greatly since the early 1990s.
The English Language Learner
As time goes on, more and more children that do not speak English as a primary language will
fill classrooms in our nation (http://www.fldoe.org/profdev/pdf/final_esol.pdf retrieved on 7/14/07). In
the year 2000, over 25 percent of the U.S. households spoke a language other than English
(http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-
qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S1603&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_ retrieved on 7/14/07). In
2001, Florida had over 250 countries and over 100 languages represented in public schools. In the 2006-
2007 school year, Florida public schools served 229,656 English language learners
(http://www.fldoe.org/aala/pdf/0607ellbirth.pdf retrieved on 7/14/07). The literature discusses aspects
of language development to assist the teacher with the task of teaching this influx of ells: the teacher has
to understand the developmental process of acquiring a new language, the stages involved, the socio-
cultural aspects of learning a second language, and the technical aspects of language and language
development (Cummins, 1979, 1980, 1981; Hakuta, 1986).
In acquiring language, learning a first or primary language is a natural and developmental
process. It does not usually present problems for the young child (Tabors, 1997). Learning and
developing a primary language includes mastery of phonology, vocabulary, grammar, discourse, and
pragmatics. The process of learning a second language is not exactly the same as learning a first
language (Young, 1996). As with first language development, receptive language ability is refined prior
to expressive language ability as it relates to the language. Krashen and Terrell (1983) describe this as
comprehension preceding production.
Like other areas of development, second language development has stages that learners progress
through (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Each of these stages builds on the earlier stages. Additionally, each
20
student spends a different amount of time in each stage and may revisit them as new aspects of the
language are being learned. There are no age groups assigned or expected with these stages. The time
spent in the stages depends on the individuality of the child and adjustment to a new situation (Dartigue,
1966). Each of the stages is linked to specific language ability skills in the second language development
(Snow, 1992). The stages of second language development are preproduction, early production, speech
emergence, and intermediate fluency (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).
The preproduction stage is also known as the silent period (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). During
this stage the young ELL will not speak much. Instead the child will communicate though non-verbal
means. It is common in this stage to use gestures and nods. Sometimes non-linguistic sounds such as
grunts occur. If any speech is used, it is formulaic. Formulaic speech is the use of memorized sentences,
phrases, and utterances without understanding their components.
The next stage of second language development is the early production stage (Krashen & Terrell,
1983). Production is characterized by the simple use of language. Young children will use simple labels
and classification of words to communicate their ideas. During the early production stage, the silent
period is now over, and the child is venturing into the world of oral communication in the new language.
The language usage in this stage is often made up of simple phrases.
The third stage of second language development is known as the speech emergence stage
(Krashen & Terrell, 1983). This stage is made up of purposeful use of language by the young ell. During
the speech emergence stage, the use of full sentences is more common when warranted.
The fourth stage identified by Krashen and Terrell (1983) is the intermediate fluency stage. In
this stage the young ELL is moving toward native-like usage of the language, accent excluded. The use
of language at this stage is very functional and even socio-cultural to an extent. The young ELL in this
stage can verbally solve problems and, if they are of literacy age, can read and write in the language.
The final stage of second language development is the proficiency stage (Krashen & Terrell,
1983). In this stage the second language learner functions on a level within the language equal to a
native speaker. While students at this stage may still have an accent, their ability to use the language
matches their similar developmental level peers by whom the language is spoken as a primary language.
In addition to the developmental stages of language acquisition, technical aspects of language
development, such as mechanics and functions, influence second language learning. Mechanics such as
grammar differences can be complicated for the ELL to acquire (Spada & Lightbown, 1999). According
to Cummins (1979), the functions of language also have an impact on the ability to acquire the new
language for the ell. The functions of language include pragmatics, or contextual use of the language.
For example, the way a person talks with their friends about homework would be very different from the
21
way it is discussed with a professor. The functional aspects, or communicative purposes, of language
range from social to academic. Cummins (1980) describes these social aspects of language as easier to
develop than academic uses, but they are still challenging to the young ELL.
While acquiring a second language includes some of the same developmental components as
learning a first language, the task is not as natural or unproblematic for the children (Ervin-Tripp, 1974).
Instead there are a number of challenges for students who are ELL. The challenges they face are both
developmental and environmental. The ELL is a student who is at particular risk for school failure, in
part due to these challenges (Johnson, 1987).
Challenges
Young ELLs are already developmentally in a position of challenge. They have the typical issues
that young children face, including being literal, not fully understanding logic, being egocentric, and
being concrete learners (Piaget, 1962). Young ELLs have all of the same barriers as typical young
children along with all of the challenges related to learning a new language. Some of the challenges
young children face when learning a new language are that they do not understand the language of
instruction in their preschool, do not understand the language of their friends, and their needs can not be
understood. Additionally, the ELL can get confused when the first language sounds are similar to
English sounds but used in different contexts (Young, 1996). The wide range of variability in language
mastery can create challenges in teaching the ELL.
There is more to learning English than vocabulary and grammar (Cummins, 1979,1980,1981;
Snow, 1992). The social situation of language use can be even more challenging for the ELL than the
linguistic aspects. Children have to know when to use certain terminology and how to use idioms and
slang. These aspects of language learning can be very confusing. Additionally, children learning a
second language have a communicative competence barrier (Cummins, 1979). The children are unsure
of the functions of the new language and the appropriateness of language usage within specific contexts
(Xu & Drame, 2008). This inability creates stress and frustration on the part of the child and reduces the
initiative to community; this is known at the affective filter (Dulay & Burt, 1974). This inability to
communicate can be equally frustrating for the teachers as well (Gillanders, 2007).
When young children are learning a new language, being thrown into a program that speaks only
one language can create a challenge (Fernandez, 2000). Often, the children cannot receive the
individual attention and interactions they need in their primary language (Rodriguez, Diaz, Duran, &
Espinosa, 1995). Another challenge is the cultural disconnect between the student and the practices of
the classroom or content of the curriculum (Meyer, 2000). The children not only have the linguistic
barriers to face but also the sociolinguistic (Gillanders, 2007). Teachers are realizing that the academic
22
and social aspects of language and learning are interrelated (Genishi, 1981). Sometimes, the children do
not gain equal ground as playmates with the children who speak English as a primary language (Fassler,
1998). Unfortunately, the ELL has to show his or her value as a playmate to be accepted by English
speaking peers. The teacher has to actively scaffold both the ELL and the English speaking children to
build relationships. The lack of peer relationships can impede development and learning through play as
well as decrease potential for support in learning English (Hester, 1984). These social issues the ELL
faces can create variation in learning the new language (Snow, 1992).
Some other social issues the young ELL has to face are related to personal identity and cultural
identity (Snow, 1992). There is sometimes a lack of cultural identity experience by the young ELL,
exemplified by a negative ethnic pride. It is easy for the English language learner to develop these
negative associations. This can happen as the ELL increases proficiency in English. Often, the ELL will
choose to adopt Anglo-American language and culture in public (Nero, 2005). The child begins to feel
disconnected from the home language and culture, and the family also often feels disconnected
(Papatheodorou, 2007). These negative connections can sometimes be counteracted when the children
have others from the same background to play and connect with (Meyer, Klein, & Genishi, 1994).
Connecting and affiliating with others of the same language and background strengthens the native
cultural identity and supports more positive perceptions (Nero, 2005). When children of similar
backgrounds are not available, the deep and rich levels of play needed for early learning for young
children can take much longer to achieve (Meyer, Klein, & Genishi, 1994). Teachers must work to
implement practices that will help the young ELL to deeply understand and maintain the true identity of
the child beyond just language and academic ability (Hunter, 1997). This issue creates problems on
social and linguistic levels because language is learned within culture (Garcia, 1986).
There are certain contributors that can help the ELL overcome or cope with some of these
challenges. When children of the same backgrounds are present to form relationships, the children can
have an easier social transition to the new environment (Meyer, Klein, & Genishi, 1994). Another
support that is in place for ELLs facing challenges is the primary language itself (Sparks & Ganschow,
1993). The structure of the childs first language provides a scaffold and frame of reference when
learning to operate in the second language (Schiff-Myers, 1992; Winsler, Diaz, Espinosa, & Rodriguez,
1999). The skills learned in the primary language usually transfer in the second language (Green, 1997).
Another support would be for instruction and support to be provided in their primary language at least
for a consistently high percentage of the day such as in a bilingual education program (Cummins, 1979;
Stipek, Ryan, & Alrcon, 2001; Trevino, 1970).

23
 Approaches for Teaching English Language Learners
There are a number of methods for working with ELLs that are deemed useful and effective.
These approaches are known as communicative language teaching, grammar translation, form focused
instruction, integrated language or content instruction, instructed language learning or task based
teaching, and discourse, or the natural approach (Hinkel, 2005). Though these strategies were not
necessarily designed with the preschool child in mind, they are often effective or can be adapted for
preschool ELLs. Understanding each of the popular approaches can be helpful in considering what
benefits the preschool ELL most. Although no single approach described will be fully effective for
preschool children, each has aspects that can be deemed effective and match appropriate practices for
young children. These approaches will assist in highlighting strategies that can be used to determine
what has the most positive impact for learning with the preschool ELL. This information and these
strategies, or aspects, can then be translated into practices in preschool classrooms. The practices used
with ELL students are most effective when the teacher is knowledgeable about the students progress
and when the teacher has been trained in appropriate ELL teaching strategies. The teachers involvement
is an integral part of effective programming (Johnson, 1987) over practices that utilize pull out and
separated language instruction. While there is much research available to support the appropriateness of
bilingual programming as best curricula practice (Cummins, 1977; Garcia, 1986; Rodriguez, Diaz,
Duran, & Espinosa, 1995; Winsler, Diaz, Espinosa, & Rodreguez, 1999), the current explored the
strategies that can be implemented in English only schools that support young ELLs. Most programs for
ELLs provide instruction in English only programs (Johnson, 1987).
Communicative language teaching. The communicative language teaching method is when
students engage in actual communication to develop second language ability, or communicative
competence (Paulston, 1974). It is an authentic method for teaching communication. Techniques often
used in this method are role play, games, and communication activities in the classroom. An advantage
to using this method is the authentic use of language skill learners have. Another advantage is the
inclusion of sociolinguistic abilities, or social aspects of language, that are integrated into the
communication and are very difficult for ELLs to grasp (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). The inclusion of
sociolinguistic aspects prepares the student for natural use of the language. This method is effective
because the learning is meaningful to the student and carried out in context in authentic ways (Savignon,
1987). The learner experiences language in the communicative approach, rather than just being given
arbitrary rules; it involves dynamic interaction with communication on the part of the student. The focus
of the communicative approach is to get the meaning of the communication across (Paulston, 1974).
This meaning based approach makes the language usable to the learner (Savignon & Wang, 2003).
24
Some disadvantages to using this method are that the teachers are not able to ensure specific skills that
will be taught to the children and the language skills are harder to assess as well as plan.
Grammar translation. The grammar translation method is more closely matched to traditional
approaches to teaching (Hinkel, 2005). This method of teaching requires that language skills are broken
down and explicitly taught to learners, often through drill and practice (Mackey, 1965). The advantage
of using this method of teaching with the ELL student is that the teacher can be sure of what skills are
being worked on. This also assists in a sequence of skill building that makes sense, building upon prior
skills taught. This method is also easier to assess because the teacher knows the discrete points to teach
language in an authentic, meaningful way. Also, this method does not really take language context into
account. It is not as useful for sociolinguistic information. This method is used for reading purposes. It
takes a language and literally translates it using skills necessary to decode words, not really meaning or
context, which slows down the language learning process.
Form-focused instruction. Form-focused instruction can be considered to be a combination of the
holistic approach and the more traditional skill based approach to teaching (Hinkel, 2005). This method
of instruction makes use of problematicity. This is when a problem-oriented trigger lets a teacher or
learner know some work needs to be done and then that problem is specifically taught (Ellis, 1993). The
error in form is corrected through this specific instruction. The advantage of the method is the
instruction makes sense to the learner and teacher because it is focused on areas needing strengthening
recognized by both. Another advantage of this method is the instruction is meaningful, authentic, and
taught in context. The disadvantage of this method is that the teacher may miss many areas of form that
need to be worked on because the opportunity to use them has not arisen. This means the scope and
sequence of instruction can be hit or miss.
Integrated language and content instruction. Content-based language instruction is a
combination of language teaching with content area teaching (Hinkel, 2005). This method recognizes
that language teaching happens in content instruction and should be planned for. The method can be
carried out through theme-based (teaching is done through selected themes), sheltered (content area
specialist teaches the course using special strategies to make it more understandable), and adjunct
models (language course and content course are linked for instruction). The advantage of this method is
it authenticates the language instruction when it is integrated in content instruction. This means that
students can use the language learned in context within academic situations. This increases academic
literacy. Also known as sheltered instruction, the focus here is on using language that has some meaning
to the learner (Young, 1996). The difficulty is getting the scope and sequences of the two areas to blend
comfortably in a way the makes sense, but there are techniques that help deal with this problem. The six
25
Ts, theme, topics, texts, threads, tasks, and transitions, provide a systematic framework to do this. Also,
language has to be focused in a particular way in content instruction. This can be done through focusing
the learner on target language, use language to hypothesize, and engage in meta-talk (Hinkel, 2005).
Instructed language learning (task-based teaching). Task-based teaching and instructional
learning come under two kinds of intervention: direct and indirect (Hinkel, 2005). Direct intervention
explicitly focuses on targeted language ability while indirect intervention implicitly teaches the skills.
Instructed language learning would be more direct, while task-based learning would be more indirect.
The advantages to using these methods respectively are the implicit tasks can help the learner focus on
meaning and tasks can be chosen to facilitate form. The instructed language learning can help learners
focus and change target skills, and they will perform better grammatically.
Discourse-based approaches. Discourse-based approaches are a combination of top down and
bottom up approaches. Many of the discourse approaches are bottom up, focused on form and specific
kinds of discourse, with a secondary emphasis on meaning (Hinkel, 2005). Meaning is discussed and
established first, and then there is a focus on level and skill targeted. They can be taught in teacher-
planned and authentic ways. It is recommended that instruction be as authentic as possible. An
advantage of discourse based approaches is that they look at whole segments of language, in context,
and not just the separate parts. Also, they look at the pieces that make up the whole context being
analyzed and focus on what makes it work and why. This way the student understands meaning and
context, as well as rules and specifics of the language (meaning always coming first). Another advantage
is the teacher can shift from pragmatics to grammar as the student advances in acquisition. A
disadvantage is the balance of knowing how, and how long, to spend on context/meaning and
rules/grammar. Also, because meaning is implied, the assumption that students have the meaning and
context in place may be erroneous.
Synthesizing the Approaches
Each of the mentioned approaches for teaching ELLs has positive aspects that can be applied to
pedagogy with young children, as well as aspects that are not as useful. Since the purpose of this study is
to explore phonemic awareness development through play and play-like activities with young ELLs, it is
necessary to understand how instructional approaches match the preschool child. The aspects of each of
the previous approaches that can be used to create a usable approach with young children include
socialization and relationships, authentic and meaningful learning experiences, specific target skills and
objectives or goals, and natural contexts.
First and foremost, the approach used cannot impede relationship building with the ELL (Clarke
& Silberstein, 1988); this includes relationships with both teachers and with other students. Social
26
interaction is the leading motivation for language use (Fassler, 1998). Children learning English fare
better both in language and concept learning when they do it in social situations. Peer teaching should be
encouraged to maximize this. Children can provide support for one another and create communication
networks. Relationship and social focus overcomes a narrow curriculum based solely on language and
help create environments where ELLs are accepted and feel safe to learn and take risks (Gillanders,
2007). This is especially the case when teachers are sensitive to the childrens emotional needs, and
language barriers are overcome. These socializations encourage communication, and the ELL often code
switches, or goes between both languages. This code switching matches the scaffolding theory and
serves as a cultural tool (Papatheodorou, 2007).
The teaching of young ELLs should be carried out within the context of authentic life
experiences and develop meaningful language learning (Savignon, 1987; Young, 1996) across contexts
(Genishi, 1981). This type of teaching leads to an implicit style through which ELLs can naturally learn
language and meet goals. This natural teaching can be carried out through the routine structure of the
school day (Falconer & Byrnes, 2003). There is still a need however, to be intentional in the facilitation
of the learning goals. Without thoughtful and intentional planning, the intended deeper learning goals
may never be achieved and only superficial and surface learning may take place.
Matching skills and objectives with the needs of the ELLs is a method that is supportive of
utilizing direct instruction strategies. Teachers can plan and set goals for the children that match the
assessed and observed needs of the ELLS and use tasks that will directly address the goals. The tasks
can strengthen areas such as private speech and cognition (Diaz, Padilla, & Weathersby, 1991).
Identifying objectives and relating them to tasks is characteristic of successful teaching of ELLs (Garcia,
1986). Tasks that revolved around the creation of a product to support the goal further strengthened the
success. One caution for teachers however, is to avoid the overemphasis of the focus on narrow basic
skills, as this can also create a barrier to learning (Johnson, 1987).
There is a need for a pedagogical approach that balances the natural and contextual teaching of
communication with the specific and direct teaching of objectives, maximizing both inductive and
deductive techniques (Fischer, 1979). Young ELL students are best supported when the pedagogical
approach provides opportunities for students to discover and build their own knowledge derived from
real experiences with language and content, as well as when concepts are explicitly pointed out and
instructed to them.
The natural desire to learn and pursue interests motivates the ELL student to learn and master
language (Meyer, 2000). Approaches that allow the knowledge or expertise and interests of the student
to guide instruction are helpful in motivating the ELL (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Certain aspects of the
27
approaches previously described support teachers in following the students lead and allowing learning
topics that the student generates. This makes the learning more meaningful, and usable by the student.
When the experiences and concepts taught are familiar to the ELL, language learning is facilitated
because the student focuses on the language rather than the concept or experience (Clark,
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/katzsym/clark-b.html, retrieved on 6/10/07). Building curriculum around
the strengths of the student enhances the learning when working with ELLs (Johnson, 1987).
Strategies
All of the approaches that were mentioned that are popular for teaching ELL students employ a
variety of strategies that are deemed effective with this particular population (Hinkel, 2005). Each
approach can be analyzed for techniques that are effective that contribute to the understanding of how
ELLs can be taught.
When ELLs cannot rely heavily on their spoken language to participate in the curriculum, it is
helpful to find alternative ways for the children to take part (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). This is especially
important when children need to answer questions. The strategy that is successful for this is known as
total physical response (Asher, 1966; Asher, 1969). Total physical response is when children are able to
answer questions or respond to curriculum by using their bodies and movement. Asher (1966; 1969)
indicated that retention of language is also improved for the learner when total physical response is
utilized. However, a word of caution is given by Johnson (1987) to the teacher using total physical
response to be careful to carry out the lesson in a manner that is fluid and non-mechanical to maximize
results.
Another useful strategy when working with ELL students is using peers to teach and scaffold
through activities (Pease-Alvarez, Garcia, & Espinosa, 1991; Wong, Fillmore & Valdez, 1986). This
peer scaffolding allows more able English speaking students to tutor and support the ELL. This strategy
is helpful because the ELL can increase vocabulary, hear language in context, and use language in
context without threat of failing (Hester, 1984). Cooperative learning, learning strategies where learners
rely on one another and work together to accomplish a common learning goal, is an effective way to
promote this peer scaffolding (Pease-Alvarez, Garcia, & Espinosa, 1991). Cooperative learning provides
a safe place for trying out language (Young, 1996).When the learner is developmentally able,
cooperative groups can be a method of using peer scaffolding for English language development in
context. Cooperative and peer teaching also afford a better match between language learning and the
learner (Hester, 1984). This strategy is especially effective for sharing social and language resources and
dealing with sociolinguistic challenges (Meyer, Klein, & Genishi, 1994).

