<%BANNER%>

Relationships among Teachers' Phonemic Awareness Knowledge and Skills and Their Students' Emergent Literacy Growth

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021553/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationships among Teachers' Phonemic Awareness Knowledge and Skills and Their Students' Emergent Literacy Growth
Physical Description: 1 online resource (133 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: phonemic, reading, teacher
Special Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Reading research shows that early systematic instruction in phonemic awareness improves students' early reading and spelling skills. Therefore, teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness is an important aspect of students' ability to learn how to read. Many researchers have connected teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness to students? reading development. This relationship demonstrates the importance for teachers to have an understanding of the components of language development. Although research confirms that this knowledge increases students' understanding of reading, research continues to demonstrate that teachers are not familiar with phonemic awareness activities. Our purpose was to investigate the relationships among kindergarten teachers' knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and their students' emergent literacy development. Specifically, it examined teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness and their ability to manipulate and identity specific phonemes within words. Participants were involved in two surveys about phonemic awareness. The Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) assessed teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness pedagogy and the Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) assessed teachers' ability to manipulate and identify phonemes within words. Data were analyzed by using a multiple regression analysis. The results of the analysis revealed that teachers lacked basic knowledge related to phonemic awareness knowledge and skills. It was found that teachers who had advanced degrees scored higher on both the PAKS and the PASS than teachers who had a bachelor. Findings also revealed that teachers who had an early childhood certificate had a higher mean on both the PAKS and PASS than teachers who just had an elementary certificate. There was limited evidence to show a connection between teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness and students' literacy development.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Lane, Holly B.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021553:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021553/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationships among Teachers' Phonemic Awareness Knowledge and Skills and Their Students' Emergent Literacy Growth
Physical Description: 1 online resource (133 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: phonemic, reading, teacher
Special Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Reading research shows that early systematic instruction in phonemic awareness improves students' early reading and spelling skills. Therefore, teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness is an important aspect of students' ability to learn how to read. Many researchers have connected teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness to students? reading development. This relationship demonstrates the importance for teachers to have an understanding of the components of language development. Although research confirms that this knowledge increases students' understanding of reading, research continues to demonstrate that teachers are not familiar with phonemic awareness activities. Our purpose was to investigate the relationships among kindergarten teachers' knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and their students' emergent literacy development. Specifically, it examined teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness and their ability to manipulate and identity specific phonemes within words. Participants were involved in two surveys about phonemic awareness. The Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) assessed teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness pedagogy and the Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) assessed teachers' ability to manipulate and identify phonemes within words. Data were analyzed by using a multiple regression analysis. The results of the analysis revealed that teachers lacked basic knowledge related to phonemic awareness knowledge and skills. It was found that teachers who had advanced degrees scored higher on both the PAKS and the PASS than teachers who had a bachelor. Findings also revealed that teachers who had an early childhood certificate had a higher mean on both the PAKS and PASS than teachers who just had an elementary certificate. There was limited evidence to show a connection between teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness and students' literacy development.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Lane, Holly B.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021553:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101211_AAAACA INGEST_TIME 2010-12-12T02:43:50Z PACKAGE UFE0021553_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 7506 DFID F20101211_AABXJE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH taylor_m_Page_089thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
d250c2483b1666315d33ca8d50c7127f
SHA-1
318e0bda6ccd24c6598fd211aabffc5201cac01d
26680 F20101211_AABYMG taylor_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
d69a904228ab89817e527956274049c1
a9844dafac45053adca3c42b82947fca08ba71ad
7630 F20101211_AABYLS taylor_m_Page_021thm.jpg
857cfcf786a8d790df4b6d4bf85a84d9
1ebb134708f81b2889827d297724209e730c027a
1051940 F20101211_AABXJF taylor_m_Page_093.jp2
3c7123b11c461e3c5f658602add04308
3f33d67f871f87c1b64fc848e8cbfd8fe4867821
7416 F20101211_AABYMH taylor_m_Page_030thm.jpg
b0e6cfa158896e0b5d13f70a9b72e075
713907ea41122c9a41b83940bd0c79dbfb3997f7
28719 F20101211_AABYLT taylor_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
4cb31abdac75c42478318024a8b6015e
f32a231244aa3a5638c5a38a3523d2ae5b314bf2
1051984 F20101211_AABXJG taylor_m_Page_040.jp2
b42ecc60ae8fd2c196ba5ec627e0f55c
a1ec66bf38565548ade9f6e5847c366d83893be5
25375 F20101211_AABYMI taylor_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
26415d4ca93e0935435dc18504e42b86
3fe6586ec9e94e062b5394ff210fe509f4d7c093
25271604 F20101211_AABXIS taylor_m_Page_039.tif
b86df5bb8903793317e38a69d8ce48ae
71bf460f87457b870c2bc3a1ddfc5798a30c0ced
7572 F20101211_AABYLU taylor_m_Page_022thm.jpg
2a92980feac6a826858fd14b695a8393
6ca0eb445693f950ec53827cffabbf910ee1f4a9
20535 F20101211_AABXJH taylor_m_Page_113.pro
455733e376ab3ebdd6ad279ab272e81b
6dfefa1b4f1858c3adabbfd2c4466ea97848b7b8
27518 F20101211_AABYMJ taylor_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
f3bf9daa6dbb7f028a51cb4e3a035c96
1b95fe2f08a5c1c2276e6986ca879bd58a4513e9
5699 F20101211_AABXIT taylor_m_Page_133thm.jpg
e28162adaafc0c4ffff6505c1cd8c65f
85be4055abc9ebd80530f34613646179c4a47ea9
27480 F20101211_AABYLV taylor_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
3194e40325b0192266e1ecbaaa084bfe
718fd0e70a6b1bc947007c18a1fc4ec484fd5619
1817 F20101211_AABXJI taylor_m_Page_125.txt
6868ee256f806e3dcada93977bd31d94
3d5a6ac9dd8e6fbdd2b40b80ff5fd846015dcc4b
7510 F20101211_AABYMK taylor_m_Page_032thm.jpg
a639d86f207fd1f1679178ad0f140636
930fb96908a7089d0d2a6bc7d3f32c9985bc09e2
47195 F20101211_AABXIU taylor_m_Page_004.pro
1ef5fe0c494361c2a4fbaf098d30d305
38512f50914853f5697baa9dfd32d72f14b3be4b
7422 F20101211_AABYLW taylor_m_Page_023thm.jpg
c3bf07c41c56d955a39722987cd27098
4d64119686b818cea97b71a90e1494f4aaf24e75
7503 F20101211_AABXJJ taylor_m_Page_027thm.jpg
d82f8e155bd2191be6805a530b9ef491
b63fb5246d7b4072d26207df211da099498def30
28634 F20101211_AABYML taylor_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
94337b9aa53736cec08ba557fc1b037b
7c908e342fa1ae909a1b92341a4c177d69c3a909
2823 F20101211_AABXIV taylor_m_Page_049thm.jpg
cf19f10edba1bd02137e26d54e9d52fd
5be6e0b58fe159de0a3a1b081dedab7c49356e01
7648 F20101211_AABYLX taylor_m_Page_024thm.jpg
df28cf91bc266643e41d2c4c262e7caf
fddc84fdf284f6980cc739ae75e462ea895f4bdf
7102 F20101211_AABYNA taylor_m_Page_042thm.jpg
8e671f6b9bf7983fb08db84876fed858
30ba2f9db83b4b4b9e73e0918cb532e79636961e
2045 F20101211_AABXJK taylor_m_Page_069.txt
aa15a949251dd2f9340b372bba3b6504
ecfe0b210933c699c089a62e90ab5bc0d983938e
7623 F20101211_AABYMM taylor_m_Page_033thm.jpg
5be8e00d25f8dce3a4d7d24f12cb602e
ec9eea4435d1202b511d97a97eb6f0c2feec147f
15312 F20101211_AABXIW taylor_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
5391fe86273701184bf3424b22418218
a113e5071d05d4d1ba23a438b2d34940dff5f37f
28575 F20101211_AABYLY taylor_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
176ba3bbeb71924b06131ad038b38596
22b333330cd5081a8d728ccd30faad40f94ea449
25356 F20101211_AABYNB taylor_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
c6910ea76573a5e1b07786ba35a6df64
31bec81f6007dc64230a2b9466fd6a544b1a801d
21397 F20101211_AABXJL taylor_m_Page_124.pro
bbd3adebd3e883a9077013cf6446ae71
3c21f801363b9e6886e453d01792ada5f63d1b63
26596 F20101211_AABYMN taylor_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
58c367a47bf0f5000dc2f8fe94a865ed
c1790babe48b43dcce7713df227ce5825dfa0789
6764 F20101211_AABYNC taylor_m_Page_043thm.jpg
b8092365e9a5f48af3fdc62d622748bc
a8fc3fd4dc551ec58d496b00472f19e1726c02cf
367419 F20101211_AABXKA taylor_m_Page_005.jp2
2b9b8340a077303952c379d4185a83c0
04b6714e87807e68ddf1d9d1405b30bd0504ced1
F20101211_AABXJM taylor_m_Page_056.tif
f5de4c5a2ae931afadd26e6031d0a5c9
6369a523ab5c533ede257c1fe1270d95f0d8403c
7268 F20101211_AABYMO taylor_m_Page_034thm.jpg
8eacf6e4b42b4d78d4781961b126d544
07c414e1bc76be3eedeac03f818ef55f6d940483
2111 F20101211_AABXIX taylor_m_Page_039.txt
6512437cca608f295367681c5e6b2f9c
e08dc8fb70f089ec38a05ab294bd4a9172efa022
7622 F20101211_AABYLZ taylor_m_Page_025thm.jpg
b34513a3ed8039e9cdd2a53bf8aae098
8987737ded05df82a066e9e4eb717426033c6fc6
26939 F20101211_AABYND taylor_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
eedc44fdb7f4a3d45475d92253d44758
77aee5b6f9b49f4bc93cdb4001611436aa61d6de
53198 F20101211_AABXKB taylor_m_Page_019.pro
320b99a573d8dbf25b121caafdbfe30b
4190c144171a3b9b183a7d6901b4ed4d90e80b4a
2053 F20101211_AABXJN taylor_m_Page_046.txt
f58dabf9723ac49eeae336d19f5c5423
f3405bafcf38d3c46151e0b6324fcb934bce5672
28260 F20101211_AABYMP taylor_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
0df7972b96f343f14527163b82e32b0f
6094374db3322ce9d0af1368bd2a4863e0b9a8b9
F20101211_AABXIY taylor_m_Page_066.tif
4b17dcce7869512ef7cdf56c0a384f66
e79d6ca1e9d45c90717015c42f391bcd9b5e18f8
7448 F20101211_AABYNE taylor_m_Page_044thm.jpg
1991d2142a3db881a015042867bb25e3
eef1a6e878a0d37a4a40d356039e53bffc788d3e
29894 F20101211_AABXKC taylor_m_Page_002.jp2
4924ce54ef50aaf61fd4c297daa1fe6c
a2dc614a9b50f1ea3d911b0bc1ddb98903e13127
F20101211_AABXJO taylor_m_Page_025.jp2
99156ebc702976d732e1d8e7bd18add7
00415b0da3b779893d0bcee754931c2f6dc95b4a
7445 F20101211_AABYMQ taylor_m_Page_035thm.jpg
130550d3e3095e83b3cf1d66f127b050
fa105fe4905ea4ac8c49234cbc7f65d5725f1bc3
2128 F20101211_AABXIZ taylor_m_Page_084.txt
bc850e1eacf799149c4d589324324006
8792fc23804358efefc9be5025fdd4aac4d7e516
3607 F20101211_AABYNF taylor_m_Page_045thm.jpg
1de1f4855c0cae64f4fc5547ba4c01d1
0610e523632091571d2ee2712fd172b9ff3a8bd9
F20101211_AABXKD taylor_m_Page_029.tif
9d12070f709646218f0095dbfd484fe2
538192cce868d01b3a3572496c20adfb361037f9
85339 F20101211_AABXJP taylor_m_Page_029.jpg
e525f9c840509e16a6aa0d85d90d4d41
530228c15b2a2cfd4b4453ad439dd24c4b0addf1
26321 F20101211_AABYMR taylor_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
5f55cdf7d130c4dc42f103aa81c040e7
01d812ca41bc9ab464f8717d650ae5a642eddfa1
24091 F20101211_AABYNG taylor_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
4b1d757a7fef63069dae6430f764737c
b08d4759e81f72ec41db81feb8666a867bb373e6
75470 F20101211_AABXKE taylor_m_Page_063.jpg
13b73a32e6c50b95046792daf46501c3
4f94515e62e668da9fd69299ba962fbc2e1ab305
F20101211_AABXJQ taylor_m_Page_052.tif
069f8b59c34bf9fd1f378b18ae5c3a66
a0ae1b3eb045774644a577090e078d0f0e202bfa
7337 F20101211_AABYMS taylor_m_Page_036thm.jpg
db120079e258f51791a4081904778e2b
81ecb93d9c54cc6a58e6413c00d107a86a1a2a9f
6762 F20101211_AABYNH taylor_m_Page_046thm.jpg
9805cc8addfb0c8f25487ad578989b28
b376801abac0a1ebb58b8c99c470f54d0139d825
86562 F20101211_AABXKF taylor_m_Page_047.jpg
730254205585d83f359f8ac7e566e8fd
d31cc48baf1b71220e95b1920f86ab4960f5a83d
84882 F20101211_AABXJR taylor_m_Page_079.jpg
cec225dfdf5ed186b5a382f5578ea8c0
d3b5a0ee464743030c24cefe4b28153451fc671a
7392 F20101211_AABYMT taylor_m_Page_037thm.jpg
34f4aeceb54eb097518430fa5624608a
78149705b5b5b7d687e8788eb2ae4ca6792552dd
27918 F20101211_AABYNI taylor_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
683340728697c9b4683c7daf237080d0
718bb28f86dfe26fdf0b58d5fb34bc7ef429b421
2235 F20101211_AABXKG taylor_m_Page_048.txt
14bcb9627bececc816f22c06f9c4c691
97b570b7258006844f368b153787f4262da04770
F20101211_AABXJS taylor_m_Page_021.tif
af8db80eeba36d38e62b445354c9e06a
4570b828ae7b9ce026ba578455140431bf074a78
26075 F20101211_AABYMU taylor_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
a27e8af133200638fb603ea884e43d43
4d68f38111d848bb9cabac3f7bccd1bbef6f4225
7418 F20101211_AABYNJ taylor_m_Page_047thm.jpg
81013ddf49f0d99cc252ec19009bda7a
04cbba158f87503b1313ae774a9f0bf1fc172261
89728 F20101211_AABXJT taylor_m_Page_024.jpg
1f931cd5b16345b5fc1525b3b7911d70
3ae7c9110bbb7bcc31374b38f080a2f03a1dcdb9
7191 F20101211_AABYMV taylor_m_Page_038thm.jpg
7bc39a8fb7697c62f17af2ce9544183a
2a9b5a0a3e8ec28b12b0256548e0ea3c6a508e7a
664932 F20101211_AABXKH taylor_m_Page_070.jp2
78ac2586f9ff1cae53b8269e30a4b68e
be0d65d0e66426b0af38244213d9b8acfbb022a0
28235 F20101211_AABYNK taylor_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
73ff1ff56081099793cfb7775f25ed38
07e9e494e851566cc30590d3cf3812621aac185a
745224 F20101211_AABXJU taylor_m_Page_126.jp2
3750b4454b6f0600d346b073eb2d8e89
f280afdced124a745a4a3c9dd5eeea12e37156ee
26423 F20101211_AABYMW taylor_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
0938cc68ff42b753ab1b24b118a20326
adae72c850c0433951e5058fb13d41f2dc9c1727
3229 F20101211_AABXKI taylor_m_Page_123thm.jpg
b1a2ce222fc8eca329feb1798a1c5de1
81578d76ca52e47113171b686175f6db16bc4590
7475 F20101211_AABYNL taylor_m_Page_048thm.jpg
87d6ce69977eba1cadf492f7e6246d51
06fe0bb64cc8476c09be39aeb48346bf2215245b
68011 F20101211_AABXJV taylor_m_Page_118.pro
cfab052f20e60d5a174d36d7023c247f
ba4211ca0cc57769ac26d77bf8a19c0d5335aa95
7261 F20101211_AABYMX taylor_m_Page_039thm.jpg
081bc35e8424654bd227fdad183cefa1
3998d5aea8b05cfdf5a9d3fd74819ec7a48e6312
F20101211_AABXKJ taylor_m_Page_112.tif
769a5277842510dd15c5f8ef4b158d6e
75c13ef4a05def5d05f3245e2b2f60c52b12b0c1
28035 F20101211_AABYOA taylor_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
a081d03c02759492c12c0c71413e6d92
31b078327f7b2788a0fcfc5215d1e827a037304c
8645 F20101211_AABYNM taylor_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
41c4c837ffb2fadc4a56b25b517b74d6
3ddf7be06eee5ff63606bb4f0799a43fa8bb5252
27705 F20101211_AABYMY taylor_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
ec0b45122be369699217115c0b085770
84fce0602641a1c13d432bbecd5c03550d73d6e5
3182 F20101211_AABXJW taylor_m_Page_114thm.jpg
6a0378e0743f66e3e117e26d0c752118
0aff38407b8a8376b10735ed3c6a29291d018fa0
61358 F20101211_AABXKK taylor_m_Page_132.pro
98110f7a8fce72f63495bfc558578b37
e18614073a334d745af69de8b1960ca2d8ed8d6e
7405 F20101211_AABYOB taylor_m_Page_060thm.jpg
6de4ef5005fbeff5050ff99a8d199804
af73d6952c6440ec9cbcef9e3b08db432601b5f7
4097 F20101211_AABYNN taylor_m_Page_050thm.jpg
8f8e1a317d9b0f07d00c71dcd2de35da
168063a22de03483f9c3ec083ee59d4064b82b8c
7345 F20101211_AABYMZ taylor_m_Page_041thm.jpg
80b480fefddb5bc0eb8711e03a871fc6
bf1bd133999e20d56d9b42bccd73b3e140dd723a
F20101211_AABXJX taylor_m_Page_114.tif
7d2f6bda3447936c56a8d32f9dea8ea3
a4004c59cd1e2bd921a62e61a6055c5cb2939bad
36946 F20101211_AABXKL taylor_m_Page_096.jpg
cdfbffc59d499a429c181b4f74e90ff1
9b88854e58c6aa1644e33dea53f7e65503b0f530
6989 F20101211_AABYOC taylor_m_Page_061thm.jpg
1b284b555d2cbb7b4eafec3558610869
838a557f331753f1d2d7667427ec893d75588147
16449 F20101211_AABYNO taylor_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
4e7c9a743eef90b1c40a0c9d5796257c
7c9d2df4527e53736fda1fa9bb8b35e6eaaff7cf
26753 F20101211_AABXLA taylor_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
ef32f820372caef7efeb8c8e9d56ab09
d0729c65ac1480593f2786d53aa810c4f19e7fbd
6900 F20101211_AABXKM taylor_m_Page_031thm.jpg
96fe5e11105dda2b033ab4c17be2e99c
3d02d20311a65317e43db4433f9cec7add1db1e2
13744 F20101211_AABYOD taylor_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
360341b6d661f37725d72a8aae51f0e3
a78cb06919ccb02a33b66f1ffe032130f8e32110
4895 F20101211_AABYNP taylor_m_Page_051thm.jpg
ec5ae204ae5559d350c89bce2d9f05e0
10ce979dcef4b8435aa756a7ff39a4e67fef3fee
F20101211_AABXJY taylor_m_Page_091.tif
84cd6609b7bde4a98b0b726464bb6b14
1eca62e42ee28a964c1014e9430de6c2d36475a8
27977 F20101211_AABXLB taylor_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
8df174150839a1724600510c803cfca1
fb5ca7d12532b95176f65837715685371c6a856e
441750 F20101211_AABXKN taylor_m_Page_127.jp2
aa303630ea3791a97bdadca75ee5d493
bc1f6dc63b8e432d038d362b0424bb53b42fceef
4167 F20101211_AABYOE taylor_m_Page_062thm.jpg
b49436e7d4bd59ef76f87f4d9d460455
d8f6078b0cd718123c79465de40a83e9dd56f5a1
24880 F20101211_AABYNQ taylor_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
3134cd718f6126f9b033d949df294efb
b1943fd8a0dbfefac7d3b474cb1e088fd506163a
459526 F20101211_AABXJZ taylor_m_Page_012.jp2
f58c6cc72c102a3a19e128f8e0f1704b
ec2f371de6236ca4e94f8dee6a84b3f9079eb518
7025 F20101211_AABXLC taylor_m_Page_056thm.jpg
32dc81c1f2ef0d75458fa4b349044db5
b6655afa9f7ac609e821eac0e455b59d8b20a258
F20101211_AABXKO taylor_m_Page_037.tif
12de2a9ddb0282cfd0cc59f5f345c5f5
40153d3ee1106cb5b8633bee6e666dce24d3b374
23803 F20101211_AABYOF taylor_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
720f9bc77110164325e1e62aa163efb2
a1b54288ece2e46dbd44cf22d3d303dd5d45895d
7212 F20101211_AABYNR taylor_m_Page_052thm.jpg
4555319ff4a3f3c4cd13ca231d385af2
6673c44ff33b2110aab1193100e5b707ef216aad
26740 F20101211_AABXLD taylor_m_Page_112.jpg
dfd49557343a74aaac97c75666ab6ac9
29cd044a012f8a8fefa034627465833847b9cb6d
522903 F20101211_AABXKP taylor_m_Page_124.jp2
902c828c0ec73835a83ee61128f4f58a
83430a7a31eadd2f061be5e332d702708c7087ed
6811 F20101211_AABYOG taylor_m_Page_063thm.jpg
76d65a0576978218a54e3247c2a20d86
70f70f34c5c690675974840c37838279499a982d
4511 F20101211_AABYNS taylor_m_Page_053thm.jpg
577d21195b5896ef4bc184724dcd8b63
010086dd8618312a36995efda4e1de32d5654ee6
1244 F20101211_AABXLE taylor_m_Page_110.txt
bb7872a895c253b1d36ceffa773c1325
1603c64d27739024be9be7296c71e5a68169e0f5
1051906 F20101211_AABXKQ taylor_m_Page_120.jp2
9c0b767de6712707abb795736898bdf5
8ef00ce68880f4533592406782838f0cdbdb27fc
25828 F20101211_AABYOH taylor_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
56cb7e954612672e2a23af58e38d37fe
bbec5d4fc312c24585262f8156d6f3134b4ae7ee
26463 F20101211_AABYNT taylor_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
3bca209c86000dbf637762db5d46c2c7
194ca2cbc06893691ccf77ee048f15d0aa210bdb
2080 F20101211_AABXLF taylor_m_Page_078.txt
0ea8ebb9080a39b2d809f96083d2541d
00b4a15566faea03bde2d88bdc8f01d059ac7a50
F20101211_AABXKR taylor_m_Page_038.tif
3563e248f96cdace46323a8963802c65
e4d99771411a1530bdb767181d6ca79e31a2557c
7289 F20101211_AABYOI taylor_m_Page_064thm.jpg
31b30d59232d1037e70a0360d7f6ca42
621faf8ab134ba1d5119278bc8031bf54cdb06ec
7412 F20101211_AABYNU taylor_m_Page_054thm.jpg
ee60a6f6bac02f83a8dbba8b1fc5c4ff
177dca43c67b7436742cda155b7e60862de20422
25265604 F20101211_AABXLG taylor_m_Page_125.tif
b444fe504ff13e6c55c56ac7def40246
110b856845e6965d9752c1a7b2fae5504368f818
779 F20101211_AABXKS taylor_m_Page_012.txt
90d5a87d33e62e025ff0b97f1ac60f64
61faf910fbc2bbca014925866e6b7864d0550502
25331 F20101211_AABYOJ taylor_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
204589419a116f5baf59ba81cce377ee
3525953a40f0fa10d977b0162e83dea712da1e57
26343 F20101211_AABYNV taylor_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
a7002dc20ee066ed5e427ac7da64e5f9
72f194af9367b2da9f8c86cd0d05c6531089d60e
5657 F20101211_AABXLH taylor_m_Page_110thm.jpg
95718b437de07933fce42ffeae65552b
a42c1c73b5e74fb0ad2e7ae5841cf7131fdd3f6c
895 F20101211_AABXKT taylor_m_Page_105.txt
aada26dc77e3d1a91cbf39aea3e95376
3712720a33cca964c9931dea7dae9756b7fe470e
17542 F20101211_AABYOK taylor_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
c9ca766061c0d920294faddde31191f3
49a1a68397f810aeda8bc71a844d0fc492ac157f
26067 F20101211_AABYNW taylor_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
20058d449fde5a516e2a48d4b5e5d3ed
c41e5109225cc4b3955390bb2e9dfe8fb89ec89a
6799 F20101211_AABXLI taylor_m_Page_004thm.jpg
69245885ee1a59f6c5946f82880e6d25
f29c1807814a89f5d9745b0ff36d71adcdf463a7
52230 F20101211_AABXKU taylor_m_Page_040.pro
e6e550ccd2674d9c80392ebe14fc7797
e58892ea002296ab036fdbd4bcd5f6f11ed8a1fe
4830 F20101211_AABYOL taylor_m_Page_066thm.jpg
fdade6f31a38579309e832c5b8c0bf54
0cc90d96bb848331dafd6c3c9794869044012230
7177 F20101211_AABYNX taylor_m_Page_057thm.jpg
9f268453164bec9b049383279be6da9e
3837b560570e6c7f73e68ec3d0f289398b98847f
26749 F20101211_AABXLJ taylor_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
b3118ec0744a5d9ad2d82c9b95c41e9b
205003c0812639a1f8321fafdcf4df4eda97ae90
45843 F20101211_AABXKV taylor_m_Page_106.jpg
e29bb1cc165261e860d67e9d686e62b6
e3554b5d8c7761205db3c776ae11bd135b40d89d
7535 F20101211_AABYPA taylor_m_Page_076thm.jpg
d0e7c866dadd98ee0298ed85c0961d9a
ef2d7d4e836b911e9d533b36dd5adc211af895ef
24121 F20101211_AABYOM taylor_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
9fd393697e1c0290106ab177deaedf80
d90bfb4ed6b8ed5fcb9ab30cf259bf7839f8e51c
25373 F20101211_AABYNY taylor_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
fd9d31ed240a8f85b055673f1227d8e1
29bffccec1f78a7ce880a2e5bbecfcba0e66c253
10503 F20101211_AABXLK taylor_m_Page_117.QC.jpg
6cb026b262b40faf0a682084eb247d7e
0dad507eb6a1881b2bd9df773e50d62e85d4c677
F20101211_AABXKW taylor_m_Page_077.tif
144344b02be5df0d4be06d7beb52afc1
c421ed548aa024340ed5eb8c8f19922b5033fb51
25690 F20101211_AABYPB taylor_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
94918c0165af86aa9e817dfbac4201e0
d4130b4df3aac34c7648aabbf9f2a86a6dc4c84e
6837 F20101211_AABYON taylor_m_Page_067thm.jpg
bf389b151d8d18c2c6096850fc3f55e7
bc433d81fa2d2691067b7e32c0962af5343d065f
26257 F20101211_AABYNZ taylor_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
879789266de690454f13d82d7707220a
e11d58a45fa8f1b77a79e9c0bb77deac12081cc7
27810 F20101211_AABXLL taylor_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
8d708d535f0cead1f4c697b7f265a9e0
5ea1d36374f53abc4bf5392ecb1a546504b113f9
44434 F20101211_AABXKX taylor_m_Page_105.jpg
296ba3ed4e9377c72e91a7eb3c809e92
4f201335cb493635952c1248c75f51549073fc19
7494 F20101211_AABYPC taylor_m_Page_078thm.jpg
531193a727d6b7f125f3c295a7afe4c1
146c8971a696abc557d682a8ca39999871cc23cd
26281 F20101211_AABYOO taylor_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
1b8c710bbe20e48b7550e8b1808af05c
df2232092b231d00db774b4ce9f249d8c555fcc2
F20101211_AABXMA taylor_m_Page_044.tif
c522aa126d74159f3c5575717c0c4b8f
392296b0676214e43e3bee1af3ec32596fdecfed
2871 F20101211_AABXLM taylor_m_Page_009thm.jpg
454dcd74c3faae2a772e69e228d40aa1
c8c683357aff5de49cb75511d441386c8c59ea77
55053 F20101211_AABXKY taylor_m_Page_027.pro
ac7ed0ee05ba96d61c63f2da68e62a3b
26a6f6bcd38d25bed2308bc11211d6c31ddc9e32
26417 F20101211_AABYPD taylor_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
f6188fb95b3c3cbf5717c8aab61d2554
b06f7c3762e1e52051650d5ba5616935aae8de40
7113 F20101211_AABYOP taylor_m_Page_069thm.jpg
351c7f574b3a9c00104d166bd8727aa8
025c6d90539e87019000551b5d5ec4610722f3de
6878 F20101211_AABXMB taylor_m_Page_077thm.jpg
7fc637d2418294a4d47cd5a227727c98
f8598752b957e2643caa123e08520d78d6056298
38681 F20101211_AABXLN taylor_m_Page_133.pro
c5b3b024d5f1e849251e04d799aabc76
60ed09f6a557ec4ec8681613fbc7043206a6e32d
7371 F20101211_AABYPE taylor_m_Page_079thm.jpg
aa497b050b70a83de923ed435437c214
b2c2effe228f8b9f829e0ef0709b362b1612bd37
16760 F20101211_AABYOQ taylor_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
620ee96d34d7443229d4f9ff113d8c4b
59ea9d68e9ce425847bfbd0b9392194e3af8585e
F20101211_AABXMC taylor_m_Page_119.tif
5221439217367a22e29254d8f9f34466
8fa26ecddcf7940d106ba0638c4cb5c5ac93dc46
7432 F20101211_AABXLO taylor_m_Page_084thm.jpg
900000c3a00b2c6ffe09bb2a1513a685
82fa829247131eb26c308f38bf06c093efa5dc7b
807 F20101211_AABXKZ taylor_m_Page_017.txt
e4446eedbc954d4c4f911d60e9df343a
1da4e17c8aed29e6faef96f15d0269397d092e8b
17902 F20101211_AABYPF taylor_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
84a50083546ed40edc8dda850f7de128
bbb15e0d1769a70f25448b5df153b25fa08f40cc
4614 F20101211_AABYOR taylor_m_Page_070thm.jpg
7b7b7750dd2d34db2b177b5d218f17b2
03710cc3181660fe183cb8d3d3b3d17e5ae2a577
55588 F20101211_AABXMD taylor_m_Page_122.jp2
a7d50ca33d052d4bddd1822a077dcbdf
bff8f0a9f32f5a14c39ab1191a731bc873131274
5806 F20101211_AABXLP taylor_m_Page_115.QC.jpg
7460f6c00507469f5be55f95e464bd59
806344aea7bbcb7caf6edc3e7ffec37b9623f330
5367 F20101211_AABYPG taylor_m_Page_080thm.jpg
9bd9d8f0523a10a9dcbe478b379f0c4f
e4e0012e205096012481909096ec3ce7d6892d04
17995 F20101211_AABYOS taylor_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
de1265071d117120a725ff430b4101fc
291f7bc98f396f4ee3918ab5c7b59444b6cacc6d
829540 F20101211_AABXME taylor_m_Page_072.jp2
a6d0dee743b8ff202d1b7375ab32aa15
51d62d6015ed4b0db13245a6821ba31e2e30d56e
86817 F20101211_AABXLQ taylor_m_Page_089.jpg
8f0db7933df704333172cfe112292de8
09e74bda1ea1a1df7e05d86ef8ac6e7e31777cb4
6577 F20101211_AABYPH taylor_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
c851b76b5f0f8336e5092d9779c49993
64296b7e663f7526721932b54bac0f352bb2e218
5312 F20101211_AABYOT taylor_m_Page_071thm.jpg
1851633267a5e06eb283d3afedc4de4b
1609377444b8b0c6427d066776996b639b27e3f9
F20101211_AABXMF taylor_m_Page_062.tif
169f2592386882baecf35303fcf8867f
ce5420c4322cae0922536c8b2d03b7b0b9554a5b
7497 F20101211_AABXLR taylor_m_Page_087thm.jpg
b2cf6aa4348732a5673b2d44198ff0c9
8772d02dda419d25fd6c11ef77232435d49ee536
2373 F20101211_AABYPI taylor_m_Page_081thm.jpg
5c9f136b7fe28baed6da2f9acad9aebd
d3cccf17b0187594b4cd1e280a380ab113065d81
20210 F20101211_AABYOU taylor_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
7784053155e0ed172a12684fdf9033db
74bdf10348acdcad6c4d7cde8eea4a4a8e619238
1051966 F20101211_AABXMG taylor_m_Page_037.jp2
6fdc2f73a9244013eaed7b8262c291ad
bcf9768495efed513163da9acb160a132da1c454
890463 F20101211_AABXLS taylor_m_Page_133.jp2
2b62cc54d0af6007020aca07d7fc7407
e711088eec5828656e3720c3f7f70501885920a9
24367 F20101211_AABYPJ taylor_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
cbb6a2fe96f01cc1c4265acc3348e637
1fb192eca812653bfd53cbd9157d11abdf8c4da7
24215 F20101211_AABYOV taylor_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
90ae15692321a45e556338c7a8141ade
30cceb2f8274d6495b4d4bfc9193b89947c5edcf
84967 F20101211_AABXMH taylor_m_Page_039.jpg
af037c5cbad567e9b912c56d218a3491
6062d291c27b303bc5b76b18aaab8e855f1f34dd
2491 F20101211_AABXLT taylor_m_Page_060.txt
b314f5afeb0eb9c78f98df170d0208c3
cd317b85334aca9e9a1e880bc3c0a305c944130d
7120 F20101211_AABYPK taylor_m_Page_082thm.jpg
409bddbb2c22b9407193cc08543a37b4
24ae17f1bc4002564c7c8076dddab943c7a6d7fe
6602 F20101211_AABYOW taylor_m_Page_073thm.jpg
f6e3fcc4feb6bc093840880428b4c358
008134c0436e46cf73cda1264d7e00c0ea2a5291
1215 F20101211_AABXMI taylor_m_Page_053.txt
f64298ddee0106628a7d77e69c45f59d
0ff259e5590767e2280ea3a5bc61697f2b78b32c
F20101211_AABXLU taylor_m_Page_117.tif
6b899fb4bbf1f7543f98e05c87a7c21c
8e2ff84fcc2ff86c1083b7df76f20ebbb87089d0
28110 F20101211_AABYPL taylor_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
023650d33ffd057c7b9570f9284af177
c7e98ff2516c371b01fc1e5ab69c9279582ccba8
26522 F20101211_AABYOX taylor_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
e680c7879ed65100f44687ccde4bbd0c
7bb1a9971ff4497845169ed9c5c69710783ada78
F20101211_AABXMJ taylor_m_Page_012.tif
f9cb0508f13d3cf832ddffaac3780a0e
846317ee1407fbcac70d87cb05406682fbc46362
81376 F20101211_AABXLV taylor_m_Page_065.jpg
3717e68d3aec401b7bc54f143ff6b783
7550c08dc1fda311c765ed496e5bb71dccb35c92
7206 F20101211_AABYQA taylor_m_Page_092thm.jpg
4822e3dbcfb01c0179ae0680f73bd775
22729cadc9e9a0a0fa6253b7f9126c4af7cacb60
7284 F20101211_AABYPM taylor_m_Page_083thm.jpg
c016d5197ccadb78c01d3ddb9a92a123
f0c11adb5a53224b7539d8786150a1f54a877f1a
7407 F20101211_AABYOY taylor_m_Page_074thm.jpg
4c80e956061246a99845e37579108c5b
dde5f02a6ab33b707f62b8283db077a214653c75
22006 F20101211_AABXMK taylor_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
40318e8e787334a3dc49e6401f96ad3c
ca8feeb5765b6e5cd7d9dd6592baabb82c14c78b
26799 F20101211_AABXLW taylor_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
d7256da1a3a2e6fd5c351a6d9f8bd8e5
8c82159451ae875bc65fed283585b4c0c732ac88
27543 F20101211_AABYQB taylor_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
bbde3b4e55c6851c2cd9befe8fffdcba
62283ad26eae6f28f1e015fa9e4d522af99d14a4
27707 F20101211_AABYPN taylor_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
4184f37049a74b33a235bbd9fd6050e4
73e54c516b201c435b85b702a7d3df222b290151
7312 F20101211_AABYOZ taylor_m_Page_075thm.jpg
9676817ae8dda18bcec3a5756590fc32
ce3ab918bcb44d1a415f87288e117742d6136cdb
88277 F20101211_AABXML taylor_m_Page_032.jpg
3809248e4fa88454193b26b1f5fdf71f
66eaaad7b93f916de58a4b55c4e791e48f39978c
F20101211_AABXLX taylor_m_Page_110.tif
d981257b6a7e0a2c3a2ff9d32176b03d
507f1f0164db1491724254e0e3d418fbbceada0d
7539 F20101211_AABYQC taylor_m_Page_093thm.jpg
3890d927601f29ed13fb6f200121c735
b441b11a613eb5915d70efa2b260c78dc20e75d9
28782 F20101211_AABYPO taylor_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
ec873493df7c123542f72853ff43e94b
60e2cbf33ed39130bd7208cf9741826ad9056c73
F20101211_AABXMM taylor_m_Page_041.tif
fde43f7e21877ee93be1064b89334ba6
4791a61777913d3a9f357e39e912929ea20fcf5a
41655 F20101211_AABXLY taylor_m_Page_011.pro
c8912710f65c55d79b525ac1c6459450
fc9754d4fe1bd50a3147d46c93aeb1bdca33344b
7287 F20101211_AABXNA taylor_m_Page_065thm.jpg
f8bf0d4ab875e6a99303d461c3be3217
30278849a6fb88b5c03f450e0af4d108794b4f73
7199 F20101211_AABYQD taylor_m_Page_094thm.jpg
9604c9b6d69e7f4eca3cf7df25245202
9bb9b83f2bd073cfba502670607ac410d55d09c3
7812 F20101211_AABYPP taylor_m_Page_085thm.jpg
4735c8635977033209ce37d0fe4f82ce
bdfe677aade714164646910750a298682b6b8eb3
F20101211_AABXMN taylor_m_Page_018.tif
c0c1a933e5f742e958cff2c10b9d0185
33b4e0d51f4a328510da7808f3d9e0559c1edf6c
13859 F20101211_AABXLZ taylor_m_Page_104.pro
a5156111c7c686b96c040f56b96870ce
7e1660cba5ee3716d8dcb50fff570dbec437d08e
14404 F20101211_AABXNB taylor_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
228a933a918d8e4fe8958bcd7dd54af0
79b46ff0ed27419d2bbf82c9524f25d86768a42f
26739 F20101211_AABYQE taylor_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
72e4283ae13411951adb7c922e97e042
53fd862dea34897bb61ab9b5329eff97a7c268e0
27606 F20101211_AABYPQ taylor_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
ddd9fb520dd9a10ee54af42f58fac48a
04a458bb873f20494bdcaf7f2230998030a4fdcb
F20101211_AABXMO taylor_m_Page_053.tif
ecd5250345918b5fc84f95f31c4151f0
63311b7a11fab25b97821ba54c259f77b552f0f9
2332 F20101211_AABXNC taylor_m_Page_101.txt
a4278bcd7d04de100d6b989230b1c431
f1ff8d09cbf8af2543ffcc9296658527b87c9960
11687 F20101211_AABYQF taylor_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
cbb4cce5b5e25fef100b438a9750e3ca
b1ce3ebec23c3e82e257bb2864a583c98b8f9fce
7500 F20101211_AABYPR taylor_m_Page_086thm.jpg
4b4eeedd52178b50ddb63ab0f55ace5f
b1012df3be1af966f8327a15d5d8b29f325cd422
F20101211_AABXMP taylor_m_Page_047.tif
79fcb240abdfd9568906ed796d2eef0d
ffff3028ff66993e82f97f5ea2f58161e20c1704
1923 F20101211_AABXND taylor_m_Page_067.txt
310ffa9e9c782ef347f553268bd593db
e255b7d0defb4374424dd78ed8e4b15446ea5632
3502 F20101211_AABYQG taylor_m_Page_096thm.jpg
455286f89f1c4147c5869387ad341824
bae16e63102d57c2f6832f5ac35a7a7efa95c408
27663 F20101211_AABYPS taylor_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
68c1c323abaacd3a93d361efead682e6
dd0108eb0bdfb799270df166f23b5d312696f05c
3380 F20101211_AABXMQ taylor_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
b85c82013a1454870b5204cc3e4ece86
e0de36106cf34fa21743d8af8225b0cd4abf3414
1547 F20101211_AABXNE taylor_m_Page_122.pro
94cbe1e4de36313d9a01d654634fc5d2
15bd1f40526642fd99214ab8a16b61db2e15695b
16584 F20101211_AABYQH taylor_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
634f13e6a1be077b365b483386f2ef8f
35b939f71b8bbe53f43746d8b662b3c98b0dba6a
26182 F20101211_AABYPT taylor_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
8ed1570ceb42b31807861acf8fccd650
7d370486fdba584482c2ecd2182a8f96b14dd78a
F20101211_AABXMR taylor_m_Page_127.tif
e823db6741320fd3a4b247f1eae42190
dc82fdd42e59cddff91a14fde43b31b48af6c6b4
1051946 F20101211_AABXNF taylor_m_Page_006.jp2
e3840dd32b188fda9410cfff14efd8d0
8a464c1f51e1d0d35389055b50e42a69dcfe2b7d
5163 F20101211_AABYQI taylor_m_Page_097thm.jpg
8280dbb890aaf2231fdeb422507cb4cb
824d375ca89b2306c6d102eeb82ce47ef4619bf3
7400 F20101211_AABYPU taylor_m_Page_088thm.jpg
c7e226ab5d58bbb7e7e63df14028f63e
c05b7c2c0d6704704dc0e619dc846b62d6fd51b4
1051944 F20101211_AABXMS taylor_m_Page_084.jp2
2547d32890611b37bb243ecd91c4b41d
b0cfd62b53f9ace4f5d6d5853eaaf1bc2fdc7289
26620 F20101211_AABXNG taylor_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
2b58e753c5fe0d0fff41a077942985c9
c5d3e13814d5baeefd11993e6540860ce0f600f5
18977 F20101211_AABYQJ taylor_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
578a8731a985e1acd3a0f0e7570b7059
1afcffb1c7b2b7052eb388b3a222e277f504a213
27188 F20101211_AABYPV taylor_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
4ecfba46c4ba3b19fd216eefc4f9bb9f
bc12009afa792974bf54e335509f9aae10fac875
29573 F20101211_AABXMT taylor_m_Page_114.jpg
a90ca9ffab84c2b4ef35f4cefb7ec66f
2db44876a679100d3f4bd89138feeaf93fd012fd
85585 F20101211_AABXNH taylor_m_Page_030.jpg
593ad8ff15e34411b70adec1154e66aa
0701ea6323a1762499374b4c700c51d8bca8a7eb
7016 F20101211_AABYQK taylor_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
f7823ab1264d9ba6e4fd6b7b017badf7
623153b3d6fdf92a7e2f771d513c9c87fdd00c72
27555 F20101211_AABYPW taylor_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
199e415b8ced15fed6601bd3fc6c43ff
ca928a3fb0e292101d5c9d43a2b534fb7589f2e8
2040 F20101211_AABXMU taylor_m_Page_013.txt
a7ce719d7bd33f2f2f1d5736cc15ab22
9c9b66e56a413114cbd0295f41e7e0a8af0ce655
10445 F20101211_AABXNI taylor_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
34b394d971a100294213fe7e160a917e
9fb57c8865dc4d6c9731588b63453becc699ba9c
2458 F20101211_AABYQL taylor_m_Page_099thm.jpg
f76f60687ff31c2a50b997ed7ffe9f56
93f76065569be42c06b3b2c5221701d2f4910048
7181 F20101211_AABYPX taylor_m_Page_090thm.jpg
479e0fd8293169e2cd1dfe6193aac2f3
0cff328a93efbe595c7d707cbdd405e698ca5e86
51543 F20101211_AABXMV taylor_m_Page_055.pro
9f3689cad5c45f9c6fd4b38e5f49266c
418a1b27f59ca592435e8d586c81f381d21df59b
1051971 F20101211_AABXNJ taylor_m_Page_029.jp2
faa8f6d80ba4cd5aac393bdd1d23e579
d6e83de04c34bb0cc9f2ee248c0c7d13ecadd18c
9989 F20101211_AABYRA taylor_m_Page_109.QC.jpg
0c17b49aad921edd5b96a024104b8e14
e3c836c534bd57083a1f814372b0b0f954a19328
8455 F20101211_AABYQM taylor_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
0b60138a15f6e8f80f36d1525275e7cf
40608a1b7a11d0116a55ea059d5d3d5d27bc6b87
25875 F20101211_AABYPY taylor_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
97bfa59e887dc4dca590b36cb32e757d
130e90d44146b1ae482e8fb06985d8da405647af
303555 F20101211_AABXMW taylor_m_Page_049.jp2
15980dfe766dbc3cd91c55feb1ba1803
4d3abeb91225a08f9ecd56c4a0dc8442d592684b
1827 F20101211_AABXNK taylor_m_Page_119.txt
98e9145ad07b24e9794cae08319aeb75
4215212d8861f5197f05a55c84ffaace808010dd
3057 F20101211_AABYRB taylor_m_Page_109thm.jpg
58030005499f7231e8a01ef40120b7e0
7f56ea2ff054dfb6e604e989fc48957961139005
2861 F20101211_AABYQN taylor_m_Page_100thm.jpg
e4ce971f993c321e8a26cf43bff62047
33b6e1b97563c05d93a2550cdcaae5e330c646b0
6966 F20101211_AABYPZ taylor_m_Page_091thm.jpg
32bdf94391176a346559ad657dab35ea
edb384be8119c34f75d9a058b5e2dd4b2347f301
62157 F20101211_AABXMX taylor_m_Page_060.pro
9cd48b2fb9bcd0070d6ddbbc16b4f43d
1f4d3b11222bad4ba126cd16ca2f19c18e01e98f
779808 F20101211_AABXNL taylor_m_Page_103.jp2
e225a7fdc77fa9bc08f5a9d40c4294a3
db1abd1f893a37bff8a9cfcbe990bb7c04d03262
21009 F20101211_AABYRC taylor_m_Page_110.QC.jpg
9ab8987a15fb4b337d7741b7bca9ad5a
2a415e65a31b7b18f3cf8098056bd9d7feba59dc
14272 F20101211_AABYQO taylor_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
fca1cdb3a1fdaf472058451c2bac986d
b3a1722acde2793f40f86e180378efddf72db30f
3541 F20101211_AABXMY taylor_m_Page_119thm.jpg
c7c6295d92cebd65220eea1c938ed0d1
7081adf27bd7efd96374620d6f73b190181fc2a0
473 F20101211_AABXOA taylor_m_Page_112.txt
92fd54dc200da10a22e4f85854b86e5b
c3b9fb39f1f4200cf186fef18a2c8ca99a43845d
26785 F20101211_AABXNM taylor_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
1d9aca1d03764d4d390f1fc9b0451650
c94486e94e1abf282dd877fbb32eccddaea1d017
15235 F20101211_AABYRD taylor_m_Page_111.QC.jpg
e8a8d593a089271cb71691ff9e5091a0
e9b1dc7906f8da5df18668c7f935776cad06045f
3141 F20101211_AABYQP taylor_m_Page_102thm.jpg
5539d20e22f29d14fc4f82b5db3672c9
12693ee3b7a025326ef116befe9344b330a723f4
2176 F20101211_AABXMZ taylor_m_Page_087.txt
8b6806aecbb25c626e52db23ef51b033
9c07fffe5d8ec2c877eef08efdb95080b02eb4a0
457332 F20101211_AABXOB taylor_m_Page_017.jp2
eb335451af204c54f61acc28909f60f8
e8eb758208e673041b38b19f24f89c01d0243445
103833 F20101211_AABXNN taylor_m_Page_132.jpg
02942ca2cc06779b6105883b0187265d
4e4863b15e4bc79f1bb21b267c44c6574cc44ec5
4858 F20101211_AABYRE taylor_m_Page_111thm.jpg
56dee76aa6546dc11c3dd5360ac47736
7576d9e41cdf1f877b8e6b5ea88b227f41c085fd
11702 F20101211_AABYQQ taylor_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
c7da60bc7d277f6a2f25e33635470d37
b1319ae0c7dd014ede98ea94d06af5c056e64e6d
87047 F20101211_AABXOC taylor_m_Page_087.jpg
c30cebe2a6403c0e5b15cf35c3182a1b
00ee21e0c8466df8da5ed297cbf01e914d6265b6
F20101211_AABXNO taylor_m_Page_113.tif
cd5d741964976b6905cddbc141d9db85
613257d1d7c9aa3d5cbce1621e1e8a213acb0e23
8710 F20101211_AABYRF taylor_m_Page_112.QC.jpg
f018ec75f7dab0e6a2d66d51971c1d25
cc85b93f3a936355d798689244d876b3e563ba11
F20101211_AABYQR taylor_m_Page_103thm.jpg
4d09e528c11494737eed7921dd0a01c1
1835a3d6affb2180c61dd6136915e4fad193e024
6933 F20101211_AABXOD taylor_m_Page_016thm.jpg
b7ab14014cf60ef072ff7d83d9c3ea7d
15acdcaee41f5ceb84d2dfa0ece6cd395cc6748d
54106 F20101211_AABXNP taylor_m_Page_131.pro
9f137cee0edb0b7a14e254a3b6d17a7c
6f197ff73f68dad056e61b511f38c3a642b62286
3082 F20101211_AABYRG taylor_m_Page_112thm.jpg
89aa35ff12ef4f4af209e3f16e089a6b
d5351e31c6a4dd3d6ca859b6726fd3726a5a9991
13650 F20101211_AABYQS taylor_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
24c5d146d79f8b444fd98fc5ad66b480
54e937b55eaa45ab539c63d308521044ff4f57db
7133 F20101211_AABXOE taylor_m_Page_040thm.jpg
ed63632734c3265c933bd0e570e66cb7
ecaceb39bd729fa26889ed3ff0a7db795c38d966
F20101211_AABXNQ taylor_m_Page_111.tif
d513aae8bb8105caa5b8d18d28fc109f
6ebd4c5c92894c0214a2370a89d76eada56529db
11562 F20101211_AABYRH taylor_m_Page_113.QC.jpg
8592c3fd3198efdfed4c3ea44709052b
227e5814a66473a62b0dbfae014cf3c8e2a23a4f
4127 F20101211_AABYQT taylor_m_Page_104thm.jpg
a44ed5ac764708fe0b73449dbe0531d0
33118fad4db9df2fd41bf80658c472a14e6105f6
F20101211_AABXOF taylor_m_Page_019.tif
68d64b2ef30ddb1ed94abbd22605f9ac
16dab404ffdc0b851246dcfcaaa16301e335bba4
F20101211_AABXNR taylor_m_Page_099.tif
bcf599d29b5c174e240613ab3224aa3d
962ff2249a3f70eb22c09700006101209814ffed
4048 F20101211_AABYRI taylor_m_Page_113thm.jpg
6a7e83aa67f0c2669930f69122db2db5
9772e558fb4def7efca6cf5983be1fcadaca1a7f
4627 F20101211_AABYQU taylor_m_Page_105thm.jpg
ce599956815d387b95e9516fc654a823
e8e10e6f8b3a180759b78de5bf33b3ffe777abf4
8021 F20101211_AABXOG taylor_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
f51268ebdace518995d6408d2914c5c7
cd8a06aa49735103a56f68ebd29eeedac2c78049
2029 F20101211_AABXNS taylor_m_Page_014.txt
ec5c0112a84885ec01e56e47d956ce6f
aff62b6f1bf4c21410c2d0f709fd65f5bb1846c8
9220 F20101211_AABYRJ taylor_m_Page_114.QC.jpg
833cc0a7eae7e8a03199c1a7490525fe
452cfe85e154819f4b9f0c1d49eeb8322331ff30
4828 F20101211_AABYQV taylor_m_Page_106thm.jpg
0e0081b262b6a75fe47232c67aea38f7
ccb45f0f89ffd182b46f63d448211e067b1f81d4
4111 F20101211_AABXOH taylor_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
ddb5e604cc4f3deae03dfdd28beccc46
25d2157cb471e5e0218eb17ae5115876cf4297c9
60094 F20101211_AABXNT taylor_m_Page_071.jpg
cea935940c5563693b33453072966863
f84b82696a2f3043887f1224d454ac1e09465708
2078 F20101211_AABYRK taylor_m_Page_115thm.jpg
1233e13ae016040fe5304002cca01053
0555d7d89300e182fe4800699ea4c39efd38012e
14847 F20101211_AABYQW taylor_m_Page_107.QC.jpg
a2971a452aebbbf6ae82dd0de4dd7dc4
1dea04580970976a2e65835531873f850d1ef9ad
89047 F20101211_AABXOI taylor_m_Page_076.jpg
d24bccf13660536d1d042451c55c3ef6
7828ada3082b8dc7c8f7f7ffd1dc1fffa48dbcc1
28469 F20101211_AABXNU taylor_m_Page_001.jpg
5eb2be10ff7f9aa94c2d9ec57c4566af
b3e680bbb03e3df1f344ba3f22c1aa415d0e3048
10375 F20101211_AABYRL taylor_m_Page_116.QC.jpg
b8ce3ee34f8b79a4ccca1dfd433fef8f
19f3d85f77fdf606f36dd920c06a91afc10b83f0
4721 F20101211_AABYQX taylor_m_Page_107thm.jpg
8bb39d3257da8f6c4d54ca0ad510718c
bb37e122c0bed0d80a1f6d2853bdc464b7d9a279
5695 F20101211_AABXOJ taylor_m_Page_098thm.jpg
41ec876502480cc53411de0b6a57867f
fe90cd81a6bcc7721fc355808e7aa764363ab16e
26819 F20101211_AABXNV taylor_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
ad64fba39ed0bc569bca05a36488eba0
380c700d2f6da25a9bfa96b9e5ad13a1b879122e
11733 F20101211_AABYSA taylor_m_Page_125.QC.jpg
69999c7926a26888797df5ec6296502b
1743d26268a2cea522ffc1f48271b1f3083ec26c
3221 F20101211_AABYRM taylor_m_Page_116thm.jpg
24a1ab3972a871fdb9a1a308d18d17bc
bf6eae00ffb43c29d99dfd23be2ce85b50fba040
29089 F20101211_AABYQY taylor_m_Page_108.QC.jpg
0e5308049133420040bedc116a64a9c8
9d59e050c4c5ac612c396d433a27fe05e8dc3b17
46879 F20101211_AABXOK taylor_m_Page_082.pro
de91dbdb530059e43e2d018d1d1b60e4
14d8710235b7807aa9bab3f24bd9a084c99f271e
56124 F20101211_AABXNW taylor_m_Page_021.pro
2bbfedbf55d92ef52b7de314a9bd9cb6
e93457ed8ac1d9e5df5fb97929a63cdaf19f6f3c
3287 F20101211_AABYSB taylor_m_Page_125thm.jpg
539ab80341f305e3018f4c291b8aff4b
c34441f6e4e187407a91438d4a7d4efa71401b69
3058 F20101211_AABYRN taylor_m_Page_117thm.jpg
87a770c2f5ae8f73779e517a1953067b
d453a42d0e5c913f29a6a10d46bab7fd89374cd6
7571 F20101211_AABYQZ taylor_m_Page_108thm.jpg
f44d5e546bbbf4d970fc852a4f25504a
46a6e780c7e79f1749af3b0200b3e40d8340c5da
1051933 F20101211_AABXOL taylor_m_Page_019.jp2
782e8835fde839f0162f0a84e272b46c
0fe90769d7389c854ebcbabb40dff96550e79aba
11498 F20101211_AABXNX taylor_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
f4a315c21483d54323c7d1699ae682db
49f6a9921eb4cf2ca1b1545b37bb13ef9f490218
10766 F20101211_AABYSC taylor_m_Page_126.QC.jpg
d180c010c871e16f109fab7db49c887f
85beec1e0e017e90b194c74853cfac3b495703a3
20417 F20101211_AABYRO taylor_m_Page_118.QC.jpg
8383e662a9fc75678080baeeaeac21e4
8184c47621f32c2e102101052dd0a686e2f857d8
F20101211_AABXPA taylor_m_Page_026.tif
0843d57a50df1b8a7cd7fbe91fa473e4
cec01f61fc7878a04d77c44798d50f3a6551911f
91630 F20101211_AABXOM taylor_m_Page_085.jpg
fb0b9812396458034d87deb24c7f292a
f9a8d988a56fafc3abdcdd95a762ed4d87a4dedc
1051909 F20101211_AABXNY taylor_m_Page_082.jp2
3169426347ac78039a91bc727387d881
b8a489962d51c130cba42611a8de8cf4b22f28f6
3096 F20101211_AABYSD taylor_m_Page_126thm.jpg
575f3448294a5e419ddd4c570454266f
148468b0c8311775a35de4ad8009698ca54fb06a
5168 F20101211_AABYRP taylor_m_Page_118thm.jpg
5d8ef52f739620ff0cae06ec49cce52f
4f3db9f94e42b73b16de73255e5485856282ca2b
3851 F20101211_AABXPB taylor_m_Page_101thm.jpg
6e2bf617e1912b69cdc90fb803393b8b
121743396663e842a15ed096f06dbbd0062e101b
87399 F20101211_AABXON taylor_m_Page_093.jpg
1376bf81dc25520a2424ff5a38d12be5
184f11a398a474257c36cd21d13bad82b5779941
571 F20101211_AABXNZ taylor_m_Page_114.txt
b155dc0c09020e4db043cbe1a3333fe4
2cc582ebf86cb0a8217c9346f0e21cd25d6a91f6
7767 F20101211_AABYSE taylor_m_Page_127.QC.jpg
d954c0007da011df7f87ddd4738acad9
b8a01581ec0efcd2603ab3e24f46522ff2f13032
13322 F20101211_AABYRQ taylor_m_Page_119.QC.jpg
5151e041475513fd0149e0bbd8f181c4
c35687d0c7302cf305caa83932665cc64c385bd7
438255 F20101211_AABXPC taylor_m_Page_050.jp2
b4ad7cf36ec13843762232f1c43e51b6
0fe295aa5c9178fa529a833724e6e69cff0d14d5
683 F20101211_AABXOO taylor_m_Page_104.txt
58b5c4e0b9f65e36e2310aaa6b2dd5d5
ded15d146de99d4ee1bc83ce5157b7e696191bd7
2652 F20101211_AABYSF taylor_m_Page_127thm.jpg
ca5f79b2fffa49a52d25372f55f42843
740e60ea224e53dc5c610478e3307bafb1aaebb6
16863 F20101211_AABYRR taylor_m_Page_120.QC.jpg
2f3a7b62f1d043a55f2518e99180f33a
d8da4b3e45e83df69313a31194a31b35624aa837
791 F20101211_AABXPD taylor_m_Page_045.txt
5bcf8b10bd5e15f2493ff1510187564d
9be18521617e9e2a6fff6003ced185ec98e413ae
89586 F20101211_AABXOP taylor_m_Page_021.jpg
20849ec53320135b1d9355e0ef4b4f0a
631427ba8df3b9e224080c12d4a8524988f3c876
27719 F20101211_AABYSG taylor_m_Page_128.QC.jpg
ec2b9d52e541807f51297e924cd78d7a
b900700dbc970e36b46b371533acfb2d68fa537d
4843 F20101211_AABYRS taylor_m_Page_120thm.jpg
98bf71f496a5be43c00611c3130c5a1f
d0294e98df24ce1788d3f75cd136d55aee168526
24551 F20101211_AABXOQ taylor_m_Page_062.pro
f4fe50f049a9354f5c0b07c6a95b227b
723d371257dcf82b5dc859f8d64b2cc4ba7f3082
F20101211_AABXPE taylor_m_Page_108.tif
0efcb842df7dfa514f79abd2422e0409
b9626713abfadc5b677245833c1508ae353a688b
7569 F20101211_AABYSH taylor_m_Page_128thm.jpg
470c812f169710c7b7212c66a5881fc2
c38906b628d44d20a0f9153f62fce154c98ab12e
9478 F20101211_AABYRT taylor_m_Page_121.QC.jpg
6c60ac61b51306b4d932ec72f65f7a44
93a81e93d06a41c1daf7abb7dd8cf3761069006d
1867 F20101211_AABXOR taylor_m_Page_011.txt
b008d40b9cdec628a842fdeb000b3909
36685204103d8ccb15048397c1b580262c2449d0
36813 F20101211_AABXPF taylor_m_Page_081.jp2
bd14958cd9ec1d56f032c6efc5d7b1d5
96c1a1eb252d4111de0d1a915e03b4062abdfd3e
30185 F20101211_AABYSI taylor_m_Page_129.QC.jpg
11e7be143d9eaef625491d0c326ad072
18d37a2d1b9ffd4c15936323884893f2cae3635e
2960 F20101211_AABYRU taylor_m_Page_121thm.jpg
c53f9cc670d79d5771a8eac36e8f0044
aca6dd45ef3e86337e69892a23f1e4beef0fec47
43283 F20101211_AABXOS taylor_m_Page_119.pro
0903c446ff0d1f8c3604863870d0ac84
d1863520ea3c7ff14e1e0de6c6387a50afa0c476
7300 F20101211_AABXPG taylor_m_Page_095thm.jpg
9d7d7de2681e7b498ad5d4c7cb7a48ae
7253fa8bf380fb4e049a82590397d40eddf8f29d
7885 F20101211_AABYSJ taylor_m_Page_129thm.jpg
5efc8fc37e001710f243ff35926642ba
f4b0d3c4ca4d8dacb84421aca00687d63e015fa0
3974 F20101211_AABYRV taylor_m_Page_122.QC.jpg
dd36cf92bb92584bbfb8d72ed994f17f
3613dde7e289798b644dfdfd0b70a6a62829bc79
5779 F20101211_AABXOT taylor_m_Page_072thm.jpg
71421bb4778d81b6570b4241edbd6a3f
15956a202ba7a089462eea0bd34ea7aae18c48f4
1051960 F20101211_AABXPH taylor_m_Page_086.jp2
e5bfeadcdc877d676139d89167fd4a1a
a41b512bcd4b37226c790c8955cdcafe647fde78
28131 F20101211_AABYSK taylor_m_Page_130.QC.jpg
64bb9af453278c8ebdbcb75fa663ff61
09ba02d8e023a3ba30af2c0eb302896d685cf5ae
1450 F20101211_AABYRW taylor_m_Page_122thm.jpg
d3deefa84d4d9592497be44a0e8ff50a
55ccce25cbd8f7f351bcd8995280614a31c26c91
F20101211_AABXOU taylor_m_Page_007.tif
ec40267e981d47a19cc077e09775fc26
32eec95dbf212337adf861dbd1b1e52cfaba2b00
1051977 F20101211_AABXPI taylor_m_Page_022.jp2
90cc76148f680c76e41505120794851b
2d56ba74e82dd6ac173dcacc08b0f6a0135224a7
7459 F20101211_AABYSL taylor_m_Page_130thm.jpg
0ce932dd0822cd284dee1e8da1f381fb
3d573440a1cf08918a33423203108e7a9b5aeb40
10174 F20101211_AABYRX taylor_m_Page_123.QC.jpg
990108c687f002c7e6f881461d356722
e70f9da0de1f54e84ce57f66beeffe56a57792f8
6137 F20101211_AABXOV taylor_m_Page_011thm.jpg
2e4b4884774b9e73572b0be82a112008
e82fb0d6e728221b940c3bb2f28c0fb282a7e300
58320 F20101211_AABXPJ taylor_m_Page_080.jpg
ca2fc3695142a944308ba84f589baea8
c2a07ebf45fc79871b89f8398f49dab9ce8eaff8
26521 F20101211_AABYSM taylor_m_Page_131.QC.jpg
252599805d4a8f7c921b91f3e6bf55ec
ee5085d3ea38e14b941e22ccbfc54257df506ab1
8031 F20101211_AABYRY taylor_m_Page_124.QC.jpg
fbf0b9d0a05d91ab66ba785192ea1a3b
21363dc91697fbbe11e8e30abc8a78a320764f56
32531 F20101211_AABXOW taylor_m_Page_123.pro
04f20fa00c03965ab9d9dfb9d87d08ee
3c06ddf3d09b93ab1a8d42a0a5849e1df04ffa91
1051927 F20101211_AABXPK taylor_m_Page_030.jp2
199d8d2dd403fa41211c1978c5e2f407
c7770208a85f6d42decf5a100d7ca77e7ce94012
7024 F20101211_AABYSN taylor_m_Page_131thm.jpg
15210ff4acd13de1830955e957302eb3
82c7050970bbb266bb494b402b54d0b2e239b645
2653 F20101211_AABYRZ taylor_m_Page_124thm.jpg
87a4032175e415ea70c9b4e938526ba2
2babd0fac0d21fe2a617a4a2ca862d4a5c02c0ca
50917 F20101211_AABXOX taylor_m_Page_061.pro
6ac0c63071d0e98714e1597d132b8ee0
c5a50e5eb8019532c9b76437f8b90174c0195428
1051964 F20101211_AABXPL taylor_m_Page_074.jp2
e1dfa77ad171f5ed6a80300ef20810d3
5405a9364da1d7a4c302125cfecaa1b47448cfa4
29231 F20101211_AABYSO taylor_m_Page_132.QC.jpg
081a0c5fa20a5c3acccc40b6fd5612d0
aa42002ae1d62561d837ef608cd3a10087a7d10a
1247 F20101211_AABXOY taylor_m_Page_098.txt
72b1a6ddf541230264182b826b0d618a
f8ba1b5c906ed6be7d681e3030fae266ea4b5172
14706 F20101211_AABXQA taylor_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
90cc061d4389b94f991c405489a63a4e
6be6768e1cc0a431a32867d933b25ae91a0056f3
27330 F20101211_AABXPM taylor_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
92654916a85de9ff6ccfb3c4695825eb
e886a44313e6b403ab97e162b1ddb3f1f13a60e7
7580 F20101211_AABYSP taylor_m_Page_132thm.jpg
9c26eccc0a1a655f42b40140835728cc
844eb36e525af8c451d76b3594eb1096089cdad5
1051963 F20101211_AABXOZ taylor_m_Page_056.jp2
0de22a96232f0c656eee5424ef086ecc
d0d8730149734c1707ed7ab89b22f1080042fcf9
F20101211_AABXQB taylor_m_Page_106.tif
2df3c8b51b562603f5c993f279d3d674
1a4acff377de9f964fafbe13b92100337c23b242
62571 F20101211_AABXPN taylor_m_Page_120.jpg
8547f8df3d018037308a29980197f7ed
85f1eb63c1e3bb91fd1cd8964eb6650a1a267976
20191 F20101211_AABYSQ taylor_m_Page_133.QC.jpg
e3fc145a4c7bb703be538a12fee41a58
a5b60e6e2eaa96b153976554fe436f64162d11f3
80810 F20101211_AABXQC taylor_m_Page_042.jpg
aec8dfdec5a8607b4e84f4becb22bc55
9dc9a981c7b8fc8388280fcd656f216227353ab8
26777 F20101211_AABXPO taylor_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
6c60b921d781a40e08856c5ebca3da84
adddab06fef077b9282703af54d5d70a7cdc23ef
154147 F20101211_AABYSR UFE0021553_00001.mets FULL
8de6e15dbaabdb0639c76df1679df5eb
f080369ad69a2053f76fe38ee3fb28d6b4a18fd2
F20101211_AABXQD taylor_m_Page_010.tif
4d1cb8a4108ad73a56ba373fb44394c9
092058021707beb5ecc1c60a29a5d35f12330b30
7072 F20101211_AABXPP taylor_m_Page_055thm.jpg
2b3b194717cd13ad4d17cdb700722ab6
0848eb012d1ae2780d56ef833c74eabe4af5a5d4
1359 F20101211_AABXQE taylor_m_Page_002thm.jpg
f0b97b958fd8a8c4b0244be2031881df
8af195ed41dc5bc0fd7ba6ff3fe31a55f63b090d
F20101211_AABXPQ taylor_m_Page_013.tif
980304bc584140553f4468be21db8700
feb064a310daf5e766197a91eabe4b37c66a691b
84857 F20101211_AABXQF taylor_m_Page_095.jpg
dc383e4d49acce823921e0f99c66d887
626052cafeacf28fe7fba98e97dec0d1c4c96769
50842 F20101211_AABXPR taylor_m_Page_016.pro
0da7a2acb0227b80e851a0ee9563ce41
788ff8b3882ea7a26fe7be9f7432fa91a3adce1d
36642 F20101211_AABXQG taylor_m_Page_116.jpg
eab3537feeaaad7eddf6de0aebe72bb9
16313c64beaf40f90adb6e83aac94e39f0914ca8
52770 F20101211_AABXPS taylor_m_Page_008.pro
578da91ca1c9accfb67156a6333472aa
7f65f89259fb38985196153f5525265534a726e1
1051965 F20101211_AABXQH taylor_m_Page_091.jp2
75506c31ee6a67a9fd89f1e472b38e59
b44741a3c5076f7ad9aaf6b9034df7b7c2d2bf6a
12632 F20101211_AABXPT taylor_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
1359c30be836caeb8c3566fd9556b8b4
73a20999e0936c8e94dc2de09310b79e182cf8ab
2017 F20101211_AABXQI taylor_m_Page_065.txt
c35c9d3eafa800e54daa6cc882fecfeb
33f44b3478f27e506a07eb843f8cec48e5170e4f
53997 F20101211_AABXPU taylor_m_Page_044.pro
f16aeb232316ee64a3d36972e121100c
e2a056566ccdfbb0be27c100a4a3c4deea364b67
11613 F20101211_AABXQJ taylor_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
88b6880b734f966157342ddc80726600
222adccc3bc6e67aca6ecfcbeb3fa1f9ccb63f15
53701 F20101211_AABXPV taylor_m_Page_030.pro
9805e2eb14141273e238ddf5e477ab6a
87cc7227d01306bc0be22171b97173afde6f6dfa
100866 F20101211_AABXQK taylor_m_Page_130.jpg
2ad841ecc79d0e58bcfe0f4eeb3c820c
7f611727ecf2ac5a74d244734241e9192c1786b8
26822 F20101211_AABXPW taylor_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
04be3a0589f148dae1c152abcc497376
7aafc618da65e5ab07f92136b913a36287aa7c61
25645 F20101211_AABXQL taylor_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
1d44df024c727c1a55702cba21955661
87afb9b121107ced5d1f3236d7189adef3f2290e
F20101211_AABXPX taylor_m_Page_075.jp2
ad2aafdbe2cc6e01cb47caed96f4ad65
9c38db1baf5aab74aa258e97784b9c75f9612f35
76792 F20101211_AABXRA taylor_m_Page_004.jpg
8a3472fec6cb83bd65e02be665cb3886
b1d8cf58d94f206c0f00ca6ee08ed0c021cb1f3d
25307 F20101211_AABXQM taylor_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
d97e55a0752865bbd66516a2959f93bb
55ba926995c75c9a9ec55d1cdc93db7474838094
F20101211_AABXPY taylor_m_Page_014.tif
bb19100f014f499273466f2dc274e3da
b72051ed7e8e51ad87c1167f2f53666457bd48c1
30968 F20101211_AABXRB taylor_m_Page_005.jpg
8fe3707773193f998a79a4ee1bff7219
11b9f7bf0fba1bae88147e0489224b0848cce77a
53814 F20101211_AABXQN taylor_m_Page_015.pro
b5965d3108d03699964e74d0bd4b88c0
56c9421f847fcb6872a43d63f39516c7ac64ac08
1051957 F20101211_AABXPZ taylor_m_Page_095.jp2
da9daa8e5317501fb8a49640b1c03834
594abec6a395600295aaf196058b9ad3029a60f8
82866 F20101211_AABXRC taylor_m_Page_006.jpg
444bde8b4eece2c402ba67ca012639dd
e73e767fe97a103a3d74c6045351a9f83f69c426
1051961 F20101211_AABXQO taylor_m_Page_046.jp2
5bbc69f5e2bef7297a148156dba202a6
9a2b43a93bd3a96912dfa57ebe3f031eab8f000f
86220 F20101211_AABXRD taylor_m_Page_007.jpg
3f443f3ee72e1a3eb32d6cd14269955d
25cbbeea24727acedc16ec0be010f2c70c8df3f2
2124 F20101211_AABXQP taylor_m_Page_054.txt
f9c1ecde7173e0f492cd33a6f288ceba
93b5c2b311e3f9eef0112f6a8e739447f030c22e
71418 F20101211_AABXRE taylor_m_Page_008.jpg
78e6f8eae0b2f962e6d8a46dd80894c1
73337052fc4e5dfc6b2e672068b8b00b7bba18f7
F20101211_AABXQQ taylor_m_Page_042.jp2
733f1cc42bd670adbd1f3355c3bceb42
fa26e2b2a8715bbd31f49d17eeda3ef56e16dba4
30025 F20101211_AABXRF taylor_m_Page_009.jpg
3dc5fbd17330dba1d2e29389b612ef5f
b974ab6b1c126bcecc3d96fc15cce99846417a66
6992 F20101211_AABXQR taylor_m_Page_058thm.jpg
a2c502afce41bfaddfaa544b6bcc56cf
31080b2bea47bb53fcb0541551099d09d6ff208d
53722 F20101211_AABXRG taylor_m_Page_010.jpg
ff2f70f7d4a2832379b2bd84e6ff9567
f94d9269731a014b41cd3125b680542b71b941e4
F20101211_AABXQS taylor_m_Page_024.tif
4d775ed54aa623831efa6201b4fe9545
b1b37761cd6e22eaf8fe56865ee1e7a6461b3c07
72424 F20101211_AABXRH taylor_m_Page_011.jpg
6dfa97389afd6217caf7a7b09a640443
481e3a0021faaaddcd63f81fef9496a7239d4fee
3099 F20101211_AABXQT taylor_m_Page_005thm.jpg
7bd8638db85b69b324541f608d74c3eb
beac0a01e347e56020cf18886b24a0b54353f8e8
36984 F20101211_AABXRI taylor_m_Page_012.jpg
55763eef05e08ca052d0facb996e16ec
b9c06029cb6a2d2a4b25883247d7537056ead568
7157 F20101211_AABXQU taylor_m_Page_059thm.jpg
f7fa0f9b449ca949fa0f39a24a6cf4ae
684da834aa86be9e22c40b364b3764ac78adfd50
81122 F20101211_AABXRJ taylor_m_Page_013.jpg
1a75e35cdfc8e30955bd5eae90d66ea5
33d616e650d3b64384cbc9ce8aa350f190c78f32
199485 F20101211_AABXQV UFE0021553_00001.xml
7a39dc82cfe82d56a079195b5b34929a
cdb1f14a8a97c0e1a537a414e1488855e98de0c8
83947 F20101211_AABXRK taylor_m_Page_014.jpg
e1865177d3b9d31d5fc5fa485bf29141
e09bba780f2683d40a96ebb7120f021bc6fdde0a
86032 F20101211_AABXRL taylor_m_Page_015.jpg
ef848137dfe43a9d148860ecbbb5d56f
af62c932e18760f798e9e895b5d679703aebaebf
90095 F20101211_AABXSA taylor_m_Page_035.jpg
fe4cea16867d2af0021623477da1090e
332a3b91e262174ad363e5c4c43b199f04d2c7fd
83140 F20101211_AABXRM taylor_m_Page_016.jpg
392d351a97880ffe512ab85b233190a8
388d6e7f7d6c482bea5739c74645db0e8a8eecfc
10311 F20101211_AABXQY taylor_m_Page_002.jpg
99fcd47663ffde7772dbd5980b2208b0
99500772817ceadaac661ed4cb2d565f6d56c7f2
36951 F20101211_AABXRN taylor_m_Page_017.jpg
a1af2d11275e2eb9a7977400c5c110d9
2774ffe396348d1cd1afa9361293a37478d0ec7a
12754 F20101211_AABXQZ taylor_m_Page_003.jpg
904cee774444b0b02e150796e2600dfc
c084e49924c90cd3b9e84611422fc33128c60fbd
84223 F20101211_AABXSB taylor_m_Page_036.jpg
c88981a25d3f694ef7d68419df926940
dbb94e261050a2071ccc8479149a4a67bd38e816
82521 F20101211_AABXRO taylor_m_Page_018.jpg
f9b8b11e7c6b0256d1af1f48f1b2a1c7
3e60a6a450c0797098e1903ee2695947a48d442d
87167 F20101211_AABXSC taylor_m_Page_037.jpg
6d4968cbf913ca48e6cc73c0fd74373e
08505bc32a17db695ac028183e6c577f07e0903a
86010 F20101211_AABXRP taylor_m_Page_019.jpg
9d3553a4cee93686d001da57fd93b799
2f498fea29738e2e159f96edc66186f7f1f86f96
83276 F20101211_AABXSD taylor_m_Page_038.jpg
dc064e748f3024fb7d95a4f8b06497f7
ce89b8f4b0fb80d60f2d35f0871724eb9f234ed8
83017 F20101211_AABXRQ taylor_m_Page_020.jpg
1c0cb7196ed958d789d3e192bbf4f82b
f30694eca01e13d7115ba4dae82a5dfd8f7570d9
82781 F20101211_AABXSE taylor_m_Page_040.jpg
60eb1c5372a249ba4a541c8c3140d403
d8c3c5910fe2d1beab02ef92b6e0f3ebaca7d292
89635 F20101211_AABXRR taylor_m_Page_022.jpg
c50150c1274c4a7daed9e9878703f587
6b41ee6fbf64b0f598c0fdfc04e08d22d86177b1
86334 F20101211_AABXSF taylor_m_Page_041.jpg
89139d60214f7a7ad286066b034c1753
74af2dc1bb2c4729b55739f7869d03e92b0d42d9
86919 F20101211_AABXRS taylor_m_Page_023.jpg
14255393e5adfa9a31496ca8eeef7a5c
9cb7d8180ddc01ae7c45e55f25fbe0082f201d6d
79330 F20101211_AABXSG taylor_m_Page_043.jpg
bd161142695391b696f54f0e9da0527e
ce2f3bd7bddcccf223d8ba602c9b3aa35ba6a713
89408 F20101211_AABXRT taylor_m_Page_025.jpg
309f2feab1351c153c03eb1dfe73917e
3180fe90f750c633bdf685cabca22750d5816524
84431 F20101211_AABXSH taylor_m_Page_044.jpg
efaa88ed183742babc6853c5c05bcd02
62ade362793aa8ac6bf0eb5fa9cd209dcc81eb2f
89409 F20101211_AABXRU taylor_m_Page_026.jpg
95785997b48e7a0eefdb29619f537aed
5391c8c674ce967d64c5c376c10e41a4986411c1
37324 F20101211_AABXSI taylor_m_Page_045.jpg
b53fb915f750bf5bef00d498a2ebe91e
de848a2bd8eab614c629d36c9e63f9937c773c00
87984 F20101211_AABXRV taylor_m_Page_027.jpg
6a1ee17d9520852a9cfa1bd7db688913
cc7d4251252b68ede8133c51269d698ffdeadffd
78529 F20101211_AABXSJ taylor_m_Page_046.jpg
a1a533f17d96fc6ca29f8e400ab5b0f9
6e9f0a149b2b67f2b2f1cbd9c7f7844e577faa3b
84815 F20101211_AABXRW taylor_m_Page_028.jpg
506241e7bedb2893307062eb9c398711
8ff952c0e123ca63e4c833fa53dc9cfe4d5cbe8f
88839 F20101211_AABXSK taylor_m_Page_048.jpg
3c2194db58eefbdcf009d8d42972edce
0e270dc19fd73994251033cc9e0cda99656ffafe
81190 F20101211_AABXRX taylor_m_Page_031.jpg
fd69d34d284e6ebea7c7f681b31c13ac
e184b85e8e1250ea961333bf0fafed672c1d13c1
59363 F20101211_AABXTA taylor_m_Page_066.jpg
bbbecf935a867842da469aa0bca0c867
895081281cf3cfb87cba63b028c1cc061cbcc0f3
28933 F20101211_AABXSL taylor_m_Page_049.jpg
d24078a08bf025037430603f97cfc979
88a871867622277b3b3c1e2be85f0fe3a7f21cb4
89511 F20101211_AABXRY taylor_m_Page_033.jpg
6e3e93fb7e35c9614755e3e6a96118fc
2ffff3f3aca5cca8386f93e5b750d2e3d658334b
78362 F20101211_AABXTB taylor_m_Page_067.jpg
2b94f7cdb204ca3ef6101d9bcc3dcd51
3a5db2c4dae737e37179263bcb87ca0151e0bf70
38937 F20101211_AABXSM taylor_m_Page_050.jpg
75646f638fd55252264fa9a17f8da7af
d87624fb057faef5949ad3e9c6c57707a7d7482f
84323 F20101211_AABXRZ taylor_m_Page_034.jpg
2e4f50c91e4ba8b99659dd35fefd4954
cff18daa1c243bc71c0525915e29449d0cd4d9c2
55202 F20101211_AABXSN taylor_m_Page_051.jpg
010b2cdcd66e7727a0b71ea388ded07c
cd6c5410fe785d80404e361b2e4aedf12cd51f9c
101366 F20101211_AABXTC taylor_m_Page_068.jpg
64b34f31a6731bc66923d3756ffc5a58