28
 Visual cues and supports are items that the students can see and connect to language and
concepts being taught; some examples are posters, pictures, transparencies, symbols, and signs. Visual
supports can be very helpful when teaching ELLs. The visual aids help the ELL make connections to
content even when they are unsure of the vocabulary and grammar structure (Dartigue, 1966).
Manipulatives can also be a support that is effective when working with ELLs (Cummins, 1986). When
the young ELL is able to handle an object that provides visual stimulus and connection to the content
being learned, more senses are integrated into the learning process and understanding can increase.
Realia is the use of real objects to support the learning process (Elliott & Ollif, 2008). One
example is allowing children to hold various fruit as they learn the names. Another example is when
teaching young students about farm life and its associated vocabulary, the teacher brings in the
appropriate actual objects or safe but realistic replicas. The ELL student can make a connection to a
concept when concrete objects are available because the object creates comprehensible input (Young,
1996); this can be especially true when the object being used may not be familiar to the ELL.
Comprehensible input takes information the ELL does not understand and translates it to information
they can understand (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).
Another strategy that has been useful for working with ELL students is dramatization (Booth,
1985). When children are able to act out real and imaginary scenarios, they are able to work on
mastering both language and academic content in context. Dramatization permits the children to
collaborate and practice language (Fassler, 1998). This technique also allows the children to experience
language and concepts in a meaningful way. The children are sociolinguistic concepts as they take on
roles. The children in dramatization tend to help each other learn, or peer-teach, which provides a safe
context for language usage (Hester, 1984). Also, during dramatization the ELL gets an opportunity to be
the language model as well as the learner, which strengthens the language ability.
Matching Aspects of Language Teaching Approaches to Early Childhood Practices
Though the techniques, approaches, and strategies mentioned for teaching ELLs were designed
for elementary-aged children and older, there are aspects of these ideas that match appropriate practices
for teaching preschoolers. These aspects include individualized learning, facilitating learning through all
learning styles, using play, and facilitating learning through active, meaningful, social experiences.
Developmentally appropriate practices suggest that an active, individualized learning approach be
implemented in programs for young children (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).
Individualized and small group instruction is part of appropriate practices for young children
supported by the approaches for teaching ELLs (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Johnson, 1987).
Instructional techniques and approaches for ELLs stress the need for teaching in ways that facilitate
29
individual goals and work with small groups rather than large ones (Diaz, Pakilla, & Weahtersby, 1991;
Meyer, Klein, & Genishi, 1994).
Appropriate practices also suggest that all learning modalities should be included in teaching
approaches for young children (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). These modalities, visual, auditory, and
kinesthetic, are necessary to match how each child learns best. There are also aspects of the ELL
teaching approaches that incorporate these learning modalities (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). The literature
available on ELL teaching strategies suggests using media, total physical response, and conversational
practice to strengthen skills (Asher, 1966; Cummins, 1986; Elliot & Ollif, 2008; Hester, 1984).
According to the literature, play is the way to accomplish these best practices (Konishi, 2007).
Play is a useful structure for teaching the young ELL because it maintains motivation. Play is a
match for the childs interest and development, and according to Vygotsky (1978), it naturally creates
and occurs within the childs zone of proximal development. Another aspect that play has as a positive
pedagogy for young ELLs is it invites peer scaffolding (Fassler, 1998). It is helpful with young ELLs
that are new or exhibiting low proficiency in English because they can play on their own levels and
engage in play that does not require high levels of proficiency (Gillanders, 2007).
Teaching the young ELL through a play-based program will enable the child to learn language
and skills in context, which strengthens his/her understanding and ability (Savignon, 1987). This
matches Krashen and Terrells (1983) idea that language is best taught when it is being used to transmit
messages (p.55). Other skills and abilities that need to be explicitly taught can be incorporated into
games and play-like activities that have been intentionally and thoughtfully prepared by the early
childhood teacher (Dartigue, 1966). These activities promote the skills needed by the children and give
them the feedback they need to improve. Additionally, these activities can be used to provide input that
supports language acquisition, which is seen as a necessary support by Krashen and Terrell (1985). This
structure also supports the teaching of small groups and individuals, which is supported to be most
effective in teaching ELLs (Johnson, 1987), and also supports the crucial interactions necessary for
success with ELL teaching.
A connection emerges between what research considers developmentally appropriate and best
practices with young children (NAEYC, 1995; 1997) when considering the ELL instruction
methodology. The methods used to teach ELLs would involve movement, such as in total physical
response. The methods would include active and meaningful learning. This is exemplified through
dramatizations and realia, and visuals. The methods would also maximize on socialization and teaching
in contexts, such as cooperative groups and using play-based teaching.

30
 Activities used to teach young ELLs are most effective when they are playful, interactive, and
interesting (Papatheodorou, 2007). Using these strategies, teachers can support young Ells in
developmentally appropriate ways. Teachers can also use appropriate activities such as stories, songs,
poems, and games (Gillanders, 2007). These activities can be used to teach concepts, language use, and
vocabulary purposefully. Taking dictation on childrens art or making books with the children also
support language learning in the new language (Papatheodorou, 2007).
Effective methods and strategies that have been deemed useful with ELLs support the various
learning styles of the children and support the development of the whole child. These concepts directly
link to developmentally appropriate practices with young children.
Developmentally Appropriate Practices with Young Children
While developmentally appropriate practices has been a focus of the NAEYC for over twenty
years, there is still wide interpretation of what it looks like in practice (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). In
its simplest form developmentally appropriate practice is doing what is right for the age and stage of
each child being served in a specific early childhood program. This is brought about through practices
that are age appropriate, individually appropriate, and culturally appropriate. These practices are carried
out through meaningful experiences using active learning. These principles are to be integrated into all
curriculum areas, programming aspects, and decision making with all young children.
Using experiences that are meaningful to the learner supports the young child in understanding
what is being taught at the moment. This means that rote memorization activities and using worksheets
or flashcards that are disconnected from the content being taught are avoided (Bredekamp & Copple,
1997; Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995). In other words, what is to be learned is integrated into
the activity it is being learned through. Selecting activities that are too abstract for the young child, or
that are arbitrary and not directly tied to the concepts being taught, make it more difficult for the young
child to learn the concepts. Research supports the use of developmentally appropriate practices, as it has
a correlation to higher outcomes with at-risk students (Huffman & Speer, 2000).
Developmentally Appropriate Teaching Through Play
Part of using knowledge of child development to teach the young child is making the most of the
play based environment (Stott & Bowman, 1996) and play activities. Play has long been a topic of
discussion as far as appropriate practices with young children are concerned. Play is an important
teaching tool when working with young children.
To understand play and its role in learning with young children, Wing (1995) developed a play
and work continuum. This continuum is a type of identifier used to determine if play is what is being
used to teach. The children in her study helped identify if an activity was work or play. Though these
31
identifications the work play continuum was developed. In the continuum, Wing used three indicators
with which children determine if the activity is play or work: nature of the activity, child involvement,
and teacher involvement.
The nature of activity indicator examined concepts such as how quiet the children were required
to be, the materials involved, and whether or not the process or product was emphasized (Wing, 1995).
The continuum moved from play to work with play giving the most fun and child control, with work
being the opposite extreme. The children viewed the activity as play when the children felt as if the
activity was about the process, free to explore, could be loud, or did not have to be finished.
Child involvement was the second indicator used to determine if an activity was play or work by
the children in the study. The ideas explored for this indicator in the continuum included the weight of
the childs intentions, how physically active the children were, how much concentration and cognitive
ability was evident to the child, the freedom of peer interaction, and how fun the activity was (Wing,
1995). The children viewed an activity as play when their own intentions seemed to take precedence,
they were allowed to be more physical or active, they felt free to interact with friends, and they had fun.
The final indicator Wing (1995) used to determine if an activity was play, was teacher
involvement. Children viewed the activity as play when the teacher involvement was decreased or less
evident to them. More specifically, the items considered under this indicator were teacher expectations
and evaluation. When there were no teacher expectations or evaluation, the activity was deemed as play.
Wings study (1995) was significant to understanding appropriate practices because it supports
that children know the difference between play and work. This suggests that teachers also must know
the difference. While both are needed and valuable in a developmentally appropriate classroom, a
balance is needed between the two. Also, the teacher must know when each, or a combination of both,
are being offered. This idea of the teacher knowing when to apply specific aspects of the play to work
continuum is congruent with scaffolding theory (Palermo, Hanish, Martin, Fabes, & Reiser, 2007; Wing,
1995).When work type teaching and direct instruction dominates and overloads the curriculum,
appropriate practices cannot be achieved. This knowledge can be applied to promoting phonemic
awareness with young ELLs by balancing instruction with play and play-like (fun direct instruction)
activities.
Play Types
Another significant piece of research related to play is the promotion of the three major types of
play in early childhood. Piaget (1970) helped the field of early childhood understand the types of play
that young children engage in. The three major types of play in early childhood are sensorimotor play,
construction play, and symbolic or dramatic play.
32
 Sensorimotor play includes the functional play of simply exploring materials through the senses
and movement (Wolfgang & Wolfgang, 1992). This type of play is important because it serves as a
foundation for the other types of play. Sensorimotor play is the type of play that young children engage
in just for the sense of pleasure they get from exploring materials. Often this play does not start out as
goal oriented, but as practice ensues eventually it can become goal oriented play (Piaget, 1926; Ungerer
& Sigman, 1984). The play type usually then transitions to another type of play. Most often the play
transitions to construction play.
Construction play has two subtypes: fluid construction and structured construction (Wolfgang &
Wolfgang, 1992). These subtypes actually exist on a continuum from very fluid to very structured.
Materials used in the play determine where the play falls on the continuum. The purpose of construction
play is to create a symbolic representation of some sort by the child. Again, this often starts off as non-
goal oriented play or sensorimotor activity (Piaget, 1926). The children engaged in fluid construction
play use fluid materials to create some sort of representation (Wolfgang & Wolfgang). Some of these
materials may be markers, paint, clay, etc. The child playing in structured construction play will use
materials that have a shape to determine its use. They will create representations using items such as
blocks, Legos, Lincoln Logs, etc.
Dramatic play is the third type of play that young children engage in (Wolfgang & Wolfgang,
1992). In dramatic play there are also two subtypes: microspheric and macrospheric (Erikson, 1950). In
microspheric dramatic play, the young child uses miniatures to pretend. In macrospheric dramatic play,
the child will use life-sized props and become a character in the play him/herself. This type of play is
also known as symbolic play (Piaget, 1926) because the child is symbolically representing his/her
understanding of the world through pretend. The purpose of dramatic play is to pretend things.
Hanline, Milton, and Phelps (2001) use intensity and density to describe the use of the three
types of play in developmentally appropriate classrooms. Intensity is when teachers set up the
environment to provide sufficient time for the child to engage in the three types of play. Density is when
the teacher sets up the program and environment to offer sufficient variety of the three types of play to
ensure that children can get enough experience with each. The idea of intensity and density in the three
types of play is important to offering a developmentally appropriate program and healthy developmental
outcomes.
Play can be a useful tool in language development and phonemic awareness (Ungerer & Sigman,
1984). The knowledge of the three types of play and provision of intensity and density (Hanline, Milton,
& Phelps, 2001) can be utilized in helping the preschool aged ELL develop phonemic awareness. With
this knowledge, phonemic awareness can be supported through the three types of play in the play
33
routines that are typical of the young child. Phonemic awareness can be maximized in learning centers
in which these types of play take place rather than in just direct instruction at circle time.
While play is a developmentally appropriate, effective teaching method, some direct instruction
is needed as well (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001). Scaffolding the play determines if its benefit
will be maximized for developmental and learning outcomes for the child. This scaffolding places the
adult and child interaction in a high position as a part of developmentally appropriate practices.
Developmentally Appropriate Adult Interactions and Control
Providing a play-based environment supports the learning and development of the young child
(Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995). However, the interaction of the teacher with the child in the
environment provides the scaffolding needed for the learning to be maximized (Kontos, 1999; Wishard,
Shivers, Howes, & Ritchie, 2003). How this interaction scaffolding is carried out plays a role in the
developmentally appropriateness of the practices being used. This type of scaffolding helps the child
learn within the zone of proximal development (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001). What this means is
the teacher must become involved in the childs play. The teacher must play with the child, ask
appropriate questions, and point out appropriate concepts (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).
What happens during the teacher child interaction is closely linked to how developmentally
appropriate a program is (Kugelmass & Ross-Bernstein, 2000; Cassidy, Hestenes, Hedge, Hestenes, &
Mims, 2005). Teachers have a great many roles required of them during interactions with children.
Teachers need interactions to determine what children know and should be taught. Interactions are also
used to build skills and development. Additionally, interactions are important in stimulating and
supporting childrens play. It is the teacher and child interaction that creates a learning opportunity from
a play episode. The types of interactions that influence learning and development during play are
through verbal encoding and questions (Kontos, 1999).
Teachers interactions with children are also linked to developmental outcomes (Kugelmass &
Ross-Bernstein, 2000). When the teacher uses his or her interactions to guide and facilitate the play of
children, the children are more likely to benefit educationally and meet the standards or learning goals
set for them. However, this is maximized when the interactions are deemed developmentally
appropriate. Teachers take on the role of play facilitator, by scaffolding the learning through asking open
ended questions, or using statements to help the children understand what is happening. This scaffolding
is common, and it maximizes learning in a developmentally appropriate play environment (Kontos,
1999).
A construct through which interactions can facilitate developmentally appropriate learning is the
use of the Teacher Behavior Continuum or TBC (Wolfgang & Wolfgang, 1992). The teacher behavior
34
continuum uses where a child is currently acting, and thoughtfully adapts the behavior of the teachers
behaviors during the interaction to maximize the learning and development process according to the
goals of the play episode or activity. The continuum moves from least teacher control and input to most
teacher control and input. The idea here is to give the child as much control over his or her own learning
as possible, while still providing the necessary scaffolding within the childs zone of proximal
development for mastery of the goal.
The teacher behavior continuum moves across five levels that represent low teacher control to
high teacher control, implying high child control to low child control (Wolfgang & Wolfgang, 1992).
The five levels are looking, naming, questioning, commanding, and acting. Again the idea is for the
child to have autonomy in his learning so the teacher generally starts at the lowest level, looking, and
only moves up to each level if the child does not reach the goal at the current level (see figure 1).

A
Q c
L N u C
t
o a e o
i
o m s m
n
k i t m
g
Low teacher I n i a High teacher
/
control n g o n control
M
g n d
o
i i
d
n n
e
g g
l

Figure 1.1: Teacher Behavior Continuum

In the looking level, the teacher simply observes the play episode or activity to determine the
levels of child understanding and functioning as it related to the goal (Wolfgang & Wolfgang, 1992). An
example would be the child in the literacy center saying words from a story or retelling a story. In doing
this he is segmenting some of the key words exemplified by the teacher during circle time. In the
naming level, the teacher has determined that some interactions are needed to promote and support the
learning as it relates to the target goal and notices aspects of the episode to get the child on the track of
the goal. An example would be to say I see that the word you just said has three sounds. In the
questioning level the teacher uses questions to get the child to work toward the target goal in the play
35
episode or activity. The example provided would show the teacher asking What are the three sounds in
the word? The commanding level would have the teacher give a direction for the child to follow in
relation to the target goal. This example might happen like this: Please tell me the three sounds you
hear in that word. In the final level, acting, the teacher models or assists the child in reaching the target
goal. For this example the teacher would say, The three sounds in this word are /c/ /a/ /t/ cat, say it with
me.
This construct for developmentally appropriate teacher and child interactions is helpful for
teaching phonemic awareness to preschool age ELLs because it allows the teacher to scaffold the childs
current understanding and work within the zone of proximal development (Lesemen, Rollenburg, &
Rispins, 2001). Developmentally appropriate interactions also allow the instruction to take place during
both child chosen play episodes as well as teacher initiated direct instruction activities. Another reason
that the TBC is important for the purposes of teaching phonemic awareness to preschool ELLs is it
allows the teacher to adjust control (Wolfgang & Wolfgang, 1992), which is an important aspect of
developmental appropriate practices. This allows the teacher to match the needs, age, and interests of the
individual child.
The idea of teacher and child control of the learning has been a major premise in
developmentally appropriate practices with young children (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). It addresses
the issue of who does the teaching and who does the learning. The issue of control also has a powerful
influence over how instruction is and can be delivered (NAEYC, 1997).
The literature supports both the need for teacher control and child control (Kugelmass & Ross-
Bernstein, 2000). This balance is often difficult to achieve but necessary for developmentally
appropriate teaching when working with young children (Brown, Bergen, House, Hittle, & Dickerson,
2000; NAEYC, 1997). Control is directly related to the teacher and child interaction. Child control
during teaching has long been a source of discussion in understanding of appropriate vs. inappropriate
pratices (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Conventional wisdom would indicate that the more control a
child has, the more appropriate the activity is. A balance, however, between child understanding and
child need actually determines the appropriateness of the level of control by the child and the teacher.
The quote, He who does the doing, does the learning illustrates conventional thought as applied
to developmentally appropriate practices (Florida Department of Children and Families
Developmentally Appropriate Practices Preschool, 2003). Research supports this idea that young
children gain more out of an experience they have more active involvement and control over (Cooney,
Gumpton, & OLaughlin, 2000; Wein, 1996; Wing, 1995). Brown, Bergen, House, Hittle, and Dickerson
(2000) indicate that child directed activities and learning are at the heart of developmentally appropriate
36
practices. According the Wein, when teachers dominate the curriculum and experiences with young
children and allow the time schedule to rule, childrens learning and development can be hampered.
Wing shared that children show a preference for play activities that have less of a teacher role than
perceived work with more teacher control.
Cooney, Gumpton, and OLaughlin (2000) suggest that there is a positive impact made on
learning when children and teachers share in the control and interactions. This positive impact occurred
when children and adults solved problems together through interactive dialogue and the adults were
sensitive to the interests and needs of the children. In this situation, the child must be able to feel free to
change the direction of the activity to have his or her needs met. The sensitivity to the childs needs is
carried out by the teacher using interactions and adjusting the teacher role to match the needs of the
child (Kontos, 1999). The implicit and explicit nature of teacher and child interactions and their impact
on relationships with the children impact the level of sensitivity a teacher has and the control being
offered (Kugelmass & Ross-Bernstein, 2000). This is important because the teacher and child
relationship has significant impact with child school readiness levels (Palermo, Hanish, Martin, Fabes,
& Reiser, 2007).
Understanding the appropriate aspects of interaction and teacher control with young children is
helpful in guiding practitioners working with young ELL children when teaching phonemic awareness,
because it provides the knowledge needed in what kinds of teaching through interactions are necessary
(Cooney, Gumpton, & OLaughlin, 2000; Kugelmass & Ross-Bernstein, 2000). The information
supported by the literature helps teachers to know that balancing teacher and child control may produce
the best outcomes when teaching phonemic awareness to young children. The body of literature also
supports the use of the TBC through play to maintain the necessary balance of interaction control
(Wolfgang & Wolfgang, 1992). Teachers can allow the young ELL to select his/her play and activity
while still using it as a catalyst for teaching and facilitating the phonemic awareness learning. The
teacher, depending on the needs and the interests of the learner, can use statements that verbally encode
for the child in the learning situation or ask appropriate questions to facilitate the learning. These
strategies will assist in developing the target goal of building phonemic awareness, but still be deemed
as developmentally appropriate. Frequent and appropriate interactions with the teacher that balance the
locus of control with the learner are more likely to promote the development of phonemic awareness in
the young ELL. The types of interactions that take place are dependent on the instructional curricula
practices in place at the program.
Developmentally Appropriate Instructional Curricula Practices