75e18375787f467062174b452898f5a1173dff8e
78484 F20101211_AABXSO taylor_m_Page_052.jpg
74d5f535724d4a5a74dda00188e373a1
b7417dfdc629d41d41aef6860b6e829192adf39f
82944 F20101211_AABXTD taylor_m_Page_069.jpg
5aad8379253e0f860c758446764ba263
ea3686052458761e383497d4254d45d24066461c
47032 F20101211_AABXSP taylor_m_Page_053.jpg
6743e4b167f287bd5e56248c61110575
b502142003fc80a0fb31ecbbe4ec6b6d5408e856
53784 F20101211_AABXTE taylor_m_Page_070.jpg
5d40dfcff244efd9ebde57303c8b5765
1b628840f45cbbce3e4d1fa177bab0cbbbe94a97
87098 F20101211_AABXSQ taylor_m_Page_054.jpg
977cc286132a264ed70235c97d0d73a5
37550a734b0c6da3346012fcfed5a9404c705f60
63483 F20101211_AABXTF taylor_m_Page_072.jpg
abe83f662a83d60893043066994d4469
cd342eec7e9dae56628767c33348271b0fd3905c
80621 F20101211_AABXSR taylor_m_Page_055.jpg
72ef9585e516052bd6510016c97e3240
6f4d45c7524ce404afd990505a2a6add163fae42
80518 F20101211_AABXTG taylor_m_Page_073.jpg
a5a41d8505b021b1783ba206f2f04ef7
27af6b70c478ce8299804564abe7f2cebd8a761b
81534 F20101211_AABXSS taylor_m_Page_056.jpg
6b60997831ebc6f400f33055cef937f8
12f38891ea133889a4923dd18c3a9822dce72b96
84423 F20101211_AABXTH taylor_m_Page_074.jpg
f324d4e119ea28d5507c13e8c192b330
7a8812f983f0c24feceda6deda70caec9a4a042e
86332 F20101211_AABXST taylor_m_Page_057.jpg
a4385b1971588d55778e7b6aaed78ae2
0929db8301172335967f3f7b129e3020e346fe96
82783 F20101211_AABXTI taylor_m_Page_075.jpg
073dc706abcb20e17ff0cadb636b7e4b
a5614d01065a8dad2a9c2924d1110876314a3667
82088 F20101211_AABXSU taylor_m_Page_058.jpg
6ad3034106cd8b62b2dea746c3c5d6ff
e7eb1e7060d4cf9d73e83b6b573c604fb0de4fa3
80545 F20101211_AABXTJ taylor_m_Page_077.jpg
747aaadbd3021bf77f9637d1b5f49c9a
7552dfbeec953de25f1ad688b5bf573034545717
82467 F20101211_AABXSV taylor_m_Page_059.jpg
9d4e3db9b275ba3b87195c4a6b911efa
3534fc9fee727acf4d0e0ecf4e4ec92475774479
86909 F20101211_AABXTK taylor_m_Page_078.jpg
2722f7854fbd58e5ebc0b01155ce2978
c5e7be08d7ef9daf1eff2044cc3819d33dfe6c21
94467 F20101211_AABXSW taylor_m_Page_060.jpg
c8f3051948c6947a9a66e610882a432d
8326cb693d7fee60e0a03210538b06f8346d80f9
40701 F20101211_AABXUA taylor_m_Page_103.jpg
8b7d538ac086ee20639df66246325147
35d91712d21a5b839248ae2421e1905378a581da
19591 F20101211_AABXTL taylor_m_Page_081.jpg
1a3245516cdfcac6424df44d23ec07a5
45400463671b59dc8b9d05ef3e4d9ae43b27949b
81765 F20101211_AABXSX taylor_m_Page_061.jpg
3b4308f0cce73147395642b9859e6996
4f3a16c536c1800e8e1cf690499034a6409ecbe1
39446 F20101211_AABXUB taylor_m_Page_104.jpg
bdd0d11eba0502469f9651e625878060
b2f0c6717ba32662bf8714281912f7dc17550190
77563 F20101211_AABXTM taylor_m_Page_082.jpg
fc9d9b2bbc0ba087e40103d97aabc0c1
1c8bb3b6caa0eebc0ea12c3eda4358999e280536
42905 F20101211_AABXSY taylor_m_Page_062.jpg
b8b88de8fc0a089039549486f1c03ab1
5d94291d0b54bf806fb1d449c2848e049699b178
87650 F20101211_AABXTN taylor_m_Page_083.jpg
2e8648b878fd0f51a3b018352437e400
599a4156cbb56663b05eb8c8909a7469a8d6f478
80202 F20101211_AABXSZ taylor_m_Page_064.jpg
53360007a8dbde7500fee57b88f87064
49ad39fe0e78ea5e66f03d975b5d63a25bf8a7b3
45938 F20101211_AABXUC taylor_m_Page_107.jpg
1c1d97df75ce1505af051191a41a3b44
235ea75079b04f66185840e43abb81552e64538f
86974 F20101211_AABXTO taylor_m_Page_084.jpg
3a882cb115d39973f5bd29ddbac4fced
197c5ba4e764f64884d354a667a5e20d27e117b9
86328 F20101211_AABXTP taylor_m_Page_086.jpg
dcf7b100b16275029ec8c4d60c6bfdc0
98efacad691b991252a849ae2dff7aa04da1e61a
112467 F20101211_AABXUD taylor_m_Page_108.jpg
8154bcb854425773dcf4331be64c6804
59e66c59d2b625a63b27ff6fb87f4c2cb24503a5
83100 F20101211_AABXTQ taylor_m_Page_088.jpg
456becb97a193094e67e51463958a0cf
d89d7ff06b356e851ea3da4a7c12ba8b67902aba
34138 F20101211_AABXUE taylor_m_Page_109.jpg
48e0ac1b2063f4f20c91e2ddc43052fc
f1dd5fe5b52a56a69af4fbffbe4e680f69856f65
86062 F20101211_AABXTR taylor_m_Page_090.jpg
7c048f4b54bd439df4c5fa9b7df16ab6
d1b4bde791c715e482b189551896fd8997e7c57e
F20101211_AABYAA taylor_m_Page_057.tif
3442eea4ffe7f31a33d9c5bd50d9a3ae
57a99a889c39c3100a4e30721c9ca61207b03266
65004 F20101211_AABXUF taylor_m_Page_110.jpg
993be8783004c40aa5e2332b307bacbe
1a69ab86f2ae1ea3fc7c47a7bccbdec2c2d92aba
82101 F20101211_AABXTS taylor_m_Page_091.jpg
4fb76752424d94e09b3eb71f5517a2da
bdb780eeefe8684335cf2822b456f3f5d2cc0bde
F20101211_AABYAB taylor_m_Page_058.tif
c4cdc0e1eed664ea4d3a3ea283972833
1c838cbd2b9ceee757f0c8a93cc97210848a6cd3
53522 F20101211_AABXUG taylor_m_Page_111.jpg
ecec50e153077bffd54b25e7ca9c49bb
08ad6c3b6eef2a6f31a09a2dd4caf6b6ab090e5d
82569 F20101211_AABXTT taylor_m_Page_092.jpg
dfc5ca5b14531eaa61d0891c969a56ac
5abca7c53f50394617c05c7e80565296c991205c
F20101211_AABYAC taylor_m_Page_059.tif
12e90fa3727bec68fcb5c325a751502e
59269fb4606e7f91b07f4af99e2580aaab156def
35625 F20101211_AABXUH taylor_m_Page_113.jpg
474f193229f40fb08c2260fe8932bca1
5032b734fea8e5c1054e7e6b9a19ef1fc8b57d8e
85243 F20101211_AABXTU taylor_m_Page_094.jpg
b81330405165403c1ad4a5c2bc475693
34d3e7ccb10a42ad1dd6ab5e8692faee47af07a9
F20101211_AABYAD taylor_m_Page_060.tif
d21d0e12342c4697d6014008ab457313
2a71855bf85dec814c87b36ce99c72e6491cc85a
17105 F20101211_AABXUI taylor_m_Page_115.jpg
cddf9349b68f53beddb48d7e5bd9715a
1649385c1a82755c70ddb14924c49e1a0f8ed8fb
50688 F20101211_AABXTV taylor_m_Page_097.jpg
f5fc1f9ca71d9a7f58f93558696591b2
9015816edb641716d5c6112204a79dcf7f464e09
F20101211_AABYAE taylor_m_Page_061.tif
833ffd464af129bba7b5a54c5d44d25b
ce02ac1ac146ea5ec1e051d4b5a1d1ea14f27b67
37266 F20101211_AABXUJ taylor_m_Page_117.jpg
3611da4f9c1f474d43786dd14775db61
127aaeaf271228c1770657342bcfd32d4b11317a
60936 F20101211_AABXTW taylor_m_Page_098.jpg
61dd9e6dff37d0916b66f1a413c9db68
eda621456fe468c47deb9a713422265e0db59303
F20101211_AABYAF taylor_m_Page_063.tif
7e15843a09391975d7ea9436211908aa
f3ae8b1347b92ee439e10b7debc0a99adaf0ff33
79360 F20101211_AABXUK taylor_m_Page_118.jpg
6179715adea668396b9273dce287527f
4aba6be78a64fb229433b37f94511b4a33b57f89
22026 F20101211_AABXTX taylor_m_Page_099.jpg
21142e764f2069f4ac6bc152b6e1acde
96a8838c1e1440c2b984927e0f2497658505ec48
F20101211_AABYAG taylor_m_Page_064.tif
1124e1642e3ba30959c512e04ec0b38a
afd03139014182e7cf0b37d684af0077e47b3a8a
1051983 F20101211_AABXVA taylor_m_Page_007.jp2
bc9e5aaa162410487964f1703d98b868
05e3c2ca5d034b52808f803df178dd4dce938254
52652 F20101211_AABXUL taylor_m_Page_119.jpg
87abd94bb3035ae95d832cf62c624b7b
3ec24786f2ee7872bb4561f1a593e1945ae4d52d
30396 F20101211_AABXTY taylor_m_Page_100.jpg
5e7ccfa5cb1a90ce290fe39c6ac3678b
f14529dbb2006379f775e5962713cf184370d89a
F20101211_AABYAH taylor_m_Page_065.tif
5c060473cb7d8e424e9d2bc2d2e64ea1
8c9fc18fe69c7d6422081d139eb8e611ba3d433c
F20101211_AABXVB taylor_m_Page_008.jp2
1e71c4f882a1d0a1a17bdfaad6b90533
029f069ac8df85d73a9f957966551ac1a4aee245
35933 F20101211_AABXUM taylor_m_Page_121.jpg
921455f3c426325366dcfca54bc25073
d4947ecc73d7bd0a7e94d198557a74381c686dbd
53067 F20101211_AABXTZ taylor_m_Page_101.jpg
6fff096ebe965354de7627c34437f665
64740fd5728ac205bd79c94a1cabb9911d540cb3
F20101211_AABYAI taylor_m_Page_067.tif
fea6d6e9711878aad7b10a2465009741
68851876f1925f594434a91276e030c1b67f2fa8
736956 F20101211_AABXVC taylor_m_Page_009.jp2
e35055fbc88feb43870bc376431b5fcd
6530da3e6eccf502abbebdb1301627cf8ef6dad0
12216 F20101211_AABXUN taylor_m_Page_122.jpg
88fc36688df2d07a5a463b18561c5a47
2f9e84913dc89a229d47343681a163a31bb21bfd
F20101211_AABYAJ taylor_m_Page_068.tif
86e300c05490607ef7716d7e1dc55ca2
b35051b28506d595baac50be8923f9611f269661
724894 F20101211_AABXVD taylor_m_Page_010.jp2
e4739549b46ab99f725f851447ace32a
29186941594b60b507097145f0ee7b0c7eb45835
36403 F20101211_AABXUO taylor_m_Page_123.jpg
9373049a74e91f97e7224d398b552ab8
4ecc22411fbd8d2d1979ead617d2b169a4e6d3b6
F20101211_AABYAK taylor_m_Page_069.tif
b0b5bd827ea06062a25b953baa9f728e
b14ab5333fc7dfbc1581f6a3a29b8d3216f6f4fc
27633 F20101211_AABXUP taylor_m_Page_124.jpg
5c9802a7fc09782f049956bb69b99cee
48fd7079971123bcac4fd06be167cbea31a3ed41
F20101211_AABYAL taylor_m_Page_070.tif
8c477ebc4a894e051ea05c8938839776
b0564ee58095404beeeee50b35bfdbf7bdaa7acf
993571 F20101211_AABXVE taylor_m_Page_011.jp2
dae04c00c3accd5724d70cb26532a41c
9baa386dc16d7797e087314c5424521543fd9a35
42267 F20101211_AABXUQ taylor_m_Page_125.jpg
b9166ff6479cb9258980da4cb22d8fc7
303542c9a3f76011869908771c04dbedf04d07c2
F20101211_AABYAM taylor_m_Page_071.tif
380407d159539a9e83f99cf90d5d48c0
b60493faa0068c420427d9efa340b5a4458401cd
1051916 F20101211_AABXVF taylor_m_Page_013.jp2
e377a7a90ea4420e9ba9bd893d689ba8
509da05acfee4766a1fa3dbab7485761d5cbf747
38583 F20101211_AABXUR taylor_m_Page_126.jpg
48520d9a7b0cae640bad7eb0092cd368
06277d1bf7e3203c1d16eafdd912193fe37a6d0e
F20101211_AABYBA taylor_m_Page_086.tif
8246c3307ba19f177803b4c146e70010
e80d6a363374a78d9ff42d606af07709ea342a87
F20101211_AABYAN taylor_m_Page_072.tif
32709fc17ad93cc073e4150a0e83a5a6
25835a6a14a8183f2abf9824f07851879873221b
1051978 F20101211_AABXVG taylor_m_Page_014.jp2
9801c1185f790b108c15241913b6bdbe
d7683e45db6395a9892a59ad4957ede0ccc0273d
25246 F20101211_AABXUS taylor_m_Page_127.jpg
c9f084a2603a9f5cbc2156aeaee7e62c
c3bc314748e0b33e0fb78d187481468869212774
F20101211_AABYBB taylor_m_Page_087.tif
f6541b5c0c2f5259e560884ffd260819
9963e76a6493c0d7513d4e2bad389872b48e3ee2
F20101211_AABXVH taylor_m_Page_015.jp2
a418f90ddd7e234b7781c5de94601322
c1378a6ef574fcfa72caa389528694fa8408d279
95654 F20101211_AABXUT taylor_m_Page_128.jpg
00c02b525a41878c39e609a096a452c3
a98a748a9d2f2abaf1ba1f9bbc803376bae448f8
F20101211_AABYBC taylor_m_Page_088.tif
49b913814179afe4a79ffb97f3f40c26
7e5bc28e68498d93af10bb87ec31d09a65b2b2a9
F20101211_AABYAO taylor_m_Page_073.tif
e6d7efd4831ef515044ec6bf4cd4b4e8
8be1995e0fd43fe9327cee2644bc86f8852dad38
F20101211_AABXVI taylor_m_Page_016.jp2
452ca8bd0a6bad45154bf422c0f29184
38b95c8dceb1d3f42ede10f911ff6aedfe9124a3
103991 F20101211_AABXUU taylor_m_Page_129.jpg
6b9d72d0cd8ce0333da463dd0b44c598
b17d066f8b54bcb82951fa3c945269d0611ba2cd
F20101211_AABYBD taylor_m_Page_089.tif
baab2278fce2d33a662a2df9abcb799e
12dd21f9c5976437ae97f51fc35ec92ccf085d7a
F20101211_AABYAP taylor_m_Page_074.tif
82ba358c912e9a22de6ce86c05fec06d
9716a29f32d55e4760062035ef547604b6f6708d
1051973 F20101211_AABXVJ taylor_m_Page_018.jp2
7c63030c14910a9182b325f05fa22c7b
5fba1fd0285f42a91f2da2a43e9c39da266b4d07
92073 F20101211_AABXUV taylor_m_Page_131.jpg
c5905cab7fd379edc503999b93ea918c
723bf5f5efa7abebf2ced7d0a317e5ef7ddd20f4
F20101211_AABYBE taylor_m_Page_090.tif
dfe145961b5ba9008b316967c623ee27
9dac9a3a014e0171ba5abb508d8b7b60d2fc887f
F20101211_AABYAQ taylor_m_Page_075.tif
842b8f8d8ec32ca3001724cf9cdc8098
c125130aa6640064461c1a5a48e86039ecf792fa
F20101211_AABXVK taylor_m_Page_020.jp2
667c559b589d714c3b2cdd552a297e55
10326be915eb129902b5ea6b3e9f0f72b501fc1e
65444 F20101211_AABXUW taylor_m_Page_133.jpg
65a818f3990b217758c78c3aaac4db68
282bc3b698e49cedbffc82da11f7ff959c8806f0
F20101211_AABYBF taylor_m_Page_092.tif
e099780d998420e1815cb80e1812b283
3078bf455c63eb757ccf864e81174e56f7875e37
1051905 F20101211_AABXWA taylor_m_Page_043.jp2
98dd916fe3d0af831c53709ff12101e0
84a82cb2d2f9681525f06a2735743db7353473ac
F20101211_AABYAR taylor_m_Page_076.tif
46276bfeba7f38d615e2b17813ab9f2e
fe7c55080a58bf23dcf11807a96372984d8e3c48
1051941 F20101211_AABXVL taylor_m_Page_021.jp2
85fc23e628a03120847e21ecc8dc17cf
0a7710d7b938169e20565bfd8bc885107fd45fc1
284512 F20101211_AABXUX taylor_m_Page_001.jp2
0b1a67d474e4045c961f854092498102
81118f995f7f7b5e8b565ce4b18159d16dfcfd6d
F20101211_AABYBG taylor_m_Page_093.tif
f46482a16bd6165bd6bb7df22457cbb4
fdfb882d68ea0627b7148193bb57d47deec9296c
1051976 F20101211_AABXWB taylor_m_Page_044.jp2
263ec85a7acb1d3a23c9e3d02e988e67
c4968ae0dd964dff23155ce91e26be7c08aca7ce
F20101211_AABYAS taylor_m_Page_078.tif
885d1014ce963a96b59d8d553899a24d
92397ab47f35baca2f53069aac8738b0e5a7f529
F20101211_AABXVM taylor_m_Page_023.jp2
3f1b53eb56bff241a876101823afe3d4
618b366495f56af834e1a186b6c9d06a5f34ce83
60923 F20101211_AABXUY taylor_m_Page_003.jp2
5717acb148b3cd9d8c89c5841bbe92a6
a341f86e1532d4314841cc0f5293c5a8cc7d9c99
F20101211_AABYBH taylor_m_Page_094.tif
683456254919979effc11417bd9a5b76
26288555f2e5b1db7802fe2cf27b411fca517c79
459435 F20101211_AABXWC taylor_m_Page_045.jp2
656d72ffe4425e3eec88a289b5788998
0546e2fa29d0f4ee031d7db8a5e71cafa3fe91f0
F20101211_AABYAT taylor_m_Page_079.tif
9d116c34b956cbe62dcc795c3d5d06a3
ae2b21967ab1d2e4265ed0901d59e32e52544192
1051923 F20101211_AABXVN taylor_m_Page_024.jp2
222286a89c1059dfd07fe9feea987d93
1dd95a3b04c4ef3205a2453c01e34f9cf576abff
1051954 F20101211_AABXUZ taylor_m_Page_004.jp2
042c70ae9fecec20d5f292e6f2c21532
a74aa4ec4441845f07c45b33db89fb940d1814eb
F20101211_AABYBI taylor_m_Page_095.tif
228ddca64881a28e574e88cbd1a44df8
3e00d4dcd580716bb5c18e3efea4204c88065b80
F20101211_AABXWD taylor_m_Page_047.jp2
85f52f7e7e6a8489959c8f9db85c1e85
1bdb6f0b3a559e1006386585e1958b931df1e11f
F20101211_AABYAU taylor_m_Page_080.tif
971d3eb6f3e3c2bbc80ce24bbf4cd767
de0d40812f04ebe3ce4e04c4d74d8507fa81e213
F20101211_AABXVO taylor_m_Page_026.jp2
af9e1b95daf30be1f161657a721d3275
7b57fa7982b2a075f879a42da04faafb36c74eb5
F20101211_AABYBJ taylor_m_Page_096.tif
3e873e332d6f4d96a6138f8f26532403
cc95e1ab07dd219c4f42c4448ed17aedee2abb2e
1051959 F20101211_AABXWE taylor_m_Page_048.jp2
6de28b94c882b2461ba8f8996a53f789
864e0e33ade0731859e48430d0e5a91dbb5d9c27
1054428 F20101211_AABYAV taylor_m_Page_081.tif
180dcb5d80fdce1311cbf14e837d3a16
985f6ed198a6c7936ca319094415fd9941331603
1051879 F20101211_AABXVP taylor_m_Page_027.jp2
2ffcc56fe067b3c769e2ef6b6b47c951
89665140aab47625b682c5aad980033d63ea4502
F20101211_AABYBK taylor_m_Page_097.tif
baf54d8e2c4ad2a40822b829760c90d6
2360ecc11ef2c041432a52b9ab262409f5fc7938
F20101211_AABYAW taylor_m_Page_082.tif
e9ce36027d1311659db25f1047898a5c
81b913b800eee96b9ba3bdb18be994db08c9f32d
1051985 F20101211_AABXVQ taylor_m_Page_028.jp2
067a7d247da6132931d61d272874f101
675cbfa396c64d11ccf5ef11dc2624f0d576d61b
F20101211_AABYBL taylor_m_Page_098.tif
048556c9c4cd73e9e7ae9c30bf6dd1b3
bd1b8129adaae309f043d648d19dfa6ed6f83cc9
668233 F20101211_AABXWF taylor_m_Page_051.jp2
5fea6d202411e70dd068d53bd89d56ab
d0cfd3c20b5d1a0d3e026647072df1c65d6bb6b1
F20101211_AABYAX taylor_m_Page_083.tif
5dc7f1f8e1bfcf411ed7165426a4dfd3
fb85afd205229baddb3c69b1bd0746149b1b6ef7
1051980 F20101211_AABXVR taylor_m_Page_031.jp2
f7f45e07771f6d24ecd6f5f7989581c5
6d3dbf19b5993a154056c0afcc4a83a65ccdfd25
F20101211_AABYCA taylor_m_Page_123.tif
eb1f650859b929cd4c16adce9c485f40
65a666c83e7d19dd2249903cd064a4579d6c493e
F20101211_AABYBM taylor_m_Page_100.tif
387e9aff081d9e139d6ca905e7ebfebe
9e8c4c84240f2b736d2b1d0d9886177a0aaa554c
1051967 F20101211_AABXWG taylor_m_Page_052.jp2
4564854fbb4fb8747d615a63eac37a26
c3026c7f38d56e8c0a0abf0adbfa80ecb152d883
F20101211_AABYAY taylor_m_Page_084.tif
41bf16ef3fccf1f7e4e315a775753faf
ef076971d0a213e096241d74b1a6f381826b1660
1051969 F20101211_AABXVS taylor_m_Page_032.jp2
d1f3cf232891fe15b30beb02c7311850
f20c00b8a61ee726fb1454dce752a01b0c868910
F20101211_AABYCB taylor_m_Page_124.tif
5bfcd09e1dea3e2cc6e3fd263fbc4144
4b32e5787f1a1f57ab931dc7b822c1bfa0629836
F20101211_AABYBN taylor_m_Page_101.tif
b107839b9c5920ae92aed093ce657a7a
e0415962ccdfe52dbaf395602646072715dc4e00
603584 F20101211_AABXWH taylor_m_Page_053.jp2
999f3246788d0212d0de9c18c7ffc39d
93c47bb5ae1ffc4e873594642dcdac84205085c4
F20101211_AABYAZ taylor_m_Page_085.tif
301077163c4bde8fe09a7b1a31e10e7c
d51bfbee8faf3923780fb8e8278ebbb4014d2b14
F20101211_AABXVT taylor_m_Page_033.jp2
1042ce3b9ec0668f0e2ea5bbeb7a74a2
938a45331db9ffcbf0141311db00b36dc5198c42
F20101211_AABYCC taylor_m_Page_126.tif
77572eb9c07aec40c10c59d270ed87eb
18d0e034a885f5f4b8116c23ee7b95dba66af603
F20101211_AABYBO taylor_m_Page_102.tif
1727b5afbbaca698c2d1dc278ac55749
71758d980a36410f2a9019f65e41e7d386469edd
1051979 F20101211_AABXWI taylor_m_Page_054.jp2
7621516d5349c740fd8e50ae502828e3
7202dd83755aac9bf27fcd330ed135cb25b2413e
1051937 F20101211_AABXVU taylor_m_Page_034.jp2
6c4e15f591975ba3e9248b96b9174847
268e70dba337b77892cf87c9c29d385c18a66a7c
F20101211_AABYCD taylor_m_Page_128.tif
17081a7e40a9b1a64cfa19eed22b984c
d7c838b6f1ccf32c92c247e7f74214d99668a442
F20101211_AABXWJ taylor_m_Page_055.jp2
ec2b7b002c39ebf761a9e463e30c09da
cb9555810b8735325629260cc97e4174cbedbb4b
F20101211_AABXVV taylor_m_Page_035.jp2
1fc958f14f8cf1ee8c6896b90f963a1f
cfcf1b7bc8269bef041ed02e65993ee120f8eb5b
F20101211_AABYCE taylor_m_Page_129.tif
c1dae1dcedaac8a4eb17b8893542676b
948f17807f487189440cce6b6d5f3949dd674c04
F20101211_AABYBP taylor_m_Page_103.tif
8c64c51ea8ac645d65e920268bb865cc
ca8e64cf1f39f8dc3603b358708eeaa99fe7ff2c
1051974 F20101211_AABXWK taylor_m_Page_057.jp2
be1388929c30b43ec828b1684c2db1a7
4f1149450d57a55f2a7a213677404c344bf5609e
F20101211_AABXVW taylor_m_Page_036.jp2
60a20fd0e19b200ce32e03fec1c9351a
d65ed1dbccf296cfed444ca20dbcea08752a4536
F20101211_AABYCF taylor_m_Page_130.tif
af2612e2c3dfbda441237f4593ed4a9a
ecf4cafaae71ed6a71d3b4bbc768bb0b365f3182
F20101211_AABYBQ taylor_m_Page_104.tif
23d498a3c328e6264bd5e0fee71c6597
0073209942e10becf0b5ca448b7c56bdefe35f75
1051898 F20101211_AABXWL taylor_m_Page_058.jp2
cd464f3bd10bbcbcb1eb8507b6d57614
2ed856e251885b4c051092f46ea809e86908e65c
1051938 F20101211_AABXVX taylor_m_Page_038.jp2
c9e99de5588e3cc0643dcb20d861f5c6
7e7c43a46cdabea2aad6805fa3057a035d9034d1
F20101211_AABYCG taylor_m_Page_131.tif
893c39bddc87c585737498261de5b27a
9b2576c708712446e42bef91ff2941771e65e606
1051986 F20101211_AABXXA taylor_m_Page_078.jp2
70721e348a6c9698ca450a7126076281
041ccf1f32e3afe95b656c321259d5b1b857cdb5
F20101211_AABYBR taylor_m_Page_105.tif
5cd562dd61818e7c65dfabe7dcc04928
e50cee3a89b5c265bcb71b26c5662084915aa5f9
1051920 F20101211_AABXWM taylor_m_Page_059.jp2
dcb0ea2e85a5853a1e2905bfff55f1a3
634fc572f494994bc0bb74f6ca19e5ce058881e6
F20101211_AABXVY taylor_m_Page_039.jp2
40af185fbb2aeaed8fc1cb2c32d13b30
f0f1f8c91d9673c898005013deed5f1c0679e6a1
F20101211_AABYCH taylor_m_Page_132.tif
3ed1f5df3777426a7944cd96dae5eab9
6b42d2794eebac9137615e3ad25c311582379716
F20101211_AABXXB taylor_m_Page_079.jp2
341e4e43f599c8ecde8d31fec3a2acf0
b8861333574168cbb6dc06f1988793f6847b67c8
F20101211_AABYBS taylor_m_Page_107.tif
05a7b98cfe6a5890b7898075f428455d
e39cbe30437dad23a486c31951f3187a3f7d92ca
F20101211_AABXWN taylor_m_Page_060.jp2
c13c90531a9aa8343dffca17675358b2
e94e6dc8843a92f17d3f9c85100becf3734a6e6c
F20101211_AABXVZ taylor_m_Page_041.jp2
cb369c005dcface28c3689c39664d288
fcfcd4780e2676f20d442b08ea74e2b62e213287
F20101211_AABYCI taylor_m_Page_133.tif
1c0cd98f3b31917f289b549d7d570447
b123362d655b9abaeecbea3fb7b512b88e23f147
798195 F20101211_AABXXC taylor_m_Page_080.jp2
784488f8120bfbdea80728f556f15bb9
342f8dece10b2ea6e13bf57d624657a9a4599017
F20101211_AABYBT taylor_m_Page_109.tif
c7c05f1e5fd81a7970cd202c4508b03a
a8dfbba8f05160ab1e49b393cea27f2a06b8b9ce
F20101211_AABXWO taylor_m_Page_061.jp2
abd4238b6aa6d29856a747cdbc51a419
066971de7c49ef6b4fe3ec2a038f1e99ad8a9730
9345 F20101211_AABYCJ taylor_m_Page_001.pro
19d021a9b62587a6518f10caef79ef3e
d30c3cfd9c4db867d224e81985564a558c6ca5fa
F20101211_AABXXD taylor_m_Page_083.jp2
d1428b7c6e7b1993975bd2d1df729b22
beda679cc9663ab5e9c97e4333acec10eb6245e8
F20101211_AABYBU taylor_m_Page_115.tif
c663c6cd8f3519aa5452005876bda7c3
4c01b5ca15a52fcf723c7804d7615a63a3848bff
566215 F20101211_AABXWP taylor_m_Page_062.jp2
2b4c05b0e6e35e7b873a3f9c938556ee
d68088553c0ed55e4e1254ea7b1e0f48ca35074e
1038 F20101211_AABYCK taylor_m_Page_002.pro
b29912365f5ed51e93e05d2d3904d543
8ce3598a6df7a8d9a99b7d6b81b1cb08154d3a59
1051958 F20101211_AABXXE taylor_m_Page_085.jp2
18cf9b37b3d354c88d51a8867bd212db
f7e8db5b4b5f8fbdb4ac1cdb9c7822e4414e0626
F20101211_AABYBV taylor_m_Page_116.tif
75f5334ef6c8fda8c1b2119986dddbe6
8db2f0b5dc0af1c35639f920e9f5e8532dbd0094
F20101211_AABXWQ taylor_m_Page_063.jp2
8c35028fe368620ff97d54ef546b2976
3916162712fb3cb7616774051ef9da5242192ded
2561 F20101211_AABYCL taylor_m_Page_003.pro
966d698a413f4f06f53d22c4d9a513b9
f81bbe9809d058e6abd194a4d155170cc939fda9
F20101211_AABXXF taylor_m_Page_087.jp2
384a12e52397c7068a840b31218c9ff6
b4831db808086adebff2d90db6fe98cc0c92996a
F20101211_AABYBW taylor_m_Page_118.tif
8d9bb9ed552733f2cfbacf1acd3e61e4
8f1612f14cef7f079a93abd545896a5e6a6d5854
F20101211_AABXWR taylor_m_Page_064.jp2
1980b54f3c60348dc999c92b715df51f
dbe01229a9b54c6cabd817acb23ce85932e10d0d
56983 F20101211_AABYDA taylor_m_Page_025.pro
855cf0b704ec28f1320ff649992f482d
c74363a995917425052400b80e41eb6bb0471a83
15988 F20101211_AABYCM taylor_m_Page_005.pro
cce8d1bd04bf50308b8cacb99b5b415c
4e2d0a45aa1aecb2284956fe8bdb257c99ad96b4
F20101211_AABYBX taylor_m_Page_120.tif
0b3b268f0cf1dfc987ec1cc7136d3908
31ec74bf456ddd71fecc4ac6c8a3939d0d483509
F20101211_AABXWS taylor_m_Page_065.jp2
43b0093d9a6785ac6e63304bcaf8fdfd
1fd4d89aac3098a3bd0289f9c0147b6be28debda
56631 F20101211_AABYDB taylor_m_Page_026.pro
2ff1cd60615b8974f4820b619e29ab16
aa9acc8d78e404fafc84f15a7592c8d396b5532e
69685 F20101211_AABYCN taylor_m_Page_006.pro
46e9cef82ea4b85a99e01187c7ae68f6
b8ecb78687127c8d642c0ea52f3c406decbd0678
F20101211_AABXXG taylor_m_Page_088.jp2
f8d681649fd480c0ce35da446aa9807f
96321db76bf6af91ec3952bf7d73cb5d842d0953
F20101211_AABYBY taylor_m_Page_121.tif
51cbba07e5046bfccf3765d3fcec20d7
82d6fccadbee5ba194c4e270094d66bd0fe95b8e
F20101211_AABXWT taylor_m_Page_067.jp2
e28b82e598d9bb72166853d2ed896e16
4bd69bd10f046b65cdf08f3b034d985943ecffa4
53135 F20101211_AABYDC taylor_m_Page_028.pro
56ea8c1e9220a5c3bba8bb8ce93078dd
f848e53c40790900bcaf41518f67f18a5196effd
70488 F20101211_AABYCO taylor_m_Page_007.pro
45236dfff7d2affb7a44b046de4836ec
494db3513f1af30f114e4906fdfb6f2874604cd9
1051936 F20101211_AABXXH taylor_m_Page_089.jp2
a3dc0568fa5f547e9c036b33e1ef27f7
233d056d56ce796a645eaea1ba3aeaaa6daa4e4c
F20101211_AABYBZ taylor_m_Page_122.tif
01e50d8f1bac2b9cad8497b4e88cfaf9
18cf861e51d3ccaa7649bcfd4581e5389aede727
F20101211_AABXWU taylor_m_Page_068.jp2
c25489bbf2d739fd109f2b52aeeaec8b
5eefc8e39bf0db9c01ddeb20abf2f1d790b77903
54154 F20101211_AABYDD taylor_m_Page_029.pro
d6ddd0861c44d03fece3b13833d2a9c1
f31a067c0194bcddff797f00208ace4ecb7a5c37
16386 F20101211_AABYCP taylor_m_Page_009.pro
8a0ac6d889d8959a15d8d1610ec7db2c
7d96a558d8cbb0fb986d49af2435a92064a6f846
F20101211_AABXXI taylor_m_Page_090.jp2
3c0b5f809dc1382b9cdc9b0605e4b0ed
7ca036d4c318a7874a1a5f0bf3dd223316677fae
1051919 F20101211_AABXWV taylor_m_Page_069.jp2
e510815c6e485e1fc0e8c8f2f0be54d2
1b914e95281df75ea89daf9e6e50fff8914ea5af
50565 F20101211_AABYDE taylor_m_Page_031.pro
b7d665306131d3e6538f8bdd6e3d9710
500a50cb5bc8174397c9393cf3ede0b2b6ff2153
F20101211_AABXXJ taylor_m_Page_092.jp2
8360f6673f5403a2fd326d5d724736a6
8405473cbe42c2f0212e1020623564efbae8f2dc
767628 F20101211_AABXWW taylor_m_Page_071.jp2
c4e0840f8872991cc1d98280a4b1994d
1416ad5d74b6f3461ccfb64cc5c700e3c750917d
55889 F20101211_AABYDF taylor_m_Page_032.pro
23713be0ae46ddb6a1a905c4bee093dc
b1b4f22855f5584f8d6caed74f8d2b196b08372e
33212 F20101211_AABYCQ taylor_m_Page_010.pro
a2abe8218a92b9e86429e0d68cd62355
ec666cd288698fdc7ba6d2703e69363738e6da80
1051948 F20101211_AABXXK taylor_m_Page_094.jp2
8aa5530a998e6caa67fdd08d4bbe31df
ac17c81547eb48d4d7b6030cc97fac77ba3bce5c
1051949 F20101211_AABXWX taylor_m_Page_073.jp2
fddfeb19257448b3b4707662011ae486
009f6f9d9a99526189877b89167514df4733a26d
57076 F20101211_AABYDG taylor_m_Page_033.pro
aab4142e9d3d286354a7fb8dfc42235d
4b94855966787c069e3c347321ad0d0facdc3270
267766 F20101211_AABXYA taylor_m_Page_112.jp2
09e0ee11f1834b9dc574385f248c5113
b2f0b8a813f0f841712920fd39666941bb00c9a0
19410 F20101211_AABYCR taylor_m_Page_012.pro
aacef7d9873f29bec9b4d1870f5618b1
7058f5a110aea30663888b045ae7c8c40599e082
453468 F20101211_AABXXL taylor_m_Page_096.jp2
b97c1d327d0964e7f156bffab8840f72
34f6c016d9a882a66bd6b76b1caa8a09f1e3ba57
1051970 F20101211_AABXWY taylor_m_Page_076.jp2
7c300b8c0e07f9b0b009b6d710d48de1
8faef975c6ae2d3e4246818c22238aa326d092cc
52764 F20101211_AABYDH taylor_m_Page_034.pro
97665809d1ad70d1690da3b029343424
cc2990acb5475313e6def059f8c7700c96e2698f
457269 F20101211_AABXYB taylor_m_Page_113.jp2
482fcf86128fcc176d67da2e3b4124f4
cdcea12c9f7d7a7bffc1d1a98c5adefb6f884773
50157 F20101211_AABYCS taylor_m_Page_013.pro
46ae83bb28e9f160b55bcf3fbfb9ad7d
c7a84e7c9600beae01e3cd3f518dab8aa1e128bd
544788 F20101211_AABXXM taylor_m_Page_097.jp2
497ccf4a77249fb1bcf240e8a4a778fa
ee281627a36d9af529933657891d2d66a0473005
1051968 F20101211_AABXWZ taylor_m_Page_077.jp2
4b4785b6ac53276fcab248fb6a7e51dd
b8725d588d0225d003a8479b8bca3f6b43d95535
56000 F20101211_AABYDI taylor_m_Page_035.pro
6d813ce904c6d2d7cbb8d6da24c48133
a4a49148a61603371102c577bd27d0a15daab905
309070 F20101211_AABXYC taylor_m_Page_114.jp2
5d67bbd69406c96157bcc6c1ec29a0d1
96ac435d5882e12e5236eeaa6a930de00ae42041
51436 F20101211_AABYCT taylor_m_Page_014.pro
5acc92a93cbcee4c552260cef852575c
c29af1da3b1fbf0fb7cf92127676f65bb4ec167a
675850 F20101211_AABXXN taylor_m_Page_098.jp2
a901a3b6706f79518444d1018d3f097d
b5fe8069812900d4fa995c11add914b6539a922f
52674 F20101211_AABYDJ taylor_m_Page_036.pro
e79c2cb2b2b5d4442f8605211037b8fc
4ad060b571547d59c081a2364d7513626e1612a8
149809 F20101211_AABXYD taylor_m_Page_115.jp2
31b262fb56d525e8788e8375a80c6898
1815120479f8fc341a766cbc5918bd20b879a2ae
20111 F20101211_AABYCU taylor_m_Page_017.pro
69c2d043a5e4b53c65ae6ff545c9813f
50d7449729b70ff6365aa2caa18120dc68ebd32d
224760 F20101211_AABXXO taylor_m_Page_099.jp2
eb23b5a92b994420bb8e628f1c859e65
f37e8e76b8526acd211a58b24bdd3e8cd0c870e2
54865 F20101211_AABYDK taylor_m_Page_037.pro
146a9e2d7b85b149f7171a2bcae45d7e
fcd2ea3aead9cfd06484c5500f8fdb62ad20b2cc
424561 F20101211_AABXYE taylor_m_Page_116.jp2
55a4b5850e5785c7e43e31bc82af1cf3
c2c5f4b9e2fc0d31747be093056bd84ffd4757e9
51620 F20101211_AABYCV taylor_m_Page_018.pro
2c40b5c2c77ad75443c64af127591ba1
1d2d7369f3f09f01ef8bbc5f9a12bf77556bf4f8
318770 F20101211_AABXXP taylor_m_Page_100.jp2
616717c8e5e2ff7a07a7b3a2df0a66e7
8d19b487be44000e0be7e30968bea194f1481858
52677 F20101211_AABYDL taylor_m_Page_038.pro
9a72d18bd2f6ffb9e8ce03478f857b68
9aefc85bc59087cafb64c2b7b61da36e4d2352c7
417484 F20101211_AABXYF taylor_m_Page_117.jp2
b05ccf2d91b836741cfaf173c899b78e
21702649cae9f7035a5a9c0fd330e2bd969b83ab
51884 F20101211_AABYCW taylor_m_Page_020.pro
1369235cb8dcbb1139926dd98f12ce8b
b0c01a58c7b16ea80056e3607950b13f81c90190
F20101211_AABXXQ taylor_m_Page_101.jp2
80f0cdbf639a6622df82fa1312368e20
d583bdfd7f766c51f699c404d3f178b4190a9400
53631 F20101211_AABYDM taylor_m_Page_039.pro
c2a816126d6e174fef7af69d38569f0c
f5d8e7e2b27c3cb9142ae222a10d6bf354e062c6
1015340 F20101211_AABXYG taylor_m_Page_118.jp2
406ebab3486919aec861092ea94dd206
becdd154b1074c3df64bcb12331e59e781977cc2
56665 F20101211_AABYCX taylor_m_Page_022.pro
2e36a958a75c751c58185ea7969bb03b
179e3439b6a87557b1ad44fb84f07f5a93720fa4
709303 F20101211_AABXXR taylor_m_Page_102.jp2
d3c6b5e60da4ca27349cc80d54352022
c0b0541ff32df9170128069352d12f65e50310d7
51284 F20101211_AABYEA taylor_m_Page_056.pro
81f0dc602a8dc6f6469b1881070e131c
a0287f6ecb01f08c0f613a182799fe3931a76cdb
54706 F20101211_AABYDN taylor_m_Page_041.pro
f01d73d95ef006b0d57fd01dffd68366
7ba0decd249dd949b45094829b67bf5e1398de13
54100 F20101211_AABYCY taylor_m_Page_023.pro
27cf6169977f63f05d61ad2b79a14cfa
49c5b2d780ee20edb7f5dff4464c9f9d3713d8a7
389616 F20101211_AABXXS taylor_m_Page_104.jp2
673b4f89fa6c31c1b21cd6eb74be092c
086743044b77ffa3ce0a0edcc9bcadced0a27762
53494 F20101211_AABYEB taylor_m_Page_057.pro
ad495f9c21b76b0e07026dbd941e8bc5
f8d0dde7504722b58bb14da4876aa2fdfa5ba4ed
50571 F20101211_AABYDO taylor_m_Page_042.pro
dbe2d53e6b93dc3cdd8b62ceeab895d5
2e4e69b81392a50c832b2e312283ad64ff6e392f
661650 F20101211_AABXYH taylor_m_Page_119.jp2
1bee9f67a40d59864b1f656615fa8f23
096b0b0cc8009108b4ecfda59d3f77f8250235d9
56345 F20101211_AABYCZ taylor_m_Page_024.pro
eee8d4abfc2288205578d5d57a1c741b
65455e85129def04c7cf4241a505ffbf94b5d03d
504755 F20101211_AABXXT taylor_m_Page_105.jp2
d528204b516c65b4f4c076b69142b213
0f2472c80fb66b0c78c27b321d62170dc751157a
50882 F20101211_AABYEC taylor_m_Page_058.pro
8ba14a5958a7c0b5cd13ddfdc9026be3
97b5ef382ac07e59700dae56e222f1b9a9a54061
50819 F20101211_AABYDP taylor_m_Page_043.pro
83959793367f9af5ebd51d88d3df71cb
05b50b735a9f7f76c14668c2c2e8a53cd57e08ec
402510 F20101211_AABXYI taylor_m_Page_121.jp2
4345ef971f107226dca6a86683b0e505
f5d97b1abde333b5dae12e9b9d592ccf001b389e
478879 F20101211_AABXXU taylor_m_Page_106.jp2
9676ddbb9a0e70435d5138e65b4678a1
e2ceefd4e032b59e5af97ff5b6257579fd5ea68b
51135 F20101211_AABYED taylor_m_Page_059.pro
d6168be1c35c129b4e2bcd56d00a72d2
7f807cb09774007f6d9dfb911a4e193b4de6431a
19640 F20101211_AABYDQ taylor_m_Page_045.pro
24c0a564bd58fe0a2a22c0dc9ffee6ac
b195ef6856fd3099b9f7dbece0448c568017f7a3
755400 F20101211_AABXYJ taylor_m_Page_123.jp2
a8594a63f1ebc9f5fabba25c4b3e6927
7b14e1920823c7a1bbd23138103d0af38502f84d
524175 F20101211_AABXXV taylor_m_Page_107.jp2
d5fdc7bc9d277f953daaa2a0838b03a8
bd928cef43f77bf0412b670a1d1ae0d16ea5f940
45721 F20101211_AABYEE taylor_m_Page_063.pro
e53d6ec9a6a3be76055160cb809378f5
2148cff42c6c88b2dcc2e25c7ff36cfa12487387
865524 F20101211_AABXYK taylor_m_Page_125.jp2
b4e9a2a461c8278a96996c6aead6c776
ebb3d36c6d84bc04ee78090dabc1b2a8dc4f0950
F20101211_AABXXW taylor_m_Page_108.jp2
41ab7f03db0ba55f447f85c33b3737ca
20674ef109de27502627834cb1053c78ac87a382
51360 F20101211_AABYEF taylor_m_Page_064.pro
78683961e3e2f639f4aecff0aef22cc2
85b6d221aacbcb09ee550b031c0efe20f0d7a39f
48826 F20101211_AABYDR taylor_m_Page_046.pro
21d0052c0bf933195303dac649f165ad
4bb654b9c21f377d85f5c79f3fc4e336302446ee
1051975 F20101211_AABXYL taylor_m_Page_128.jp2
9f84f9476a83b0e3bd4d0a2eedda89cb
30fc10255428318d39889dcf8e3d8668b2cc4cbc
383013 F20101211_AABXXX taylor_m_Page_109.jp2
6d397c85fb6c0921ba9eed6417d70ec3
6a66ea9e7924c0238cdbccea3831828f1b95acdb
50949 F20101211_AABYEG taylor_m_Page_065.pro
2f0f03ac40c05a1d2de442f8639e764c
da4c264432b2b4349b5e295c01d4da9672b1290c
F20101211_AABXZA taylor_m_Page_016.tif
0a418ad2279acfe1ab0a576720faef90
c7c6bdcaf110871d915a4c05860420c2f1c09599
54660 F20101211_AABYDS taylor_m_Page_047.pro
c0cfef8877e93dc3e5ad6c890e7700e2
a3411760f6da350b16176e3c7e5b13bfb3073b31
F20101211_AABXYM taylor_m_Page_129.jp2
4fbe40ae1c01e8f4d5c9c1cd70295efc
6843df02656d026dd7d75338f0de54e9024548b4
843893 F20101211_AABXXY taylor_m_Page_110.jp2
0b777b903f60fbefe22595604d3b366b
fb1b565ac2960517d70273539198eea182a6f9de
29475 F20101211_AABYEH taylor_m_Page_066.pro
03f92c673cc3b04c1505f67425c41bc7
0d5ba2a35f84fbb1d53cb4695c6905cbec6e359b
F20101211_AABXZB taylor_m_Page_017.tif
b6e7e33e49226b38d928c3f92897093c
09eeaa99330d4b3071b3ac996b7c11a6a37b10aa
57155 F20101211_AABYDT taylor_m_Page_048.pro
8f400f828071931b3f32e0e98596c9d9
e5fe1518beb78a96a3e7b478336eaa4e63905f3d
F20101211_AABXYN taylor_m_Page_130.jp2
b598523b401126f7247c9a38704f1f30
1fa0a299155326f9735c377ea208ff69e1116d12
617247 F20101211_AABXXZ taylor_m_Page_111.jp2
52c10f1c97e50815c1d01b9ee7fad115
7eae999d619eb09c50d40026c85b68eb18241146
48500 F20101211_AABYEI taylor_m_Page_067.pro
8f3904638a409e55b11d15864d5b7667
1e34123aad77a5a70e788e52b5b5d39ca71498f8
F20101211_AABXZC taylor_m_Page_020.tif
423f81cdb22e10f843d14ba8b770b08e
edf34f980828e08e58b701a3d9d5bd554e64d508
12589 F20101211_AABYDU taylor_m_Page_049.pro
71263dc55fc499d796fe52746096b3e6
31fad92730ae83c14b52d08ba9af618d6afdd66d
F20101211_AABXYO taylor_m_Page_131.jp2
b35f89f967b2f0b8ad20e0c2d7a79d98
ca13726ef2e9024ef6cb1343367d993de710210b
75649 F20101211_AABYEJ taylor_m_Page_068.pro
ba689089fb8f54cff35b9a27efc77d96
6e5ba499a5a333588abdacf1aa9ffcf5eef193de
F20101211_AABXZD taylor_m_Page_022.tif
0113fe7463a53162fb7a8d934c45140f
1ef64044a1e64a6759597e6fbb6facc9b7d99fbe
14838 F20101211_AABYDV taylor_m_Page_050.pro
2dfa199185f3b6f5cc87299451aa7404
bcb84812fc358886842056d87589274b2a481be7
1051885 F20101211_AABXYP taylor_m_Page_132.jp2
763c7d137fbdf550b590bbfe1952ea4e
74e60e5b2f981228f25516692ef994da5ffc452c
51469 F20101211_AABYEK taylor_m_Page_069.pro
059acdaa98d9959f79f5873159278a1f
bc7e2b0c581dca1d528dbaa9e1aac87e892da53e
F20101211_AABXZE taylor_m_Page_023.tif
4559e7a6ef6bad6e4998e7352a5736a8
3215581b107a0cf3de6bd11a955de4d63dacba4c
26347 F20101211_AABYDW taylor_m_Page_051.pro
f852d30fc54eec4fc69582adb1cc37b2
00748f8ec5651966a78df75f7f4b3304a9a57704
F20101211_AABXYQ taylor_m_Page_001.tif
87257d58670d2c629c549a61efc89d2e
44eba0cda0afef449e768bfd7bfae0b483519801
29738 F20101211_AABYEL taylor_m_Page_070.pro
3af690b140f742145d2c3c96a521e1ea
59478b4c558d10086b3245e45b97842f57c7b6e0
F20101211_AABXZF taylor_m_Page_025.tif
76cb648520c8a74fd1075f3aef1b3353
324219c67282a93033cb2d1d159ba0b9a1792b25
F20101211_AABXYR taylor_m_Page_002.tif
ee5e8224d2e680d92fdc9c46d79bdcaf
fecb945f0ba8bccdb1d86fcbf37238953949e8ab
54670 F20101211_AABYFA taylor_m_Page_086.pro
a01d7a8925a5fc7b455798fda706467a
7e64c152fd3b9534284ea0d20175e5977070ff8c
36442 F20101211_AABYEM taylor_m_Page_071.pro
c31165918887b3d956c2c7cf0ced277a
31867cc2287403c4abd93bc23674937f4c0261fd
F20101211_AABXZG taylor_m_Page_027.tif
aa1753a92d27d5720cc4fb16bfc64c63
b1667c7669914e506ad7076064efd694198c9d04
48224 F20101211_AABYDX taylor_m_Page_052.pro
2c71ec095cf6358d8b29f900ab19c673
c46e5b01656f09db56d7a57fe93c64aaecacb7fc
F20101211_AABXYS taylor_m_Page_003.tif
af97f5b5dc92287cd8f5c88717e153dc
ea208b015ce245c2eaa03a751adc6616a8d49b2e
55244 F20101211_AABYFB taylor_m_Page_087.pro
f4836dd562e691c1f34662e60838e368
f035859d72191d086a7494d1dfcfcb1b559438fb
35252 F20101211_AABYEN taylor_m_Page_072.pro
43c1252d20c2a557fa435742ab6e7815
54e42fdb369bbeb831d34f544fa860b58dc1dc9d
F20101211_AABXZH taylor_m_Page_028.tif
d48876e2aa61e2d52446d002897f9059
243a388b3e97950ff36b8cc81b21fffb8a46766b
24528 F20101211_AABYDY taylor_m_Page_053.pro
4846a20ccdbe3c21d8f1e05ab48a8535
737f2a0f0fafd40c98d7326079fa179ca7797f3c
F20101211_AABXYT taylor_m_Page_004.tif
d27576c6edca8ea67e324833ab29e2d6
125f2938ffc2d24ff21228f03ac20e6d763593aa
51068 F20101211_AABYFC taylor_m_Page_088.pro
d33ca9302e95da7af86edba509bf85b1
a7a62026a8ab98d6dd710a8ee64ecdccf516f126
49398 F20101211_AABYEO taylor_m_Page_073.pro
26ea70d1cb70c6d596c452a47a6aca93
2b846054ea4286344c043cbd6900c42498f37846
53066 F20101211_AABYDZ taylor_m_Page_054.pro
94e722ef25e653315626aced7d5c4d28
3be6eeecd720fc217a92e48508d42310f07b1c57
F20101211_AABXYU taylor_m_Page_005.tif
b8e1ace64ce344a1e11d7cd3d9848c17
63e09a7f945394bcc152aebc53f1d259b55f8e88
53088 F20101211_AABYFD taylor_m_Page_089.pro
da6d85360f1e3b1d4f3230ba8c19310c
32918f8547c87013b895d3a64d6f22cf209f5b10
53136 F20101211_AABYEP taylor_m_Page_074.pro
0d8d0c8b65658c8f61106f9212206aea
1957c4d6bc0360331db61b49b480350d39447a74
F20101211_AABXZI taylor_m_Page_030.tif
3f4b55ed3a2851486fe9f1d5b20bf71d
6736e510d356189ec0591b5d139ad839b680a402
F20101211_AABXYV taylor_m_Page_006.tif
3ad83f2676be069ae4f97333cc1b8e31
27a0bd0393a8e8d9ea97ae12b747c0e3f46af23d
54487 F20101211_AABYFE taylor_m_Page_090.pro
b2797c7f8c818e9fb43a4958457f324c
1f79d0e416f4de53f06d766a4beba2d68255a3e6
52054 F20101211_AABYEQ taylor_m_Page_075.pro
6b6bc3c11c3cb631bdb234dc24dbc6eb
2a306bc4151f977c4b40f5355c6e824952795452
F20101211_AABXZJ taylor_m_Page_031.tif
4da6730be4a289676eecd6c20e23bb20
5b34f9b8bc63a95381cf04d9384b44aedf85b04e
F20101211_AABXYW taylor_m_Page_008.tif
5a797c72540245b8e44a4a511bb438a1
5d98b1d3fe9f26575f891fcebd682a787ed96ef5
52344 F20101211_AABYFF taylor_m_Page_091.pro
a4b598ae0a33813b66d587895426e029
ddfded2de97cca0966846f783014b37c07f15a31
55391 F20101211_AABYER taylor_m_Page_076.pro
462dea82696e57dbdd00c98e18a473cc
3c09f1296a3f0deedd72e6277de221ce4722dae7
F20101211_AABXZK taylor_m_Page_032.tif
2abfd032c993050481d906bb6c49898f
8774bf94842a907593c2bba01bfba718911e6739
F20101211_AABXYX taylor_m_Page_009.tif
5e3c95b3b7fa03d7c3c32cfe8afe531c
ddd3e37e3077d6751700cd136f27a0b5fd7d6328
50030 F20101211_AABYFG taylor_m_Page_092.pro
29d258aa548c9f2b7e53dbd1a7bc2de1
75a2e2e3a70e3f255cef9147ad5c555046c57436
F20101211_AABXZL taylor_m_Page_033.tif
a3a50f04f9104d954f92cc9ea76b9b63
4ebeacde6e6d2006f4a91e49bd70d8c66d6ab273
F20101211_AABXYY taylor_m_Page_011.tif
ff78a2eb9c42af466bfd98135c68af1f
77c67565e20f244288a4edc50f42e7622f79596a
55236 F20101211_AABYFH taylor_m_Page_093.pro
25a1e713ef6cdb9dfaef200f3e202c83
63dfb94ba5acd28520adc7037ff2bc565862cd66
49522 F20101211_AABYES taylor_m_Page_077.pro
4dbef9325750962cdfd5bca65aa61c15
709700dbb9659d166786b7aa1db520ca28eeb3b6
F20101211_AABXZM taylor_m_Page_034.tif
c96396e131c05000cf7a1db1cdb70967
a4b2ccef995d953fdd25cd7e020e2f0ff7612fd2
F20101211_AABXYZ taylor_m_Page_015.tif
7072aff7ca2b06f9d78dc77177ead839
250b26f190c3a0e569700a2d79256313a0a3b52c
53496 F20101211_AABYFI taylor_m_Page_094.pro
7463d1ca1655b62fc59f7c1675aeaef0
9cf69b4bdf45568718a34d93f61e7afd6720da54
51872 F20101211_AABYET taylor_m_Page_078.pro
3f655d8b59ff61b9c4c5a98b85be81e1
559ff630a9fcab48225d7a91fb06f742d12b401a
F20101211_AABXZN taylor_m_Page_035.tif
dd99b83dae82ce68d08f49ee2feef800
7040268a5644c7b97492074e650f9a6b5159a885
52687 F20101211_AABYFJ taylor_m_Page_095.pro
d6cd775ce43d364043b85a63dfcd4892
919fa9035aee2d2ccf10f525cec82fa20d52a25d
51940 F20101211_AABYEU taylor_m_Page_079.pro
c2eb8034b14c3d430ad91023e59ef2bc
6710132b58ba83ff5c6bad47047551fe26d10021
F20101211_AABXZO taylor_m_Page_036.tif
0e86472c3c113846ba6b346125865e95
d7c10015a2cdc4798a0213c5c2d9e34cd77bae26
19577 F20101211_AABYFK taylor_m_Page_096.pro
d7f691c89b7efa52151272e367b4112d
bf2b4313bbd4cbaa958e0dc6b9adcde0dfda1954
34413 F20101211_AABYEV taylor_m_Page_080.pro
bdee291f01e1b22152b783278474c422
c182df2852b3d18d142e7323ae101eea8036f2b7
F20101211_AABXZP taylor_m_Page_040.tif
427e12d0039a5ec1d02511b641abb194
757a98057e2ec1d95fe45965679f82df4a34f362
20251 F20101211_AABYFL taylor_m_Page_097.pro
2a3e8cfcff044879573431aecc785391
176bb4d40f83a6465e22e1a6aa94c9920510bd98
15736 F20101211_AABYEW taylor_m_Page_081.pro
482cbaa55a4243ace913e58a65980e71
d08bdd0a1e00000f8a0138af5d5a8318529143c5
F20101211_AABXZQ taylor_m_Page_042.tif
589300a315b1ea0858fa485f7856248b
2390f4fdbf716471fd773c989a59c8518e674cac
27112 F20101211_AABYFM taylor_m_Page_098.pro
dea0ee8c2df166367ee815ab0e686313
d8f33b82578be56de307885a0a9bb3994635de22
55556 F20101211_AABYEX taylor_m_Page_083.pro
936b8865d3b3774d1972288f34128fdd
d2434ba5e7fc8e524a23260f4234f56ea9080c4d
F20101211_AABXZR taylor_m_Page_043.tif
9763332082dc43dbbe7032d2089b6489
1489d08140995c8da4ea995b0e34ab6185a3e882
13429 F20101211_AABYGA taylor_m_Page_114.pro
7aa5d5e31dce8ffbb7f04e574a174a95
74e69b42c8c572e1c4eebfad26aa297060b8e982
7997 F20101211_AABYFN taylor_m_Page_099.pro
a0c20dc70909bfc91c85b30e2fb6f3cd
802b0b8cba60f587ff1cdd64e406d635a0bbc1dc
54173 F20101211_AABYEY taylor_m_Page_084.pro
819902f4881982dcafe1d9bd0f5eca6e
d67128adff9abf8b32c0bc76cabe0be622f14325
F20101211_AABXZS taylor_m_Page_045.tif
defd1e9bdb23aad7c204fa563f61e538
51efa745fe06f1bfe7ba0571b2a1ce3b1c9b7fd3
6504 F20101211_AABYGB taylor_m_Page_115.pro
e824e011df118695dcc307feedecfea8
4263f07b7cf05dba8888a8960f391bc5466fc41a
12494 F20101211_AABYFO taylor_m_Page_100.pro
7e85f58a7323456ec748424db8a64fa5
96993128830e5c8910f64463255f2e68e521d975
57591 F20101211_AABYEZ taylor_m_Page_085.pro
2c52755dbd701c2b5943d3fa7ba442b0
2bafccdbeebe990d007ba727a9c8dfd33a78e97c
F20101211_AABXZT taylor_m_Page_046.tif
6c576079984779ac87d3243a9af727f1
7bf3e1d336c7bb7053571b5fba7e6a89bca89a0a
22184 F20101211_AABYGC taylor_m_Page_116.pro
381a1325a93e6ed8201442171c4a57d1
e7baad6aba7789e90672aa70449c5aaaaeeb53c9
48740 F20101211_AABYFP taylor_m_Page_101.pro
57724882c76d1a00007831f4ed5a6a30
83c369edb8ae8dc7533f2dce6697fec51156a42c
F20101211_AABXZU taylor_m_Page_048.tif
4b145698b94f64a0d5c61fb143936c35
8e61654e385edb1b966b6c058837245301c2f57d
21941 F20101211_AABYGD taylor_m_Page_117.pro
88ef8bd4ef6dd1b66e7828a27deb60ed
24dce0a8b2101561682bb80e1a2f4baa093b9674
29516 F20101211_AABYFQ taylor_m_Page_102.pro
0b7540f858eea9fbb98164aa944fafe2
3cb4d8c5768725be0fb4ade0ca34e78d6cf03faa
F20101211_AABXZV taylor_m_Page_049.tif
228edaa8cfebbbf285d30141c6c05fae
5071304cb2016e09494eff96789482e07f5235b2
56980 F20101211_AABYGE taylor_m_Page_120.pro
29c82585947203d0d3b819a337018352
99798eee42139449f44982c10af4877e2d0fab88
33224 F20101211_AABYFR taylor_m_Page_103.pro
2b867660c5b1a74f190ba24e04e75498
c652e8bc0c7d3a5a602ed78a5e31fdaf9b849697
F20101211_AABXZW taylor_m_Page_050.tif
76f727a31d90426c1c804d86727ee9d9
820e628b98448427cfed6324253d6ff856c24f33
25156 F20101211_AABYGF taylor_m_Page_121.pro
af5df58d844200292eb0c318fb107472
a191791858c126bcd6a9fd2e546a10a0d245f816
20973 F20101211_AABYFS taylor_m_Page_105.pro
136ad4e965df9fe672ac772cadc3effb
2a10992eaafe35cd31ce92dc0d8bbf67b24efca7
F20101211_AABXZX taylor_m_Page_051.tif
c83bc13034efd309df38cac09175b0ae
96373fcaa7d8b5ae6dbacbe509044f51cd05bab4
38274 F20101211_AABYGG taylor_m_Page_125.pro
f38d83013175f21fe6dc2a6f4ecdbf10
4d08cdc500cec386ca85ba713a4bf2e9a81705b3
F20101211_AABXZY taylor_m_Page_054.tif
4ec8c59e76aa31d8d2c57b7e1620f54c
498e15485a7213ad7bfb9896e09634ae6ef70b41
33059 F20101211_AABYGH taylor_m_Page_126.pro
e1375a980ba6d5b1c6bd368c7cd2ac18
ab90d52a26b332b2ad3eee61350b854ba33501d6
17117 F20101211_AABYFT taylor_m_Page_106.pro
87743be6eb5a9018002fb2790e2bc503
2abd4a13f592a2d2d6ae1b01eaa83a74a7c59873
F20101211_AABXZZ taylor_m_Page_055.tif
94e54e1f57f70342659c66ff7659400b
69fe67fef3f1d1298c95e538482e7b54e7315ee5
19365 F20101211_AABYGI taylor_m_Page_127.pro
aed6865a3d5e19a3e207502c14cfdc40
78e78c57b492f51a2cb5fbd77923f772002a332e
21766 F20101211_AABYFU taylor_m_Page_107.pro
b3dd84d066635815ac7515852fbae65f
b54b65146c512c38953132c4c48bd322dffa389b
58948 F20101211_AABYGJ taylor_m_Page_128.pro
9c97d2e924542135fe5a910c9da16718
b9a4ac4fd66f434ea486764b6405abe0d4923cc5
72033 F20101211_AABYFV taylor_m_Page_108.pro
5198a5c30178d4edb28af033337189bb
01ab71da431cdf71665712c897b51f96910dea6f
65908 F20101211_AABYGK taylor_m_Page_129.pro
a0866744df87da7f5ef1cf161b2a21b2
d2bffa8232830a9b9cdd301547a229b4c08ef0e3
14980 F20101211_AABYFW taylor_m_Page_109.pro
39c13d4a89a73af864d0979a6ec4b05a
03850cde74c038246b4772dbb914ee013ef2489a
63872 F20101211_AABYGL taylor_m_Page_130.pro
90b7339c7d9ab44cc5212e9f3538a5db
bc161a871462b9a41996a91c13052d4e512040d6
31537 F20101211_AABYFX taylor_m_Page_110.pro
0420a2a4ed722e74b17320bdf2ab1f0b
6a94edfb5fdf8f2026faed774774b3029baf0d5f
2202 F20101211_AABYHA taylor_m_Page_021.txt
e704aa909ce8a9e9e93c91cdbe4ba546
a4bb79791e2de1cc8439baa9bfb3b4f4492fe27d
498 F20101211_AABYGM taylor_m_Page_001.txt
843786624084436122e8657df4c78753
afb2d242984708e0e0c2aaabb6cd3946b80966d0
21740 F20101211_AABYFY taylor_m_Page_111.pro
1567cdbaded39958d59623bc8d0fde1f
d12e518a93763232e84ff597cc4d5df77e00ba27
2246 F20101211_AABYHB taylor_m_Page_022.txt
9cc4dbe13e67c229c1e2d1ab0b7d6e70
9d1a65bc8df2489dfe441d86b138ab3054766507
94 F20101211_AABYGN taylor_m_Page_002.txt
1da8d6dd6eaac4846222a35c7c4f1ae8
3d8c8de268d0aae5ca37fab66d4b0c65f850d65b
10795 F20101211_AABYFZ taylor_m_Page_112.pro
b0416fbcbbac4abd8a98e53fece75827
98aa7278459fbf03dc855f1467358af50047f0e1
F20101211_AABYHC taylor_m_Page_023.txt
07187a51df567a6e39e05d4070aa5fbc
77d1239239f27fd07f2b22b37449450711b0f017
170 F20101211_AABYGO taylor_m_Page_003.txt
2ec54ebdcee8656ad93df19211a7767a
f89e108498a65185d4e9a0b83bc73dc243e81aa0
2208 F20101211_AABYHD taylor_m_Page_024.txt
faae7aa2069a15cf3821e4353d6f27b6
2fa0c6ce6ca48ec73fc7b9b4ae6c307e7f2ace2f
1914 F20101211_AABYGP taylor_m_Page_004.txt
b4e6d41d59dd9e1558ab9f30f62311e4
7ad3f901c428d678bc2f44a8489e7b204ed0414c
2234 F20101211_AABYHE taylor_m_Page_025.txt
c0b6c22e9dff56a84024ca24429cb71e
9189cb55a0b4f9cac8b7bbdba84de1e36527e571
650 F20101211_AABYGQ taylor_m_Page_005.txt
c051c4769a85e7caf28cc414025986b3
f5085c2f4476a01eb6343c0b946791263b134bb5
2224 F20101211_AABYHF taylor_m_Page_026.txt
a9e859ac3859c291243c9a09177d59b6
e61e02fb64e5d1e0a0c270c89ceca7a2468c2628
3025 F20101211_AABYGR taylor_m_Page_006.txt
a9815bf4ffc588b02df43d93f4905922
98849b0b4680c1a608069f611a8ddc852f57e5ae
2177 F20101211_AABYHG taylor_m_Page_027.txt
2eeafe9c1d23407e50178c86bc9d7832
83436e58a8fe6dece8d3ec97b63222c0c9ca6818
2973 F20101211_AABYGS taylor_m_Page_007.txt
e74d0b6a11ff64177f70e7248fcddb78
b217f3a905a6ebac68fac502a3f7caa199866d92
2093 F20101211_AABYHH taylor_m_Page_028.txt
f4052397e16c4aa462d7f8c36a996130
fb54f7d4ab784b3734c92400aa5a28eb7c337495
2204 F20101211_AABYGT taylor_m_Page_008.txt
ad1ca228cf75ccb904cd381368de1e27
77e226a00dbe112f92f64d39d41a2b154c260a28
2125 F20101211_AABYHI taylor_m_Page_029.txt
f2237efa2d2becbfcd065d30b71a1652
0705ca82713ad61b7040fafab48cac607d3e108c
2115 F20101211_AABYHJ taylor_m_Page_030.txt
496358e60a5be85e9cbf936a857a6ba7
22af47e80233af783f92a711630d0102a3bf3e9d
668 F20101211_AABYGU taylor_m_Page_009.txt
5e49b4636315c494463ced0e0cb88988
43f2f842f7b57b45e6b63cd883305944028a1153
1997 F20101211_AABYHK taylor_m_Page_031.txt
00a5aa51d94742277d70efa4fe979e5d
3e51b5865a3eb85fa2a8a051424fb6e2a13c0864
1343 F20101211_AABYGV taylor_m_Page_010.txt
4e2e0db0ac17fb01c597396e3849e2f7
5fc181d5062f222c49346a96c4ec20a07e6d1169
2193 F20101211_AABYHL taylor_m_Page_032.txt
ea266ab4a6425a37d4e078f559952bcf
e90485eb39436e54a8b46f3b686bfbeedbe5ebbd
2146 F20101211_AABYGW taylor_m_Page_015.txt
55fbea23899fa74de456a32a64d81834
ddb1ef803a2968990b15f93892d28e54f30a6256
1198 F20101211_AABYIA taylor_m_Page_051.txt
aedb843a414d4d6a4cd1f2a5a56948a9
db549d635966bbc2284561daa822ff6d0746601a
2238 F20101211_AABYHM taylor_m_Page_033.txt
e8964ff02623148230955a877bda3435
d0ee95702b75d6f61c61b2a0ccb542dda8a6eae9
2105 F20101211_AABYGX taylor_m_Page_018.txt
0e24c8c810c43287405c89ec3021af1e
35a7931e2b4b2d1954987cd38038b11eec063097
1922 F20101211_AABYIB taylor_m_Page_052.txt
7749247dcd692f0c4f21c1056df4b002
3c989a0b82811c33ad5f63b1ba29e6abfff51a0f
F20101211_AABYHN taylor_m_Page_034.txt
ab6e809eb063b944c107846373e637ff
a4ee3c2f7a0f717c5072e8a7e5c15411fe2e7f01
2121 F20101211_AABYGY taylor_m_Page_019.txt
fd45b86ebd5828ff5510ddbc9a2b8022
533c9e7174c204f4aaaa39acab74a4d05114237e
2035 F20101211_AABYIC taylor_m_Page_055.txt
949de8f6f1507d3d42fffc1fa28611f4
379470839bb025c9dfadc86dba6aff396388627f
F20101211_AABYHO taylor_m_Page_035.txt
c398b17081ee3de383ebe346d2aec49a
31a6fe1aaefde2443cb005d2c369aaa9880a46aa
F20101211_AABYGZ taylor_m_Page_020.txt
00a2dee57cb1cdb1d6237be4cea596ba
29382d037d018c54c0b93dea0e97ded406bacbfa
2024 F20101211_AABYID taylor_m_Page_056.txt
ee36090e830b151ac702ab7a1ddc84a3
0dae521d224fc21c72faeabf13c8d5c05757abae
2072 F20101211_AABYHP taylor_m_Page_036.txt
924df1dd78bfbe8eee7fb1970d91deb6
01923146e29c504bb61554ad71d29386df21ef51
2109 F20101211_AABYIE taylor_m_Page_057.txt
528ad332cdcc33028494d2eadcf8eb04
fc4c4f813f9d1ae32e57443f9556b287ae8df161
2154 F20101211_AABYHQ taylor_m_Page_037.txt
f8de900a9357c4dfe8bbf3aec2fd889d
ce92cd89e0946d08a2eac241ed622d1deb1e343b
2011 F20101211_AABYIF taylor_m_Page_058.txt
0e924d12241aafdb79f26d6266997953
2c60ce0d1298e50b9c1adb92e84dd6b6a8991363
2070 F20101211_AABYHR taylor_m_Page_038.txt
98d57023626603a30f67ac9c3713f7c2
f8a790ea41c2b2e2fb82c06cd4b37810040d4d54
2050 F20101211_AABYIG taylor_m_Page_059.txt
1091f25e4b975f86b5ee706054549fa0
03dc7367b8e4e1e3560d95925f5eea6565b078fe
2062 F20101211_AABYHS taylor_m_Page_040.txt
3d6e4e0b76db6a1d799946f0228c786d
7e4cd2c16fa6e4804a560b408ec1c821973a24c3
2077 F20101211_AABYIH taylor_m_Page_061.txt
9b87494f386a005da0e3fcd72d2ef3bc
9ef3e1b013aba863ba32e87551c86b1fcd86a466
2157 F20101211_AABYHT taylor_m_Page_041.txt
3deac6d56814cf014dbb0725492f19cf
322c6f8a596a926346200b70880a509b9872e662
1031 F20101211_AABYII taylor_m_Page_062.txt
ecf8e65cb619b2dbdaf6023dc021e5d5
69a8ba8a5c2357978abca643902d30ed7291fd95
2000 F20101211_AABYHU taylor_m_Page_042.txt
dfd6615a986e9b262fa5f8823724a814
f2096c52b946e14f44364ad7ce96ae5743891b8a
1949 F20101211_AABYIJ taylor_m_Page_063.txt
417d9061ace5ae01506f1299d778bf25
6860b0b95585a6d3562c05d514a4fcfb8e9f661b
2043 F20101211_AABYIK taylor_m_Page_064.txt
8638dfa9321c5edf083a4b60f5d65bfc
85de97e6a356702723bab8ba4cff2cfae433ce49
2047 F20101211_AABYHV taylor_m_Page_043.txt
15a280f309dff2b99bd046de198a5372
498b9da987c68c42edc8be42a6accde1500cf4a9
1187 F20101211_AABYIL taylor_m_Page_066.txt
9d146aa5b5ece278c42aa7c4cb59e7ae
4d78aed20dfa5319a04590d99e1caa8d18bfbff2
2153 F20101211_AABYHW taylor_m_Page_044.txt
b945c567d8df1c453afb826a2e8f6d72
65735065d88064e9e7935c92515cc63738df647c
3586 F20101211_AABYIM taylor_m_Page_068.txt
393e525b582009d6777ca1231b572b40
ac9eeb9c87c1884f6521f06980d41146435d977c
2223 F20101211_AABYHX taylor_m_Page_047.txt
1d902a329fab2c798caff694545b7c73
520ff6144abec49f336af1a631fd57a32a818906
2255 F20101211_AABYJA taylor_m_Page_085.txt
b5b17563f113c2558bcb655bbcec8f2a
338552fbb58679d6ab9e085a980bc3112ca4acbc
1407 F20101211_AABYIN taylor_m_Page_070.txt
a6c42c326f0d906a84d925123ae03546
a080d3a9bd476940738da4ec2693ff605c4a68f5
560 F20101211_AABYHY taylor_m_Page_049.txt
bc42872fb95f87f0835284815ffe2b7b
1823a6933a0e88ce8a6789412d6f7ee0b8a25720
2158 F20101211_AABYJB taylor_m_Page_086.txt
23fcd042c359166f7c82eed3ab8b9ee3
4805076f4a56adb519949c441fe32329ed4bde52
1609 F20101211_AABYIO taylor_m_Page_071.txt
24fd1b9cca62dc11f8d7c0b2219c0b5d
47f9d58df8a587a74362a505127c1806ae992b74
652 F20101211_AABYHZ taylor_m_Page_050.txt
eaa4f922e1d8dedc6b7624f6ea63f351
e6d71983e3fadca61c0137887dc7aeb54f0d1da4
2013 F20101211_AABYJC taylor_m_Page_088.txt
83ba51287d3ba5b0bcd190aedc043361
4958dd079f0c2f41d0c56a194a4b61b2ab091da2
1377 F20101211_AABYIP taylor_m_Page_072.txt
9c63d183861e971d623ad99fafe2d24f
f316403b6d682cf85b4bbd1eb6abe256c7dcda14
2112 F20101211_AABYJD taylor_m_Page_089.txt
0d0bae9f66fde6fb14d9765922b54c80
35d325a11d82b15511c3e3936a98953ddcc16c22
1967 F20101211_AABYIQ taylor_m_Page_073.txt
6a63b3bbd1476f46108a0dfa333ea182
38e0687434670369bfd9cbd5c654ceda9ec69f92
2139 F20101211_AABYJE taylor_m_Page_090.txt
bfc8a1922890e78e57c1eb9301d89303
189915513ad0340466165c0457e58fdf8d4c5a1d
F20101211_AABYIR taylor_m_Page_074.txt
0784e7e769dba5d675bf233811444e5a
a796202f26a896d0391be151cbcac9a75bae4102
F20101211_AABYJF taylor_m_Page_091.txt
905f1fdbb472d6bc7eb4c20a61bb8453
cc229039abe83466bc1504bbf5ba26a7fd44b270
F20101211_AABYIS taylor_m_Page_075.txt
9690cbf2528b208592dd40c629c8f979
d7b17deafcde2f50970c835236de74e40bbbe095
2003 F20101211_AABYJG taylor_m_Page_092.txt
c6e2c9013d67c6b2ac9a4d944f617493
63eb597763a8db140a961fefff9b48be2ff1e0eb
2212 F20101211_AABYIT taylor_m_Page_076.txt
4f2e5bebdf925cb727976144ab35c3cf
a3e8efd78c918b7687b9274e405c7d7a31a7a581
2175 F20101211_AABYJH taylor_m_Page_093.txt
772a7d241bcd8e422406303a66c42e62
76388c3bd1c8ade071d633738cb5a24cb7ad7fcf
1975 F20101211_AABYIU taylor_m_Page_077.txt
5efdd4c1de17295ca16c3cd781821d06
ea186deae93a2284967b51f5399db1ed42fa6ccd
2147 F20101211_AABYJI taylor_m_Page_094.txt
c69a6f619fa2e3406a2f3f6799027dc9
40cff03d31779e67155ff7d423e4e46b8520e0ca
F20101211_AABYJJ taylor_m_Page_095.txt
a6c1b2dc553af9369b641fd2e11a92b9
0cbad02009c18ecca5a2322e61ae9aabbfa714a5
2068 F20101211_AABYIV taylor_m_Page_079.txt
e0950820ebb42d791af65ec6fbd92325
5937a5f52f0de0e39a420b1eba8318bb3cfccdbc
776 F20101211_AABYJK taylor_m_Page_096.txt
aae47a7bcd380c20aa04b90f2781b106
20b800c246a475581117420f717271a78d872e4d
1018 F20101211_AABYJL taylor_m_Page_097.txt
e586c2290edcc3b2cbf8eff89b0db8be
7f40fe226a8970aca4aabfd8c235e6c05814bf98
1424 F20101211_AABYIW taylor_m_Page_080.txt
fb9322fa15d6ea57f7fee09b5e9c52cc
31652f53023d66877ce1e1eb5e044f6e065301e9
2985 F20101211_AABYKA taylor_m_Page_120.txt
4a6685cd8c90df62e47437a2bca6e9ba
c7b75c1490b9c71751f11c1d1b3c72991ab10f46
430 F20101211_AABYJM taylor_m_Page_099.txt
5df0c81f97ffea671ce2263abdb7628e
689cc44de59c0cf5c3db501c29cfaa874aa022b7
756 F20101211_AABYIX taylor_m_Page_081.txt
b525990bdbfa2258baa4f6f90f4eff57
82e693d0a55e7d42004a986d41407ebd977fbbcd
1049 F20101211_AABYKB taylor_m_Page_121.txt
574b5328b0f064ac975f37c5a9a83feb
6a2697f943d4680ce5983f36652ba53df56ef8b5
596 F20101211_AABYJN taylor_m_Page_100.txt
5480eaf1da5f828049559639875f7aa9
417691ecb52fc477571b671b60277d3bee7944c7
1987 F20101211_AABYIY taylor_m_Page_082.txt
91ffda6255270cc465c28511240ed3e8
3ffb2073077e77a9b5933196a426a7a10aa802d9
79 F20101211_AABYKC taylor_m_Page_122.txt
dec44c167931086457ee0e56a01460a3
b553e19bbcbc138ef551deaa0870d7acf93bf224
1314 F20101211_AABYJO taylor_m_Page_102.txt
dea77fe0740ee8dd4991c0c3a052cfdc
687d965e8acbca121cc1bc016ba01bbadad827ce
2184 F20101211_AABYIZ taylor_m_Page_083.txt
47429d42b7923ba99f84559c3fa0a895
e07760872a7ba66087909498fb1efd14296d501a
1471 F20101211_AABYKD taylor_m_Page_123.txt
98182e567b01cf02404a5825449f8ef7
49089924027ec15c0feb685978e17eee1103e897
1793 F20101211_AABYJP taylor_m_Page_103.txt
f7ed8b97b0e9cbe0d3244c1800de6273
0f45fd37e913d63bac1d64b0d0968254000f5abd
2402 F20101211_AABYKE taylor_m_Page_124.txt
09e8a2d31fafacf463bd637f9bcd06a5
b0aa8f95596a47d234e467cbf310ba083f351afa
733 F20101211_AABYJQ taylor_m_Page_106.txt
b005f43278fe5994623c441380dc578b
99de6ba80cc25a994793dc023feb466f9cb25e2a
1506 F20101211_AABYKF taylor_m_Page_126.txt
783cb1d02c834d11146edd76d486fd98
73d142c930a4948c78cadf505d61753c2780dfba
940 F20101211_AABYJR taylor_m_Page_107.txt
e93f20284058af39f6281f167e882422
2d5a97e02b0db134f97094836eea42426d3d9514
781 F20101211_AABYKG taylor_m_Page_127.txt
6a7c7188a84e3ce1b668cc5eee1fc964
4691f480b2981a3c0264ab7293e82e4b827179a1
2916 F20101211_AABYJS taylor_m_Page_108.txt
a37ad703158410639f507a029565e429
52f7175143fc9257a3f1c5530ecda6693a5a3249
2398 F20101211_AABYKH taylor_m_Page_128.txt
3b0bff7c6abf1fc0d3eca3fad99dd494
652b4b754d6351479a0d4bdf38de51a00bab68d6
607 F20101211_AABYJT taylor_m_Page_109.txt
e8463d5263d27a90c72532d04c364d32
56e436f4f2def27f320d203c4f3478015a187b06
2668 F20101211_AABYKI taylor_m_Page_129.txt
ef9b03f1aef23fea7a2fa4d9c5884721
f4d020e1c4a0fc4e195a6eec257c056df886bcc5
883 F20101211_AABYJU taylor_m_Page_111.txt
7ac0e187d543902ff8779a6a12029c9d
6d8e95bad26ab5747a793f69fa466253bb4b71be
2614 F20101211_AABYKJ taylor_m_Page_130.txt
a290d50a5202e2807d7c02344bd2ec95
9c81e6429b20bd6c4fd985dfbac7cd77bae0b4b0
910 F20101211_AABYJV taylor_m_Page_113.txt
3de6e77364406301260fb1bfce151749
928272ad80f1c5e44aaadcf7d2d5221398e4284f
2191 F20101211_AABYKK taylor_m_Page_131.txt
5ad30fafc19bcfb7150413994e1885e5
fca3796dc8954cc61db495bb5776ff193db26122
280 F20101211_AABYJW taylor_m_Page_115.txt
964f5274833697139682242c1e71cf93
234216e646d3edcee4a2180d51cfa3a8f35b9e77
2492 F20101211_AABYKL taylor_m_Page_132.txt
2d0349e0610d683ef2de7d81a8c26db8
cf6efbf57d63059cacb44836bd9d1e7edf781066
1582 F20101211_AABYKM taylor_m_Page_133.txt
6cb22bb9139fc8fdeb5c03ef0c49ae25
cb1ad6d0f51a9c7e9415dcd0cae52826d633a02d
956 F20101211_AABYJX taylor_m_Page_116.txt
8c54527ddb2992748021d773f79d8ad5
1b2c2efdc0c88959f1cde8e246a0bb381dcab105
21694 F20101211_AABYLA taylor_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
2560ffa58ef2585bc196f87c71dd4914
ee93ff31c4860e97b6ec2950e19f53ebb735c75d
2587 F20101211_AABYKN taylor_m_Page_001thm.jpg
fe1b14670c1717d23612c4214c2138b3
aa7da6563733c59cba6e7f679869f558e35f91ab
947 F20101211_AABYJY taylor_m_Page_117.txt
2b5d2977844f76ce99399ea47e8efb01
2a47b41678dfb194912b7543b52593556543a52f
11422 F20101211_AABYLB taylor_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
afc7f3c4d5bcbb749f915d5b69e7e461
d95bb978e080ec803141e6652b1d2b6f1a4ef8c5
598469 F20101211_AABYKO taylor_m.pdf
003d818e07cb47874aace548bb6bd1dd
b9e85268470018cf87388a6b52a8e932eb522f17
2828 F20101211_AABYJZ taylor_m_Page_118.txt
b14517f572ea4b8509393378c1b9b9cc
e6ea5ca6aecebdd3e995b7539f6babc613ada23d
3467 F20101211_AABYLC taylor_m_Page_012thm.jpg
49a6a7f40f9fd05ba78b03bb116762e7
dae71e50aedb6b4acb6e37f5f174012e7a1366b0
1555 F20101211_AABYKP taylor_m_Page_003thm.jpg
2ecdf79d89cbb95313933912f76c5029
3dab47f75ff97a78ed2232708185713373086add
25661 F20101211_AABYLD taylor_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
6ff5394595840ff34b3a2086e13f396c
bd0e3acf2531d59e5097889e914496caaa7e207a
24207 F20101211_AABYKQ taylor_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
a4b0fe480cc20d94e85010be87f4cb02
a1b8849052ceae36556678337d90c68e861b3b59
7145 F20101211_AABYLE taylor_m_Page_013thm.jpg
cd7af6bcc2c85421708b14d61603cb0a
e9a874d762dc41a6249d78431fab6da21f9750bf
10020 F20101211_AABYKR taylor_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
913e98c6680830a7d377c9d07d242b6f
7424d8be63be8e1c2f5b6eb38c9bdb1eb36ce6e5
26441 F20101211_AABYLF taylor_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
26ca5ab2b90a7d1a0985122ae7e37466
3cffd7166c456611533b30f159f7c8fbc004b94d
22156 F20101211_AABYKS taylor_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
524b1c010a2cf60a02fa655af5ecd383
8c930a0cde4a676d8eb30844ad66159a501dc29f
7055 F20101211_AABYLG taylor_m_Page_014thm.jpg
3b29d8b686d2c56f9c791c0868c83e48
87eaa0e730c2caebf85da051671415ee126a4fb0
5557 F20101211_AABYKT taylor_m_Page_006thm.jpg
e3c236f11f8ce5325eab9e2a4b9e3880
badc8782e366073301be959446bd80a5db0189a0
27594 F20101211_AABYLH taylor_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
cbaade21f3043533b291d4e0e22d5199
a0b01508b61bcd7d4942b3f52cb2daa40cca9c81
5846 F20101211_AABYKU taylor_m_Page_007thm.jpg
49d2dcb1fab689b34033614a9d39cad1
bc96cfd703ebbf78afab12a67d44d580cc317514
7223 F20101211_AABYLI taylor_m_Page_015thm.jpg
4243b1980478e2fe16edea4c634a41d6
42d12eb22fcafab2d19f1f08afa8d4bfc9e865fa
20685 F20101211_AABYKV taylor_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
dd24c63d03f4561ca7545f6e71149062
3b051f008e2bc02f4c09fdcf1c4a39477f4dfb01
26882 F20101211_AABYLJ taylor_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
d2028a76a3237d7312a3c36981f8117d
9fac81a438318d91b4dccf55ab494849ea71baff
5160 F20101211_AABYKW taylor_m_Page_008thm.jpg
4fc1c2f467182bf1ec35b99b990a93d5
432a56cd17b402259a968c5bc77ad79871bdd824
3543 F20101211_AABYLK taylor_m_Page_017thm.jpg
3328930f528d3beaf815b2d351136c2a
a344443f99d7f338307477cbf0b3cd1c2e997fdb
8988 F20101211_AABYKX taylor_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
5e558d94d4df3e6e9ff60b6ae3c2159c
2adba144a99e72eb334af362231367a45d76add3
F20101211_AABYLL taylor_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
eb1c0a9a0907308425689c28ca88ae90
f11e104f25a01c3c6f0291b25d1ca67da256769c
28390 F20101211_AABYMA taylor_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
29d1a239357df58fedf9b1a3416c12fe
fff69efbd326578f25aefc120393b7ecf2219f8c
6930 F20101211_AABYLM taylor_m_Page_018thm.jpg
0e4fbf6b37b8e3c7317d4df980fceba6
4061e1b82c8b342df9623e56e3cb16b94a701f17
15654 F20101211_AABYKY taylor_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
1cbb36dfb260bf6f2a95c2b0a7aad1da
9042e5a3afd7ef8f13b1041e7f72ef89b5bdd05c
7529 F20101211_AABYMB taylor_m_Page_026thm.jpg
10f471d90185d7b26a893857e3848f71
0ecc5b5d8f51f7389379f24ab21b9d226ebad0f8
26902 F20101211_AABYLN taylor_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
69057252f6f8c0b873ff184374695c43
97854262490c5fd160d9e2348c2a6c38df192ab7
4748 F20101211_AABYKZ taylor_m_Page_010thm.jpg
9ebb2b88523376709907fe922c68ee4c
33e973bbb82f784630025fac0db4188bd6b5c3c0
2036 F20101211_AABXJA taylor_m_Page_016.txt
defe01a7c82343741721ff6d27bbce82
b5c8155aa2ae8e41924b1e7bc6e20bf2cc8aea13
28042 F20101211_AABYMC taylor_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
3dd47e35868d28f4ae19d4e45fc8ee9a
511b961a84f33b9058b81afed2647943d87ba6d7
7379 F20101211_AABYLO taylor_m_Page_019thm.jpg
c8db35718f59b66d1c292a9edd5c563a
522831ebd6a7c504ef5757f02021c3a8ffd9adf9
37610 F20101211_AABXJB taylor_m_Page_102.jpg
9ff32378f9ee548157b61a64c692173c
2b01f792453e45c16d93eca89da5b68704946a5e
27003 F20101211_AABYMD taylor_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
15fbc9caaeb8609aa187b8c35f22acfc
971470c8f7f1578f7561320d441f5715115a642f
26155 F20101211_AABYLP taylor_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
6a66e52edc704c0918e5f2f5318df2fa
78a89abc8bede3e0c5580f3c4c329646d01a2d4b
725049 F20101211_AABXJC taylor_m_Page_066.jp2
59196e690fd5884c2bc3e59f31c2bd5b
51415d76d3a489eb07b27a060d2fff951042633c
7353 F20101211_AABYME taylor_m_Page_028thm.jpg
df1f6a53c2b956aec0a9b15089937516
17c2937dd8da13b30e16443a14ebacc56c11f29f
F20101211_AABYLQ taylor_m_Page_020thm.jpg
927939ffd0beea04304c77c217fca4b4
61d445465db7df7a6acc26decb3a73e2c579aa7e
6947 F20101211_AABXJD taylor_m_Page_068thm.jpg
f2d388fea6500788d366b428ecaacce4
da152c945bbc53dea0c74b00ba4a65d6164f38fe
7307 F20101211_AABYMF taylor_m_Page_029thm.jpg
4f5165851a4dd9ab9a623fdcf7c96824
e49a4746789808e72b750701835c2a6379e381a5
28691 F20101211_AABYLR taylor_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
4a8c943b901fe3504ad44927fb2a97e4
271c1c86a582911b314e438f5dfe57a6944d916d