37
 Developmentally appropriate practices deem the interaction of teachers as a heavy component in
best practice for young children. Another important aspect of programming for young children and its
appropriateness is the curriculum and instruction of the program. This can be viewed as the
philosophical stance of the program and its teachers (Brown, Bergen, House, Hittle, & Dickerson, 2000).
There are several programs that can be explored as models for developmentally appropriate instructional
models that can feed teachers understanding of best pedagogical practices. The three major models are
the direct instruction model (Becker, Engelmann, Carnine, & Rhine, 1981; Evans, 1982), the
developmental interaction model (Biber, Shapiro, & Wickens, 1977; Mitchell & David, 1992), and the
constructivist model (Devries & Kohlberg, 1987; Hohmann & Weikart, 1995). Each of these approaches
has aspects that are considered developmentally appropriate; each model has something to contribute to
working with young ELLs in teaching phonemic awareness.
The first model to consider is the direct instruction model (Becker, Engelmann, Carnine, &
Rhine, 1981; Evans, 1982). This model is formed after the behaviorist theoretical framework, though the
scaffolded learning theory has some overlap with this model as well. The major ideas in this model are
that children learn best when the concepts and skills being taught are broken down into small parts. The
motivation for learning in this model is the reward offered by the teacher. The direct instruction model
relies heavily on the teacher being in control of the learning. While many consider this model to have
the most inappropriate practices connected with it (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), there are still some
positive aspects. For example, in the direct instruction model, children are assessed and what is needed
to be taught is determined. The teacher then sets measurable objectives based on these needs and teaches
them. This explicit instruction aspect is a useful component that can be carried over into teaching
phonemic awareness to young ELLs.
The developmental interaction model (Biber, Shapiro, & Wickens, 1977; Mitchell & David,
1992) is the next to consider. In this model, the children use play as the vehicle for learning. The model
supports complete open ended exploration of the prepared environment. The developmental interaction
model respects the natural unfolding of the childs development and has little forced influence over the
childs learning. The Bank Street College of Education (Biber, Shapiro, & Wickens, 1977; Mitchell &
David, 1992) uses this approach. The developmental interaction model relies on heavy control from the
child. This model integrates the learning of academic areas into the childs play (Mitchell & David,
1992). The educational goal of the model is not to promote specific learning but overall development. In
this model the teacher responds with respect to the learning interests of the child. The teacher does this
by carefully observing the child in play and then maximizing opportunities for interaction during the
play. The teacher is expected to trust that the children enjoy learning and discovering and then take
38
advantage of child developed learning moments. Ideas from the developmental interaction model of
curriculum that are useful in teaching young ELLs phonemic awareness emphasize interacting with the
children during play. The teacher can use the learning and play interests of the child to point out
phonemic awareness concepts and skills, allowing the child to make the discoveries and connections.
The final model to consider is the constructivist curriculum model (Devries & Kohlberg, 1987;
Hohmann & Weikart, 1995). In this model, a balance of control is demonstrated. The teacher is in
charge of setting up the appropriate environment and facilitating the learning while the child is in charge
of building the knowledge and skill based on his or her development and current level of understanding
(Hohmann & Weikart, 1995). The major idea behind the constructivist curriculum is that the child builds
his or her own knowledge. The child has a lot of choice, what to play, and what to play with, etc. The
teacher also has a role to play, however. The teacher thoughtfully poses problems, ask questions, and
gives descriptions in addition to setting up an environment that encourages learning and problem
solving. Again, the constructivist model for curriculum has aspects to offer when teaching young ELLs
phonemic awareness. Some of these aspects are allowing children to choose materials and activities, the
teacher facilitating learning, and posing phonemic awareness problems for the child to conquer. The
adult can listen to and encourage thinking in relation to phonemic awareness ability.
In addition to curriculum model thoughts, aspects of the program should be considered as part of
the curriculum and instruction techniques. Some of these aspects to consider are time, schedules, and the
use of centers in play. Balancing the initiation and control of learning between the teacher and the child
is supported as the most appropriate way to foster curriculum with young children (Schweinhart &
Weikart, 1997). Schweinhart and Weikart also suggest that curriculum models that support child
initiated learning and choice have lasting benefits. In an effort to describe truly developmentally
appropriate curriculum and instructional practices with young children, scheduling and format must be
mentioned. The schedule should allow for large blocks of time for child initiated play (Bredekamp &
Copple, 1997; Wein, 1996). This is supported by the use of clearly defined learning centers. A minimum
of forty-five minutes is required with an hour or more suggested. Also, circle times are to be kept short
to accommodate age appropriate attention spans. Breaking learning into small digestible chunks that are
meaningful to the learner is also supported by developmentally appropriate practices. When
developmentally appropriate practices are utilized, the learners benefit and the teachers often report
feeling more confident in their programming for young children (Huffman & Speer, 2000; Smith, 1997).
The aspects mentioned here are all useful for teaching phonemic awareness to preschool aged ELLs. The
teacher sharing initiation and control of the learning with the child can be used to guide when to step in
and scaffold the learning and when to observe. The time schedules and use of centers can support this
39
task by offering a program with child selected learning center time appropriate to meet their needs and
maximize the learning opportunity.

40
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to determine whether play and play like activities could be used to
scaffold phonemic awareness in preschool aged English language learners. The study also examined
teacher training in phonemic awareness instruction to determine the extent to which it contributed to
improved phonemic awareness levels in preschool aged ELLs. The theoretical lens guiding the study
was the scaffolded learning theory. This chapter describes how the study was conducted. First, the
research questions are listed. Next, the participants are described followed by a detailed description of
the study design, including a description of the materials used, and the specific procedures. Finally,
methods used to analyze the data are described.
Research Questions
In studying phonemic awareness with preschool aged ELLs the following questions guided the
study:
6. Can phonemic awareness levels be increased in preschool aged ELL children through embedding
the phonemic awareness skills in play or play like activities?
7. Can explicit teacher training in promoting phonemic awareness in developmentally appropriate
ways increase phonemic awareness instruction for preschool aged ELLs?
8. Does the level of English proficiency influence the rate of increase of phonemic awareness in
preschool aged ELLs?
9. What is the relationship between general teacher knowledge of literacy and phonemic awareness
levels in preschool aged ELLs?
10. What is the relationship between teacher attitudes about literacy education preparation and
phonemic awareness levels in preschool aged ELLs?
Participants
Participating in the study were seventeen preschool age ELLs and five teachers (See table 3.1).
In order to better describe the subjects in this study, the population they are sampled from and the
settings they were included in will also be discussed.

41
 Table 3.1: Preschool Aged ELL Participants
Center Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Totals
(initial training) (weekly (control group)
coaching)
1 4 3 3
2 3 NA 4
Totals 7 3 7 17

The preschool aged participants were as follows:

They were all four years old or turning four years old, during the study school year.
They were all ELLs because they spoke a language other than English at home.
o No child was identified, or was in the process of being evaluated for possible disabilities,
that would prevent the child from participating in the phonemic awareness activities or
assessment; this was important to prevent outliers.
The teachers participating in the study were as follows:
There was one teacher per classroom.
All lead teachers held at least an associate level credential in the field of early childhood
education or higher.
o Three teachers held a bachelors degree in early childhood education.
o Two teachers held a child development associate credential.
Assistant teachers were not included as participants in the project due to resistance in receiving
the training.
Population and Sample
The participants in this study were selected from Tallahassee Florida and Atlanta Georgia, two
southeastern college cities. The sample was considered a convenience sample (Fraenkel & Wallen,
2009; Leedy & Ormrod, 2001; Salkind, 2003), the most common type of sample used in student
research (Gliner & Morgan, 2000). This is because the samples were from programs that the
investigator had access to, or were close to the colleges the investigator worked in. This was also
considered a convenience sample because they were selected for their high number of ELL children.
Setting
The study was conducted in five preschool programs in southeastern college cities. Two of the
programs were lab schools for the local university, and three were community based preschool
programs. In an effort to control for the quality across the study sites, each of the preschool programs
had earned a score of five or higher on their last environmental rating scale. The sample for used in this
42
study was small and, therefore, not generalizable to a larger population. However, in general terms,
they could be indicative or representative of the population outlined here (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009;
Huck, Cormier, & Bounds, 1974; Leedy & Ormrod, 2001; Salkind, 2003). Given the exploratory nature
of the study as well as the fact that there was no intention to generalize the findings to a larger
population, the study was guided by research questions as opposed hypotheses. Moreover, the study
was largely descriptive, thus no attempt was made to use inferential statistics in analyzing the data.
There were a total of five preschools involved in the study. Two control group preschools, two
treatment group A preschools that received initial teacher training and three follow up visits, and one
treatment group B preschool that received weekly scaffolding by the researcher. Each of the preschools
is described in the following section.
The first control group preschool was owned by a community based private school but had its
own preschool site. This school served one hundred eight children in total, all pre-k age. The classroom
that participated in the study had eighteen children enrolled (though only three participated in the
study). The socioeconomic status of students attending the school was as follows: 2% high, 89%
middle, and 9% lower. The students attending the school included 78% Caucasian, 10% African
American, 7% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 3% other nationalities. All of the teachers at the school had a
minimum of an associate level credential, and all assistant teachers were working toward an associate
level credential. The participating teacher had a CDA and was working toward an A.S. degree in early
education. The administrator of the school held an associate degree in early childhood education as well
as a state director credential.
The second control group preschool was owned by a local university and it was located on the
college campus. The school serves thirty six children in total, one class of eighteen preschool aged
(two-three year olds) and one class of eighteen pre-k children (four-five year olds). There were eighteen
pre-kindergarten students enrolled in the classroom that participated in the current study. Four of these
18 pre-kindergarten students participated in the current study.
The socioeconomic status of students enrolled at this school was as follows: 0% high, 32%
middle, and 68% low. The majority of the students had parents who were college students. The school
enrollment ethnic makeup included 21% Caucasian, 16% African American, 53% Asian, 7% Hispanic,
3% other nationalities. All lead teachers held a bachelors degree in early childhood education or child
development (the lead teacher of the participating class held a bachelors degree in child development).
All assistant teachers were working toward a child development associate credential. The director held a
Masters degree in Sociology and a state director credential. This school was accredited by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
43
 The first treatment group (A) preschool was a university lab school and it was located a short
distance from the main university campus. This school served a total of thirty children, including one
class of fourteen preschool aged children (two to three year olds) and one class of sixteen pre-k children
(four to five year olds). Participating in the study were four pre-kindergarten students selected from a
class of sixteen students.. The socioeconomic makeup of the school was as follows: 0% high, 30%
middle and 70% low. The majority of the families were students at the university. The ethnic makeup of
the school included 20% Caucasian, 10% African American, 62% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 4% other
nationalities. All lead teachers had a bachelors degree in early education and all of the assistant
teachers were working toward a child development associate credential. The school administrator held a
bachelors degree in education and a state director credential. This school was accredited by the
National Association for the Education of Young Children at the study onset. However the accreditation
was dropped prior to completion of the study.
The second treatment preschool (A) was a community based church owned preschool serving
children from infants to pre kindergarten. There were a total of ninety-seven children enrolled in the
school. The classroom that the studys four participants were enrolled in was a mixed age preschool
class of fifteen three and four year old children. . The socioeconomic makeup of the school included 1%
high, 33% middle, and 66% low. The ethnic makeup of the school was as follows: 23% Caucasian, 14%
African American, 47% Asian, 9% Hispanic, and 7% other nationalities. The teachers of all classrooms
had at least an associate level credential in early childhood education (the teacher of the participating
class had a CDA and was working toward an A.S. Degree in early childhood, and also a bachelors
degree in psychology). All assistant teachers were working toward a child development associate
credential. There was no assistant teacher in the participating classroom. The school administrator had
an associate degree in early childhood education and a state director credential. The school was
accredited through the United Methodist Association of Preschools.
The final treatment group preschool (B) was owned by a private non-profit corporation and was
located in a university city in Georgia. This center was a corporate chain center. This preschool served a
total of seventy children from birth to preschool age. The three students participating in the study were
selected from one of the schools a pre-k classrooms of twenty children. The socioeconomic makeup of
the school included: 0% high, 27% middle, and 73% low. The ethnic makeup of the school included 4%
Caucasian, 44% African American, 1% Asian, 50% Hispanic, 1% other nationalities. All lead teachers
held a child development associate credential or higher (the lead teacher of the participating class held a
bachelors degree in early childhood and elementary education). The assistant teachers were all working
on an associate level credential. The administrator of the school held a bachelors degree in early
44
childhood education and forty five hours of training by the state in being a director of a child care
program.
Study Design
The study was based on a quasi-experimental design (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009; Huck, Cormier,
& Bounds, 1974; Gliner & Morgan, 2000; Leedy & Ormrod, 2001; Salkind, 2003). The dependent
variables for this study were the phonemic awareness levels of the preschool ELL participants. The
independent variables for this study were the phonemic awareness instruction program implemented by
the teacher participants, and the training the teachers received in promoting phonemic awareness. The
design was considered quasi-experimental because of its use of pre- and post-test result comparisons to
determine changes in the dependant variables after the treatment had been implemented (Salkind,
2003). The studys design required the use of two treatment groups and one control group. The control
group consisted of students attending one university lab preschool classroom and students from one
community child care center classroom. Although students in the treatment groups were enrolled in
different classrooms they were similar in age and background initially, there were twelve preschool
ELL participants in the treatment groups, and seven preschool ELL participants in the control groups.
There was one teacher participant for each of the classrooms. There was some attrition of two children
at one of the treatment group sites which reduced the number of treatment group preschool ELL
participants to ten These children, however, were never a part of the treatment because they withdrew
right after turning in consent forms. They were therefore simply excluded from the study and in the
data. This number of participants was judged to be sufficient because of the exploratory nature of the
study, in that it was an initial examination of the use of phonemic awareness instruction with preschool
aged ELLs. It is expected that follow up studies will occur with results that may be generalizable to
larger populations. The current study was of an exploratory nature and therefore descriptive and
nonparametric statistical analyses were used to answer the research questions.
Materials
The materials for this study were used to collect the needed data for examining change in the
outcome variables. The materials used were the instruments for the pre- and post-assessment on
phonemic awareness, the evaluation of the classrooms, and a teacher survey to rate their knowledge and
attitudes on early literacy.
Phonemic Awareness Data Collection Tools
The instrument that was used for the pre and post assessment on phonemic awareness was the
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, 6th edition or DIBELS. The DIBELS is considered a
valid and reliable tool for measuring early literacy and pre-literacy skills. The two specific subtests that
45
were used for collecting the data were the initial sound fluency subtest and the phoneme segmentation
subtest (Goods & Kaminski, 2002). The initial sound fluency subtest has a validity of .53 and the
phoneme segmentation subtest has a validity of .47 (Spies & Plake, 2005). These subtests were selected
because of their nature in relation to phonemic segmentation and blending. If children are able to
recognize initial sounds, they are more likely to be able to recognize other sounds. The segmentation
subtest was utilized to assess the ability to segment phonemes.
The DIBELS is actually intended for kindergarten children. This particular assessment was
viewed as best choice for pre and post assessment for several reasons. First, the schools that participated
in the study were familiar with the use of the DIBELS. Though none of the schools actually used
DIBELS, they had all heard of it and this reduced anxiety that may have been experienced if a new tool
was introduced. DIBELS has been adopted by the state as the primary measure of preschool success in
early literacy. Also, it was the only assessment to identify more than one phonemic awareness ability.
Other assessments that were available were also designed for kindergarten but did not have as high a
validity and reliability rate, and only assessed one skill. Another strength of the DIBELS instrument
was the brief time required for administration. The DIBELS takes only five minutes per student to
administer. This quick time span reduced the likelihood of poor performance due to fatigue and lack of
interest, common concerns when assessing young children. A copy of the DIBELS is provided in
Appendix E.
The frequency count chart on segmenting and blending was also used to measure phonemic
awareness. The frequency count simply reports the absence or presence of specific behaviors (Fraenkel
& Wallen, 2009; Huck, Cormier, & Bounds, 1974; Gliner & Morgan, 2000; Leedy & Ormrod, 2001), in
this case a segmented or blended word. The main purpose of the tool was to inform the researcher that
the interventions were taking place. This tool was chosen due to its ease of use and the ability to assess
during natural aspects of the childrens play during the typical day. The teacher herself conducted the
frequency count chart on the childrens ability to segment and blend. This tool was only used in the
treatment sites. The researcher conducted a validity check by conducting a frequency chart once every
two weeks during the study at the same time as the teachers. A copy of the frequency count is located in
Appendix D.
Classroom Quality Data Collection Tools
The classroom overall quality was measured using the Early Childhood Environment Rating
Scale (ECERS). The ECERS was chosen both for its reliability and validity, and for the fact that most
schools are familiarity with the tool. The states where the study was conducted already use this tool to
measure overall quality of early childhood programs. This reduced anxiety on the programs that would
46
have been present had a new instrument been administered. Additionally, many of the programs already
had a current ECERS completed by an appropriate state representative that was trained to the point of
inter rater reliability. For the programs that did not have current ECERS scores, the researcher
conducted the assessment. The ECERS has forty-three subscales designed to facilitate the
understanding of the level of quality being provided. The subscales are organized into seven categories:
space and furnishings, personal care routines, language and reasoning, activities, interaction, program
structure, and parents and staff. ECERS uses a scale of one to seven for each subscale. A score of one or
two is considered substandard, a score of three or four would be considered minimal, as score of five
would be considered good and high quality, six would be considered above average, and seven would
be considered excellent. Each subscale is then averaged for each of the seven areas, and then each of the
areas is averaged for an overall classroom and program score. All programs in the study were expected
to receive a minimum score of 5.0, including the control group. This score was identified by the
researchers that had developed the instrument as indicative of high quality programming and operation
(Fontaine, Torre, Grafwallner, & Underhill, 2006). This aspect was important because any differences
in phonemic awareness levels would not simply be attributed to high versus low quality programming.
The ECERS has a reliability rate at the indicator and item level at an agreement of 86.1%. The entire
scale has a reliability of .915. The internal subscale consistencies were .71 to .88 on the subscale level
and .92 for the entire scale. Each programs results on the ECERS are reported and discussed in the
results in chapter IV. The descriptive data was used to further describe the classrooms in the study.
The second classroom evaluation tool used in the study was the Early Literacy and Language
Classroom Observation (ELLCO). The ELLCO measured the level and quality of language and literacy
aspects of the classroom. It is a valid and reliable tool that assists in identifying strengths and
weaknesses in language and literacy programming for preschool classrooms. There was no minimum
score identified for this tool. This was simply data gathered for initial relationship examination with
other results. There are five areas that the ELLCO measures: classroom structure, curriculum, the
language environment, books and book reading opportunities, print and early writing supports. Each
programs results on the ELLCO is also reported and discussed in chapter IV. The descriptive data was
used to further describe the quality of literacy in the classrooms.
Teacher Knowledge and Attitude Data Collection Tools
Two instruments were used to collect data on teacher knowledge and attitudes. These
instruments were designed to assess the teachers knowledge of literacy and their attitudes about their
preparation to teach literacy. The instruments used were the Teacher Literacy Knowledge Survey and the
Teacher Literacy Preparation Attitude Survey. Each survey was administered to the treatment site
47
teachers to measure their knowledge of literacy skills and their beliefs about their own preparation to
teach literacy skills. This information was considered helpful in examining the teachers own thoughts
about preparation to teach literacy, and what concepts they understand in relation to literacy skills.
Procedures
The five schools consented to be a part of this study and human subject approval was obtained.
Parents then consented for their ELL preschoolers to be a part of the study and completed the
appropriate forms. Teachers also completed the consent forms. Selection of the treatment schools and
the control schools was decided by drawing a name of the five participating schools from a hat. Once
consent was given and the treatment and control assignments were made, the data collection and
treatment began.
Baseline Data
Baseline data on phonemic awareness levels of the preschool aged ELL participants was
gathered by administering the DIBELS to each of the preschool participants.
Additionally, the level of English proficiency was recorded. This was based on Krashen & Terrells
(1983) stages of second language acquisition and Cummins quadrants of English proficiency (1979;
1980; 1981) and obtained through observation by the researcher. The levels are shown in table 3.2
below. The results were recorded in a codebook (Gliner & Morgan, 2000; Salkind, 2003). Baseline data
on the program classrooms were the outcomes of the ECERS and ELLCO on each classroom. This
descriptive data was used solely as a baseline for the level of quality and as a leveling factor. The data
collected assisted in further describing the environments in which the study took place. Additionally, the
teacher participants in the treatment groups were administered the Teacher Literacy Knowledge Survey
and the Teacher Literacy Preparation Attitude Survey. Each of these baseline assessments were
administered by the researcher.