RELATIONSHIPS AMONG TEACHERS'
PHONEMIC AWARENESS KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS AND
THEIR STUDENTS' EMERGENT LITERACY GROWTH





















By

MERIDITH TAYLOR STROUT


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008

































O 2008 Meridith Taylor Strout



































To my parents John and Jean,
thank you both for your endless years of love and support.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This has been an incredible journey. This journey has not only been about wisdom but also

about persistence. There have been many individuals who have supported me throughout this

experience, and I would like to express my love and gratitude to them.

I would first like to thank Dr. Glen Buck who contributed to cultivating my passion for

working with children who have special needs. He was the one who has transformed me from a

hornet to a gator. I thank my committee members for being such wonderful mentors and role

models: Dr. Holly Lane, my advisor and chair; Dr. Nancy Corbett; Dr. Cyndy Griffin; and Dr.

Miller. I feel extremely privileged to have had the opportunity to work with such a talented

group of individuals.

I would like to thank the staff in the Department of Special Education. Shaira, Vicki and

Michell have been supportive colleagues and friends. They touch many lives by their

commitment to the students and faculty in the department.

I would also like to thank the site-based coaches and regional coordinators from Reading

First for helping me recruit participants for my study. Florida Center for Reading Research was

also an active participant who helped me retrieve student data from the Progress Monitoring and

Reporting Network (PMRN).

I would like to thank Kathy Garland for helping me with my data collection and Jenny

Bergeron for teaching me that statistics can be fun. I would also like to thank Grace-Anne for

helping me with my data analysis.

I would like to thank my parents, John and Jean Taylor, for teaching me that "failure is not

an option." My parents have always been my biggest fans and they have supported me

throughout my journey in life. They have given me many things, but their greatest gift has been a










gift of believing in myself. I would also like to thank my brother John for his support and

encouragement.

I would like to thank my son Brandon for giving me the gift of motherhood. Thank you for

always giving me an excuse to take time to laugh; you keep me grounded.

Finally, I had to save the best for last. I would like to thank my best friend and husband

Stephen. His words of encouragement throughout this journey have made me a better wife, Mom

and teacher. I now know that to accomplish any task I must always remember to "keep my feet

moving." I thank him for allowing me to pursue my dreams.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ................. ...............8......... ....


DEFINITION OF TERMS .............. ...............10....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 1 1..


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM ................. ...............13........... ...


Rationale for the Study .............. ...............15....
Scope of the Study ................. ...............16.......... ....

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................. ...............18........... ...


Beginning Reading Instruction ................. ...............19........... ....
Phonemic Awareness and Reading............... ...............22
Phonemic Awareness Assessment............... ...............2
Phonemic Awareness Instruction ................ ...............25...
Teacher Knowledge and Skills in Phonemic Awareness .............. ...............27....
Perceptions/Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness ................. .............................28
Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness and Student Learning ............... .... ................... .....34
Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness, Professional Development and Student
Learning .............. .... ........... ........ ....... .. ...........3
Summary of Teacher Knowledge Studies Reviewed .............. ..... ............... 4
Reading First................ ..... .............4
Directions for Future Research ................. ...............44................


3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES .............. ...............46....


Setting .................. .. ......... ...............46.......
Description of the Sample .............. ...............47....
Teachers ................. ...............47.................
Students ................. ...............52.................
Instrumentation ............... ... ......__ .. ........_....... .........5
Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) ....._.__._ ..... ... ._ ........_._.....54
Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) ................. ...............57........... ...
Student M measures ................. ...............59.................
Data Collection Procedures .............. ...............60....
Data Analysis............... ...............61
Summary ................. ...............62.................












4 FINDINGS ................. ...............63.................


Introducti on ................ ..... ....... ..... ...............63.......
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics ........._..... ................. ...............63...
Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) ....._.__._ ..... ... ._ ........_._.....64
Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PAS S) ....._.__._ ........_. ....._._. .........6
Student Scores (DIBELS)................ ...............7
Statistical Analysis of the Data. .........._.... ...............74..__... ....
PAK S and PAS S............... ....... .............7
PASS and Level of Teaching Experience .............. ...............74....
PAKS and Level of Teaching Experience ......__....._.__._ ......._._. ...........7
Teachers' Knowledge and Student Outcomes............... ...............75
Summary ........._.___..... ._ __ ...............80.....


5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. ...............82....


Introducti on ........._.___..... ._ __ ...............82.....
Summary of Results............... ....... ... ...............8
Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) ....._.__._ ..... ... ._ ........_._.....82
Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) ....._.__._ ........_. ....._._. ..........8
Teacher Knowledge and Student Scores .............. ...............86....
Limitations to the Present Study ........._.___..... .___ ...............89...
Implications for Future Research............... ...............92
Survey Design .............. .. ...............92...
Professional Development............... ..............9
Teacher Preparation............... ..............9
Conclusion ........._.___..... .__ ...............94....


APPENDIX


A PARTICIPANT INFORMATION .............. ...............97....


B PHONEMIC AWARENESS KNOWLEDGE SURVEY .............. ..... ............... 9


C PAS S SURVEY ............_...... ...............104..


D DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION ................. ...............108...............


E PARTICIPANT DATA ................ ...............116................


F IRB FORM S ............ ..... ._ ...............118..