48

Stage
1. Preproduction (silent
period)
2. Early Production
3. Speech Emergence
4. Intermediate Fluency
Baseline data was then collected on all of the classrooms participating in the study.
Table 3.2: Stages of English Proficiency
Description or characteristics Codebook Score given
No vocalizations in English 1
most of the time; majority of
time is spent in receptive
language, uses native language
or no language, may utter a
few words very sparingly, will
imitate others; no academic or
social language used
Begins using short words, still 2
large emphasis on receptive
language, many grammar
errors, will not rely as heavily
on imitation, comprehension is
limited, makes use of some
key words and familiar
phrases (formulaic speech); no
academic language use,
socially contextual language
used some
Speech is more frequent, 3
words and sentences are
longer, vocabulary is
increasing and errors are
decreasing, comprehension
exceeds production ability,
misunderstands jokes,
beginning to include some
academic language, socially
contextual language
strengthened
Comprehension improved, can 4
adequately carry out face to
face conversation, extensive
vocabulary, fewer
grammatical errors, more
fluent and can hold his/her
own, academic language use is
increasing, socially contextual
language is now stronger
49
Treatment
Once the baseline data was collected for all classrooms, preschool ELL participants, and teacher
participants, the treatment groups received the intervention. The intervention for treatment group A was
consisted of an in-service session for the teachers and the implementation of phonemic awareness
instruction for the preschool participants (Fontaine, Torre, Grafwallner, & Underhill, 2006). The
intervention for treatment group B consisted of weekly coaching for the teacher and phonemic
awareness instruction for the preschool aged ELLs. The instruction addressed the same concepts as were
taught during the workshop, with the exception that the formatting was more personal and less formal.
The in-service session was a one day, six hour in-service training for the teacher participants on
implementing phonemic awareness instruction in developmentally appropriate ways for programs in
treatment group A. The strategies highlighted in the training were related to using the Teacher Behavior
Continuum as a scaffolding guide. Three specific scaffolding strategies were especially emphasized:
Notice, Questioning, and Modeling. An outline of the workshop is provided in Appendix B. The
teachers success of mastery of concepts of the in-service session was measured through the use of a
rubric in practice scenarios during the workshop. The in-service session was taught by the researcher.
The one training session was considered sufficient because of the use of the scaffolding in the scenarios
with the rubrics. Fading was not a major concern due to the investigator making biweekly visits for
support and validity. One of the teachers was very enthusiastic; the other initially was resistant but by
the end seemed to embrace the ideas being presented. Both teachers were able to implement the
strategies presented.
The next aspect of the treatment was for teacher participants in treatment group B. The teacher in
this program did not receive the one day in-service, but instead was given coaching sessions on a weekly
basis. Each week the researcher went to the participant classroom for the full instructional day and
observed practices. The researcher scaffolded the teachers understanding of facilitating phonemic
awareness development through play and play like activities. A short debriefing session was used during
the childrens rest time to discuss how the techniques were being used and how things were going, as
well as the topics that were included in the first treatment groups formal workshop. The emphasized
scaffolding techniques for this teacher were also noticing, questioning, and modeling. The teacher of this
class seemed to tolerate the visits, but was not really excited about them. However, she did respond to
the scaffolding provided and followed through with the suggestions provided by the researcher.
The final aspect of treatment was the implementation of phonemic awareness instruction through
play and play like activities. The teacher participants introduced three words a week and modeled
segmenting and blending the words during circle time. The preschool participants were then given an
50
opportunity to blend and segment each word during circle time. The teacher at two of the treatment sites
(one treatment site A, and one treatment site B) documented their success using the frequency counts for
repeated measures each week. The teacher also reintroduced the words during center time in the literacy
center, the block center, and the dramatic play center. The children were asked to segment and blend
these words in each of these centers through scaffolded play. This was done by utilizing three main
scaffolding strategies: noticing, questioning, and modeling. Noticing was done by the teacher calling
attention to a particular segmenting or blending skill during the childs play. For example, the child may
be holding a bug (which was one of the target words) and the teacher says Oh, I just realized that there
are three sounds in bug /b/ /u/ /g/. Questioning was accomplished by asking the child what sounds are in
bug or what word does /b/ /u/ /g/ make? Modeling is when the teacher would use self talk and let the
children know the skill. For example, the teacher would say I am going to say the sounds in bug /b/ /u/
/g/, now you do it with me. This happened twice a week for six weeks. Twice per week for six weeks
was selected because requiring more would be overwhelming for the teacher. It was important for the
study process to be able to carry across to typical early childhood programs. Additionally, the twice per
week for six weeks schedule would give each child twenty four opportunities for segmenting and
blending. It was felt by the researcher that this would be sufficient practice for developing the skills
without risk of extinction.
To ensure reliability, and that the teachers were implementing the phonemic awareness
instruction, the researcher visited the programs in treatment site A every two weeks and conducted the
same frequency chart on the preschool subjects at the same time as the teacher subjects. In treatment site
B, the researcher made the validation and scaffolding visit each week, but only conducted the validation
every other week. During the validation observations, the researcher conducted the frequency count
while observing the teacher implement the phonemic segmenting and blending scaffolding. The teachers
were also keeping their own frequency count during this time. The frequency count simply received a
tally if the child could segment or blend, in the appropriate column.
Post Testing
When the six weeks of intervention was completed, the post testing on the preschool subjects
took place. The researcher administered the DIBELS subtests of initial sound fluency and segmenting
fluency again to each of the preschool subjects. The administration was done individually with each
child, and only took five minutes per child.
Data Analyses
The data analysis for this study was primarily descriptive and made use of non-parametric
statistical testing, as well as frequency counts. The frequency count was the frequency count mentioned
51
earlier in the treatment section, conducted by the teacher of the treatment groups. The teacher recorded
tallies of when a child segmented or blended a target word up to six times per week. The frequency
count and related analyses was of a descriptive nature. The reason for these analyses being selected was
due to the small sample size and the exploratory nature of the research. As stated earlier, the goal was
not to generalize to the larger population. Instead, it was hoped to ascertain whether the scaffolding of
phonemic awareness with preschool ELLs through play and play like activities was a worthwhile
endeavor and worthy of further examination. Each of the research questions are listed below, along with
the data analyses conducted to answer the question.
1. Can phonemic awareness levels be increased in preschool aged ELL children through
embedding the phonemic awareness skills in play or play like activities?
This question was first examined and tested by exploring descriptive information.
Specifically the means of the pre and post tests from the DIBELS. The means of the pre test
in initial sound fluency and phonemic segmentation were examined and compared with the
post test of each from the treatment group and the control group. This exploration looked at
the change in score, thus indicating a respective change in ability within the two sub skills.
This particular investigation was used to give a clear picture of change and not used for
generalizable results. Rather, the outcomes were explored and described in detail to give a
clear picture of whether or not this research is worth pursuing on a larger scale in the future.
This question was also tested and analyzed utilizing a non-parametric test (Fraenkel &
Wallen, 2009; Gliner & Morgan, 2000; Huck, Cormier, & Bounds, 1974; Leedy & Ormrod,
2001; Salkind, 2003). Specifically, the Mann-Whitney-Wicoxon, also known as the Mann-
Whitney U, non-parametric test with the pre and post results of the DIBELS conducted on
the preschool participants. The differences in scores between the pre and post tests were
examined and rank ordered by the test. The test investigated whether or not a certain group
was likely to score higher and increase in the post test than the other. In other words, the
actual change in score was examined. The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon examines whether two
independent samples are from the same distribution. It is considered a non-parametric
alternative to the t-test (http://www.statisticssolutions.com/mann-whitney-u-test retrieved on
11/13/2009). The pre and post tests analyzed were the DIBELS subtest on beginning sound
fluency and the subtest on segmentation fluency. The results of the pre and post tests were
analyzed for changes. The differences of the scores in the pre and post tests were ordered and
ranked. The test itself looked to see if the higher differences were from either of the two
groups specifically, the treatment or the control group.
52
 A second analyses run in an attempt to answer this question was the use of a frequency
count (Huck, Cormier, & Bounds, 1974; Gliner & Morgan, 2000; Leedy & Ormrod, 2001;
Salkind, 2003; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). This particular tool was mentioned earlier in the
treatment section. Each of the treatment group teachers conducted a frequency count on the
preschool participants in their class. The teacher selected three target words to use each
week. Twice per week the teacher modeled segmenting and blending the words during circle
time. During center time, the teachers encouraged the children to segment and blend the
words twice per week in the language and literacy center, the block center, and the dramatic
play center within the context of their play. Each time the target words were successfully
segmented or blended in circle time, or in any of the three identified centers, a tally was
given. It was hoped that the number of successes will increase over time (Huck, Cormier, &
Bounds, 1974). The researcher also completed the same frequency count on these children
every two weeks during the study for validation purposes.
2. Can explicit teacher training in promoting phonemic awareness in developmentally appropriate
ways increase phonemic awareness instruction for preschool aged ELLs?
This question was examined and analyzed with the same data as the first question. Since
the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test was used to examine the differences in scores of the
treatment and control group preschool childrens beginning sound fluency and segmentation
fluency, it can also be used to show whether or not the training the teachers received
increased phonemic awareness in the preschool aged ELLs in the classrooms. It is proposed
that if the Mann-Whitney-Wicoxon test revealed an increase in outcome of the treatment
groups DIBELS subtest scores over the control groups scores, it was in part due to the
training the treatment group teachers received, as the control group teachers did not receive
the training. In this specific case, the outcomes may have increased because the instruction
increased. Additionally, the frequency count charts that were used as a repeated measure also
show the minimum number of attempts of phonemic awareness instruction that were
provided by the treatment group teachers.
3. Does the level of English proficiency influence the rate of increase of phonemic awareness in
preschool aged ELLs?
Answering this question also required the use of descriptive data. The means of the pre
and post subtests were explored and described. Then, the identification of the level of English
proficiency was established. Any trends that emerged between the two were then described and
discussed. Specifically, the relationship between the levels of English proficiency and the ability
53
 to use segmenting of phonemes in words were explored. In other words, it may be that the higher
English proficient children may have been better at segmenting phonemes in words.
4. What is the relationship between general teacher knowledge of literacy and phonemic
awareness levels in preschool aged ELLs?
Descriptive data analysis was used in answering this question. Again, the means of the
outcomes of the post test of the DIBELS were explored. These outcomes were compared
with the totals of the individual teachers scores in the general literacy knowledge quiz. Since
this quiz was only given to the treatment groups, only the treatment group teacher scores and
segmentation means of their children were examined. .
5. What is the relationship between teacher attitudes about literacy education preparation and
phonemic awareness levels in preschool aged ELLs?
As with the previous question, the means of the segmenting portion of the DIBELS by
class and the average of the relative teachers attitude of literacy education preparation
survey were compared. Trends of relationship between the two were documented, analyzed,
and discussed.

54
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Once all of the data were collected, the analyses were conducted. The study was of an
exploratory nature and therefore the goal was not to generalize the results to larger populations, but
instead to determine whether scaffolding phonemic awareness for preschool ELLs was a viable
endeavor. The study was conducted in order to explore the development of phonemic awareness in
preschool aged ELLs by using scaffolding strategies during play and play like activities. The data were
analyzed using both descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests. This chapter includes a report of the
findings as they relate to each of the research questions. Also included is a brief discussion of the
findings in an effort to provide cohesiveness and facilitate understanding. The research questions are
listed below for reference:
11. Can phonemic awareness levels be increased in preschool aged ELL children through embedding
the phonemic awareness skills in play or play like activities?
12. Can explicit teacher training in promoting phonemic awareness in developmentally appropriate
ways increase phonemic awareness instruction for preschool aged ELLs?
13. Does the level of English proficiency influence the rate of increase of phonemic awareness in
preschool aged ELLs?
14. What is the relationship between general teacher knowledge of literacy and phonemic awareness
levels in preschool aged ELLs?
15. What is the relationship between teacher attitudes about literacy education preparation and
phonemic awareness levels in preschool aged ELLs?

1. Can phonemic awareness levels be increased in preschool ELL children through embedding the
phonemic awareness skills in play or play like activities?

Given the significance of this question for the study, it was addressed first. Three different types
of data were collected and analyzed to determine whether phonemic awareness levels could be increased
in preschool aged ELL children by engaging in play or play like activities. The first was an examination
of initial sound fluency as measured by pre and post test administration of the DIBELS, the second was
an evaluation of phonemic segmentation as measured by pre and post test administration of the DIBELS,
55
and the third was an analysis of repeated frequency counts of blending and segmenting during classroom
activities. The pre and post DIBELS tests were administered to the seventeen participants, ten
participants in the treatment group and seven in the control group. The frequency counts were
administered to seven of the intervention treatment participants. The embedding of the phonemic
awareness skills took place by having the teacher scaffold the use of segmenting and blending a target
word that was appropriately related to the context of the play the child was engaging in. The scaffolding
techniques used were noticing, questioning, and modeling. The control group had no specific phonemic
concepts embedded; with the exception of those that they received during typical daily routines and
teacher planned activities.
Initial Sound Fluency DIBELS Results
An exploration of the initial sound fluency subtest of the DIBELS was conducted by examination
of means. The mean of the treatment group initial pretest was 7.9 and the mean of the control group
pretest was 8.2. This suggested that the children in the treatment and control group were relatively close
in initial sound knowledge and fluency at the beginning and prior to the intervention. After
implementing the instructional strategies to develop phonemic awareness, the post tests scores for initial
sound fluency were examined. The mean for the treatment group was 13 and the mean for the control
group was 11.71 (see Table 4.1). The outcomes of the post test suggested that both groups were able to
understand and identify initial sounds in words at proximate levels. The gain from the pre to the post
tests scores for initial sound was slightly greater in the treatment group. The treatment group began
lower and ended higher. The change was minimal and so was the difference, but it was useful to know
that the treatment group had slight gains. These findings suggested that all of the programs had a strong
emphasis on initial sound fluency and awareness. However, they also suggested that engaging in
phonemic awareness play and play like activities may have helped the children develop some sensitivity
to the sounds in their language.

Table 4.1: Initial Sound Fluency Pre and Post Test Means
N Pre test mean Post test mean
Treatment Group 10 7.90 13.00
Control Group 7 8.28 11.71

56
Segmentation DIBELS

The next exploration of phonemic awareness sound development was with the segmentation
subtest of the DIBELS. The ten treatment group participants and seven control group participants were
administered the pretest to measure their ability to segment words by phoneme. The treatment group
mean for the segmentation pretest was 19, and the mean for the control group was 20.14. This suggested
that both groups were very close in segmentation ability. The treatment group post test mean for
segmentation was 43.3 and the mean for the control group was 25.57. The pre to post test gain for the
treatment group 24.3 and the gain for the control group was 5.43 points. As with the initial sound
fluency measure, the segmentation subtest started with the treatment group and control group
functioning at similar levels, with the treatment group being slightly lower than the control group. The
post test results indicated that the treatment group received higher scores than the control group (see
Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: DIBELS Pre and Post Test Means

N Pre test mean Post test mean
Treatment Group 10 19 43.3
Control Group 7 20.14 25.57

These findings suggested that preschool aged ELLs may have developed phonemic awareness by
engaging in play and play like activities. The control group post test scores were much lower than the
treatment group scores,. Thus, it is possible that the treatment itself was influential in the outcomes. The
phonemic awareness skill of segmentation was scaffolded by the embedding of segmentation in the
context of the childrens play.
Mann Whitney Wilcoxon Test
The pre and post test measures of the DIBELS were also analyzed using the Mann-Whitney-
Wilcoxon nonparametric test. This statistical test ranked the outcomes and looked at whether or not one
group was more likely to score higher than the other on the post test. In doing so, it rank ordered the
differences, and then computed the rank sums and the mean of the sum of ranks. This test was used to
explore the differences in both the initial sound fluency, as well as the phonemic segmentation.
The first analysis was on the measure of initial sound fluency. The results showed the control
group had a mean rank of 7.86 while the treatment groups had a mean rank of 9.80. The significance

57
level (2 tailed) was .475 and was therefore judged non-significant. The results of these analyses are
summarized in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3 Initial Sound Fluency Difference in Mean Rank

N Mean rank
Treatment Group 10 9.80
Control Group 7 7.86
Significance .475
(2 tailed)

The segmentation test was next analyzed using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. The results
were congruent with the descriptive analyses of the means themselves. The results indicated that the
control group had a mean rank of 5.79, and the treatment group had a mean rank of 11.25. The
significance level for difference in mean ranks was .025 (two tailed), and it was therefore judged
significant. The summary of the results are presented in Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4: Segmentation Difference Mean Rank

N Mean rank
Treatment Group 10 11.25
Control Group 7 5.79
Significance .025
(2 tailed)

These results suggest that the preschoolers in the group that received the treatment of phonemic
awareness instruction embedded in play and play like activity were more likely to increase their
phonemic segmentation ability.
Segmenting and Blending Frequency Counts
The final statistical analyses conducted to determine whether phonemic awareness levels could
be increased through embedding instruction in play and play-like activities was a series of frequency
counts or repeated measures. These measures were used in two of the three treatment sites. It was
hypothesized that as the children were exposed to the intervention, their segmenting and blending would
increase over time. The results reported in this study were from weeks one, three, and six. These were

58
the weeks reported because this was when the researcher validated and conducted the frequency counts.
Furthermore, these were the times when treatment b site recorded instances of childrens segmenting
and blending.
The first school was one of the treatment A programs which received initial teacher training.
This program completed all six weeks of frequency count charts. The teacher selected three target words
each week and documented with a tally up to twice per week if the children could segment or blend the
words during circle time, literacy center, block center, and dramatic play center. Treatment A program
totals for blending were 70 in week one, 71 in week three, and 48 in week six. However, one of the
children was absent in week six and the results were slightly skewed by this absence. It was assumed
that the results may have been similar to the previous weeks, or slightly higher, had the absence not
occurred. However, this could not be considered certain. The treatment B program had blending results
of 29 for week one, 10 for week three, and 38 in week six. The results are summarized in Figure 4.1
below.