G S TUDIE S RELATED TO PHONEMIC AWARENE S S .....____ ...... .___ ...............1 22


REFERENCES .............. ...............128....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........._.._.. ....__. ...............133...











LIST OF TABLES

Table page


3-1 Number of schools that participated in the study ................. ...............49.............

3-2 Teacher Demographics .............. ...............50....

3-3 District Size............... ...............51..

3-4 Number of Teachers who participated in the study .............. ...............5.....1

3-5 Florida School Indicators Report 2005-2006 by District ................. ........................52

3-6 Student demographics ................. ...............53......___ ....

3-7 Reliability and Validity of DIBELS assessment .......___..........._. ........._._.....6

3-8 Research Questions and Plan for Analysis .............. ...............61....

4-1 PAKS Descriptive Statistics .............. ...............66....

4-2 PAKS Item Analysis............... ...............66

4-3 PAKS Scores by Category ........._.__...... .___ ...............66...

4-4 Sample responses from the PAKS .............. ...............68....

4-5 PASS Descriptive Statistics .............. ...............70....

4-6 PASS Frequency Distribution............... ..............7

4-8 PASS Scores by Category............... ...............72

4-9 Mean Score for each subtest by County .............. ...............73....

4-10 Correlations between variables using difference between mean over time.............._._. ....76

4-11 Full Regression Model (NWF) .............. ...............77....

4-12 Full Regression Model (PSF)............... ...............78.

4-13 Full Regression Model (ISF) .............. ...............78....

4-14 Full Regression Model (LNF) ................. ...............79........... ...

4-15 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Teachers' Knowledge and Skills and
Student Outcomes ................ ...............81.................










5-1 Ccorrelations for Scores on the DIBELS and CTOPP............... ...............89.

B-1 Scoring Rubric for Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness Survey ................... ... 101

E-1 Participant data codes. ........... ......_._ ...............116....

G-1 Studies related to Teacher Perceptions/Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness .........._......123

G-2 Studies related to Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness and Student Learning .124

G-3 Studies related to Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness/ Professional
Development and Student Learning ................. ...............125...............









DEFINITION OF TERMS


An understanding of applicable terminology is critical to the implementation and

interpretation of this study. The following section defines relevant terms as they apply to this

study .


Blending


Grapheme


Phoneme


is the act of combining word parts together to form words. This can be
done at the syllable level, onset and rime level and the phoneme level.

is a letter or letter combination that represents a spoken sound or
phoneme.


is the smallest unit of sound in spoken language.


Phonemic awareness


is the insight that every spoken word can be conceived as a sequence
of phonemes (Snow et al., 1998). Phonemic awareness is the ability to
manipulate the sounds in language at the smallest unit of sound, the
phoneme.

is the sound sensitivity to the sound structure of language. It is the
awareness that spoken language can be broken into smaller units of
sounds. Phonological awareness includes the ability to detect, isolate,
manipulate, blend, or segment units of sound within the speech flow
(Ehri, 1989).

is breaking spoken language into smaller units of sound. This can be
done at four different levels: word level, syllable level, onset and rime
level and the phoneme level.


Phonological awareness






Segmenting









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG TEACHERS'
PHONEMIC AWARENESS KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS AND
THEIR STUDENTS' EMERGENT LITERACY GROWTH

By

Meridith Taylor Strout

May, 2008

Chair: Holly Lane
Major: Special Education

Reading research shows that early systematic instruction in phonemic awareness

improves students' early reading and spelling skills. Therefore, teachers' knowledge of

phonemic awareness is an important aspect of students' ability to learn how to read. Many

researchers have connected teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness to students' reading

development. This relationship demonstrates the importance for teachers to have an

understanding of the components of language development. Although research confirms that this

knowledge increases students' understanding of reading, research continues to demonstrate that

teachers are not familiar with phonemic awareness activities.

Our purpose was to investigate the relationships among kindergarten teachers' knowledge

and skills of phonemic awareness and their students' emergent literacy development.

Specifically, it examined teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness and their ability to

manipulate and identity specific phonemes within words. Participants were involved in two

surveys about phonemic awareness. The Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS)

assessed teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness pedagogy and the Phonemic









Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) assessed teachers' ability to manipulate and identify phonemes

within words.

Data were analyzed by using a multiple regression analysis. The results of the analysis

revealed that teachers lacked basic knowledge related to phonemic awareness knowledge and

skills. It was found that teachers who had advanced degrees scored higher on both the PAKS and

the PASS than teachers who had a bachelor. Findings also revealed that teachers who had an

early childhood certificate had a higher mean on both the PAKS and PASS than teachers who

just had an elementary certificate. There was limited evidence to show a connection between

teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness and students' literacy development.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

A number of important educational policy initiatives have shaped children' s literacy

instruction in recent years (Chhabra & McCardle, 2004; NRP, 2000; Stevenson, 2003; Strickland

& Shanahan, 2004). These initiatives have occurred due to the overwhelming number of

students who currently demonstrate difficulties with learning how to read (Moats & Foorman,

2003). In 2006, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that 3 5% of

all fourth grade students in the United States are currently reading below the basic level, 30% are

reading at the proficient level and only 10% are reading at the advanced level (National Center

for Educational Statistics, 2006). Locally, the number of fourth graders in the state of Florida is

behind the national averages with 65% reading below the basic level, only 21% reading at the

proficient level and 3% reading at the advanced level (National Center for Educational Statistics,

2006).

These staggering statistics have encouraged national reforms in reading instruction. In

1998, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the

Department of Education collaborated on the National Research Council Consensus Report and

concluded that reading is a highly valued skill and essential for social and economic

advancement (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). More recently, congress put together a team of

researchers, educators and parents to form a National Reading Panel (NRP) to examine the

research related to effective reading instruction (Shanahan, 2003). This report had a profound

effect on the nature of reading instruction and continues to dominate current reforms. Reading

First and Early Reading First are also national initiatives linked to NCLB that support

professional development, instructional materials and diagnostic instruments for low performing









schools. These initiatives were designed to ameliorate the current deficits in students' ability to

acquire the necessary skills to become proficient readers.

These initiatives have become powerful documents that dictate what and how teachers

teach reading. A maj or conclusion from the research based on these initiatives is that early

systematic instruction in phonemic awareness improves early reading skills (Adams, 1990;

Blachman, 2002; Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhaj ski & Chard, 2001; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000;

Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

Despite recent increases in the research base about phonemic awareness, the process of

translating this knowledge into teacher practice has been relatively slow (McCutchen &

Berninger, 1999). Phonemic awareness requires the ability to attend to one sound in the context

of other sounds in the word (Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Zadeh & Shananhan, 2001). This

can be a difficult task to teach to students because speech sounds are not discrete but rather co

articulated within other speech sounds. Although teachers and teacher preparation programs are

both critical factors, studies consistently find that teachers have limited knowledge about the

structure of language (Bos, Mather, et al., 2001; Moats, 1994; Troyer and Yopp, 1990).

Specifically, teachers lack the knowledge about the construct of PA, knowledge about PA

pedagogy and lack the skills necessary to teach PA effectively (McCutchen & Berninger, 1999,

Moats, 1994).

Although leading educational agencies concur about the nature of reading instruction, only

a few studies have examined what teachers know about these important components of early

reading instruction (Bos, Mather, Dickson et al., 2001; Bos, Mather, Narr & Babar, 1999; Brady

& Moats, 1997; Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich & Stanovich, 2004; McCutchen, Abbot, Green,

Beretvas, Cox, Potter, Quiroga & Gray, 2002; McCutchen, Harry, Cunningham, Cox, Sidman &









Covill, 2002; Moats, 1994; Moats & Foorman, 2003; O'Connor, 1999; Spear-Swerling &

Brucker, 2004; Troyer & Yopp, 1992). Of the studies that have been conducted, these studies

have demonstrated that teachers have limited knowledge about the structure of language and how

it relates to reading acquisition (Moats, 1994; Moats & Foorman, 2003; O'Connor, 1990; Yopp,

1990). Other studies have demonstrated that teacher knowledge can be improved and the

increase in their knowledge base about PA can enhance their students' reading development

(McCutchen, Abbott et al., 2002; Moats & Foorman, 2003).

Rationale for the Study

Recent findings regarding reading acquisition have demonstrated that the acquisition of

phonemic awareness is highly predictive of later reading success (Adams, 1990). Specifically,

longitudinal studies have found that phonemic awareness abilities in kindergarten (or in that age

range) appear to be the best single predictor of successful reading acquisition (IRA, 2005;

Torgesen, 2002b; Troyer & Yopp, 1990). Phonemic awareness instruction should involve the

understanding that speech is made up of a sequence of sounds and those sounds are represented

by symbols or letters. Children who are beginning to learn about phonemic awareness should

have many opportunities to engage in activities that teach them about rhyme, beginning sounds,

and syllables. This type of instruction should be taught at an early age. Phonemic awareness

instruction at the kindergarten level has been proven to minimize or prevent reading problems for

children in later grades (Adams, 1990; Foorman & Moats, 2004, Foorman & Torgesen, 2001;

Torgesen, 2002b).

Based on these findings, one may conclude that most reading failure is preventable and

most high-risk students can improve their reading and writing achievement with expert

instruction (Moats & Lyon, 1996; Moats, 1994). It is imperative for teachers to have an

understanding of effective literacy instruction development before students can acquire the skills









necessary to become successful readers. Teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness and

language development is an important aspect of students' ability to learn how to read

(McCutchen & Berninger, 1999). Many researchers have connected teachers' knowledge of

phonemic awareness to students' reading development (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999;

McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; O'Connor, 1999). This

relationship demonstrates the importance for teachers to have an understanding of effective

beginning reading instruction.

Fortunately, there is now evidence that teachers who have an understanding about the

structure of language and effectively teach those skills to their students can positively effect

students' reading achievement (McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; Moats & Foorman, 2003;

O'Connor, 1999). Although recent studies have demonstrated that teachers lack overall

knowledge related to PA instruction, few studies have examined teachers' knowledge and skills

related to PA instruction. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships among

kindergarten teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness, their phonemic skills and their

students' emergent literacy development. More specifically, this study examined the relationship

between teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness pedagogy and teachers' own phonemic

awareness skills and their students' phonemic awareness growth.

Scope of the Study

This study was conducted within a limited scope. The study was delimited by the

geographical location of five school districts in Florida: Alachua County, Duval County, Flagler

County, Marion County and Putnam County. Two districts were considered small-sized (Flagler

and Putnum), two districts were considered medium-sized (Alachua and Marion) and one district

was considered a large-sized district (Duval). The subj ects were 211 kindergarten teachers and










3,468 kindergarten students in the 42 schools of the five counties. The schools were selected

based on their participation in a federal program called Reading First.

The study was conducted with kindergarten teachers who were teaching in Reading First

schools. The data from participating teachers' students were analyzed; these students were in

kindergarten. The effect of phonemic awareness professional development activities at different

points in the year may confound the results when teacher data are examined in relation to student

data collected across the entire school year. The teacher data collected from the study were

collected during the middle of the school year. The results of this study cannot be generalized to

older or younger students.











CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter begins with a discussion of policy papers and reports that have examined the

effectiveness of beginning reading instruction and a section on phonemic awareness and how

phonemic awareness and its relationship are related to the reading process. The main portion of

this chapter is a summary and analysis of the professional literature related to previous studies of

teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness. The chapter concludes with a summary of the

research findings, including the implications for future research.

The literature review is organized into three sections. First, studies that examine teachers'

knowledge and perceptions are reviewed. Next, studies that have investigated the relationship

among teachers' knowledge, beliefs, instructional practice and student outcomes are presented.

Finally, studies that have used professional development activities as an intervention to enhance

teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness are discussed. Tables G-1 through G-3 contain

descriptive information for each of the studies.

To obtain the most recent literature, a search of publications and documents from 1980 to

the present was conducted using an electronic search of the Educational Research Information

Center (ERIC), PsychlNTFO and EBSCO host. The descriptors for the electronic search were

"teacher knowledge" and "phonemic awareness"; "teacher knowledge" and "phonological

awareness"; "teacher knowledge" and "reading. An ancestral search of the reference lists from

these articles was also conducted, as was a hand search of recent issues or relevant j ournals.

Studies selected for inclusion in this review were included based on the following criteria: (a)

teachers involved in the surveys were teaching at the elementary level (b) knowledge surveys

examined teachers' knowledge and/or skills of phonemic awareness (c) studies were published in

or after 1980.









Beginning Reading Instruction

Beginning reading instruction has been a topic of interest among researchers and

policymakers for the past three decades (Binkley, 1988; Chall, 1967;). Researchers have

examined the effectiveness of different types of instructional interventions for children who have

difficulty in learning how to read (Adams, 1990). Although there has been a plethora of research

regarding reading instruction in recent years, one of the most critical aspects of reading research

is the principle of converging evidence (Adams, 1990; Chhabra & McCradle, 2004; Grambrell,

Morrow & Pressley, 2007; Stanovich & Stanovich, 2004). Research is considered convergent

when a series of experiments consistently support a given theory while collecting and

eliminating the most important competing explanations (Adams, 1990). Since converging

evidence is critical as a basis for policy and in making sound instructional decisions regarding

reading instruction, a number of educational policies have been conducted to analyze the nature

of reading instruction (Adams, 1990; Adgar, Snow & Christian, 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB,

2002; NRP, 2000; Reading Excellence Act, 1996; The National Right to Read, 2006; Snow et al.,

1998).

The National Right to Read Foundation. The National Right to Read Foundation

(NRRF) was established in 1993 to promote comprehensive, scientifically-based reading

instruction. One of the goals of NRRF was to disseminate reading related research findings from

the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The NRRF made the

dissemination of this information the immediate and vital focus of its efforts to advance the

cause of evidence-based reading instruction. Policymakers started to require that some states

include a strong explicit systematic phonics component in their schools. Researchers began to

publish articles about the need for systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics

instruction (National Right to Read, 2006).









Reading Excellence Act. In 1996, the Reading Excellence Act was formed to encourage

volunteers across America to read to students. The act also provided $260 million annually to

states to establish effective professional development programs, instructional materials and

diagnostic assessment instruments for teachers. Teachers were expected to implement what was

termed scientifically-based reading instruction. This term was first defined in the Reading

Excellence Act and was carefully written to reflect common goals of researchers and

policymakers across the nation. The Reading Excellence Act became a law in 1998. Although

the act was only funded for 3 years, it became a solid foundation for Reading First, which was

part of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. Reading First requires that schools

employ explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary

development, fluency and comprehension (Sweet, 2004).

National Research Council Consensus Report. A National Research Council (NRC)

consensus report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow et al., 1998)

conducted a study of the effectiveness of interventions for young children who were at risk of

having problems learning how to read. The goals of the proj ect were to define a research base,

translate recent research findings into advice and guidance for parents, educators and publishers

and to convey the advice through a variety of publications, conferences and other outreach

activities (Snow et al., 1998). The members of the council were well respected researchers

representing diverse viewpoints on reading instruction. The members of the council concluded

that beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice, which should lead to an awareness

that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds. Their report laid the groundwork for

the next report which was published by the National Reading Panel (Sweet, 2004).









National Reading Panel. The National Reading Panel (NRP) issued a report in 2000 that

responded to a Congressional mandate to help parents, teachers and policymakers identify key

skills and methods central to reading achievement. In order to expand the work of the NRC, the

NRP developed an obj ective review of methodology. The panel applied the methodology to

evidence-based experimental and quasi-experimental research literature relevant to a set of

selected topics judged to be of central importance in teaching children to read (NRP, 2000).

These topics included alphabetics, fluency, comprehension, teacher education and reading

instruction and computer technology and reading instruction. The NRP researched a number of

studies related to reading instruction and after two years of work, they completed a report

summarizing hundreds of research studies (NRP, 2000). Copies of the full report have been sent

to school districts all over America and the NRP summarized the report, Put Reading First, and

distributed it to parents and teachers across the country. This summary provides helpful

information about early reading instruction and is written using teacher-friendly language. The

report is now used as a foundation for the National Elementary and Secondary Education Act

also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Shanahan, 2003).

No Child Left Behind Act: Reading First and Early Reading First. The significance of

the NRP was so powerful that it became the basis of the Reading First and Early Reading First

initiatives, which are both essential components of the NCLB act of 2002. These initiatives

provide states with Reading First grants which are used to provide professional development to

kindergarten through third-grade teachers, instructional materials and funds to purchase

screening and diagnostic assessments to determine which students are at risk for reading failure.

Early Reading First supports the development of early childhood centers of excellence that focus

on all areas of development, especially on the early language, cognitive and pre-reading skills









that prepare children for continued school success and that serve primarily children from low-

income families (NCLB, 2002). The instructional materials and methods that are supported

through these initiatives are based on the findings of scientifically based reading research and

include instruction in the areas of oral language, phonological awareness and alphabetic principal

(NCLB, 2001; NCLB, 2002). Reading First and Early Reading First schools are evaluated each

year, and their evaluations are based on their students' reading scores.

These reports have all concluded that one of the most significant components of

implementing effective reading instruction is using an approach that is based on scientific

evidence. Current reforms and policy initiatives have documented and concurred through

scientific evidence that intensive, systematic instruction is necessary for at-risk students to learn

how to read (Adams, 1990; Adgar et al., 2002; Ball & Blachman, 1991; Blachman, 2002; Moats,

1999; NRP, 2000; NCLB, 2002; Reading Excellence Act, 1996; Snow et al., 1998; The National

Right to Read, 1993). Intensive, systematic instruction teaches students that spoken language can

be analyzed into strings of words and that words can be divided into a sequence of phonemes.

Mounting evidence indicates that students need to have basic early understandings of print and

how print works. This knowledge supports the converging evidence that one key to effective

beginning reading instruction is phonemic awareness (NRP, 2000; Snow et al., 1998).

Phonemic Awareness and Reading

Phonemic awareness is an understanding that speech is composed of individual sounds and

these sounds are manipulated to make words. There is a growing consensus that phonemic

awareness bears an important relationship to achievement in reading (Snider, 1995). The NRP

along with a number of other policy papers and reports have identified phonemic awareness as

one of the best predictors of how well children will learn to read (Adams, 1990; Adgar et al.,

2002; Ehri, 1989; Moats, 1999; NRP, 2000; NCLB, 2002; Reading Excellence Act, 1996; Snow









et al., 1998; The National Right to Read, 1993; Yopp, 1992). Recent studies have identified

phonemic awareness and letter knowledge as the two best indicators of how well children will

learn to read, specifically during the first two years of instruction (Adams, 1990; Ball &

Blachman, 1991; Blachman, 2002; NRP, 2000; Snow et al., 1998).

Language development occurs when a child learns to attend to and analyze the internal

phonological structure of spoken words (Burns, Griffin & Snow, 1999). This awareness is

referred to as phonological awareness. Phonological awareness includes the abilities to detect,

isolate, manipulate, blend or segment units of sounds within the speech flow (Ehri, 1989, ).

Phonological awareness includes the awareness of words, syllables, onsets and rimes, and

phonemes. Phonemic awareness is different from phonological awareness because it only applies

to phoneme-level awareness and includes the ability to detect, segment and blend phonemes and

to manipulate their position in words (Lane & Pullen, 2004; Snow et al., 1998).

Phonemic awareness is necessary to read and spell because English is alphabetic and in an

alphabetic language, letters represent sounds. Phonemic awareness instruction should involve the

understanding that speech is made up of a sequence of sounds and those sounds or phonemes are

represented by letters or graphemes (Blachman, Ball, Black & Tangel, 1994; Ehri, 1998, Juel,

1991). Phonemes are the smallest units of spoken language, and in the English language there are

approximately 44 phonemes (Ehri et. al., 2001, Ehri, 2002). Phonemes are difficult to segment

during speech because most words consist of a blend of phonemes, such as check with 3

phonemes. Since phonemic awareness requires students to manipulate individual phonemes

within words, it is considered a much more difficult task than syllabic or intrasyllabic

manipulation (Lane & Pullen, 2004). Phonemes (smallest units of spoken language) are different

from graphemes, which are units of written language.









Phonemic Awareness Assessment

Substantial evidence indicates that early assessments of phonemic awareness are highly

predictive of children' s later reading success ( Adams, 1990; Adgar et al., 2002; Ehri, 1989;

Snow et al., 1998; McCutchen, Harry, Cunningham, Cox, Sidman, & Covil, 2002; Moats, 1999;

NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Yopp, 1992). Phonemic awareness assessments have been effective in

determining students' current phonemic awareness capabilities (Blachman, 2002; Snow et al.,

1998). The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment is one

assessment that has been widely used to assess students' phonemic awareness and early literacy

skills. There are four DIBELS subtests that are used at the kindergarten level to assess beginning

literacy skills: (a) Initial Sound Fluency, which assesses a student's ability to recognize and

produce the beginning sounds) in an orally presented word; (b) Letter Naming Fluency, which

provides a measure of a student' s proficiency in naming upper and lower case letters; (c)

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, which measures a student' s ability to segment three- and four-

phoneme words into their individual phonemes; and (d) Nonsense Word Fluency, which taps into

the student' s knowledge of letter-sound correspondence and his/her ability to blend letters into

words (test of the alphabetic principle).

Several other activities have been documented to be effective tools to assess students'

phonemic awareness abilities (Lane & Pullen, 2004; NRP, 2000; Yopp, 1992). Phoneme

isolation requires students to recognize sounds in words; for example, students need to be able to

state the first sound in "vase". Phoneme isolation teaches students to recognize individual

sounds in words. Phoneme identity requires students to recognize the same sounds in different

words, for example, students need to be able to decipher the same sound that is in "mall, mouse,

and mouth". Phoneme categorization requires students to recognize the odd sound in a sequence

of three words; for example, students need to be able to know which word does not belong in









"bike, bell, and radio". Phoneme blending requires students to listen to a sequence of separately

broken sounds and combine them into a word; for example, students need to be able to blend the

sounds in /s/ /k/ /u/ /1/ (school). Phoneme segmentation requires students to break a word into its

sounds by tapping out or counting the sounds; for example, students should be able to decipher

the number of phonemes in ship. Phoneme deletion requires students to recognize what word

remains when a specified phoneme is deleted from a word; for example, "What is smile without

/s/?"). Phoneme addition requires students to make a new word by adding a phoneme to an

existing word; for example, "What word do you have if you add /s/ to the beginning of park?"

Phoneme substitution requires children to substitute one phoneme to another to make a new

word; for example, "The word is dog. Change /d/ to /h/". These activities can be used to assess a

child' s ability to manipulate the spoken sounds of words. Researchers have found that early

assessments of children' s phonemic awareness abilities contribute to relevant and appropriate

literacy instruction (Ehri et al., 2001; Lane & Pullen, 2004; Lane, Pullen, Eisele, & Jordan, 2002;

Snider; 1995; Snider, 1997; Yopp, 1992).

Phonemic Awareness Instruction

The ability to decipher sounds within the structure of spoken language can be a difficult

and challenging task. A lack of understanding of the sound structure of language can inhibit a

child' s ability to gain valuable opportunities to understand and comprehend text. The obj ective

of any phonemic awareness activity should be to facilitate children's ability to understand that

their speech is made up of a series of sounds (phonemes) (Ehri et al., 2001). It is important for

phonemic awareness tasks to be developmentally appropriate, and phonemic awareness tasks

should engage children in a playful yet educational activity (Cunningham, 1990: Snider, 1995)

In a study reviewed by Snow et al. (1998), young children who received specific training

in phonemic awareness were able to learn to read more quickly than children of similar










backgrounds who did not receive such training. This study illustrates that early reading is

facilitated by the ability to manipulate sounds. A small percentage of students are able to acquire

phonemic awareness skills through oral language and print exposure (Adams, 1990). However,

there are many more students who have a difficult time acquiring phonemic awareness and need

direct systematic instruction (Adams, 1990). For most children, awareness of the phonological

structure of words develops naturally over the years of preschool. Other students need direct

systematic instruction on how to manipulate sounds within words (Snow et al., 1998).

Effective instruction for teaching phonemic awareness must follow general effective

teaching guidelines. Teachers must first model the activity before providing time for guided

practice, and there should be careful sequencing of activities from easy to hard (Snider, 1995).

Phonemic awareness instruction should be taught by introducing larger units before smaller

units. Phonemic awareness is a part of a hierarchy of metalinguisitic skills that begins with word-

level awareness and then moves to phoneme-level awareness. Although it is not essential,

students typically develop an understanding of manipulation of sounds at the word, syllable and

onset-rime level before acquiring phoneme-level skills (Lane & Pullen, 2004; Snider, 1995).

Many activities have been developed to promote students' phonemic awareness

development. Teachers can use sound matching, sound isolation and sound addition/substitution

activities to develop their students' phonemic awareness skills (Yopp, 1992). These tasks require

students to identify or provide different sounds within words. Blending and segmenting activities

are also effective strategies to increase students phonemic awareness abilities. Multisensory

activities such as Elkonin boxes can be incorporated with blending and segmenting to enhance

students' phonemic awareness. Elkonin boxes are picture cards with boxes under each picture

representing the number of phonemes in the word (Lane & Pullen, 2004). The student can move










a chip or token each time he/she says a phoneme in the word. Students can eventually substitute

the token or chip with letters that represent the sound (phonics instruction). Many phonemic

training activities also include segmentation activities. Segmentation activities require the

student to say the individual sounds in words (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Blachman, 2002).

Segmentation activities can include phoneme deletion or grouping words that begin or end with

the same sounds.

Although the importance of phonemic awareness has been discussed widely in the research

literature, the concept is still not well understood by classroom teachers (Bos, Mather, Dickson et

al., 2001; Bos, Mather, Narr et. al., 1999; Cunningham et. al., 2004; McCutchen, Harry et al.,

2002; McCutchen, Abbot et. al., 2002; Moats, 1994; Moats & Foorman, 2003; O'Connor, 1999;

Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004; Troyer & Yopp, 1990). Recent reading initiatives maintain the

expectation that beginning reading instruction will include instruction in phonemic awareness,

but only a few studies have examined what teachers know about these important components of

phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990; Adgar et al., 2002; Bos, Mather, Dickson et al., 2001; Bos,

Mather, Narr et. al., 1999; Cunningham et. al., 2004; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; Gray, 2002;

McCutchen, Abbot et. al., 2002; Moats, 1994; Moats & Foorman, 2003; NCLB, 2002; NRP,

2002; O'Connor, 1999; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004; Troyer & Yopp, 1990).

Teacher Knowledge and Skills in Phonemic Awareness

Although research has demonstrated that early systematic instruction in phonemic

awareness improves students' beginning reading and spelling skills (Mather et al., 2001),

teachers continue to lack understanding of phonemic awareness (Mather et al., 2001;

McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; O,Connor, 1999). Three categories of teacher knowledge

emerged from this literature review: (a) preservice and inservice teachers' knowledge and

perceptions about phonemic awareness; (b) the relationship among teachers' knowledge, beliefs,










instructional practice and student phonemic awareness outcomes; and (c) professional

development activities as an intervention to enhance teachers' knowledge of phonemic

awareness.

Perceptions/Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness

It is important for teachers to have an initial understanding of phonemic awareness and the

structure of spoken language. Before teachers can teach reading to children at risk for reading

failure, teachers need to possess knowledge and positive perceptions regarding the role of

phonemic awareness instruction (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999; Mather, Bos & Babur, 2001;

McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; Moats, 1994; Snow et al., 1998;

O'Connor, 1999). Several studies have examined the perceptions and knowledge held by pre-

service and in-service teachers regarding their knowledge of phonemic awareness.

Troyer and Yopp (1990) embarked on one of the first studies related to teacher knowledge

of phonemic awareness. The researchers conducted a study that examined kindergarten teachers'

knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonemic segmentation. The researchers constructed a

three-part self report questionnaire and administered the survey to 165 kindergarten teachers.

The researchers sent the questionnaire, a pre-paid return envelope and a letter explaining the

study to randomly selected schools in Orange County, California. The researchers had a response

rate of 66%.

The first part of the questionnaire asked the respondents to indicate how long they had

taught kindergarten, their highest level of education, and if they ever had a student teacher. Using

this information, the researchers divided the participants into "less experienced", "more

experienced", and "veterans" teachers. The second part of the survey asked the teachers to

indicate their level of knowledge about five educational terms. After reading a particular

category, the teachers marked one of three categories: "familiar with the concept", "have heard









the term, but I am unsure of the meaning", or "unfamiliar with the term". Since the term

phonemic awareness was the item of specific interest in the study, the four other terms were

included in the survey to make the survey less threatening to teachers unfamiliar with the target

term. The third part of the questionnaire asked the teachers to indicate how important specific

emergent literacy skills were in order for kindergarten students to become independent readers.

Teachers indicated their responses by circling numbers on a Likert scale.

Once the surveys were collected, teachers were categorized into groups based on their

years of experience and their educational level. Teachers with 1-5 years of experience were

considered "less experienced", teachers with 6-15 years of experience were considered "more

experienced" and teachers with 16-30 years of experience were considered "veterans". An

analysis of the results confirmed that the less experienced teachers were most familiar with the

educational concepts on the questionnaire. The results demonstrated that 5 1% of the less

experienced teachers were knowledgeable about the term phonemic awareness while only 24%

of the experienced teachers understood the term. Overall, only 3 5% of all the respondents were

familiar with the concept of phonemic awareness and most of the teachers thought the concept of

phoneme segmentation was not important for later reading success. Another interesting finding

revealed that teachers' with Master's degrees showed more concept familiarity with the terms

than those with Bachelor' s degrees, indicating that teachers who had higher degrees also had

more knowledge related to the concepts presented. This study had several limitations. First, the

participants were self-selected and the data collected from the survey was self-reported, which

indicates that the participants had a vested interest in gaining more knowledge about phonemic

awareness. Next, the authors did not report the reliability or the validity of the survey that was










used. Finally, the researchers analyzed their surveys by visual inspection and hand tallying

responses in each category, which could cause a misrepresentation of data and skewed results.

In another early study, Moats (1994) investigated the teachers' knowledge of speech

sounds, their identity in words, correspondences between sounds and symbols, concepts of

language, and presence of morphemic units in sounds. Moats used the Informal Survey of

Linguistic Knowledge to collect data on 89 teachers who were enrolled in a graduate level

course. The teachers were a diverse group and included reading teachers, speech-language

pathologists, special education teachers, classroom teaching assistants and graduate students. The

15-item survey asked the teachers to define terms, locate or give examples of phonic, syllabic,

and morphemic units and analyze words into speech sounds, syllables and morphemes.

Moats revealed that teachers were commonly misinformed about differences between

speech and print. Many subj ects were unaware of what was meant by the term speech sound or

phoneme. Specifically, many of the subj ects thought letters were equivalent to speech sounds.

When teachers were asked to isolate and pronounce speech sounds, they were typically unable to

identify the third phoneme in a word. Teachers were also unaware of the difference between

many of the terms associated with phonemic awareness. Moats found that the scores were

surprisingly low, indicating that even experienced teachers displayed a lack of knowledge about

the differences between speech and print and about how print represents speech. Although this

study increased awareness about the lack of teacher knowledge regarding phonemic awareness,

there were two main limitations to this study. First, the participants were self-selected for the

study by participation in the class. Since the course was not required for certification many of the

participants enrolled out of interest in the topic. Therefore, the results of the survey may be









overly optimistic as a reflection of teachers' knowledge in general. Next, the author did not state

the reliability or validity data for the survey that was used.

Bos, Mather, Dickson et al. (2001) compared the perceptions and knowledge of pre-service

teachers (teachers in training) and in-service teachers (experienced teachers) and the role of

explicit instruction. The researchers collected data on 252 pre-service teachers and 286 in-service

teachers. Teachers were given the Teacher Perceptions about Early Reading and Spelling which

was adapted from an instrument developed by DeFord (1985). The survey was developed to

focus on two theoretical orientations, explicit code instruction (EC) and implicit code instruction

(IC). Teachers were asked to rate each of the 15 items on a six-point Likert scale. The Structure

of Language assessment (adopted from Moats, 1994) consisted of a 20 item multiple-choice

assessment that examined knowledge of the English language at both the word level and the

sound level.

To address perceptions and knowledge of pre-service and in-service teachers, the means

for each group were computed and the means of the individual item responses were visually

examined. Similar to Moats' (1994) Eindings, less than two-thirds of both the pre-service and in-

service teachers had mastered knowledge related to the structure of language. It was found that

although both groups of teachers were unable to answer at least half of the questions correctly,

in-service teachers possessed significantly more knowledge of phonemic awareness than pre-

service teachers. These Eindings suggest that experienced teachers are more knowledgeable about

phonemic awareness than teachers who lack experience. These Eindings contradict Troyer and

Yopp's (1990) study. They found that less experienced teachers were more knowledgeable about

phonemic awareness than the experienced teachers.









The researchers also concluded that although both groups had positive perceptions about

phonemic awareness and felt prepared to use phonemic awareness activities in their classrooms,

both groups lacked basic knowledge related to phonemic awareness instruction. The results

indicate a dichotomy between teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness and their perceptions

about the role and importance of phonemic awareness training. While both groups of teachers

perceive phonemic awareness as an important component of reading instruction, the authors

found that both groups lacked knowledge related to phonemic awareness instruction. This study

had several limitations that are important to consider in interpreting the findings. First, the results

relied exclusively on self-report data. The researchers did not conduct any field-based

observations. Next, the data were collected in a face-to-face context. This means the data might

be prone to social desirability bias. Lastly, although the surveys were field tested, both surveys

had low reliability. The internal consistency on the Teacher Perceptions about Early Reading and

Spelling was .70 for explicit code instruction and .50 for implicit code instruction, and the

Structure of Language had an internal consistency of .60. This can be attributed to the limited

number of items on the survey.

Recently, Cunningham et al. (2004) investigated the knowledge calibration in the domain

of reading. Specifically, they examined teachers' knowledge of children' s literature,

phonological awareness, and phonics. The researchers surveyed 722 kindergarten through third

grade teachers from 48 elementary schools in a large, urban school district in northern California.

To assess teachers' knowledge of children' s literature, the researchers used the Title Recognition

Test (TRT) (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991). The TRT lists 35 children's book titles and 15

false book titles; the participants were instructed to put a check mark next to the book titles they

recognized. A modified version of the Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (Moats, 1994)









was used to assess the teachers' knowledge of phonological awareness. Teachers were asked to

supply the number of phonemes or sounds in 11 different words. Researchers used two different

tasks to assess teachers' knowledge about phonics. First, teachers were asked to identify words

that contained regular and irregular spelling patterns. Then, teachers were asked to respond to

seven multiple choice questions related to the structure of English language at the level of both

words and sounds. The researchers then assessed teachers' perceptions of their knowledge in the

three domains by asking them to answer a question about their current skill level by marking one

of four choices: (1) no experience, (2) minimal experience, (3) proficient, (4) expert.

After analyzing and reviewing the results, the authors found that 90% of the teachers were

not familiar enough with the most popular books for children in kindergarten through third grade

to recognize a majority of the titles. After examining teachers' knowledge of phonological

awareness, it was found that 20% of the teachers were not able to correctly identify the number

of phonemes in any of the eleven words presented. Specifically, only 29% of teachers were able

to determine that "grass" had four phonemes. When examining teachers' levels of implicit

knowledge of phonics, only 1 1% of the teachers were able to identify all 11 irregular words.

When examining teachers' levels of explicit knowledge of phonics, it was found that only 28%

of the teachers were able to correctly respond to the seven multiple choice questions.

When examining the relationship between teachers' actual knowledge and perceived

knowledge of children' s literature, teachers did show some evidence of calibration of knowledge.

However, in the domain of phonological awareness and phonics knowledge, teachers displayed

very little ability to calibrate their knowledge. Teachers tended to overestimate rather than

underestimate their knowledge. Overall, the authors were able to conclude that the knowledge

base of K-3 teachers is not aligned with the large body of research demonstrating the importance










of phoneme awareness in learning how to read. Many of the teachers in their sample could not do

what is asked of a kindergarten child in a beginning reading program. The authors did have a

limitation of their study. The task that was designed to assess teacher' s explicit knowledge

displayed low reliability (Cronbach's alpha .40). This is attributed to the limited amount of items

on the scale.

Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness and Student Learning

Teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness is an important aspect of students' ability to

learn how to read (McCutchen & Berninger, 1999). Many researchers have connected teachers'

knowledge of phonemic awareness to students' reading development (Bos, Mather, Narr et al.,

1999; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; O'Connor, 1999). This

relationship demonstrates the importance for teachers to have an understanding of the

components of language development. The following study discusses this relationship.

Recently, McCutchen, Harry et al. (2002) conducted a study to examine the relationship

between teacher knowledge of phonology and student learning. The researchers investigated the

relationships between 59 kindergarten, first and second grade teachers' knowledge of literature

and phonology. To assess teachers' knowledge of literature, the researchers administered a series

of three Title Recognition Tests (TRT) (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991). To assess teachers'

knowledge of the structure of language, the researchers used the Informal Survey of Linguistic

Knowledge (Moats, 1994). The researchers used a 45-item test developed by Stanovich and

Cunningham (1993) to assess teachers' general knowledge and the researchers used the DeFord

Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) (DeFord, 1985) to assess teachers' theoretical

orientation. To investigate classroom practice, researchers took field notes during reading

instruction. Student data were collected to connect student learning.









The researchers correlated the teachers' knowledge with their philosophical orientation,

classroom practice and student learning. They found that teachers' content knowledge of

phonology was related to their students' end-of-the year scores only at the kindergarten level. No

correlations were found between teachers' content knowledge of phonology and student learning

at the first and second grade level. This confirms the importance of phonemic awareness training

at the early intervention level. It was also found that teachers overall phonemic awareness scores

were low. The study had some limitations. First, there were some validity problems with the

TORP. Specifically, there was a restricted range in teachers' TORP scores. This could be due to

the fact that the TORP was developed twenty years ago, and changes in theoretical orientations

might have changed since then. Next, there was low internal reliability of the TRT for first and

second grade teachers. This is due to the limited number of items of the test. Finally, the

participants were self selected.

Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness, Professional Development and Student Learning

Other studies point to professional development activities as an intervention to enhance

teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999; Cunningham et al.,

2004; Foorman & Moats, 2004; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; O'Connor, 1999). The following

studies discuss the relationship between teachers' knowledge gained through professional

development activities and their students' learning.

Bos, Mather, Narr et al. (1999) examined the results from Project RIME (Reading

Instructional Methods of Efficacy) which is an interactive collaborative professional

development proj ect designed to encourage elementary teachers to integrate more explicit

reading instruction in their curriculum for children at risk. Eleven teachers participated in the

project as the experimental group and 17 teachers participated as the control group. The

experimental group participated in an 18 day inservice and a year-long collaboration with









university researchers. Proj ect RIME focused on the structure of spoken language with an

emphasis on strategies to improve phonemic awareness and instructional methods for teaching

rhyming, segmenting and blending sounds and letter manipulation. Proj ect RIME included

content on factors that affect early reading and spelling development, teaching strategies and

methods and techniques for explicit reading instruction.

The researchers assessed teacher attitudes by using the Teacher Attitudes of Early Reading

and Spelling (Deford, 1985). To assess teachers' knowledge of language, the researchers used

the Structure of Language (adapted from Moats, 1994), which is a 24-item multiple choice

assessment that examined teachers' knowledge of the structure of the English language at the

word and sound levels. Student data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of proj ect

RIME.

Using repeated measures of analysis (ANOVA), Bos, Mather, Narr et al. (1999) found

Proj ect RIME to be a success at many levels. First, students who worked with teachers involved

in the proj ect made greater gains in reading acquisition than students who worked with teachers

in the control group. Teacher knowledge of phonological awareness, specifically phonemic

awareness, played a direct role in students' literacy acquisition. Next, teachers involved in

Proj ect RIME became more positive in their attitudes toward using explicit, structured language

approaches. After completing Proj ect RIME, evidence from the teachers' j ournals, classroom

observations and collaborators' field notes revealed that professional dialogues did include use

and application of terminology related to different components of phonemic awareness. Finally,

teachers' knowledge of the structure of language increased during the intervention and

maintained throughout the yearlong collaboration. Student data were collected to evaluate the

effectiveness of the two types of professional development programs.









O'Connor (1999) found similar results when she compared kindergarten teachers'

involvement in professional development activities and student achievement. The kindergarten

teachers were from a large, rural Midwestern school district. The study was conducted in two

phases. Phase one included one group of teachers who participated in an intensive professional

development program (n=10) and a group of teachers who served as the control group (n=3). The

second phase of the study (two years later from phase 1) included one group of teachers who

participated in a traditional professional development program (n=9) and one group of teachers

who served as the control group (n=8). Both the intensive and traditional professional

development programs focused on instructing teachers on how to incorporate phonemic

awareness skills in their reading instruction. The intensive professional development program

encouraged teachers to interact by observing each other teach and by collaborating about specific

questions related to phonemic awareness and print awareness. The traditional professional

development program scheduled teachers to meet through three half-day sessions spaced across

the school year. Proj ect staff coordinators observed teachers and collected field notes on teachers

involved in the intensive and traditional professional development programs to verify that they

were implementing the activities.

O'Connor conducted a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyze the

results. Phase one of the study indicated that children in classrooms of teachers who were

involved in the intensive professional development program performed better than children in

classrooms of teachers who participated as the control group. Phase two of the study indicated

that children of teachers who were involved in the traditional professional development program

performed better than children of teachers who participated as the control group. Across both

phases of the study, children of teachers who were involved in the intensive professional









development program performed better than children of teachers who participated in the

traditional professional development program. Specifically, O'Connor (1999) found that children

of teachers who received intensive in-service achieved higher outcomes in letter naming, word

identification and spelling. There were no significant differences in the areas of blending or

segmenting. There were several limitations of this study. First, the sites differed in terms of

urban or rural location. Next, the sites differed in the number of teachers who participated at each

location. For example, phase one of the study had ten teachers involved in the intensive model

and only three teachers involved in the control group. Next, the sites differed in terms of pre-test

measures of the participating children.

McCutchen, Abbot et al. (2002) also found that a professional development activities

between teachers and a team of university researchers increased student achievement. The

experimental group consisted of twenty-four kindergarten and first grade teachers who

participated in a two week long summer institute. The control group consisted of twenty

teachers who did not participate in the two-week long summer institute. After completion of the

institute, the university researchers followed both groups of teachers into their classrooms for a

year of collecting data on 492 kindergarten and 287 first grade students. Researchers collected

data on teachers' knowledge about the structure of language by using a modified version of the

Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (Moats, 1994). To assess teachers' general knowledge,

the researchers administered a 45-item cultural literacy test developed by Stanovich and

Cunningham (1993). The researchers also observed teachers literacy instruction during the

school year and recorded extensive field notes which were coded for into four categories.

Students' literacy development was assessed four times throughout the school year.









During the institute, university researchers focused on deepening the teachers

understanding of phonology, phonemic awareness and its role in a balanced reading program.

This was done by devoting considerable time to deepening understanding of the importance of

phonemic awareness and its role in a balanced reading approach. Teachers were engaged in a

number of authentic activities. These activities encouraged teachers to count the number of

phonemes in words, analyze the typical sequence of development in children's phonemic

awareness and provided the teachers with opportunities to observe and then administer phonemic

awareness assessments to children of various ages. The instructional intervention continued

across the year in the context of three follow up sessions. University researchers also observed

teachers literacy instruction and recorded their activities throughout the year.

After conducting a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), researchers found

that although teachers in the experimental group and the control group were comparable in their

general knowledge and phonological knowledge at pre-test, teachers in the experimental group

had higher post-test scores on their knowledge survey. It was also found that the kindergarten

teachers in the experimental group spent more time on explicit phonological activities than

teachers in the control group. Although the overall time spent on phonological awareness was

lower in first grade, first grade teachers in the experimental group spent more time on explicit

comprehension instruction than first grade teachers in the control group. Researchers were able

to document that teachers involved in the two week intervention changed their classroom

practice by engaging their students in explicit instruction of word sounds and the alphabetic

principle. Also, the researchers found that kindergarten students in classrooms of experimental

group teachers made greater gains across the year in orthographic fluency. First grade students in









the classroom of experimental group teachers outperformed their control classroom peers on

phonological awareness, reading comprehension, vocabulary and writing measures.

This study documented changes in teacher knowledge and practice as well as links

between those changes and student learning. The researchers had three maj or findings. First, the

two week institute deepened teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness. Second, teachers can

use new knowledge to make changes in their instructional practice. Third, the changes that are

made can positively affect student learning. The researchers found that the teachers initial

understanding of phonology and concepts on early literacy instruction were low in comparison to

what the researchers expected.

Moats and Foorman (2004) found similar results with the Early Intervention Proj ect

funded through the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development. Teacher

knowledge was measured by an experimental, nineteen question multiple choice survey (Moats,

1994); teachers' classroom practice was measured with a structured observation instrument

(Texan Teacher Appraisal System, TTAS); and student end of year outcomes were assessed

using the Woodcock Johnson basic reading and broad reading clusters. Teachers participated in a

professional development program that was multidimensional. Teachers attended a two to four

day summer workshop which focused on program implementation; teachers were involved in

courses; teachers received bi-monthly visits to each classroom from university observers;

monthly visits and demonstration lessons from publishers' program consultants; and regular

informal meetings with proj ect staff.

Regression analysis uncovered three maj or findings. First, teacher rated as more effective

in their classroom teaching techniques had students with higher reading outcomes. Teachers

were rated based on their classroom observations. Next, teachers who scored higher on the









knowledge survey who had students that had higher reading achievement. Finally, it was also

found that teachers who routinely participated in the professional development program scored

higher on the knowledge survey than the teachers who had lower attendance rates. There are

limitations included in this study. The survey that was used was an experimental survey and the

authors did not report any reliability or validity measures.

Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2004) investigated 147 novice teachers' knowledge about

word structure. The participants consisted of pre-service and in-service teachers enrolled in a

special education teacher certification program. Participants formed three different groups.

Teachers in group 1 were taking day sections of an upper-level special education course and

received supervised tutoring of children in a local elementary school. Teachers involved in group

2 were taking the same course without the supervision. Teachers in group 3 were the comparison

group and did not receive any instruction regarding the English word structure.

The authors used the test of Word-Structure Knowledge to investigate teachers knowledge

of the English word structure. They examined three specific tasks to measure word structure

knowledge and grapho-phonemic segmentation of words, classifying pseudo words by syllable

type and classifying real words as either phonetically regular or irregular. The grapho-phonemic

segmentation task attempted to assess whether the participants understood how to segment words

by phonemes. This type of knowledge is important for accurate interpretation of children' s errors

in reading and spelling. Knowledge about syllable types and irregularities can enable teachers to

avoid the use of inappropriate words in instruction.

A way-one analysis of variance indicated that teachers involved in group 1 and group 2

scored significantly higher on the post-test than teachers involved in group 3. There was no

difference in post-test scores between teachers involved in Group 1 and teachers involved in










group 2. Although tutored children showed significant progress in all areas of tutoring, there was

no clear support for the idea that supervised tutoring enhances teachers' knowledge of word

structure. There were limitations to this study. The sample size was small and the researchers

were not able to randomly assign the participants to the groups. The participants were also self-

selected for this study.

Summary of Teacher Knowledge Studies Reviewed

Four studies that examined pre-service and in-service teachers' perceptions and knowledge

of phonemic awareness were reviewed. Although there was a discrepancy between who

possessed more knowledge between the in-service teachers and pre-service overall, it was found

that teachers lack the knowledge necessary to use phonemic awareness instructional activities in

their classroom.

Other studies connected teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness to students' reading

development without providing any professional development activities. Researchers were able

to conclude that teachers' content knowledge of phonemic awareness was related to their

students' end-of-the year scores only at the kindergarten level.

Several studies examined professional development activities as an intervention to enhance

teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness. These studies also connected teachers' knowledge

of phonemic awareness to their students' reading development. Bos, Mather, Narr et al. (1999)

verified that interactive collaborative professional development training increased teachers

attitudes towards using explicit structured language approaches to teaching early literacy

acquisition. McCutchen, Abbot et al. (2002) also discovered that a two week, on going

collaborative professional development program increased teachers' attitudes and abilities to use

phonemic awareness instruction in their classroom. Researchers have documented that










professional development activities increases teachers' knowledge of phonemic and that

knowledge increases students' reading abilities.

Several conclusions can be drawn from research associated with teachers' knowledge of

phonemic awareness. First, teachers generally have an insufficient grasp of spoken and written

structures of language. Next, changes in teacher knowledge and classroom practice can improve

student learning. Finally, effective professional development programs can deepen teachers

understanding of phonemic awareness instruction and enhance student learning.

Reading First

Reading First is a federally funded program that focuses on putting proven methods of

early reading instruction in the classroom (NCLB, 2002). Through Reading First, states and

districts receive support to apply scientifically based reading research to ensure that all children

learn to read well by the end of third grade (NCLB, 2002). Reading First schools are also

involved in intensive professional development activities that are implemented throughout the

school year.

Florida' s Reading First professional development model is a collaborative approach to the

development and provision of programs for teachers and administrators. These programs

encourage teachers to observe and practice research-based instructional strategies for reading.

Each Reading First school is required to utilize a portion of the Reading First funds to hire

Reading First coaches. Each Reading First coach works closely with school administrators in

planning and monitoring school improvement. Reading First coaches are also required to work

closely with classroom teachers to model effective reading techniques and strategies. Reading

First coaches are required to attend on-going professional development through the district on

recent reading research as well as techniques related to mentoring. Depending on the size of the









school and the school district, a reading coach might serve one school full-time or a coach might

serve several schools in the district.

Teachers involved in Reading First schools are also involved in on-going professional

development. This professional development may be provided by the on-site reading coach or by

the district level reading coach. Teachers participating at Reading First schools receive guidance

in the five reading areas outlined by the NCLB act of 2002 (phonemic awareness, phonics,

fluency, vocabulary and comprehension). Teachers may attend a number of institutes that are

usually provided during the summer or winter breaks. On going professional development is

offered at both the school level and the district level throughout the school year. Teachers are

required to attend school level training provided by the on-site reading coach as well as attend

local district level training.

The federal Reading First grant initiatives have led to overall improved reading instruction

and student achievement (Manzo, 2006). Many feel this is due to the teachers' participation in

the on going professional development activities as well as the on going support provided by the

Reading First coaches at each participating school (Manzo, 2006).

Directions for Future Research

Reading research has demonstrated that early systematic instruction in phonemic

awareness improves students' early reading and spelling skills (Adams, 1990; Adgar et. al.,

2002; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Moats, 1999; Snow et. al., 1998; The National Right to Read,

1993; Reading Excellence Act, 1996). Although research confirms that this knowledge increases

students' understanding of reading, research continues to demonstrate that teachers are not

familiar with phonemic awareness activities (Mather et al., 2001; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002;

O,Connor, 1999). Professional development activities have been shown to increase teachers'

knowledge and skills (Mather et al., 2001; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; O,Connor, 1999).









The literature reviewed in this chapter provides a theoretical and empirical basis for this

study. Researchers have demonstrated that phonemic awareness is critical for beginning readers

to learn how to read. Recent studies have demonstrated teachers' lack of knowledge of phonemic

awareness instruction and how this lack of knowledge has dire implications for student

achievement and growth.

This study builds on the existing research base by examining other forms of surveys to

examine teachers' knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness. The purpose of this study was

to examine the relationship between teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness, teachers'

own phonemic awareness skills and their students' phonemic awareness growth.









CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among kindergarten teachers'

knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and their students' emergent literacy development.

Specifically, it examined teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness and their ability to

manipulate and identity specific phonemes within words. This study examined the knowledge

base of teachers who teach reading to beginning readers. The survey assessed the specifieity and

depth of teachers' knowledge to reveal misconceptions, lack of knowledge or absence of

information related to phonemic awareness instruction (Moats, 1994). Teachers' knowledge

scores were correlated with their students' learning. In addition, teachers' demographics were

examined in relation to teacher knowledge and student learning. Using teacher and student

assessments, this study sought to answer the following overarching question: What are the

relationships among kindergarten teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness, their

phonemic skills, and their students' emergent literacy development? More specifically, the study

will examine the following two research questions:

1. What is the relationship between teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness pedagogy
and their students' phonemic awareness growth?

2. What is the relationship between teachers' own phonemic awareness skills and their
students' phonemic awareness growth?

This chapter details the methodology used to conduct this study. It includes the school

setting, participants, development of the teacher instrumentation, student assessments,

assessment procedures and analysis.

Setting

This research study took place in five different school districts located in north Florida.

The Hyve counties were chosen based on their participation in Reading First and their










demographic differences. As shown in Table 3-3, one district was considered a large-sized

district, two districts were considered medium-sized districts and two districts were considered

small-sized districts. The study was conducted in 42 Reading First schools from five different

school districts. To qualify for Reading First, schools must show that the percentage of students

reading below grade level is greater than the state average and at least 15% of the student

population is eligible for free and reduced lunch (Reading First in Florida, 2006). Reading First

schools were selected because of the type and amount of professional development that is at each

school is somewhat uniform across the Reading First districts and schools. Teacher data were

collected by the principal investigator during a meeting at the teachers' schools. Student data

were collected from Progress Monitoring Reporting Network (PMRN), a statewide database,

after obtaining consent from the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR).

Description of the Sample

Participants included 211 kindergarten teachers and 3,468 kindergarten students enrolled in

Florida' s Reading First schools. Participants were volunteers who responded based on letters of

invitation that were sent to Reading First coaches of Reading First schools throughout the five

school districts. Once consent was obtained from FCRR, the data from participating teachers'

students were analyzed in conjunction with the survey data to examine potential relationships

between teacher knowledge and student achievement. Parental consent was not obtained because

the students participating in the study were anonymous.

Teachers

There were 42 participating schools from five participating districts from central Florida.

As shown in Table 3-1, the number of participating Reading First schools varied in each district.

It should be noted that not all the schools were invited to participate in two of the participating

districts. Schools in Alachua and Marion County were chosen based on the number of









kindergarten teachers at each Reading First school. As noted in Table 3-1, the schools were

categorized based on the number of Reading First schools in each district. Flagler and Putnam

Counties were categorized as small-sized districts. Alachua and Marion Counties were

categorized as medium-sized districts and Duval County was categorized as a large district. The

overall participation rates in each district were high which indicated that the sample in this study

is an accurate representation of the sample within each district. The population included 21 1

kindergarten teachers and 3,468 kindergarten students enrolled in Florida' s Reading First

schools. Not all the teachers at each participating school elected to participate in the study so

participation rates were calculated for each school. Overall, participation rates were high which

means that teachers were willing to participate in the study.

Table 3-2 represents a summary of the demographics for the teachers participating in the

study. There were 206 females and five males who participated in the study. Seventy-nine

percent of the participants were Caucasian and 21% of the participants were from minority

groups. Sixty nine percent of the participants had a bachelor' s degree and 3 1% of the participants

had an advanced degree. Participants had an average of 1 1.4 years of teaching experience and an

average of 6.9 years of teaching experience at the kindergarten level. The years teaching ranged

from 1 to 37 years with a mean of 1 1.4 and a SD of 10.5. Ninety-two percent of the participants

had been teaching between one and five years. This means that 44% of the participants were

beginning teachers. Twenty-two percent of the participants had been teaching over twenty years.

Over sixty percent of the participants had between one and five years of teaching experience at

the kindergarten level. Although all the teachers were teaching at the kindergarten level, only

181 of the participants indicated that they had an elementary certification. Ninety-eight of the

teachers indicated that they had an early childhood certificate, five teachers indicated that they









Table 3-1. Number of schools that participated in the study
County Number of Reading Total Number of Participation Rate
First Schools that Reading First
participated in each schools in each
county county
Alachua (medium *5 *lo *50%
district)
Duval (large 19 22 86%
district)
Flagler (small 2 2 100%
district)
Marion (medium *6 *12 *50%
district)
Putnam (small 10 10 100%
district)
Total 42 56
*Not all schools in the county were asked to participate in this study.










Table 3-2. Teacher Demographics


Teachers


n
206
5


Gender


Female
Males


Race of Teacher








Highest Level of
Education




Years Teaching


White
Black
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
No response

Bachelors
Masters
Specialists
Doctorate

0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
> 20
No response


Experience at the K level


6-10
11-15
16-20
> 20


Areas of
C erti fi cati on/En dors ement





Year of Last Degree


Elementary
Early Childhood
Reading Certification
Reading Endorsement

< 1970
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-present
No response







































Table 3-3. District Size
District Frequency Percentage
Large District 84 40
Medium District 61 29
Small District 66 31
Total 211

Table 3-4. Number of Teachers who participated in the study
County Number of K Total number of K Participation
Teachers who teachers in each county Rate
participated in who were asked to
each county participate in the study


Table 3-2. Continued


College Coursework
related to Reading






Professional Development


Teachers


None
1-3 Hours
4-6 Hours
7-15 Hours
More than 16 Hours
No response

Reading First
Academy (only)
Reading First: district
training (only)
Reading First: on-site
(only)
Reading First
Academy and District
Reading First
Academy and on-site
District and on-site
Participated at all 3
levels
Did not participate at
any level


Alachua (medium district) 19 20
Duval (large district) 84 108
Flagler (small district) 16 21
Marion (small district) 42 47
Putnam (small district) 50 54


95%
77%
76%
89%
81%

84%


Total










Table 3-5. Florida School Indicators Report 2005-2006 by District
District Free and reduced Advanced Degrees Average number
lunch of years teaching
Alachua 53.3 49.9 14.5
Duval 49.3 29.1 13.4
Flagler 38.7 30.1 10.8
Marion 59.8 28.2 13.4
Putnam 71.8 26.9 14.1

had a reading certificate and only one participant indicated that he/she had a reading

endorsement.

Almost 50% percent of the teachers indicated that they had received their last degree since

2000 and only three of the participants indicated that they had earned their last degree before

1970. Eleven percent of the participants indicated that they had not taken any reading related

courses in college. Although all participants were teaching at Reading First schools, 27% of the

participants indicated that they have not participated in any Reading First professional

developments activities within the last year.

Table 3-5 represents data from the Florida Indicators Report (2006). According to the

report, in 2005-2006, 34.3% of elementary school teachers in the state of Florida had advanced

degrees and teachers had an average of 12.5 years of teaching experience. Thirty-one percent of

participants in this study had advanced degrees and participants had an average of 11.4 years of

teaching experience. Based on this report, fewer teachers in this study had advanced degrees and

the teachers were less experienced than the average teacher in the state of Florida.

Students

There were 3,468 students who participated in the study. As shown in Table 3-6, 48% of

the students were female and 52% of the students were male. Students represented a number of

different exceptionalities although most of the students who were categorized as ESE were

speech or language impaired. Ten percent of the students were retained and 62% of the sample
































































were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Seven percent of the sample were identified as limited

English proficient (LEP) but were not enrolled in classes specially designed for LEP students.

Table 3-6. Student demographics
Teachers


n
1,662
1,802

1127
1737
389
29
156


Gender


Ethnicity


Female
Males

White
Black
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other

Educable/Trainable
Mentally Handicapped
Orthopedically
Impaired
Speech/Language
Impaired
Deaf or Hard of
Hearing
Specific Learning
Disabled
Gifted
Hospital/Homebound
Autistic
Developmentally
Delayed
Other Health Impaired


ESE exceptionality


227


52

9
6

79

10
366
3099

1162
125

1936
221
254

32

3158


Retention


Lunch status





Limited English
Proficient (LEP)


Student did not apply
Applied but not
eligible
Eligible for free lunch
Eligible reduced lunch
LEP but not in classes

Two year follow-up
program
Not applicable









Instrumentation

Several instruments were used to assess teachers and students. One test was designed to

measure teachers' knowledge about phonemic pedagogy (Phonemic Awareness Knowledge

Survey, PAKS), and one test was designed to measure teachers' phonemic awareness skills

(Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey, PASS). These tests were developed to be correlated with

students' reading measures. Students' reading measures were collected from the Dynamic

Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment, which measures students'

phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency skills. The DIBELS have already been administered

for educational/instructional purposes in the schools. Student data were accessed from the

Progress Monitoring Reporting Network (PMRN), a statewide database.

The teacher instruments were designed after a comprehensive review of the literature to

establish a rationale for a test that examines teachers' knowledge and skills of phonemic

awareness. After reviewing previous measures that have been used to examine teachers'

knowledge of phonemic awareness, two instruments were development, the Phonemic

Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) and the Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS). The

process included the following steps: test adaptation and construction, initial field tests and

assessments of validity and reliability. Each of these steps is discussed in the following sections.

Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS)

The Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) was developed to examine teachers'

knowledge of phonemic awareness concepts and pedagogy (see Appendix B). A large body of

converging evidence related to teacher knowledge has revealed a number of conclusions

regarding specific understandings of language and reading processes (Adams, 1990; Adgar,

Snow & Christian, 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Reading Excellence Act, 1996;

Snow et. al., 1998; The National Right to Read, 1993). However, research has yet to resolve










questions related to more advanced concepts about language that are relevant to both assessment

and instruction. Specifically, researchers have yet to examine what kinds of questions are the

most sensitive and a meaningful indicator of how well a teacher is likely to perform in the

classroom.

Although recent evidence has concluded that teachers need explicit knowledge of

phonemic awareness to teach reading, surveys have yet to examine teachers' knowledge of

phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990; Adgar et. al., 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP,

2000; Snow et. al., 1998). While many of the existing surveys have focused on teachers' abilities

to identify and manipulate sounds within words, a questionnaire related to teachers' knowledge

of the terminology and uses of phonemic awareness has yet to be developed. The PAKS was

designed to examine teachers' understanding of phonemic awareness related to the importance of

phonemic awareness and to examine their understanding of phonemic awareness assessment and

instruction.

Test adaptation and construction. The test was developed to examine teachers'

knowledge of phonemic awareness. Six questions were developed and all questions were open-

ended questions. The questions were spaced across two pages so that each page had a total of

three questions. The orders of the questions were also considered. The questions begin by asking

the participants to define the term and then prompt the participants to provide examples of how

phonemic awareness should be assessed and used for instructional purposes.

Initial field test. The initial field test had 20 respondents who were enrolled in a graduate

level reading course. The participants represented a range of teaching experience. The initial

field test was administered during a class, and the participants were asked to answer the six

questions on the survey to the best of their ability. Many of the participants answered the










questions in full and added any comments about the wording of the questions. The participants'

responses were reviewed, and a scoring rubric was developed for each question based on their

responses.

Validity and reliability. Validity entails an evaluation of the value implications of both

test interpretation and test use (Messick, 1980). Several measures were taken to ensure both

validity and reliability of the PAKS. The content validity for the PAKS derived from the maj or

consensus reports related to teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990; Adgar,

Snow & Christian, 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). The PAKS

was divided into two knowledge areas: (1) knowledge about the construct of PA and (2)

knowledge about PA pedagogy. In order for teachers to have an explicit understanding of PA

they should be grounded in both the construct of PA, as well as the pedagogy related to PA

(Moats, 1994).

In order to investigate construct validity, the respondents of the pilot survey were asked

whether the purpose of the test was apparent and the questions were comprehensible. Since the

respondents were all enrolled in a graduate level reading course, their evaluation of the test

assisted the researcher in determining if there was face evidence of validity of the measurement.

The respondents indicated that the questions were clear, and they felt there was ample amount of

space to answer the questions.

Reliability is the extent to which an experiment, test or any measuring procedure yields the

same result on repeated trials (Babbie, 1990). Inter-rater reliability was used to ensure the

consistency of the implementation of the measurement. The six item questionnaire was coded by

the use of a rubric on a scale from zero to three. All the questionnaires were coded by the

researcher and another expert on the field to enhance inter-rater reliability of the questionnaire.









Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS)

The Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) was developed to assess teachers' own

phonemic skills. The inclusion of a test to assess teachers' phonemic awareness skills was based

on the findings from the NRP, as well as on a number of other reports and policy papers. These

reports have identified phonemic awareness as one of the best predictors of how well children

will learn to read (Adams, 1990; Adgar et. al., 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000;

Reading Excellence Act, 1996; Snow et. al., 1998; The National Right to Read, 1993).

Recent studies have identified phonemic awareness and letter knowledge (alphabetic

principle) as the two best indicators of how well children will learn to read specifically during

the first two years of instruction (Adams, 1990; Ball & Blachman; 1991; Blachman, 2002; NRP,

2000; Snow et al., 1998). Because phonemic awareness is a prerequisite to decoding, it is

imperative that teachers have the skills to detect, segment and blend phonemes; and to

manipulate phoneme positions in words, so they can teach these skills effectively to their

students. As discussed in chapter two, previous measures were reviewed.

Test adaptation and construction. The Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) was

constructed based on the lack of validity and reliability of scores reported from previously used

phonemic awareness surveys and the broad coverage of topics related to the structure of

language. The questions on the PASS were adapted from the Moats (1994) survey, the Moats

and Foorman (2004) survey and the survey used in the Bos, Mather, Narr et al. (1999) study.

The 25 items on the PASS comprise multiple-choice items and fill-in-the-blank items. The

survey is divided into five different sections related to phonemic awareness skills; (1) phoneme

counting, (2) phoneme identification, (3) phoneme matching, (4) phoneme segmenting, and

blending, and (5) phoneme deletion. The survey was designed to examine teachers' phonemic









awareness skills only, not their knowledge of other aspects related to reading acquisition (Moats,

2003).

Initial field test. The initial field test of this instrument included 20 respondents who were

enrolled in a graduate level reading course. The participants represented a range of experience

levels. The initial field test was administered during class and the participants were asked to

answer all items on the assessment. The researcher reviewed sample items in each section with

the participants before instructing them to begin the assessment.

Validity and reliability. The validity and reliability of the PASS were assessed using a

variety of methods. The content evidence of validity was based of several studies that have

examined teachers' knowledge and skills of PA (Moats, 1999; Adams, 1990; Snow et al., 1998;

NRP, 2000; Adgar et. al., 2002; NCLB, 2002). Many of the studies demonstrated an association

between teachers' knowledge of PA and student literacy growth. Questions in the measurement

were modified from previous research studies (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999; Foorman &

Moats, 2004; McCutchen, Abbot et al. 2002; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; Moats, 1999;

Moats & Foorman, 2003; Moats, 1994; O'Connor, 1999;Troyer & Yopp, 1990).

A test analysis was conducted using the results from a 25-item pilot test to provide

additional construct evidence of validity and establish reliability. SPSS was used to measure the

statistics of the measurement. Although there were 25 items in the survey only 19 items were

analyzed due to the fact that 4 items had zero variance and were removed from the scale and two

items were removed based on the number of incorrect responses. The mean number of correct

responses were 79% for the participants (n=20). Once the two items were removed, the reliability

of the measurement was .76 (Cronbach' s coefficient alpha). The item difficulty ranged from 40%









to 95% of respondents answering correctly, which indicates that there is a large range of

difficulty.

Student Measures

Students' skills were assessed using subtests from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early

Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment. Reading First requires an assessment of each child three

times per year using grade-appropriate reading measures that are intended to monitor progress

and predict future reading success. DIBELS is used at all Reading First schools to satisfy this

requirement. Student data were collected from the PMRN database. Four DIBELS subtests were

used: (a) Initial Sound Fluency, which assesses a student' s ability to recognize and produce the

beginning sounds) in an orally presented word; (b) Letter Naming Fluency, which provides a

measure of a student' s proficiency in naming upper and lower case letters; (c) Phoneme

Segmentation Fluency, which measures a student' s ability to segment three- and four-phoneme

words into their individual phonemes; and (d) Nonsense Word Fluency, which taps into the

student' s knowledge of letter-sound correspondence and his/her ability to blend letters into

words (test of the student' s understanding of the alphabetic principle).

The DIBELS assessments are intended to provide data to inform instruction and to review

school level outcomes. The measures are intended to be brief and there are over 20 forms for

each measure. The DIBELS assessments were originally developed at the Early Childhood

Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development at the University of Oregon. There

has been extensive research done on the DIBELS assessments, specifically on how accurately

they predict performance on important outcomes that depend on the ability to read and

comprehend text (Good, Kaminski, Smith, Simmons, Kame'enui, & Wallin, in press; Good,

Wallin, Simmons, Kame'enui, & Kaminski, 2002; Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR),










2005). The reliability and validity for these tests have been found to be acceptable (Good &

Kaminski, 2001) and are presented in Table 3-7.

Data Collection Procedures

Reading First schools were invited to participate in the study. Letters of invitation were

sent to principals and Reading First coaches throughout the five selected school districts. The

researcher met with the teachers who were interested in participating in the study during

Table 3-7. Reliability and Validity of DBELS assessment
Test Alternative-form Validity
reliability
Letter Naming Fluency .88 .70 (a)
Initial Sound Fluency .72 .48 (b)
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency .88 .54 (d)
Nonsense Word Fluency .83 .36 (e)
* (a) The median criterion-related validity of LNF with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational
Battery-Revised readiness cluster standard score is .70 in kindergarten. (b) Concurrent criterion-related
validity of ORF with DIBELS PSF is .48 in January of kindergarten and .36 with the Woodcock-Johnson
Psycho-Educational Battery Readiness Cluster score. (d) Concurrent criterion validity of PSF is .54 with
the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery Readiness Cluster score in spring of kindergarten. (e)
Concurrent criterion-validity of DIBELS NWF with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-
Revised Readiness Cluster score is .36 in January and .59 in February of first grade (retrieved from Good
et al., in preparation).

grade-level meetings and obtained consent from each teacher. Demographic data (i.e., personal

data, educational data and professional development activities) were collected from each

participating teacher (see Appendix A). The researcher administered the PAKS and the PASS to

teachers from each site participating in the study. Teachers participating in the study were all

teaching students at the kindergarten level. Teachers were provided as much time as needed to

complete the surveys, but they were not allowed to take the surveys out of the room or to

collaborate with their peers while completing the surveys. Once the teachers completed the

surveys, the researcher collected all the surveys. Teachers participating in the study were given a

book as compensation for completion of the survey (Phonological Awareness: Assessment and

Instruction: A Sound Begqninnin, by Holly B. Lane and Paige C. Pullen).









Student data were obtained from the PMRN database. DIBELS is administered by school

administrators and is given to all kindergarten students enrolled in Reading First schools three

times a year (fall, winter and spring). School administrators then enter DIBELS data into the

PMNR statewide database. The researcher did not have access to the students' identities, and the

only data collected were from the DIBELS assessment. Students did not engage in any activity

that is outside the scope of their regular education plan or solely for the sake of this study.

Therefore, no experimental procedures, instruction or special incentive were given to the

students. Table 3-8 identifies the research questions, along with the data source and plan for

analysis for each question.

Table 3-8. Research Questions and Plan for Analysis
Question Data Sources Analysis
1. What is the relationship Teacher responses to PAKS Multiple
between teachers' knowledge of (knowledge about PA regression
phonemic awareness pedagogy pedagogy) analysis
and their students' phonemic Student DIBELS scores
awareness growth?
2. What is the relationship Teacher responses to PASS Multiple
between teachers' own (skills related to PA) regression
phonemic awareness skills and Student DIBELS scores analysis
their students' phonemic
awareness growth?


Data Analysis

The analysis of results began with a preliminary analysis for each comparison. Descriptive

statistics were analyzed which included an analysis for missing data, missing subj ects and an

analysis to check for any outliers that had unnecessary influence on the data. A multiple

regression analysis was then used for statistical analysis. To account for differing knowledge

among teachers, other factors were entered into the regression analysis. These factors included:

teachers' years of teaching experience, professional development and educational background.










The questionnaire was scored using a rubric to quantify the teachers' responses regarding

their current knowledge of phonemic awareness (knowledge about PA pedagogy). In addition to

the quantitative scoring, this information was analyzed for common themes related to teachers'

knowledge of phonemic awareness.