80

70

60

50

40 treatment a
treatment b
30

20

10

0
week 1 totals week 3 totals week 6 totals

Figure 4.1: Blending Frequency Count

The segmentation ability was also analyzed through the frequency counts. The frequency count
gave the children up to 24 opportunities per week to segment. The process was exactly the same as the
blending frequency count. The data were recorded by the teacher on the same chart as the blending

59
ability. The results for the treatment A program were 46 in week one, 48 in week three, and 31 in week
six. Again, in week six a child was absent and therefore the total for that week decreased.
Treatment B program results for the frequency count segmenting ability were 0 for week one, 0 for week
three, and 2 for week six. The results are shown in Figure 4.2 below.

Figure 4.2: Segmenting Frequency Count

As is illustrated by the two charts, the change in blending and segmenting ability overtime did
not show significant increase through repeated measures using the frequency charts. It appeared that
blending was easier for both groups of children. The treatment A program appeared to be more
successful at segmenting than the treatment B program. This may have been in part due to the fact that
several children in the treatment B program refused to participate. When the teacher asked the children
to segment or blend they did not respond. It may have been possible that although the request was
integrated into the natural play of the children, the children may have perceived the request by the
teacher as an interruption. Another reason for the low results may have been due to the English
proficiency level of the children in the treatment B program. The proficiency level of the children in the
treatment B program was lower than that of the children in the treatment A program.
As mentioned in chapter three, treatment Bs teacher held an attitude of tolerance rather than
willingness. This teacher carried out all of the requested activities and implemented the instructional
60
embedding as discussed. However, the personal or mental resistance may have been perceived, or
sensed, by the children. This could have and increased their own unwillingness to participate in the
repeated measure part of the study. This being the case, it is unclear whether the slight increase in
phonemic segmentation was due to typical classroom functioning and instruction. However, as stated
earlier, the pre-post differences were greater among treatment groups than they were for the control
groups. Had the change been due to typical classroom routines and instruction, then the control groups
pre to post test differences would have also been higher. It follows that the increase could well have
been due to the treatment itself.
The results of the data collection and analysis for this question provide information about the
relationship between phonemic awareness levels in the preschool aged ELL and play or play like
activities. Although the results cannot be generalized to a larger population, they do shed some light on
this topic, and provide valuable information that could be useful in future studies. The results suggest a
possible inclination for children who are exposed to embedded phonemic awareness instruction, to
improve in their segmentation phonemic awareness ability.
The study also examined data measuring the quality of the preschool programs and the preschool
classrooms. This data was so collected in order to provide a description of the classrooms as well as
overall program quality. In doing so the data would help determine whether changes in phonemic
awareness ability could be attributed to differences in program quality. The overall quality of the
environment was examined by administering the ECERS for overall program quality, and the ELLCO
for the quality of the literacy program.
Program Quality Comparison
Classroom and program quality were evaluated using two instruments. The ECERS is frequently
used to measure the quality of preschool programs, and researchers (e.g., Harms, Clifford, & Cryer,
2005) have established that a score 5.0 or higher on this instrument is indicative of good programming,
or high quality. The ELLCO, on the other hand measures the quality and appropriateness of preschool
classrooms language and literacy programs (Smith, Brady, & Anastasopoulos, 2008). For the purposes
of this study it was judged that a score of at least 5 on the ECERS would be indicative of a high quality
preschool program. Similarly, a score of 15 or higher on the ELLCO would reflect a quality language
and literacy program. Such high scores, however, do not fully account for, or explain potential
differences in childrens ability to segment. To further explore the environment quality and its impact on
the outcome variables of interest, the means of the two instruments were compared by program.

61
ECERS and ELLCO Overall Scores
First the overall scores for the ECERS and ELLCO instruments were examined. Since each
program had been administered the ECERS and the ELLCO, and the scores were independent of
treatment, the comparisons were made by individual program rather than in terms of the means of
treatment groups. The total possible points on the ECERS is 7. However, it is almost impossible for a
program obtain a score of 7, and a score of 5 and above is considered to reflect high quality or above
average. The total possible overall score for the ELLCO is 18.75, and a score of 11.25 is typically
indicative of average quality and a score of 15 or higher indicates high quality
The first preschool program, (program 1) received an overall score of 5.75 on the ECERS. The
score of 5.75 was considered an above average score, suggesting that high quality was being
implemented in the program. The overall score this program received for the ELLCO was 15.42. All
individual ratings were average or above average. Though the outcomes of the ELLCO were not as high
as the 18.75 possible, there still was a sense of high quality in both the overall environment and the
language and literacy environment for this program.
The second preschool program (program 2) had an even higher overall ECERS score of 6.3. The
overall ELLCO score for this program was 16.43, which is slightly higher than the score obtained by the
first preschool program. Again, all of the individual items were rated as strong or very strong on the
ELLCO instrument. As with program one, the second program seemed to have similar high scores on
both instruments, suggesting high quality in the overall environment as well as in the literacy
environment.
Program three had an overall ECERS score of 5.69, which is indicative of an overall
environment of high quality. The overall ELLCO result for this program was 15.52. These scores
suggest that both the overall program and language and literacy program were of high quality.
Program four received an overall ECERS score of 5.41, indicating a high quality general overall
environment. The overall ELLCO score for this program was 16.58, also indicating high quality in the
language and literacy environment. Similarly, the fifth preschool program had high scores on the
ECERS (5.53) as well as on the ELLCO (15.33)...
The data suggest that all five preschool programs were of high quality. A summary of the
overall scores are reported in Table 4.5.

62
 Table 4.5: Overall ECERS and ELLCO Scores
ECERS ELLCO

Program 1 5.75 15.42

Program 2 6.3 16.43

Program 3 5.69 15.52

Program 4 5.41 16.58

Program 5 5.53 15.33

Mean 5.74 15.85

The researcher then compared the means of the ECERS to the means of the ELLCO. The mean
of the ECERS was 5.74 which met the standard of high quality and suggested similar findings as the
individual program comparisons. The ELLCO mean was 15.85, also consistent with the individual
comparisons which were indicative of high quality. Therefore, the mean comparison results were
consistent with the results of the individual program score comparison and suggested a possible trend
that scoring high on the ECERS may have been somewhat indicative of scores on the ELLCO, though
there was insufficient evidence of a relationship. All programs in the study scored high and were similar
in levels of quality for both the overall environment, and the language and literacy environment.
Language and Literacy Environment Comparison
The next comparison was between the language and literacy elements of the ECERS and the
subscales of the ELLCO that covered the same functions. Like the overall ECERS and ELLCO
comparison, this comparison was conducted separately for each individual program. The subscale in the
ECERS that was examined was the language and reasoning subscale. The subscale in the ELLCO
examined was the language and literacy subscale. The highest score possible was a 7.0 in the ECERS
language and reasoning subscale, and it included such things as books and reading, use of language to
promote reasoning, encouraging children to communicate (including writing), and informal use of
language. A score of 5.0 or above was considered a high score and high quality. The ELLCO subscale of
language and literacy had a possible high core of 20 points, but anything over 15 was considered high.
The language and literacy subscale of the ELLCO included the language environment and language use,
books and reading, and early writing.
63
 The scores and comparisons were examined and the results were close to the overall score
comparisons. Preschool program one received a 5.50 for the language and reasoning subscale of the
ECERS and a 15.33 for the language and literacy subscale of the ELLCO. Both subscale scores for the
first classroom were similar as they were high scores indicating high quality but not extremely high or
indicating excellent quality, which would have been closer to a perfect score.
The second preschool classroom received a score of 6.5 in the language and reasoning subscale
of the ECERS. The outcome for the ELLCO language and literacy subscale for this program was 16.33.
The results indicated that this program, in both instruments, had slightly higher quality than the other
program in the delivery and support of language and literacy with the children. The ratings indicated
high quality and very good practices, closer to the excellent rating or perfect score. With the ECERS, a
6.5 would be considered excellent or very close to excellent practices. However, with the ELLCO, a
perfect score would be 20 so this programs score would be considered high but not necessarily
excellent. This was considered a slight disagreement between the two scales. This outcome suggested
that the ELLCO may be slightly more sensitive to language and literacy issues than the ECERS.
Classroom three received an ECERS language and reasoning score of 5.5, suggesting that very
good or high quality practices were being used. Their ELLCO language and literacy score was 16. As
with the ECERS, this was indicative of very good, high quality language and literacy practices. In this
case there seemed to be some agreement between the two scales in terms of the high quality language
and literacy practices.
The fourth classroom received a language and reasoning score of 5.25. This again is considered a
very good score and suggests high quality practices in relation to language and literacy practices in the
classroom. The ELLCO language and literacy outcome for this program was 16.58, which was higher
than the scores obtained by the other programs. However, this result indicated the same level of
practices as the other programs, which were considered very good and high quality. In the case of
program five there was some agreement between the outcomes of the two scales. Interestingly, while
this program received the lowest ECERS language and reasoning subscale score of all the other
programs, it had the highest ELLCO language and literacy subscale score.
The fifth and final classroom received a 5.5 in the ECERS subscale of language and reasoning.
As previously noted this score is considered was considered to be very good and indicated high quality
practices in the area of language and literacy. Examination of the ELLCO language and literacy subscale
suggested closely related results with a score of 15.67. This program had agreement between the two
scales as being a program that delivered high quality language and literacy practices at a level
considered very good, rather than excellent.
64
 The final examination of ECERS and ELLCO results was a comparison of the means of both
instruments subscales. The mean for the ECERS language and reasoning subscale was 5.69. This result
was consistent with the individual program scores because it indicated a very good score thus suggesting
that high quality language and literacy practices were taking place across all programs. The mean for the
ELLCO subscale of language and literacy across programs was 15.98. This was also consistent with the
individual program analyses because it suggested that the programs were offering high quality language
and literacy practices that would be considered at a very good level, as opposed an excellent level. The
fact that both subscales from the ECERS and ELLCO had means that suggested very good level high
quality practices in language and literacy was very encouraging because there was agreement between
the instruments in this area. Table 4.6 below summarizes the data from the subscale comparisons.

Table 4.6: ECERS and ELLCO Language and Literacy Subscale Comparison
ECERS Language & ELLCO Language & Literacy
Reasoning Subscale Subscale
Classroom 1 5.5 15.33
Classroom 2 6.7 16.33
Classroom 3 5.5 16
Classroom 4 5.25 16.58
Classroom 5 5.5 15.67
Means 5.69 15.98

Upon examination of the data from the ECERS and ELLCO comparisons, it was found that there
was general agreement between the two instruments. Both at the overall and the language and literacy
subscale level, there was possible agreement that all five programs operated high quality classrooms that
were deemed very good by the scale standards set forth by the instruments themselves. However, on a
more detailed level, the results suggested some possible, although very small, differences. For example,
two individual programs had different scores on the two instruments. In one program a score of very
good in the ECERS was noted and it was considered high enough to be borderline excellent. The
programs score on the ELLCO, however, was considered very good score but not high enough to be
excellent. In another program the ECERS subscale score was the lowest in the group, but still at a very
good level. Yet, the same program had an ELLCO subscale score was the highest of the group. These
results seem to suggest that the ELLCO might be slightly more sensitive to language and literacy aspect
65
in comparison to the ECERS. This idea is consistent with the specific purpose of the ELLCO, which was
to establish the level of language and literacy quality in the classroom. The ECERS on the other hand,,
was designed to examine overall general quality of preschool programs. It should be noted, however,
that these two slight disagreements in scores were not sufficient enough to suggest that differences in
childrens phonemic awareness ability would be attributable to individual preschool quality.
2. Can explicit teacher training in promoting phonemic awareness in developmentally appropriate
ways increase phonemic awareness instruction for preschool aged ELLs?
The second set of analyses looked at phonemic awareness development and its relationship to the
training the teachers received. The tests conducted to answer this question were the same tests that were
used to determine whether play and play like activities would increase preschool ELLs phonemic
awareness. Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations of the post test segmentation
scores were computed. Then the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon non-parametric test was conducted to
examine differences in segmentation pre and post test scores. Frequency charts were also used to
explore the repeated measures of blending and segmenting. The findings served as an indication of the
influence of play and play like activities on preschool ELLs phonemic awareness, as well as the
influence of explicit teacher training on phonemic awareness instruction. This is because the training the
treatment groups received was on how to implement phonemic awareness skills through play and play
like activities. Therefore the same tests used to measure change in phonemic awareness ability were
appropriate both for the play and play like activities implemented, as well as for the teacher training.
However, there was one slight difference in the treatment groups. Treatment group A received the full
training, while treatment group B was simply provided with the concepts from the training. These
concepts were provided in brief sessions to the teachers during nap time, after weekly coaching or
mentoring sessions. Despite the brevity of these sessions they were still explicit. The control group, on
the other hand, received no special training.
Pre and Post Test Means Related to Explicit Training
There were slight differences in the means of the pre and posttest scores. The pretest score for
initial sound fluency obtained by the control group was 8.28 (n==7). The mean for the treatment group
on this measure was 7.90 (n-10). The posttest mean results for initial sound fluency were 11.71 for the
control group and 13 for the treatment group. The segmentation pretest means were 20.14 for the control
group and 19 for the treatment groups. The post test for segmentation had means of 25.57 for the control
group and 43.30 for the treatment group. These findings are summarized in Table 4.7 below.

66
 Table 4.7: Summary of Pre and Post Tests of All Four Measures
Group N Initial sound Segmentation Initial Sound Segmentation
pretest pretest Posttest posttest
Means Means Means Means
Control 7 8.28 20.14 11.71 25.57
Group
Treatment 10 7.90 19 13 43.30
Group

The means of the pre and post tests provide some indication concerning the possible impact of
the explicit teacher training in promoting phonemic awareness. Specifically the changes in the
segmentation test means were indicative of explicit teacher training possibly increasing phonemic
awareness in young ELLs. The control group means only changed by five points. The treatment group
however, changed by twenty four points. This suggested that the treatment group, in which the teachers
received explicit training in promoting phonemic awareness through play and play like activities with
preschool aged ELLs, may have improved in phonemic awareness ability. These findings suggest that
the training may have increased the extent and quality of phonemic awareness instruction for the
preschool ELLs and, in turn, improved the preschool ELLs phonemic awareness.
Mann Whitney Test Related to Explicit Training
The results of the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test provide some information concerning the
impact of explicit teacher training in phonemic awareness instruction provided for the preschool
teachers. The mean rank of the control group, with an n of 7, was 5.79. The mean rank for the treatment
group was 11.25, with an n of 10. It is possibly, therefore, play instruction provided to the preschool
children was successful in increasing their ability in the area of phonemic awareness. Similarly, the
training could have been successful in enabling the teachers to implement appropriate teaching
strategies, and thereby improve the students phonemic awareness. The mean rank of the treatment
group was close to double that of the control group. A summary of these findings is reported in Table
4.8.

67
 Table 4.8: Segmentation Mean Rank Differences
n Mean rank
Treatment Group 10 11.25
Control Group 7 5.79
Significance .025
(2 tailed)

Frequency Count Related to Explicit Training

Examination of the frequency count results provides minimal information for understanding the
effect of the explicit teacher training on preschool students phonemic awareness.. As previously noted,
two of the treatment group classrooms, one from treatment group A and the only treatment B classroom,
conducted a frequency count of the childrens segmentation and blending ability with target words
selected by the teacher. These frequency counts were conducted during weeks one, three, and six. The
teachers recorded how many times children segmented and blended words when presented with such an
opportunity within their play. The children were given a total of twenty four opportunities to segment
and blend words. The total blending scores (frequencies) for treatment A were 70 in week one, 71 in
week three, and 48 in week six. The scores obtained by treatment site B were 29 for week 1, 10 for week
three, and 38 in week six. For treatment site A, the segmentation results were 46 in week one, 48 in
week three, and 31 in week six. Treatment site B had segmentation scores of 0 during week one, 0 for
week three, and 2 for week six. The results are illustrated below in figure 4.3. In treatment A, one of the
children was absent during week six, and this may have skewed the results. Overall, the frequency
counts showed slight increases in performance in both areas, but were not steady or consistent enough to
be considered reliable. However, the slight increase in scores suggests that further research in this area
could be worthwhile.

68
 Figure 4.3: Frequency Count Summary for Treatment Groups

Overall, the data collected suggested that the training the treatment site teachers received may
have impacted their instruction levels of phonemic awareness with their ELL preschoolers. The
outcomes of the combined descriptive comparisons of the means, the Wilcoxon Rank Test, and the
frequency counts suggested that phonemic awareness instruction may have increased for the preschool
aged ELLs. It is also possible that these increases could be partially related to the explicit training the
teachers received. Although the outcomes were not generalizable to a larger population, in the case of
the preschool ELLs in this study the results suggested that the phonemic awareness instruction was
successful in increasing the preschool students phonemic awareness. The data further suggest that
explicit training in the area of embedding phonemic awareness into play leads to teachers using
phonemic awareness instructional strategies more frequently.
3. Does the level of English proficiency influence the rate of increase of phonemic awareness in
preschool aged ELLs?
Two approaches were used to answer this question: descriptive statistics an comparison of
means. Here the data compared were the levels of the English language proficiency and means of the
differences in pre and post phonemic segmentation scores. The level of English proficiency was
compared to the changes in the preschool ELLs phonemic awareness.
First the English proficiency levels were established using the guidelines of Krashen and Terrell
(1983) as described in the methodology section of this study. The four levels of proficiency were pre
production, early production, speech emergence, and intermediate fluency. The decision for proficiency
levels was based on direct observation by the researcher using the characteristics mentioned in the
69
methodology section. There were seventeen preschool aged ELLs participating in the study. Among
these children was only one child who was considered to be at the pre production stage. There were four
children in the early production stage, seven children in the speech emergence stage, and five children in
the intermediate fluency stage. One of the children in the speech emergence stage was excluded from
these analyses because the child actually decreased in segmentation ability by 15 points. A total of 16
participants were therefore included in these analyses.
English Proficiency Score Comparisons
The child in the preproduction stage received a pre test segment score of 0 and there was no
increase in his score on the posttest. The children in the early production stage received a segmentation
pretest mean of 6 and the pre to posttest mean increase was 22.75. The speech emergence stage children
started with a segmentation pretest mean of 23 and showed a pre to posttest mean increase 15.16.
Finally, the intermediate fluency children began with a segmentation pretest mean of 29.2 and had a pre
to post mean increase of 22.8. These results are summarized in Table 4.9 below.

Table 4.9: English Proficiency and Segmentation Increase Comparison

English Proficiency n Pretest mean Increase mean
Level
1 Preproduction 1 0 0
2 early production 4 6 22.75
3 speech emergence 6 23 15.16
4 intermediate fluency 5 29.2 22.8

These results were interesting because there were really no conclusive differences between the
English proficiency groups and the increase in segmentation ability. The preproduction stage child had
no difference at all between the pretest and the post test. The child started with a 0 on the pretest and
ended with a 0 on the post test. This made sense because the child was in the silent period and was
silent. The children in the early production stage made a large gain in phonemic segmentation ability.
These children were speaking but they were mostly using common phrases and brief statements. They
could however, usually get meaning across.
The children in the speech emergence group also demonstrated measurable comparisons. They
only made a gain of 15.16 points but started at a higher level in comparison to those children in the early
production group. As previously noted, one of the children had to be excluded from this particular

70
analysis because of the 15 point decrease in his/her segmentation score. The child started with a pretest
score of 49 and ended with a post test score of 34. Although the case was excluded from the analysis,
discussion of the situation is relevant. Inclusion of this childs case would have decreased the mean
difference mean and thus skew the results. The mean of the segmentation pre and post test score was
still lower than the other groups without the excluded case.
The intermediate fluency students had a higher pretest score (29.2) in comparison to the other
groups. These students showed a gain in their phonemic segmentation scores of 22.8. This was
interesting because although the speech emergence was the largest group, their initial scores were high
but showed little gains. In contrast the intermediate proficiency group started at a high level and also
had a larger increase in their scores. This suggests that the speech emergence groups lack of gain could
simply be a consequence of their level of English proficiency. This is because the group of preschool
students who were at a lower level of English proficiency made the same gains as did the group who had
demonstrated a higher level of English proficiency.
Levels of English proficiency could have had an impact on the increase of phonemic awareness
levels only in the case of the child in the pre production stage of English proficiency. However, for the
other levels of proficiency no substantial evidence surfaced to support this trend. The children who were
at the second level, as well as those at the fourth level of English proficiency had similar increases in the
means of their phonemic awareness scores This suggests a possible trend that children of who have
lower levels of English production proficiency levels as well as hose with higher English production
proficiency levels could make similar gains. In other words the children that were at lower production
levels may not have done any worse in terms of phonemic awareness increase than those who were at
higher production levels. These specific results were encouraging to the researcher in suggesting that as
long as the children were actually producing and using English appropriately to some degree, phonemic
awareness teaching may have been helpful.
4. What is the relationship between general teacher knowledge of literacy and phonemic awareness
levels in preschool aged ELLs?
One of the variables examined in this study was the teachers general knowledge of literacy. The
data in this area was gathered from the teachers in the treatment A and B groups. These teachers
received the scaffolding and training in phonemic awareness. They were administered the teacher
literacy knowledge quiz to help determine the possibility of the connection between teacher knowledge
of literacy and the phonemic awareness levels of the preschool aged ELLs. The teachers could earn a
possible 40 points for a perfect score. These outcomes for each individual teacher were then matched to

71
the post test segmentation mean for the students in her particular class. The classes were then compared
to identify potential trends in the data.
The first class examined was from Program 1, which was in the treatment A group. The class had
three preschool ELL participants. The class teacher received the one day formal training in phonemic
awareness; however the literacy knowledge quiz was given prior to the training being implemented. This
teacher had a literacy general knowledge quiz score of 10 out of a possible 40. The initial general
knowledge of literacy skills was rather low for this teacher. The segmentation post test mean for the
preschool ELLs in her class was 27.33.
The second program had four preschool ELL participants. This program was also a treatment A
site and the teacher received the one day intensive training. Again, the general literacy knowledge quiz
was administered prior to the training. This teacher scored eleven out of forty points on the literacy
general knowledge quiz. The segmentation post test mean for her class was 58.25, which was considered
reasonably high as it was out of a possible seventy two points.
The third and final program for this particular analysis was in the treatment B group. This
teacher received individual scaffolding and coaching sessions rather than a one day intensive training.
However, as with the other teachers, the general literacy knowledge quiz was administered prior to any
treatment. This teacher scored 20 out of 40 points. This was the highest score of all the teachers but it
still indicated the teacher had low general knowledge of literacy skills. The segmentation post test mean
for this class was 40.66, which was considered a high score. These findings are summarized in Table
4.10.

Table 4.10: Teacher Literacy Knowledge and Segmentation Comparison

Quiz Score n Segmentation post test
mean
Program 1 10 3 27.33
Program 2 11 4 58.25
Program 3 20 3 40.66

The teachers all scored low on the general literacy knowledge quiz. Conversely, the preschool
ELLs all had higher scores in the post test on segmentation ability. The program that received the lowest
scores was Program 1. This teacher scored low on the general literacy knowledge quiz and the preschool
ELLs had the lowest phonemic awareness post test means. However, the preproduction child mentioned

72
earlier was a part of this group, and this factor may have skewed the results. An interesting outcome was
from Program 2. Here the teacher scored very low on the general literacy knowledge quiz but the
preschool ELLs in this group had the highest segmentation post test means. This suggested that the level
of the teachers general literacy knowledge may not have influenced the phonemic awareness levels of
these specific preschool ELLs. The same held true for Program 3. Although, in this case, the teacher
scored better on the literacy knowledge quiz, it was not much better compared to possible outcomes and
the children in that group did well on the segmentation post test also. Although these results indicated
that teacher general knowledge of literacy may not have influenced preschool ELL phonemic awareness
levels, it is important to note that explicit knowledge of literacy skills is not the same as the ability to use
the skill. These teachers were unable to identify and classify skills on the quiz, but they were able to put
the skills into practice. The relationship between these two aspects was not explored in this study. These
results seemed to suggest that there was not a relationship between the prior general literacy knowledge
and the childrens outcomes for these teachers. This was encouraging because it suggested the
possibility that teachers and caregivers with low prior literacy knowledge still may have benefitted from
the training and were able to implement the phonemic awareness instruction. This supported the idea
similar training may have an impact on teachers in the future at other programs with low literacy
knowledge.
5. What is the relationship between teacher attitudes about literacy education preparation and
phonemic awareness levels in preschool aged ELLs?
The final question explored in this study by the researcher was similar to the previous question.
This question however, examined the relationships between the teacher attitude about her preparation for
literacy instruction, and the levels of phonemic awareness in the preschool ELLs. The data for this
question was collected by administering a teacher attitude survey that focused on their preparation for
teaching literacy skills. The survey contained 15 questions and responses were based on a one to five
rating scale, with a one representing little to no preparation and a sore of five representing a high level of
preparation. The literacy attitude survey was given prior to any training or treatment being implemented.
The means of these surveys were then compared with the means of the segmentation post test means for
the children in each teachers class.
Program 1 had three children. The teacher rated herself on her literacy instruction preparation
and had a mean of 4.46. This was the highest mean on the literacy attitude survey of all three programs.
It was considered high and suggests that this teacher felt well prepared to teach literacy prior to the
beginning of the study. The children in her group had a segmentation post test mean of 27.33. This was

73
considered somewhat low because it was out of a potential 72. This was also the lowest segmentation
post test mean of the three groups.
The second program had four preschool ELLs. This programs teacher had a mean of 3.73 on the
teacher attitude survey of literacy preparation. This was considered an average score. The teacher felt
she was adequately prepared to teach literacy skills. The preschool ELLs in her group had a mean of
58.25 on the segmentation post test. Again, this was the highest mean on the post test of the three
groups.
The third and final group for this analysis had three children. The teacher had a mean of 2.86 on
the teacher attitude survey. While this was the lowest mean on this instrument, the teacher still felt
adequately prepared to teach literacy skills to preschool children. The preschool ELLs in her group had a
mean of 40.66 on the segmentation post test. This was not the lowest mean on the post test, nor was it
the highest. The findings are summarized in Table 4.11 below.

Table 4.11: Teacher Literacy Prep Attitude Survey and Segmentation Comparison
Survey mean N Segmentation Post
test mean
Program 1 4.46 3 27.33
Program 2 3.73 4 58.25
Program 3 2.86 3 40.66

The results of the comparison of the teacher literacy attitude survey and the segmentation post
test means of the preschool aged ELLs in each teachers class did not support any relationship between
the two. The program with the highest attitude survey mean had the lowest mean on the segmentation
post test. In other words, the teacher who felt the most prepared to teach literacy taught the group of
ELL preschoolers with the lowest scores on the post test. However, as with the previous question, it is
worth mentioning that this group included the preproduction ELLs, which may have contributed to the
lower post test scores.
The other two programs demonstrated that it could be possible to connect teacher attitude about
literacy instruction preparation and segmentation post test outcomes. The second program had a higher
score in both the survey and the post test in comparison to the third program. While the data here was
insufficient to substantiate a relationship, it did support the possibility of one.

74
 Summary
In summary, the analyses conducted on the data from the study explored several questions. The
results suggested that there was a statistically significant relationship between embedding explicit
phonemic awareness instruction into the play and play like activities of preschool aged ELLs and
phonemic awareness development. This result also supported the notion that teacher training in
phonemic awareness with preschool aged ELLs through play and play like activities leads to increases in
phonemic awareness instruction in the classroom. These two findings were supported through analysis
of exploration of means and the Wilcoxon non parametric test. The use of frequency counts that showed
the number of times children could blend and segment phonemes throughout a six week period did not
strongly support the findings. However one of the children was absent during the final week of data
collection and this could have impacted the findings.
The classrooms were all considered high quality based on their ECERS and ELLCO scores.
After exploring the means of these scores and comparing them with one another, it seems that there
could be some agreement between the two instruments. However, there is insufficient evidence in the
outcomes of this study to suggest that the ELLCO has sensitivity of language and literacy quality
components over and above the ECERS.
The outcomes of a comparison between English proficiency levels and phonemic awareness
development showed a possible relationship, but only for children that were at the pre-production stage,
otherwise known as the silent period. However, this finding did not imply that the child could not
differentiate or manipulate the sounds in words. Instead, the results really could only support that in this
case the child did not differentiate or manipulate the sounds in the words on the test. This finding was
surprising, as the researcher thought that children with lower levels of English proficiency may struggle
with sounds in the English language.
Finally the results suggested that there were no real relationships between teachers opinions of
their own literacy instruction training, their actual knowledge of literacy skills, and phonemic awareness
levels of the preschool ELLs. The data suggest that teachers preparation in promoting phonemic
awareness had more of an influence over the development of phonemic awareness in the preschool
children, as opposed their feelings of preparedness to teach literacy. Additionally, although they could
not name or classify the literacy skills, they were able to use the skills and scaffold their children in
using them. It does need to be mentioned that the literacy knowledge quiz and attitude survey on literacy
instruction preparation were administered prior to the intervention of teacher training. It is therefore
possible that both their attitudes and knowledge increased as a result of the intervention. However, the

75
intervention did not address many of the literacy skills and concepts on the quiz. The intervention only
addressed phonological awareness briefly and generally, and phonemic awareness specifically.
All of the findings in this study were considered useful in understanding the promotion of
phonemic awareness in preschool aged ELLs. The findings suggested the need for future studies that
look more in-depth into the scaffolding of phonemic awareness with preschoolers, especially ELLs.

76
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Supporting the development of early literacy in young children has been an agenda item for
educators for quite some time (Whitehurst, Zevenbergen, Crone, Velting, & Fischel, 1999). Early
literacy has been known to promote later literacy ability and contribute to future school success. For
example, it has been well established that phonemic awareness influences later reading ability. The
ability to blend phonemes into words and segment phonemes within words has been particularly
influential on later reading ability.
Providing literacy instruction in the early years can be helpful for all students (Morris,
Bloodgood, & Perney, 2003). One population of students that has required literacy support is ELLs.
ELLs are at risk for literacy challenges and therefore there is increased probability of future educational
underachievement (Lee, 1996; Winsler, Diaz, Espinosa, & Rodriguez, 1999). Consequently, there has
been a strong need for early literacy support for young ELLs. It is possible that instructional activities
that scaffold and support the development of phonemic awareness could be particularly useful for this
population of students.
There has been a large gap in the literature pertaining to early literacy for young ELLs. While
there has been a great deal of literature to support early language and literacy development for young
ELLs, few studies of this population have specifically addressed phonemic awareness. The majority of
the literature has supported the use of phonological awareness, or the lower levels. Phonemic awareness,
however, is a high level phonological skill. Studies of phonemic awareness have mostly focused on
elementary aged children, as opposed younger preschool aged children. This was surprising since
phonemic awareness can be considered a developmentally appropriate skill in preschool aged children.
Young children do not need to be able to read or understand print to utilize phonemic awareness; it is an
oral skill. Given that phonemic awareness is an important predictive skill for later literacy, that
providing intervention for literacy in the early years is supportive of later literacy development, and that
ELLs need extra support in literacy development, there is a need for studies that address these areas.
The studys final chapter consists of five parts. The first part includes a summary of the study
and main findings. Then, the second part discusses the findings in relation to the theoretical framework.

77
The studys educational implications are discussed in the third section, followed by an overview of
directions for future research. The chapter closes with a summary of the conclusions.
Summary
The present study explored phonemic awareness development in preschool aged ELLs. The
purpose of the study was to determine whether phonemic awareness development could be supported in
preschool aged ELLs through play and play like activities. This was accomplished by training the
teachers in scaffolding phonemic awareness through play in centers, play like activities that teachers
lead during center time, and large group time.
As an exploratory study there was no intent to generate findings that would be generalizable to a
larger population. Instead, the researcher wanted to determine if any trends would emerge that would
suggest that phonemic awareness instruction and development was a viable endeavor with preschool
aged ELLs.
There were five participating preschool centers. These centers were invited to participate because
of their enrollment of ELLs in the preschool classrooms. Each preschool center had one classroom
participate. Among the programs were mixed age classrooms with younger and older preschool students.
The main reason that both younger and older preschool students participated in the study was that most
of the current literature focuses on children in kindergarten and the primary grades. The researcher was
therefore interested in exploring the development of phonemic awareness in younger children.
Two of the participating classrooms were from preschools on a college campus, while the other
three were from community based preschool programs. This mix of center types was considered
important because the participants would be more likely to be representative of typical preschoolers.
There was some concern that the college lab school preschoolers would have higher scores on the
assessments, because often children enrolled in college lab schools are from families that value learning.
However, not all of the lab school children's parents were involved in higher education.
An effort was made to ensure that the participating classrooms were considered of high quality.
This was important in order to reduce the likelihood of positive outcomes being attributed solely to
overall classroom quality. Each classroom had an ECERS score of five or higher. The ELLCO was also
administered in order to determine the level of literacy programming. While both instruments revealed
some areas of needed improvement in each classroom, all classrooms scored at a level that would be
considered high quality. The ECERS and ELLCO outcomes were reported and compared to illustrate
that all participating programs were similar in quality both in overall programming and specifically in
literacy programming. This was important because it helped to support the notion that the level of
programming was not the reason for differences in phonemic awareness performance. The researcher
78
wanted to rule out that the level of quality in one program may have influenced the change in phonemic
awareness levels. Since outcomes were similar across all participating programs, changes in phonemic
awareness levels could not be determined as the reason for the differences in post test segmentation
scores. All programs were equivalent in terms of their overall quality.
Each of teachers participating in the study had somewhat similar credentials. Each school had a
lead teacher and an assistant, with the exception of one. One of the treatment sites did not have a full
time assistant. Each teacher however had at least an associate level credential. Those with associate level
credentials were working toward a Bachelors degree. The teachers with bachelors degrees did not have
any better or worse results than teachers with associate level credentials. This was important because it
suggested that any changes to the phonemic awareness levels were probably due to the training and
knowledge the teachers gained during the training phase of the study, and not their prior credentials.
This was surprising, because those with bachelors degrees would have taken a literacy course. It is
possible that their degree coursework did not focus on phonemic awareness in preschool nor in how to
scaffold phonemic awareness through play.
The teachers' knowledge of literacy was measured using the teacher literacy survey. This survey
asked teachers to respond to questions about literacy. The survey did not address the teaching of
literacy; but instead it addressed literacy concepts. This was only administered to the treatment group
because they were the group to receive the phonemic awareness training. The survey could not really be
used as an assessment for the phonemic awareness training itself, as only a few of the items pertained to
phonemic awareness skills. However, it is a good tool to determine the overall general literacy
knowledge of the teachers. Interestingly, there was no relationship suggested between the general
literacy knowledge of the teacher and the outcomes of phonemic awareness levels in the preschool
children in the study. This was considered positive by the researcher; because it suggested that any gains
by the children were possibly related to the specific phonemic awareness scaffolding they received.
The teachers also had to completed a survey about their attitudes, or opinions, concerning how
well prepared they were to teach literacy prior to the treatment. The surveys were then checked against
the outcomes of the preschoolers to see if the teachers thoughts on their preparation would influence
their teaching of phonemic awareness, as well as the childrens development of phonemic awareness.
The teacher attitudes did not seem to have any impact on the childrens outcomes in this case. The
feelings of how well they were prepared to teach literacy were not suggested to have any relationship on
their ability to facilitate the phonemic awareness instruction. This was encouraging because in early
learning centers there are many levels of literacy knowledge. This suggested that the training may have

79
been what influenced the outcomes of change in phonemic awareness levels. While it cannot be
determined for certain, the outcomes do support this possibility.
The preschools that received the intervention were in two groups. One group of preschools
received initial intense teacher training in providing implicit and explicit instruction in phonemic
awareness, along with three follow up visits. The other group received no initial training, but was
provided weekly coaching. Neither group had better results than the other. Both treatment groups
seemed improve in post test segmentation scores. This suggested that the training for each may have
yielded positive effects. The group of teachers that received the intense training was given practice
scaffolding phonemic awareness for just one day. Fading was not considered an issue because the
duration of the study was brief, and the teachers received the three follow up visits. However, for long
lasting results, fading could be a problem for future community preschool programs that may want to
implement the training.
The results of the study were encouraging. The difference between the pretest and the post test
suggest that the children in the treatment groups were more likely to have higher scores on the measures
of interest. The difference in scores suggested that the teacher training and subsequent instruction of the
children in phonemic segmentation may have been helpful.
The implementation of play and play like activities to support the development of phonemic
awareness in preschool aged ELLs seemed to be effective and beneficial. The children in the groups that
received the instruction seemed to make greater gains in segmentation by the time the post test was
administered, in comparison to the groups that did not receive the instruction. Phonemic segmentation is
known to be a powerful predictor of reading ability (Byrne & Fielding-Barnesley, 1995; Foorman, Chen,
Carlson, Moats, Francis, & Fletcher, 2003; Sprugevica & Hoien, 2003). Moreover, teaching phonemic
awareness to preschoolers could have a positive influence on their reading ability when they are in the
primary grades. When ELL children learn phonemic awareness skills in preschool, there is the possibly
that the risk of future difficulties in school is minimized.
The instruction provided to the preschool children was considered developmentally appropriate.
The researcher wanted the teachers to use strategies that were as close to the regular daily routine as
possible. An effort was made to ensure that the procedures were naturalistic. This was so that the
instructional techniques would be more likely to be used by the teachers, and also more transferable to
other programs should they decide to teach phonemic awareness. Rather than create a packaged
curriculum to implement, the teachers were taught how to encourage segmenting and blending in their
typical circle time during story time, as well as in popular centers during center time. The teachers used
techniques such as noticing sounds in words they read or spoke and they took time to count the sounds
80
in words. They also used a stretching technique. They would say a word and then pull their hands apart,
as if stretching a rubber band, and say each sound long and separate. They would also say the sounds of
a word and ask what the word was. In future use, the skills could be implemented throughout the school
day. These types of techniques could even be used with young children during routines such as eating
lunch, standing in line, or even playing outside.
The levels of English proficiency were also examined in the current study. The outcomes
suggested that it may be possible that there is no real influence on the ability to segment or blend in
relation to English proficiency, as long as the level of proficiency is at the production level. Children
that produced and used English beyond the pre-production stage seemed to make gains in phonemic
segmentation.
Adherence to Scaffolded Learning Theory
Scaffolded learning theory was the theoretical framework adopted for this study. The study
adhered to the theory in several ways. First, the implementation of the teacher training was a form of
scaffolding. The researcher used practice scenarios with the participating teachers to help clarify their
understandings of the concepts of phonemic awareness and supporting young children in phonemic
awareness.
The techniques for scaffolding the development of phonemic awareness were also consistent
with the theory. The participating teachers were to use their knowledge of phonemic awareness in
integrating that knowledge in support of the young ELL in developing the knowledge. This was done
during the typical preschool daily play routine for the young ELLs participating in the study. This
strategy was considered a match with the scaffolded learning theory because the approach was not that
of an expert forcing knowledge upon the child, but rather giving just a little support through the childs
play interest to support the child in using the skill. Strategies included noticing sounds out loud and
asking questions about sounds within the natural context of the childs play.
The scaffolding techniques used were noticing, questioning, and modeling. These techniques
may have been easier to use in the preschool classroom because it was possible to adjust them to the
natural situation the children were experiencing. Noticing involved casually stating sounds in words
during the play to call the childrens attention to the sounds. Questioning involved asking what sounds
were in a word used during play, and modeling was used like a think aloud where the teacher would
comment and demonstrate segmenting during play when children did not know how.
Another way this study adhered to the scaffolded learning theory was in the manner the
researcher offered support to the participating teachers in the treatment groups. Follow up visits, every
two weeks, were conducted with each of the treatment group classrooms. During this time, the
81
researcher offered suggestions and answered questions. In one center, the teacher requested that the
researcher model the use of the strategies taught during the training. This was done with a child who was
not participating in the study so that changes would not be attributed to the researcher's intervention, but
the participating teacher would still see the strategies in action.
The scaffolded learning theory supports the tenets that each learner has something to contribute
to the learning process. The theory also utilized the thoughtful and timely support offered by a more
knowledgeable and experienced teacher. This study has adhered to these principles through scaffolding
the understanding of the teachers through training and follow up support, and through scaffolding the
preschool aged ELLs in the play activities with phonemic awareness skills.
Educational Implications
The outcomes of the study suggested that there are some things to be learned and done in relation
to early literacy teaching and learning. These implications are both for teaching young children as well
as for teacher education.
Teaching young children early literacy skills is accepted as an important endeavor. There are
many concepts and skills that are developing during the preschool years. Young ELLs have many
challenges facing them in the area of early literacy development. The implications from this study
supported one aspect of these challenges. The study seemed to support the scaffolding of phonemic
awareness ability with young ELLs. The results of the study arguably support the probability that the
children who were exposed to the treatment increased their phonemic awareness abilities.
The young ELL may benefit from support and scaffolding in phonemic awareness. While in the
past, it appeared that phonemic awareness skills were not taught until kindergarten and beyond, the
outcomes from this study suggested that it could be worthwhile to include such activities in the
preschool classroom. I strongly suggest that phonemic awareness be embedded in the play and play like
activities of young ELLs. The inclusion of this skill with preschoolers could contribute to a solid
repertoire of early literacy skills. Although not explored, it is possible that the implementation of
phonemic awareness segmenting and blending scaffolding benefit all preschool children.
The skills were supported and scaffolded through the natural context of the young ELLs regular
daily routines and did not require the purchase or implementation of a special curriculum. The teachers
were simply shown how to integrate and scaffold within their regular daily routine. This is important in
relation to future educational implications. It is highly unlikely that other preschool teachers will be
willing to implement the embedding of phonemic awareness if the teachers have to purchase a special
package, or provided with intense specialized training. The ability of integrating the skills into the
natural daily routine should decrease teacher anxiety of implementing the scaffolding. The results of this
82
study support this idea because the teachers were able to integrate phonemic awareness without altering
their program or their schedule. It is believed that this was a key factor in eliciting teacher support and in
their willingness to participate.
Another educational implication concerns the ability to scaffold young ELLs in English literacy
skills. The young ELL can be supported as they develop what are considered high level phonemic
awareness skills within the natural contexts of the classroom. That is if support is provided in
developmentally appropriate ways. It appeared with this study, that once the children achieved a certain
level of communication in English, it was possible to scaffold phonemic awareness. Segmentation is an
important skill in relation to later literacy. According to this study's findings it may be possible to
increase ELLs literacy skills by scaffolding phonemic awareness. It is important to note however, that it
is necessary to develop phonological awareness (get them talking) first. I recommend that teachers of
young children begin to make a conscious effort to include developmentally appropriate phonemic
awareness activities into their curriculum. Using the scaffolding strategies of noticing, questioning, and
modeling provides a less intrusive and more developmentally appropriate platform for scaffolding
phonemic awareness. Teachers can provide non threatening play based training in a skill that is
recognized by literacy researchers to be helpful in future reading skills.
The final educational implication derived from this study concerns the need for teacher
education. Teachers, both pre-service and in-service, may benefit from scaffolding their understandings
of developmentally appropriate teaching of phonemic awareness. Teachers of young ELLs, and young
children in general, can be taught phonemic awareness skills, their importance on overall literacy, and
shown how to implement them in developmentally appropriate ways at the preschool level. Although
awareness of the need for early literacy training for teachers of young children is growing, the training
emphasized early phonological awareness, and does not focus on phonemic awareness in a strong
manner. Perhaps if teachers are taught how to scaffold phonemic awareness appropriately, it will occur
more often in preschool classrooms. This training can be included in non-credit bearing in-service
training, such as it did in this study, or even possibly in credit bearing early literacy courses for teacher
preparation candidates. Arguably, the results of this study support the use of explicit training for
teachers of young children to increase their phonemic awareness. It is recommended that the training be
provided in the format most accessible to the teachers. I strongly suggest that all teachers participate in
training to help scaffold phonemic awareness in developmentally appropriate ways. The participants of
this study that did so had results indicative of the usefulness of receiving this training.

83
 Suggestions for Future Research
Although the outcomes of the study did suggest possible educational implications, more research
is needed. The one outcome the study did support substantially is the need to find out more.
One area that future research should address concerns the generalizable impact of early literacy
preschool phonemic awareness on the development of ELL's literacy skills. There is overwhelming
research evidence supporting the link between phonemic awareness and literacy. This study however,
was one of the first to explore its facilitation in preschool. This is particularly true with the use of
segmenting and blending; skills that have been supported in older grade levels as significant in relation
to overall literacy development. It is suggested that future studies explore the long term impact of
preschool children learning to segment and blend in preschool on their overall literacy development.
This was not explored through this study and clear if such a relationship exists, it should be explored.
This suggested exploration should be conducted with a larger sample and with preschoolers enrolled in
programs representative of the general population and community preschools. Another population that
this future research should be explored with is more homogenous ELL populations. Most ELL programs
have a majority ELL population, and the current study had a heterogeneous ELL population.
Another area of future exploration concerns the way teacher educators can successfully
implement preparation programs to support teachers of young children in scaffolding phonemic
awareness in developmentally appropriate ways. If teachers have to purchase a special curriculum or
receive special training, the teachers may be unlikely to implement the scaffolding of phonemic
awareness. Rhyming is an important early literacy skill, but it is not the only important literacy skills.
Teacher preparation candidates and in-service teachers may need support and scaffolding in teaching
higher level phonemic awareness skills to young children. This need can be explored, and
developmentally appropriate instruction can be studied. These studies may even have policy
implications, as they relate to teacher training requirements.
Additionally, more research is needed to examine the effects of phonemic awareness integration
into the routine, as opposed to the everyday language experiences of children. It is thought that just
singing songs and using nursery rhymes, etc. is sufficient for building all the language skills needed by
young children. A comparison could be done to explore childrens future literacy skills after they have
been exposed to specific phonemic awareness instruction, as opposed to the typical language play of
early childhood. The study's results support the inclusion of phonemic awareness instruction because the
children in the control groups, who had been exposed to the typical language play, did not segment as
well as the children who had been exposed to phonemic awareness instruction were able to. Clearly,
there is a need for more research to study the longitudinal effects of such early intervention strategies.
84
 Conclusion
While the outcomes of this study may not have been generalizable to a larger population, they
did support the overall purposes of the study. The outcomes suggested that it may be helpful to teach
young children phonemic awareness. It became clear that phonemic awareness instruction can take place
with preschool ELL children in developmentally appropriate ways. Segmentation and blending ability
can be implemented both implicitly and explicitly through play and play like activities. The study leads
to three strong suggestions. First, preschool teachers should implement phonemic awareness scaffolding
in developmentally appropriate ways. Second, teachers of young children should participate in an
explicit training to learn how to scaffold phonemic awareness in developmentally appropriate ways
within the constructs of their natural program and learning environment, and third more research should
be conducted on phonemic awareness in preschool programs, especially with ELLs.

85
 APPENDIX A

METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

86
 1. Method
a. Subjects
i. Minimum of 20 English language learner preschool children
1. preschool aged ( 4 yrs old on or before 9/1/08)
2. English Language Learners
ii. Minimum of 8 teachers
1. at least 2 teachers per classroom
2. lead teachers have a minimum of child development associate credential (or higher)
3. assistant teachers have at least Florida Department of children & Families 40 hour
Intro to Child Care Course, plus some other early childhood training
iii. Four preschool classrooms (4yr olds)
1. 2 university lab preschools
2. 2 community child care center preschools
3. all programs indicated as high quality by receiving an overall score of 5 or higher on
the ECERS
Minimum Participants Treatment Group Control Group
University Lab Preschool 4 ELL Preschoolers 4 ELL Preschoolers
1 Teachers 1 Teachers
Community Preschool 6 ELL Preschoolers 3 ELL Preschoolers
1 Teachers 1 Teachers

b. Design
i. Pre/Test Post/Test (Quasi-experimental)
ii. Use one tailed t-test to compare the means of the treatment group phonemic awareness levels
with the control group phonemic awareness levels (both pre & post)
iii. use one tailed t-test to compare teacher attitudes of knowledge and ability of teaching
phonemic awareness to phonemic awareness levels (pre & post)
c. Materials
i. DIBELS initial sound fluency and blending fluency subtests
ii. Teacher Phonemic Awareness Attitude and Knowledge Scale
iii. Outline for Phonemic Awareness for Preschool Workshop
d. Procedure
i. Obtain consent forms from the preschool families (see attached consent form)
ii. Obtain consent forms from the teachers (see attached consent form)
iii. Implement Teacher Phonemic Awareness Attitude and Knowledge Scale to all teaching
subjects(see attached scale)
iv. Implement pre-test of DIBELS initial sound fluency and blending fluency subtests to all
preschool subjects
v. Implement Phonemic Awareness for Teachers of Preschool Workshop for treatment group
teaching subjects(see attached outline)
vi. Touch base weekly for clarification purposes with all treatment group teaching subjects
during 4 weeks of instruction
vii. Implement the Teacher Phonemic Awareness Attitude and Knowledge Scale to all teaching
subjects
viii. Implement post test of DIBELS initial sound fluency and blending fluency subtests
ix. Analyze the data

87
 APPENDIX B

OUTLINE FOR PHONEMIC AWARENESS WITH PRESCHOOL ELLS TEACHER TRAINING

88
I) Welcome (15 minutes)
a. Sign in
II) What is Phonemic Awareness (1 hour)
a. Definitions
b. The skills of phonemic awareness
i. Counting phonemes
ii. Segmenting
iii. Blending
iv. Isolating phonemes
III) Why phonemic awareness (1 hour)
a. What the research says
b. What the benefits are for the children
IV) Teaching Strategies (1 hours)
a. Implicit instruction
b. Explicit instruction
c. Teaching through play
i. Teacher Behavior Continuum
d. Direct instruction
i. Small group and circle time
V) Using the teaching strategies to promote phonemic awareness (1 hours)
a. Using the TBC to build phonemic awareness
i. Practice scenarios
b. Direct instruction games
i. Large group practice scenarios
ii. Small group practice scenarios
VI) Close (15 minutes)
a. Sign out
b. Certificates

89
 APPENDIX C

TRAINING PLAN FOR PHONEMIC AWARENESS WITH PRESCHOOL ELLS WORKSHOP

90
 Objective Key Say Show Do
Vocabulary Evaluation
Define phonemic Phonological Tell what each Overhead of the Play match up in pairs
awareness awareness, word means definitions
phoneme,
phonemic Also stress that
awareness, phonemic
segmenting, awareness is an oral
blending, isolating language skill and
no print is needed
Count phonemes Tell what counting Demonstrate Have pairs count
phonemes is and counting phonemes phonemes for three
why it is helpful for the word cat and words selected in
show storybook using
number markers
Segment phonemes Tell what Demonstrate Have pairs select three
segmenting segmenting the different words from
phonemes is and words dog and boat story books and
why it is helpful segment them
Blending Phonemes Tell what it means Demonstrate Have pairs choose
to blend phonemes blending the three word per person
and why it is phonemes for the and say the phonemes,
helpful words board and the partner blends to a
mat word
Isolating phonemes Tell what it means Demonstrate Have pairs pick two
to isolate phonemes phoneme isolation words from a story and
and why it is with the words isolate the words for
helpful book and hook each other
Identify the benefits Summarize what Overheads on the Review the
for using phonemic the research states benefits of using information orally
awareness the benefits are for phonemic
using phonemic awareness
awareness
Show video on
phonemic
awareness
Phonemic
Awareness: The
sounds of reading

Identify strategies Implicit instruction Review what Model implicit Have students generate
of implicit implicit instruction teaching through ideas for including
instruction is and how it is story reading implicit instruction
used with young
ells
Identify strategies Explicit instruction Review what Model explicit Have students generate
of explicit explicit instruction teaching through ideas for including
instruction is and how it is playing with leggos implicit instruction
used with young
ells
Identify and use Levels of tbc, play Using overhead Model the use of Have pairs practice
levels of the TBC review levels of the TBC in using TBC levels in

91
 TBC and how to dramatic play Dramatic play with
use with ells segmenting and
blending
Impliment Circle time, small Tell what small Model the use of Have pairs practice
strategies for direct group, direct group and circle direct instruction segmenting and
instruction in circle instruction, play, time can be used for segmenting and blending using story
time and small playlike activity for in relation to blending using a time
group activity direct instruction, story and then in a
name and describe small group
strategies based
on tbc
Identify Ell, total physical Explain some of the Show video Discuss & review
characteristics and response specific challenges Strategies for highlights of the video
teaching strategies that face young ells Language as a group
with ells and some Development for
developmental young language
characteristics learners
Implement Review the tbc and Scenario for each Have pairs practice
instruction the large group and and model the two senarios for large
strategies for small group techniques group and four
developing strategies scenararios for small
phonemic group/center
awareness implementing the TBC
and the instructional
strategies

92
 APPENDIX D

FREQUENCY COUNT FORM

93
 Treatment Site Frequency Count Form
For each word, at least twice per week, give the children an opportunity to segment and blend each word in circle time, literacy pla
dramatic play center. If they are successful give a 1, if unsuccessful give a 0.
Circle Time
Child Word 1: Word 2: Word 3:
Blend 1 Segmen Blend 2 Segmen Blend 1 Segmen Blend 2 Segmen Blend 1 Segme
t1 t2 t1 t2 t1

Literacy Center Play

Child Word 1: Word 2: Word 3:
Blend 1 Segmen Blend 2 Segmen Blend 1 Segmen Blend 2 Segmen Blend 1 Segme
t1 t2 t1 t2 t1

Dramatic Center Play

Child Word 1: Word 2: Word 3:
Blend 1 Segmen Blend 2 Segmen Blend 1 Segmen Blend 2 Segmen Blend 1 Segme
t1 t2 t1 t2 t1

Block Center Play

Child Word 1: Word 2: Word 3:
Blend 1 Segmen Blend 2 Segmen Blend 1 Segmen Blend 2 Segmen Blend 1 Segme
t1 t2 t1 t2 t1

94
APPENDIX E

DIBELS

95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
 APPENDIX F

PARENT CONSENT FORM

123
124
 APPENDIX G

CONSENT FORM

125
126
127
 APPENDIX H

TEACHER PREPARATION SURVEY

128
129
 APPENDIX I

TEACHER LITERACY KNOWLEDGE SURVEY

130
Name: ___________________________________ School: ___________________________________

Multiple Choice. Please write the letter of the best answer on the line.

1. A schwa sound is found in the word

(a) resume (d) about
(b) bread (e) flirt
(c) look

2. Which word contains a short vowel sound?

(a) treat (d) paw
(b) start (e) father
(c) slip

3. A phoneme refers to
(a) a single letter (c) a single unit of meaning
(b) a single speech sound (d) a grapheme

4. A pronounceable group of letters containing a vowel sound is a

(a) phoneme (c) syllable
(b) grapheme (d) morpheme

5. If tife were a word, the letter i would probably sound like the i in
(a) if (d) ceiling
(b) beautiful (e) sing
(c) find

6. A combination of two or three consonants pronounced so that each letter keeps its own identity is
called a
(a) silent consonant (c) diphthong
(b) consonant digraph (d) consonant blend

7. A schwa sound is found in the word

(a) cotton (d) preview
(b) phoneme (e) grouping
(c) stopping

8. A diphthong is found in the word

(a) coat (d) sing
(b) boy (e) been
(c) battle

9. A voiced consonant digraph is in the word

131
(a) think (d) the
(b) ship (e) photo
(c) whip

132
10. confuse the sounds /b/ and /p/ or /f/ and /v/?
Two (a) Students are visually scanning the letters in a way that letters are
combin misperceived.
ed (b) The students cant remember the letter sounds so they are randomly guessing.
letters (c) The speech sounds within each pair are produced in the same place and in the
that same way, but one is voiced and the other is not.
represen (d) The speech sounds within each pair are both voiced and produced in the back
t one of the mouth.
single
speech 15. What type of task would this be? I am going to say a word and then I want you to break the
sound word apart. Tell me each of the sounds in the word dog.
are a (a) blending (c) segmentation
(a) schwa (b) rhyming (d) digraph (d) deletion
(b) consonant blend (e) diphthong
16. What type of task would this be? I am going to say some sounds that will make one word when
(c) phonetic
you put them together. What does /sh/ /oe/ say?
11. (a) blending (c) segmentation
How (b) rhyming (d) manipulation
many
speech 17. Mark the statement that is FALSE.
sounds (a) Phonological awareness is a precursor to phonics.
are in (b) Phonological awareness is a oral language activity.
the (c) Phonological awareness is a method of reading instruction that begins with
word individual letters and sounds.
eight? (d) Many children acquire phonological awareness from language activities and
(a) two reading. (c) four
(b) three (d) five
18. A reading method that focuses on teaching the application of speech sounds to letters is called
12. (a) phonics (d) phonetics
How (b) phonemics (e) either (a) or (d)
many (c) orthography
speech
sounds
are in
the
word
box?
(a) one (c) three
(b) two (d) four

13.
How
many
speech
sounds
are in
the
word
grass?
(a) two (c) four
(b) three (d) five

14.
Why
may
students
133
19. What is the rule for using a ck in spelling?
(a) when the vowel sound is a diphthong (c) when the vowel sound is long
(b) when the vowel sound is short (d) any of the above

20. Count the number of syllables for the word unbelievable.

(a) four (c) six
(b) five (d) seven

21. Count the number of syllables for the word pies.

(a) one (c) three
(b) two (d) four

The next two items involve saying a word and then reversing the order of the sounds. For example,
the word back would be cab.

22. If you say the word, and then reverse the order of the sounds, ice would be
(a) easy (c) size
(b) sea (d) sigh

23. If you say the word, and then reverse the order of the sounds, enough would be
(a) fun (c) funny
(b) phone (d) one

24. What is the second sound in the word queen?

(a) u (c) k
(b) long e (d) w

25. What is the third speech sound in the word wretch?

(a) /ch/ (c) /t/
(b) /e/ (d) /r/

26. In the word crouch, the cr- part is called the

(a) rhyme (d) morpheme
(b) initial phoneme (e) onset
(c) rime

27. In language, a single unit of meaning is called a

(a) grapheme (d) morpheme
(b) syllable (e) phoneme
(c) rime

28. Count the number of syllables in the word walked.

(a) one (c) three
(b) two (d) four

29. What type of task would this be? The word is taught. What word would you have if you said
taught without the /t/ sound?
(a) rhyming (c) elision
(b) blending (d) none of the above

134
30. In the word plan, the an part is called the
(a) rhyme (d) morpheme
(b) final phoneme (e) onset
(c) rime

31. For skilled readers, listening and reading comprehension are usually about equal. For developing
readers in K-3, it is true that
(a) Reading comprehension is better than listening comprehension.
(b) Listening comprehension is better than reading comprehension.
(c) Reading and listening comprehension are comparable, about the same.
(d) There is no systematic relationship between reading comprehension and
listening comprehension.

32. How many morphemes are in the word gardener?

(a) one (c) three
(b) two (d) four

33. How many morphemes are in the word unbelievable?

(a) one (c) three
(b) two (d) four

34. How many morphemes are in the word pies?

(a) zero (c) two
(b) one (d) three

135
Short Answer. Please answer to the best of your ability.

35. List the six syllable types and an example of each (e.g., a single-syllable word exemplifying the particular
syllable type, a multi-syllable word with the specified syllable type circled). As an example, the first has been
listed for you (with any one of the labels considered correct); if you are able, please provide an example of this
syllable type before moving onto the others.

Type Example

1) Closed syllable, CVC, or VC __________________________________

2) _______________________ __________________________________

3) _______________________ __________________________________

4) _______________________ __________________________________

5) _______________________ __________________________________

6) _______________________ __________________________________

136
 APPENDIX J

HUMAN SUBJECTS CHANGE IN PROTOCOL APPROVAL

137
Office of the Vice President For Research
Human Subjects Committee
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
(850) 644-8673 FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM (for change in research protocol)

Date: 3/18/2009

To: Douglas Bell

Address: 169 Herlong Drive, Tallahassee, FL, 32310

Dept.: EDUCATIONAL THEORY AND PRACTICE

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research (Approval for Change in Protocol)

Project entitled: Developing Phonemic Awareness in Preschool Aged English Language Learners

The form that you submitted to this office in regard to the requested change/amendment to your research
protocol for the above-referenced project has been reviewed and approved.

Please be reminded that if the project has not been completed by 4/8/2009, you must request renewed
approval for continuation of the project.

By copy of this memorandum, the chairman of your department and/or your major professor is
reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human
subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is
being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance
Number is IRB00000446.

Cc: Charles Wolfgang, Advisor

HSC No. 2009.2495

138
 APPENDIX K

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL RENEWAL

139
 APPENDIX L

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL

140
Office of the Vice President For Research
Human Subjects Committee
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
(850) 644-8673 FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 4/14/2008

To: Douglas Bell [dbell@admin.fsu.edu]

Address: 169 Herlong Drive, Tallahassee, FL, 32310

Dept.: EDUCATIONAL THEORY AND PRACTICE

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research

Developing Phonemic Awareness in Preschool Aged English Language Learners

The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the research
proposal referenced above has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Committee at its meeting on
04/09/2008. Your project was approved by the Committee.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the
risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This
approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is
attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting
research subjects.

If the project has not been completed by 4/8/2009 you must request a renewal of approval for
continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration
date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your
approval from the Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the
Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol
change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal
regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems
or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that
he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the
department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted
in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance
Number is IRB00000446.

Cc: Charles Wolfgang, Advisor [wolfgang@coe.fsu.edu]

HSC No. 2008.1258

141
 REFERENCES

Allor, J. (2002). The relationship of phonemic awareness and rapid naming to reading development.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 47-57.

Al Otaiba, S., Kosanovich-Grek, M., Torgesen, J., Hassler, L., & Wahl, M. (2005). Reviewing core
kindergarten and first grade reading programs in light of no child left behind: An exploratory study.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 377-400.

Anthony, J. & Lonigan, C. (2004). The nature of phonological awareness: converging evidence from
four studies of preschool and early grade school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,
43-55.

Araujo, L. (2002). The literacy development of kindergarten English-language learners. Journal

of research in childhood education, 16, 232-247.

Asher, J. (1966). The learning strategy of total physical response: A review. Modern Language Journal,
50, 79-84.

Asher, J. (1969). The total physical response approach to second language learning. Modern Language
Journal, 53, 3-18.

Ayres, L. (1995). The efficacy of three training conditions on phonological awareness of kindergarten
children and the longitudinal effects of each on later reading acquisition. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30, 604-606.

Backman, J. (1983). The role of psycholinguistic skills in reading acquisition: A look at early readers.
Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 466-479.

Ball, E. & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in
early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.

Becker, W., Englemann, S., Carnine, D., & Rhine, W. (1981). Direct instruction model. In W. Rhine
(Ed.). Making Schools more effective: New directions form follow through. New York: Academic
Press.

Beckman, M., & Edwards, J. (2000). The ontogeny of phonological categories and the primacy of
lexical learning in linguistic development. Child Development, 71, 240-249.

Beech, J., & Harding, L. (1984). Phonemic processing and the poor reader from a developmental
lag viewpoint. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 357-366.

142
Bennett, K., Weigel, D., & Martin, S. (2002). Childrens acquisition of early literacy skills: Examining
family contributions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 295-317.

Bernhardt, S., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (1994). Nonlinear phonology: Introduction and clinical application.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 123-143.

Biber, B., Shapiro, E., & Wickens, D. (1977). Promoting Cognitive Growth: A Developmental-
Interaction Point of View, 2nd ed. Washington DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children.

Booth, D. (1985). Imaginary gardens with real toads: Reading and drama in education. Theory into
Practice, 24, 193-198.

Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C., Eds. (1997). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood
Programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Brown, M., Bergen, D., House, M., Hittle, J., & Dickerson, T. (2000). An observational study:
Examining the relevance of developmentally appropriate practices, classroom adaptations,
and parental participation in the context of an integrated preschool program. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 28, 51-56.

Burgess, S., & Lonigan, C. (1998). Bidirectional relations of phonological sensitivity and pre-reading
abilities: evidence from a preschool sample. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 117-
141.

Byrne, B., Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Ashley, L. (2000). Effects of preschool phoneme identity training
after six years: Outcome level distinguished from rate of response. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 659-667.

Cardoso-Martins, C. (1995). Sensitivity to rhymes, syllables, and phonemes in literacy acquisition in

Portuguese. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 808-828.

Cassidy, D., Hestenes, L., Hedge, A., Hestenes, S., & Mims, S. (2005). Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 20, 345-360.

Connor, C., Morrison, F., & Slominski, L. (2006). Preschool instruction and childrens emergent literacy
growth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 665-689.

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.
Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251.

Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimenstions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual
education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175-187.

Cummins, J. (1981). Four misconceptions about language proficiency in bilingual education. NABE
Journal, 5, 31-45.

143
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for interaction. Harvard Review, 56,
18-36.

Dartigue, E. (1966). Bilingualism in the nursery school. The French Review, 39, 577-587.

Devries, R. & Kohlberg, L. (1987). Constructivist Early Education: Overview and comparison with
other programs. Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). New perspective on the creative construction process in child second
language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 253-378.

Dunn, L. (1993). Proximal and distal features of day care quality and childrens development. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 167-192.

Dunn, L., Beach, S., & Kontos, S. (1994). Quality of the literacy environment in day care and childrens
development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 9, 24-34.

Edwards, M. (1974). Perception and production in child phonology: the testing of four hypotheses.
Journal of Child Language, 1, 205-219.

Elliott, E. & Ollif, C. (2008). Developmentally appropriate emergent literacy activities for young
children: Adapting the early literacy and language model. Early Childhood Education
Journal,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/78005332q10w8504/?p=4e7539d7d4ef47d0b14ef2
2761b69f41&pi=6.

Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of implicit and explicit
knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289-319.

Erhi, L., 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
panels meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.

Evans, E. (1982). Curriculum models. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood
education. New York: The Free Press.

Evans, M., Bell, M., Shaw, D., Moretti, S., & Page, J. (2006). Letter names, letter sounds, and
phonological awareness: An examination of kindergarten children across letters and of
letters across children. Reading and Writing, 959-989.

Evin-Tripp, S. (1974). Is second language learning like the first. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 111-127.

Fassler, R. (1998). Room for talk: Peer support for getting into English in an ESL kindergarten.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 379-409.

144
Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Can minimally trained college student volunteers help young at-risk
children to read better. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 28-47.

Fontaine, N., Torre, L., Grafwallner, R., & Underhill, B. (2006). Increasing quality in early care
and learning environments. Early Child Development and Care, 176, 157-169.

Foorman, B., Chen, D., Carlson, C., Moats, L., Francis, D., & Fletcher, J. (2003). The necessity
of the alphabetic principle to phonemic awareness instruction. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 289-324.

Fountain, C., & Wood, J. (2000). Florida early literacy and learning model: A systematic
approach to improve learning at all levels. Peabody Journal of Education, 75, 85-98.

Fowler, W. (1964). Structural dimensions of the learning process in early reading. Child
Development, 35, 1093-1104.

Fox, B., & Routh, D. (1975). Analyzing spoken language into words, syllables, and phonemes: A
developmental study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 331-342.

Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, 7th ed.
New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Freppon, P., & Dahl, K. (1998). Theory and research into practice: Balanced instruction: Insights
and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 240-251.

Genisio, M., & Drecktrah, M. (1999). Emergent literacy in the early childhood classroom: Center
learning to support the child with special needs. Early Childhood Education Journal, 26,
225-231.

Gliner, J., & Morgan, G. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach
to design and analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Good, R., & Kaminski, R. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational
Achievement. Available: http://dibels.uoregon.edu/.

Hanline, M., Milton, S., & Phelps, P. (2001). Young childrens block construction activities:
Findings from three years of observation. Journal of Early Intervention, 24, 224-237.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young
American Children. Baltimore: Maryland. Paul H. Brookes.

Hatcher, P., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the
teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child
Development, 65, 41-57.

145
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.

Hayes, N., & Schrier, L. (2000). Encouraging second language literacy in the early grades.
Hispania, 83, 286-296.

Heffner, C. (2004). Research Methods (chap. 7). Allpsychonline. Retrieved from

http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/index.html on November 5th 2008.

Hester, H. (1984). Peer interaction in learning English as a second language. Theory into
Practice, 23, 208-2117.

Hinkel, E. (2005). Handbook of Research in Teaching and Learning. Mawah, NJ: L. Erlbaum
Associates.

Hohmann, M. & Weikart, D. (1995). Educating Young Children. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope
Press.

Hollander, M., and Wolfe, D. (1999). Nonparametric Statistical Methods. NY: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.

Huck, S., Cormier, W., & Bounds, W. (1974). Reading Statistics and Research. New York, NY:
Harper & Row Publishers.

Huffman, L. & Speer, P. (2000). Academic performance among at risk children: The role of
developmentally appropriate practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 167-
184.

International Reading Association, & National Association for the Education of Young Children
(1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practice for young
children.

Johnson, D. (1987). The organization of education in migrant education: assistance for children
and youth at risk. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 437-459.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children form first
through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 458-492.

Justice, L., Mashburn, A., Hamre, B., & Pianta, H. (2008). Quality of language and literacy
instruction in preschool classrooms serving at risk pupils. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 23, 51-68.

Kontos, S. (1999). Preschool teacherss talk, roles, and activity settings during free play. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 363-382.

146
Kugelmass, J. & Ross-Bernstein, J. (2000). Explicit and implicit dimensions of adult-child
interactions in a quality childcare center. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28, 19-27.

Lee, P. (1996). Cognitive development in bilingual children: A case for bilingual instruction in
early childhood education. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 499-522.

Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical Research: Planning and Design, 7th ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leseman, P., Rollenberg, L., & Rispens, J. (2001). Playing and working in kindergarten:
Cognitive co-construction in two educational settings. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 16, 363-384.

Locke, J. (1971). Phonemic Perception in two and three year old children. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 32, 215-217.

Lonigan, C., Burgess, S., & Anthony, J. (2000). Development of emergent literacy an
early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent variable
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596-613.

Lonigan, C. & Whitehurst, G. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a
shared reading intervention for preschool children from low income backgrounds. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 263-290.

Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Peterson, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating
phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263-284.
Mackey, W. (1965). Language Teaching Analysis. London: Longman.

Mann-Whitney U Test. (n.d.) Retrieved November 13, 2009 from http:

www.statisticssolutions.com/mann-whitney-u-test.

Maclean, M., Bryant, P., & Bradley, L. (1987). Rhymes, nursery rhymes, and reading in early
childhood. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 255-282.

McFadden, T. (1998). Sounds and stories: Teaching phonemic awareness in print contexts.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 5-13.

McGee, M. & Purcell-Gates, V. (1997). So whats going on in research on emergent literacy?

Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 310-318.

Mitchell, A. & David, J. eds (1992). Explorations with Young Children: A Curriculum Guide
from the Bank Street College of Education. Beltsville, MD: Gryphon House.

Morris, D., Bloodgood, J., & Perney, J. (2003). Kindergarten predictors of first and second grade
reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 93-109.

147
Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset rime segmentation, predicts
early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 154-176.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (1995). Responding to linguistic and
cultural diversity: Recommendations for effective early childhood education. A position
statement of the national association for the education of young children.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (1997). Developmentally Appropriate
Practices in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age Eight:
A Position Statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Oudeans, M. (2003). Integration of letter-sound correspondences and phonological awareness

skills of blending and segmenting: A pilot study examining the effects of instructional
sequence on word reading for kindergarten children with low phonological awareness.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 258-280.

Palermo, F., Hanish, L., Martin, C., Fabes, R., & Reiser, M. (2007). Preschoolers academic
readiness: What role does the teacher-child relationship play? Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 22, 407-422.

Paulston, C. (1974). Linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 347-362.

Pease-Alverez, L., Garcia, E., & Espinosa, P. (1991). Effective instruction for language minority
students: An early childhood case study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 347-361.

Pennington, B., & Lefly, D. (2001). Early reading development in children at family risk
for dyslexia. Child Development, 72, 816-833.

Peregoy, S., & Boyle, O. (2000). English learners reading English: What we know and what we
need to know. Theory into Practice, 39, 237-247.

Piaget, J. (1926). The Language and Thought of the Child. New York: Harcourt, Brace, &
Company.

Piaget, J. (1970). Science of Education and Psychology of the Child. New York: Orion Press.

Podhajski, B. & Nathan, J. (2005). Promoting early literacy through professional development
for child care providers. Early Education and Development, 16, 23-41.

Quick, B. (1998). Beginning reading and developmentally appropriate practice: Past, present,
and future. Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 253-272.

Reading, S., & Van Deuren, D. (2007). Phonemic awareness: When and how much to teach?
Reading Research and Instruction, 46, 267-285.

148
Rodriguez, J., Diaz, R., Duran, D., & Espinosa, L. (1995). The impact of bilingual preschool
education on the language development of Spanish speaking children. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 10, 475-490.

Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. (1993). Descriptive observation of adults facilitation of literacy in
young childrens play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 77-97.

Salkind, N. (2003). Exploring Research, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Saracho, O. (2004). Supporting literacy related play: Roles for teachers of young children. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 31, 201-206.

Savignon, S. (1987). Communicative language teaching. Theory into Practice, 26, 235-242.

Savignon, S. & Sysoyev, P. (2002). Sociocultural strategies for a dialogue of cultures. Modern
Language Journal, 86, 508-524.

Savignon, S. & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner
attitudes and perceptions. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 223-249.

Sayeski, K., Burgess, K., Planta, R., & Lloyd, J. (2001). Literacy behaviors of preschool children
participating in an early intervention program. CIERA Report # 2-014. Center for the
Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.

Schiff-Myers, N. (1992). Considering arrested language development and language loss in the
assessment of second language learners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 23, 28-33.

Schweinhart, L., & Weikart, D. (1997). The high/scope preschool curriculum comparison study
through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 117-143.

Sharif, I., Ozuah, P., Dinkevich, E., & Mulvihill, M. (2003). Impact of a brief literacy
intervention on urban preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30, 177-180.

Smith, K. (1997). Student teachers beliefs about developmentally appropriate practice: Pattern,
stability, and the influence of locus of control. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12,
221-243.

Snow, C. (1992). Perspecitves on second language development: Implications for bilingual

education. Educational Researcher, 21, 16-19.

Snowling, M. & Hulme, C. (1994). The development of phonological skills. Philosophical

Transactions: Bilological Sciences, 346, 21-27.

Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental
readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 1-22.

149
Sprugevica, I., & Hoien, T. (2003). Enabling skills in early reading acquisition: A study of
children in latvian kindergartens. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16,
159-177.

Stahl, S. & Murray, B. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to
early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 221-234.

Stewart, M. (2004). Phonological awareness and bilingual preschoolers: Should we teach it and,
if so, how? Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 31-37.

Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional
approaches on young childrens achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66,
209-223.

Stott, F. & Bowman, B. (1996). Child development knowledge: A slippery base for practice.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 169-183.

Torgesen, J., Morgan, S., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of phonological training on
word learning in kindergarten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 364-370.

Tramontana, M., Hooper, S., & Selzer, S. (1988). Research on preschool prediction of
later academic achievement: A review. Developmental Review, 8, 89-146.

Tunmer, W., Herriman, M., & Nesdale, A. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning
reading. Reading research quarterly, 23, 134-158.

Uhry, J. & Shepherd, M. (1993). Segmentation/spelling instruction as part of a first grade

reading program: Effects on several measures of reading. Reading Research Quarterly,
28, 218-233.

Ukrainetz, T., Cooney, M., Dyer, S., Kysar, A., & Harris, T. (2000). An investigation into
teaching phonemic awareness through shared reading and writing. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 15, 331-355.

Ungerer, J. & Sigman, M. (1984). The relation of play and sensorimotor behavior to language in
the second year. Child Development, 55, 1448-1455.

Vandevelden, M. & Siegel, L. (1997). Teaching phonological processing skills in early literacy:
A developmental approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 63-81.

Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. (2000).
Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early
intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as
basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-
638.

150
Vygotsky, L.S. (1965). Thought and language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press.

Vygotsky, L.S.(1978) Mind in society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Massachusetts.

Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., Laughon, P., Simmons, K., & Rashotte, C. (1993). Development of
young readers phonological processing abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,
83-103.

Walpole, S., Chow, S., & Justice, L. (2004). Literacy achievement during kindergarten:
Examining key contributors in an at-risk sample. Early Education and Care, 15, 245-264.

Wein, C. (1996). Time, work, and developmentally appropriate practice. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 11, 377-403.

Whitehurst, G. & Lonigan, C. (1998). Child development and early literacy. Child Development,
69, 848-872.

Whitehurst, G., Zevenbergen, A., Crone, D., Schultz, M., Velting, O., & Fischel, J. (1999).
Outcomes from an emergent literacy intervention from head start through second grade.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 261-272.

Wishard, A., Shivers, E., Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (2003). Child care program and teacher
practices: associations with quality and childrens experiences. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 18, 65-103.

Winsler, A., Diaz, R., Espinosa, L., & Rodriguez, J. (1999). When learning a second language
does not mean losing the first: Bilingual language development in low income, Spanish-
speaking children attending bilingual preschool. Child Development, 70, 349-362.

Wolfgang, C. & Wolfgang, M. (1992) School for Young Children. Boston Massachusetts: Allyn
& Bacon.

Wong Fillmore, L., & Valdez, C. (1986). Teaching bilingual learners. In M.C. Wittrock (ED.)
Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.

Yaden, D., Tam, A., Madrigal, P., Brassell, D., Massa, J., Altamirano, L., Armendariz, J. (2000).
Early literacy for inner city children: The effects of reading and writing interventions in
English and Spanish during the preschool years. The Reading Teacher, 54, 186-195.

Yeh, S. (2003). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to children
in head start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 513-529.

151
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

DOUGLAS D. BELL, JR

Douglas Bell has been working in the field of early childhood education since 1986. He has been
a teacher in the infant, toddler, preschool, and primary grade levels. Douglas has also been training
other teachers since 1994. He has trained teachers in conferences, workshops, non-credit courses,
and credit bearing courses. He has worked with children and teachers in various settings and across
economic levels.

152