Summary

This chapter presented the methodology for this study. The purpose of this study was to

examine the relationship between kindergarten teachers' phonemic awareness knowledge and

skills and their students' emergent literacy development. A description of the school setting,

participants, development of the teacher instrumentation, student assessments, assessment

procedures and analysis were included. Chapter 4 will discuss the results of the study. Finally,

Chapter 5 contains a discussion of the results as related to previous research, limitations to the

present study and implications for future research.









CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among kindergarten teachers'

knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and their students' emergent literacy development.

Specifically, it examined teachers' knowledge about phonemic awareness and their ability to

manipulate and identity specific phonemes within words. The general question of this study was

as follows: What is the relationship between teachers' knowledge and skills about phonemic

awareness and their students' phonemic awareness growth? To investigate this research

question, teachers' knowledge and skills was assessed, analyzed and then correlated with their

students' literacy scores. Using a multiple regression analysis, the relationship between teachers'

knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and their students' phonemic awareness growth

were measured and compared.

This chapter will focus on the data findings for this study. It will begin with the descriptive

statistics on the PAKS and PASS, which will be followed by the results of the teacher knowledge

surveys (PAKS and PASS) and student assessments. The chapter will conclude with a

presentation of the findings for the relationship between teacher knowledge and student

outcomes, and the relationship between teacher demographics, teacher knowledge and student

outcomes.

Descriptive and Inferential Statistics

This section will include the results of the teacher knowledge tests and student assessment

scores. The section will begin with an examination of the Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey

(PASS) and Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS). This section will conclude with

an examination of the DIBELS student scores.










Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS)

Table 4-1 represents the descriptive statistics for the PAKS survey which was administered

to 211 kindergarten teachers. The survey asked the participants six open ended questions about

phonemic awareness. Participants were given unlimited time to complete the survey, and most

participants used about 15 minutes to compose their responses.

The surveys were scored with a rubric, using a scale from zero to three. The rubric was

developed by the researcher and adapted from a similar study related to teacher knowledge (Lane

et al., in press). It was developed based on the findings from the National Reading Panel's (NRP,

2000) report on phonemic awareness. If an answer demonstrated no knowledge or lacked

sufficient detail it received a zero. If a response showed little knowledge or some information

was incorrect it received a one. If the response showed some level of knowledge or knowledge at

a surface level it received a score of two. If an answer demonstrated excellent, expert level of

knowledge it was correct and received a three. In a very small number of cases the respondents'

answers received a score of .5 because the response fell between two scores on the rubric. That is

on some items participants received a .5, 1.5 or 2.5. If a participant answered all six questions

correctly, he/she received an eighteen. The entire rubric, including the specific indicators used to

arrive at a score, can be found in Appendix B.

Once the rubric was developed, an inter-rater reliability score was conducted using a

percentage agreement. Two experts in the field of reading scored 29 randomly selected surveys

and out of 174 items, the researchers agreed on 161 items which gave them a 93% agreement

rate.

The mean score for the survey was 7.82. The minimum score was a zero and the maximum

score was an eighteen. Using Cronbach' s alpha, the reliability of the test was .67. An item










analysis was conducted to exam the mean and standard deviation of each item. Overall, item

three had the highest mean of 1.64 and item 2 had the lowest mean of .99.

PAKS scores were also analyzed by district, education level and by certification. It was

found that participants in the medium sized district had the highest mean and participants in the

large district had the lowest mean. Participants with an advanced degree scored higher than

participants with a bachelor' s degree. It was also found that participants who had an early

childhood certificate scored higher than participants who did not have the specialized certificate.

Participants who were involved in Reading First professional development activities had a higher

mean score than those who did not participate in any of the Reading First professional

development activities.

Teachers' responses to the PAKS items revealed both their knowledge and misconceptions

about both constructs included in the survey. After reviewing the answers provided by the

participants for each item, common themes were identified based on misconceptions about

phonemic awareness. Table 4-4 displays sample responses for each item on the PAKS.

Item 1: Item one asked the participants, "What is phonemic awareness?" Most participants

who answered this question inappropriately indicated that phonemic awareness was the

letter/sound connection or knowing the sounds of the letters. This type of response indicates a

common confusion between PA and phonics. Correct responses included participants indicating

that phonemic awareness was the ability to hear, identify and manipulate sounds in spoken

words. This confusion could be due to the fact that the NRP states in their Put Reading First

handbook that "Phonemic awareness is most effective when children are taught to manipulate

phonemes by using the letters of the alphabet" (NRP, 2000). Teachers who indicated that










Table 4-1. PAKS Descriptive Statistics
Number of Teachers taking PAKS 211
Number of items 6
Mean (M) 7.82
standard deviation (SD) 3.17
Minimum score 0
Maximum score 18
Test Reliability (Cronbach's a) .67

Table 4-2. PAKS Item Analysis
Mean SD
PAKS Item 1 1.58 .72
PAKS Item 2 .99 .70
PAKS Item 3 1.64 .99
PAKS Item 4 1.10 .91
PAKS Item 5 1.23 1.01
PAKS Item 6 1.28 .77


Table 4-3. PAKS Scores by Category
PAKS Scores by District Size
District Size Mean SD
Large District (n=84) 7.20 2.96
Medium District (n=61) 8.80 3.22
Small District (n=66) 7.69 3.22
PAKS Scores by Educational Level
Educational Level Mean SD
Bachelors (n=146) 7.73 3.12
Masters of Above (n=65) 8.00 3.30
PAKS Scores by Early Childhood
Certification
Early Childhood Certification Mean SD
Yes (n=98) 8.16 2.99
No (n=1 13) 7.52 3.31
PAKS Scores by Number of Professional
Development Courses
Number of PD courses Mean SD
None (n=57) 6.98 3.06
One (n=69) 8.52 2.88
Two (n=57) 7.78 3.11
Three (n=28) 7.84 3.90
PAKS Scores by None verses at Least
One Course
Number of PD Courses Mean SD
None 6.98 3.06
At least one 8.12 3.17










phonemic awareness was the same as phonics may not have an understanding that phonemic

awareness instruction can be taught without the use of letters.

Item 2: Item two asked the participants, "Why is phonemic awareness important?"

Participants who responded inappropriately either identified that phonemic awareness is

important for students because they need to associate letters with sounds or they identified that

phonemic awareness is important to learn how to read. Participants who answered this question

correctly indicated that it teaches students how to blend or segment sounds in words or they

identified phonemic awareness important because it is a prerequisite to reading. Many teachers

felt that phonemic awareness was important but felt that it was important so that students could

learn the letter/sound association.

Item 3: Item three asked the participants, "What phonemic awareness skills are most

important?" Participants who responded inappropriately indicated that teaching students the

sounds of letters was the most important skill. Correct responses included blending and

segmenting sounds.

Item 4: Item four asked the participants, "How can phonemic awareness be assessed?"

Participants who responded inappropriately indicated that using observations, running records

and teacher made tests were the best ways to assess phonemic awareness. Correct responses

included any component of the DIBELS assessment or any skills or methods that are based on

research (i.e., Elkonin boxes, blending and segmenting spoken language and identifying

beginning and ending sounds in words). Teachers who responded correctly to this question

indicated an association between assessment and instruction. They identified a connection

between the DIBELS assessment and the importance of phonemic awareness instruction.










Table 4-4. Sample responses from the PAKS
Item Score Sample Response
0 It's how we say words.
1 Phonemic awareness is the knowledge of letters and the sounds each letter
makes.
2 Phonemic awareness is the knowledge of phonemes (the smallest units of
1 sound). It is being able to connect sounds to the letters they represent.
3 Phonemic awareness is the knowledge and ability to discern the phoneme
segments of words: in order that the learner can actually and fully sound out
and read words. Phonemes are the segments that when combined make up
words .
O If the learner has a good understanding of phonemic awareness he or she will
become fluent readers.
1 It helps students leamn how to read words by teaching them the individual
letter sounds.
2 It can help a child in beginning reading by giving them the ability to decode
words that may be beyond sight words.
3 To become a successful reader a student must have the ability to hear sounds
in words which is the key to segmenting and decoding words.
O Word identification and acknowledgement of fluency in reading.
1The most important skills to me are to be able to match letters to their sounds
3 and to be able to identify letter sounds in words.
2 Segmenting phonemes, initial sound of words, onset and rime.
3 Phoneme segmenting, blending and rhyming.
O Through individual and small group assessment.
1DIBELS testing and reading series, teacher made tests, checklist, and
individual testing.
42 Phonemic awareness can be assessed using sounds i.e., syllable blending,
instructor asking students sounds of letters, ask students for rhyming words
etc.
3 Through observations of activities where students blend sounds, find
rhyming words, and segment sounds in words.
O See how many words you can say in a minute.
1Small group led exercises that focus on letter sounds.
2 Work with specific materials developed for phonemic awareness.
5 Clapping/magnets on magnetic boards or any of the activities in the Reading
First Academy.
3 Elkonin boxes, letter tiles, blank tiles and associating each tile with a sound,
have students move tiles for the sounds and small group games.
O I use the picture cards for my students and the sounds in writing.
1 I use an alphabet arc with sound boxes, pictures cards to segment sounds,
rhyming puzzles etc. I work at risk students 30-45 minutes a day and group
other students by ability for reading.
2 Rhyming work, phoneme segmentation, syllable work, onsets and rimes,
6 small group instruction or one on one, initial reading instruction, 15-30
minutes a day, 5 days a week.
3 Games and activities from "Phonemic Awareness: Reading First. Times:
everyday small groups, 15 min. each whole group during skills block about
30 min. Specific activities, rhyming, segmenting, blending, syllables, count
words in sentences and alliteration.











Item 5: Item five asked the participants, "What instructional methods could be used to

develop phonemic awareness?" Inappropriate responses included observation, conferencing,

guided and independent reading and flashcards. Correct responses included isolating sounds,

identifying sounds, segmenting and blending sounds and using Elkonin boxes.

Item 6: Item six asked the participants,"Describe briefly the instructional methods you use

to develop students' phonemic awareness skills (time, grouping, methods, assessment and

skills)?" Participants who responded inappropriately indicated that 60-90 minutes a day, large

group, observation and guided reading. Correct responses included 15-30 minutes, 3- 5 times a

week, small group instruction and blending and segmenting sounds and using the DIBELS

assessment for progress monitoring.

Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS)

Table 4-5 represents the descriptive statistics for the PASS survey which was administered

to 211 kindergarten teachers. The survey asked the participants 25 questions about phoneme

manipulation. The participants had to delete, count, identify, match, segment and blend

phonemes within words. Participants received one point for each correct answer. The mean score

on the survey was 16.8. The minimum score was five and the maximum score was 24. Using

Cronbach' s alpha, the reliability of the measure was .80.

Table 4-6, represents the frequency distribution for the PASS survey. More than half

(52.6%) of the teachers answered at least 18 of the 25 items correctly. Less than half of the

teachers (47.6%) answered 17 or fewer items correctly. One participant only answered five of the

25 questions correctly and two participants answered 24 of the 25 answers correctly.

As shown in Table 4-7, an item analysis was conducted on the PASS to determine if the

items were valid measures of the obj ective of the test. Specifically, item difficulty and item










discrimination were analyzed. Item difficulty refers to the percentage of teachers answering the

item correctly and item discrimination refers to the correlation between an item of interest and

the total score. Therefore, 98.6% of teachers answered item 1 correctly and only 7. 1% of the

teachers answered item 8 correctly. Items with low or negative correlations indicate items not

relating well with the total test score and may be targeted for removal. Items 1, 7 and 8 are all

below .20 which means that they are poorly correlated with the total PASS score and should be

removed from the survey.

Table 4-5. PASS Descriptive Statistics
Number of Teachers taking PAKS 211
Number of items 25
Mean (M) 16.8
standard deviation (SD) 4.2
Minimum score 5 (out of 25)
Maximum score 24 (out of 25)
Test Reliability (Cronbach's a) .80

Table 4-6. PASS Frequency Distribution
Number of items correct Frequency Percent
5 1 .5
6 5 2.4
7 3 1.4
8 1 .5
9 6 2.8
10 4 1.9
11 7 3.3
12 8 3.8
13 9 4.3
14 14 6.6
15 9 4.3
16 17 8.1
17 16 7.6
18 19 9.0
19 28 13.3
20 21 10.0
21 22 10.4
22 12 5.7
23 7 3.3
24 2 .9
Total 211 100










Table 4-7. Item Analysis of PASS

PASS (Correct Item difficulty Item discrimination
Sound) Items (p)
Item 1 0.986 .081
Item 2 0.829 .272
Item 3 0.848 .349
Item 4 0.697 .366
Item 5 0.938 .349
Item 6 0.754 .531
Item 7 0.635 .017
Item 8 0.071 .178
Item 9 0.521 .361
Item 10 0.313 .276
Item 11 0.725 .502
Item 12 0.322 .432
Item 13 0.417 .517
Item 14 0.479 .258
Item 15 0.806 .518
Item 16 0.711 .570
Item 17 0.825 .354
Item 18 0.725 .337
Item 19 0.986 .214
Item 20 0.905 .223
Item 21 0.853 .283
Item 22 0.791 .425
Item 23 0.199 .299
Item 24 0.815 .361
Item 25 0.682 .404

As shown in Table 4-8, PASS scores were also analyzed by district, education level and by

certification. It was found that participants in the medium sized district had the highest mean and

participants in the large district had the lowest mean. These Eindings are consistent with the

PAKS. Participants with an advanced degree had a mean of 17.18 and participants with a

bachelor' s degree had a mean score of 16.68. It was also found that participants who had an early

childhood certification scored higher than participants who did not have the specialized

certificate. Participants who were involved in Reading First professional development activities

had a higher mean score than those who did not participate in any of the Reading First

professional development activities.









Table 4-8. PASS Scores by Category
PASS Scores by District Size
District Size Mean SD
Large District (n=84) 16.0 4.51
Medium District (n=61) 17.8 3.78
Small District (n=66) 16.9 4.17

PASS Scores by Educational Level
Educational Level Mean SD
Bachelors (n=146) 16.68 4.28
Masters or Above (n=65) 17.18 4.22

PASS Scores by Early Childhood
Certification
Early Childhood Certification Mean SD
Yes (n=98) 16.81 4.57
No (n=1 13) 16.86 3.98

PASS Scores by Number of Professional
Development Courses
Number of PD courses Mean SD
None (n=57) 16.46 4.36
One (n=69) 17.14 3.87
Two (n=57) 16.91 4.47
Three (n=28) 16.68 4.65

PASS Scores by None versus at Least
One Course
Number of PD Courses Mean SD
None 16.46 4.36
At least one 16.97 4.22

Student Scores (DIBELS)

As shown in Table 4-9, DIBELS was administered three times during the school year

(Fall (1), Winter (2) and Spring (3). The letter naming fluency (LNF) subtest was administered in

the fall and winter. The initial sound fluency (ISF) subtest was administered in the fall, winter

and spring. The phoneme segmentation fluency (PSF) subtest and the nonsense word fluency

(NWF) subtest were both administered in the winter and spring. There were 179 classrooms

included in the study. Although data was collected on 211 teachers, student data were only









obtained from 179 of the participating teachers. Class size ranged from 5 to 39 and the average

class size was 19.

Teacher and student data were analyzed and compared across the five districts. Teacher

data showed that Alachua County had the highest teachers' knowledge scores and the second

highest teachers' skills scores. As shown in Table 4-8, Duval County had the lowest scores in

both the teachers' skills and teachers' knowledge surveys. Student scores revealed that Flagler

County had the highest means in a maj ority of the DIBELS subtests. Putnam County had the

lowest means in the DIBELS subtests. Alachua County made the highest gains in the LNF but

made the lowest gains in the PSF and the NWF. Marion County made the highest gains in ISF.

Putnam County made the lowest gains in the LNF from the fall to the spring assessment. Flagler

County made the highest gains in both the PSF and the NWF but the lowest gains in the ISF. It

should be noted that the teachers in Putnam County scored the highest on the skills survey and

their students made the greatest gains on the PSF and NWF during the school year. Both

subtests are a based on a students' ability to segment and blend phonemes in a word.

Table 4-9. Mean Score for each subtest by County
Alachua Marion (M) Putnam Flagler Duval
(M) (M) (M) (M)
LNF (Fall) 11.03 9.89* 12.92 14.44** 10.28
ISF (Fall) 19.00 20.89 18.42* 24.77** 21.59
LNF (Winter) 30.19** 22.76 21.41* 27.31 22.47
ISF (Winter) 34.55 40.90** 35.42* 40.81 37.87
PSF (Winter) 27.47 28.23 24.75* 35.27** 25.11
NWF (Winter) 23.68 27.07 20.57* 31.12** 24.41
ISF (Spring) 43.23* 52.97 49.38 54.04** 49.71
PSF (Spring) 36.26* 38.90 37.44 45.83** 37.70
NWF (Spring) 35.93* 48.91 40.48 49.49** 40.93
** Indicates the highest mean between the counties for each subtest
* Indicates the lowest mean between the counties for each subtest









Statistical Analysis of the Data

This section will discuss the data Eindings for the relationship of variables in this study

including a multiple regression analysis for each dependent variable, correlations between the

PASS and PAKS, number of years teaching experience, number of years teaching at the K level

and the correlations between teachers' knowledge and students' scores. The data were analyzed

to determine if there were any statistically significant differences between teachers' knowledge

and skills of phonemic awareness and students' DIBELS scores. Additional analyses were

conducted to explore further the results and to compare this study to previous studies.

PAKS and PASS

Correlations were computed to test the relationship between participants' scores on the

PAKS and the PASS. This correlation was conducted to examine if participants who did well on

the PAKS survey to examine their ability to answer open-ended questions about PA also did well

on the PASS a survey to examine their ability to manipulate sounds within words. An

examination of the correlations reveals that participants who did well on the PAKS also did well

on the PASS. At the 0.01 level of significance (r=0.268, p<.01) a relationship was found between

teachers score on the PASS and their score on the PAKS.

PASS and Level of Teaching Experience

Correlations were computed to test the relationship between the PASS and years of

teaching experience. An examination of the correlations reveals that there was a small but

significant negative relationship between the PASS and years of teaching experience. At the .05

level of significance (r--. 146, p<.05) it was found that teachers with more years of teaching

experience scored lower on the PASS than teachers who had less years of teaching experience. It

was also found at the .05 level of significance (r--. 149, p<.05) that there was a small but

significant negative relationship between teachers scores on the PASS and years of teaching at










the kindergarten level. It was found that teachers who had more experience teaching at the

kindergarten level scored lower on the survey than teachers who had less years of teaching

experience.

PAKS and Level of Teaching Experience

Correlations were computed to test the relationship between the PAKS and years of

teaching experience. An examination of the correlations reveals that there was no significant

relationship between the PAKS and years of teaching experience. At the .05 level of

significance (r=-.018, p>.05) the correlation indicates that there was no relationship between the

two variables. Similar Eindings also revealed that there was no relationship between the PAKS

and years of teaching experience at the kindergarten level. At the .05 level of significance (r=-

.034, p>.05) the correlation indicates that there was no significant relationship between the two

variables.

Teachers' Knowledge and Student Outcomes

As shown in Table 4-10, correlations were also computed between the means of the

variables. If the subtest was given three times, the difference was computed between the fall and

spring assessments. If the assessment was only give two times during the year the mean was

calculated between the fall and winter or the winter and spring assessments. Findings revealed

that there was a positive correlation between teachers' phonemic awareness knowledge and the

LNF (r-.157, p<.05). Teachers who did well on the PAKS also had students who did well on the

LNF. There were also positive correlations between the ISF and PSF (r=.334, p<.01), PSF and

NWF (r-.325, p<.01) and ISF and NWF (r-.521, p<.01). This is due to the skills each subtest

measures. If students did well on the PSF, they also did well on the NWF and the ISF. All three

subtests measure a students' ability to identify, segment and decode phonemes in words. There

was a negative correlation between the LNF and the PSF (r=.-209, p<.01) which means that









students who did well on the PSF did not do well on the LNF. This finding may be due to the

fact that letter naming does not correlate with a child's ability to segment sounds in words. There

were no correlations found between teachers' skills of phonemic awareness and students' scores.

Table 4-10. Correlations between variables using difference between mean over time
Knowledge Skills LNF (diff.) ISF (diff.) PSF (diff.) NWF (dif )
Knowledge 1.00 .268** .157* .064 -.146 .013
Skills .268** 1.00 .089 .030 -.135 .095
LNF (diff.) .157* .089 1.00 0.43 -.209** -0.53
ISF (diff.) .064 .030 .043 1.00 .334** .521**
PSF (diff.) -.146 -.135 -.209** .334** 1.00 .325**
NWF (dif.) .013 .095 -.053 .521** .325** 1.00
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation in significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Multiple Regression Analysis

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the degree of association

between the explanatory variables (teachers' knowledge, teachers' skills and the corresponding

pre-test) and the outcome variables (DIBELS LNF (2), ISF (3), NWF (3) and PSF (3)). The

multiple regression analysis was also conducted to test the following research questions.

Question 1: What is the relationship between teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness
pedagogy (PAKS) and their students' phonemic awareness growth?

Question 2: What is the relationship between teachers' own phonemic awareness skills (PASS)
and their students' phonemic awareness growth?

Four regression models were tested to investigate the influence of teachers' knowledge

and skills on the increase in DIBELS measures from the fall to spring, fall to winter or winter to

spring assessments.

Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF). Using multiple regression, the first model was

analyzed with all four variables present. In terms of the overall model, a significant F-ratio of F;

(3, 1 74) =92.1~7, p<.001 was reported. In addition, the adjusted R2 Value Of .614 indicates that the

explanatory variables are j ointly associated with 61% of the shared variance in the DIBELS









NWF scores. When examining the influence of each variable on the DIBELS NWF (3) scores,

the greatest predictor of the post-test score (NWF 3) was the pre-test score (NWF 2) controlling

for the knowledge and skills variables. This is indicated by the large standardized beta

coefficient (8=.779). Additionally, NWF (2) has the largest absolute t value and the smallest

significance (t-16.49, p<.001). It was found that teachers' knowledge and skills did not have

predictive value on the NWF (3) with significance levels ofp=.750 and p=.233 (at the .05 level

of significance), making NWF (2) appear to be the strongest of the explanatory variables in the

model .

Table 4-11. Full Regression Model (NWF)
Outcome Explanatory b 8 t Significance Zero-Order
Variable Variables Correlations
NWF (3) NWF (1) 1.163 .779 16.49 p<.001 .781
Knowledge -.073 -.016 -.320 .750 .053
Skills .209 .059 1.197 .233 .096

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF). The second model that was tested was analyzed

with all four variables present. In terns of the overall model, a significant F-ratio of F (3, 1 74) =

64. 78, p<.001 was reported. The adjusted R2 Of .528 indicates that the explanatory variables are

j ointly associated with 52% of the shared variance in the DIBELS PSF scores. When examining

the influence of each variable on the outcome variable, the greatest predictor of the post-test

scores was the pre-test score controlling for knowledge and skills. This is indicated by the large

standardized beta coefficient (8=.736). The pre-test score also has the largest t value and the

smallest significance (t=13.89, p<.001). It was also found that teachers' knowledge and skills did

not have predictive value on the PSF (3) with significance levels ofp=.227 and p=.444 (at the

.05 level of significance), making PSF (2) appear to be the stronger explanatory variable in the

equation.









Table 4-12. Full Regression Model (PSF)
Outcome Explanatory b 8 t Significance Zero-Order
Variable Variables Correlations
PSF (3) PSF (1) .751 .736 13.897 p<.001 .721
Knowledge -.234 -.066 -1.211 .227 .013
Skills -.113 -.042 -.767 .444 .058

Initial Sound Fluency (ISF). The third model that was tested indicated a significant F

ratio of F (3,1~74) =14. 83, p<.00 1. In addition, the adjusted R2 Value Of .193 indicates that the

explanatory variables are j ointly associated with 19% of the shared variance in the DIBELS ISF

scores. When examining the influence of each variable on the outcome variable (ISF 3), the

greatest predictor of the post-test scores was the pre-test scores controlling for knowledge and

skills. This is indicated by the large standardized beta coefficient (8=.452). The pre-test score

also had the largest absolute t value and the smallest significant (t-6.618, p<.001) which

suggests that ISF (1) has a large impact on scores predicted for ISF (3). Findings also revealed

that teachers' knowledge and skills did not have predictive value on the ISF (3) with significance

levels ofp=.516 and p=.748 (at the .05 level of significance), making ISF (1) appear to be the

stronger explanatory variable in the equation.

Table 4-13. Full Regression Model (ISF)
Outcome Explanatory b 8 t Significance Zero-Order
Variable Variables Correlations
ISF (3) ISF (1) .709 .452 6.618 p<.001 .451
Knowledge .146 .046 .651 .651 .039
Skills .055 .023 .321 .321 .056

Letter Naming Fluency (LNF). The fourth model that was tested indicated a significant

F ration of F (3,1~74) = 3. 21, p>.05. The adjusted R2 Value Of .053 indicates that the explanatory

variables are jointly associated with only 5% of the shared variance in the DIBELS LNF scores.

When examining the influence of each variable on the outcome variable (LNF 3), the greatest

predictor of the post-test scores was the teachers' knowledge score when controlling for skills










and the pre-test scores (LNF 1). This is indicated by the standardized beta coefficient (8=.158).

Teachers' knowledge also had the largest absolute t score and the smallest significance (t-2.04,

p=<.05) which suggest that teachers' knowledge has an impact on LNF (3). Findings also

revealed that teachers' skills and DIBELS LNF pre-test did not have a predictive value on the

LNF (3) with significance level ofp=.292 and p=. 160 (at the .05 level of significance), making

teachers' knowledge appear to be the stronger explanatory variable. Although findings revealed

that there is a relationship between knowledge and LNF (3), it is an extremely weak relationship

as evidenced by the small t-value, the poor R2 and a F ration of only 3.74. Overall, this model in

much weaker than the other three models.

Table 4-14. Full Regression Model (LNF)
Outcome Explanatory b 8 t Significance Zero-Order
Variable Variables Correlations
LNF (3) LNF (1) .406 .158 1.412 p=. 160 .120
Knowledge .162 .082 2.044 p<.05 .186
Skills .225 .106 1.057 p=.292 .136

Based on the multiple regression analysis conducted to answer Research Question1, it is

apparent that teachers' knowledge of pedagogy is weakly associated with the scores on the LNF

(3), and that the scores on the teachers' knowledge survey are just slightly predictive of scores on

the DIBELS LNF (3) measure (t-2.04, p=<.05). Findings also revealed that there are no other

relationships between teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness and students' DIBELS

scores.

Based on the multiple regression analysis conducted to answer Research Question2, it is

apparent that teachers' skills related to phonemic awareness is not associated with students'

DIBELS sores. Although results indicated that the full models were significant once the

influence on each variable was examined, it was revealed that there are no relationships between

teachers' skills related to phonemic awareness and students' scores.









Summary

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between teachers' knowledge

and skills of phonemic awareness and students' literacy outcomes. Data were collected from

teachers' using the PAKS and the PASS, and DIBELS data were collected from PMRN.

A multiple regression analysis was used to test the relationship between teachers'

knowledge and students' scores. Although there were limited relationships between teachers

knowledge and skills and student outcomes, findings did reveal that there were statistical

differences between teachers' knowledge and the LNF subtest of the DIBELS assessment.

Findings also revealed positive correlations between the PAKS and the PASS. Teachers' who did

well on the PASS also did well on the PASS.

This chapter presented a description of the sample, a summary of results for the PAKS and

PASS and results related to the relationship between teacher knowledge, teacher demographics

and students' scores. The final chapter will discuss the results for the PAKS and PASS, results

related to the relationship between teacher knowledge and students' scores. Then, the

implications of the study will be presented, which will be followed by generalizations,

assumptions, limitations of the study and conclusions and recommendations for further research.










Table 4-15. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Teachers' Knowledge and Skills and Student Outcomes


ISF
B
0.146
0.055
0.709

0.207
14.863



Spring
Test

Fall Test


PSF
B
-0.234
-0.113
0.751

0.528
64.782



Spring
Test
Winter
Test


LNF
B
0.406
0.162
0.225

0.053
3.212


Winter
Test

Fall Test


NWF
B
-0.073
0.209
1.163

0.614
92.171



Spring
Test
Winter
Test


t-stat
2.044
1.057
1.412


t-stat
0.651
0.321
6.618


t-stat
-1.211
-0.767
13.897


t-stat
-0.320
1.197
16.494


Knowledge
Skill
Pre-test

R Square
F-stat

Post-test
(dependent
measure)

Pre-test









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

Researchers have found that early systematic instruction in phonemic awareness improves

students' beginning reading and spelling skills (Mather et al., 2001). Although research confirms

that this knowledge increases students' understanding of reading, research continues to

demonstrates that teachers are not familiar with phonemic awareness activities (McCutchen,

Harry et al., 2002; Mather et al., 2001; O,Connor, 1999).

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships among kindergarten teachers'

knowledge about phonemic awareness and their students' emergent literacy development. More

specifically, this study examined the relationship between teachers' knowledge of phonemic

awareness pedagogy and teachers' own phonemic awareness skills and their students' phonemic

awareness growth.

This chapter provides an overview of the current study and summarizes the results found in

Chapter 4. First, a summary of results will be discussed related to the teacher knowledge surveys.

Next, a discussion of the generalizations, assumptions, and limitations of the study; threats to

external validity; and measurement and statistical issues will be reviewed. Finally, the

dissertation will close with a summary and implications for future research.

Summary of Results

Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS)

The mean score for the PAKS was 7.82 out of a possible 18. The scores ranged from zero

to eighteen which means that at least one of the participants did not answer any of the questions

correctly and one participant received a perfect score on all six items. An item analysis revealed

that item two had the lowest mean (m=.99) and item three (m=1.64) had the highest mean. Item









two asked the participants why phonemic awareness is important and item three asked the

participants what phonemic awareness skills are most important. There was not much variance

between the means of the items indicating that the participants lacked overall knowledge for all

the items on the survey. Using Cronbach' s alpha, the reliability of the survey was .67. In the Hield

of education, a reliability of .70 or higher is acceptable (Tuckman, 1994). It is possible that the

low reliability of the PAKS is due to the low number of items on the survey. Reliability is higher

when there are more items on the instrument (Tuckman, 1994).

PAKS scores were also analyzed by district, education level, certification and professional

development activities. Although there were variations found in the scores between the different

categories, significant differences in scores were only found by the district size. The medium

sized districts, Alachua and Marion Counties, had the highest mean on the PAKS (M=8.80). This

could be due to the fact that participants living in these counties had advanced degrees because

they were living closer to a public university. Based on the Florida School Indicators report

(2006), 49.9 percent of all Alachua county teachers and 28.2 percent of all Marion county

teachers had advanced degrees. In comparison, only 29. 1 percent of Duval county teachers, 26.9

percent of Putnam county teachers and 29. 1 percent of Flagler county teachers had advanced

degrees. In addition, living closer to a University may have given these teachers more access to

professional development related to reading. In fact, in recent years Marion and Alachua county

teachers have received extensive professional development specifically related to phonemic

awareness from a University of Florida professor.

Teachers who had advanced degrees scored higher on the PAKS than teachers who had

only earned a Bachelors degree. Therefore, teachers who had a masters, specialist or doctorate

did better on the PAKS than teachers who had a bachelors. These Eindings are consistent with









similar studies related to teacher knowledge (Troyer & Yopp, 1990). It was also found that

teachers who have an early childhood certification had a higher mean on the PAKS and PASS

than teachers who did not have the certification. Teachers who had this certification may have

had more reading courses that focus on emergent literacy development. Teachers who

participated in at least one of the three Reading First professional development activities

(Reading First academy, district training or on-site training) had a higher mean (M=8.52) than

teachers who did not participate in any type of professional development (M=6.98). Although all

the teachers participating in the study were from Reading First schools, many of the teachers

indicated that they did not participate in any type of professional development. It should also be

noted that there was a small but significant difference between teachers who had one or more

hours of professional development and teachers who did not have any hours of professional

development. An independent t-test revealed a small but significant difference (t=2.34, p=<. 05),

indicating that teachers who had one or more hours of professional development scored higher

on the PAKS than teachers who had zero hours of professional development. However an

independent t-test for the PASS revealed that there were no significant differences (t= .784,

p>. 05) between teachers who had one or more hours of professional development and teachers

who had zero hours of professional development. These results demonstrate that the scores are

not equally dependent on professional development. Teachers who participated in professional

development scored higher on the PAKS than teachers who did not, and there were no

differences between teachers who participated in professional development and teachers who did

not on the PASS.

The Eindings of this survey are difficult to compare to other studies because studies

comparable to this study examine teachers' ability to identity, count and manipulate sounds









within words. The items on the PAKS examined teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness

pedagogy. Overall, the teachers lacked general knowledge about phonemic awareness; these

findings are consistent with other studies related to teachers' knowledge of the structure of

language (Moats, 1994). The teachers' misconceptions about phonemic awareness revealed that

they knew little about the importance of phonemic awareness assessment and instruction. The

maj ority of the answers to the items on the PAKS indicated that teachers thought phonemic

awareness was the letter/sound connection and few of the participants knew that phonemic

awareness was the ability to manipulate, identify and hear sounds in spoken language. Teachers

used the word phonemic awareness and phonics interchangeable as they answered their questions

which indicated that they did not understand the difference between the two terms.

Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS)

The mean score for the PASS was 16.8 out of a possible 25. The scores ranged from 5 to

24. Therefore, none of the participants received a perfect score on the survey. The item difficulty

ranged from .071 to .986. The item with the lowest percent of correct responses was an item in

the "phoneme counting" section. Participants were asked to count the number of phonemes in the

word "mix". Ninety-three percent of the participants answered this item incorrectly. A majority

of the participants indicated that there were three phonemes in the word when the correct answer

was four. Participants did not account for the two phonemes in the "x" which were "k" and "s".

Many teachers indicated that the "k" and the "s" were one phoneme representing the "x" sound.

There were two items that had the highest percentage of correct responses. The first item

was in the phoneme deletion section. Participants were asked to delete the sound "t" in the word

"meat" and come up with a new word. Acceptable answers included me, mea, and mee.

Although there were different spellings of the word, the different representations of the word

were all phonetically correct. Each answer included both phonemes in the word. Ninety-nine









percent of the participants were able to answer this item correctly. The second item was in the

phoneme matching section. Participants were asked to match the underlined sound in "pitch" to

the word "lip". Ninety-nine percent of the participants were able to answer this item correctly.

The participants were able to match the short "i" sound in both of the words.

PASS scores were also analyzed by district, education level, certification and professional

development activities. Similar to the PAKS, significant differences were only found by district

size (p=.032). The medium sized districts, Alachua and Marion Counties, had the highest mean

on the PASS (M=17.89). Duval County had the lowest mean (M=16.00).

Teachers who had advanced degrees had a higher mean (M=17.18) on the PASS than

teachers who had only earned a Bachelors degree (M=16.68). It was also found that teachers

who have an early childhood certification scored slightly higher than teachers who did not have

the certification. Teachers who participated in at least one of the three Reading First professional

development activities (Reading First academy, district training or on-site training) had a higher

mean (M=17. 14) than teachers who did not participate in any type of professional development

(M=16.46).

Correlations were computed to test the relationship between participants' scores on the

PAKS and PASS. Findings revealed that participants who did well on the PAKS also did well on

the PASS. Since both the PAKS and the PASS examined teachers' knowledge of phonemic

awareness, it was expected that teachers who did well on the PASS also did well on the PAKS.

Teacher Knowledge and Student Scores

This study demonstrates limited relationships between teachers' knowledge and skills of

phonemic awareness and student outcomes. Using a regression analysis, findings revealed that

there was a small relationship between teachers' PAKS scores and the LNF subtest. Although the

LNF is a subtest of DIBELS it is not a specific measure of phonemic awareness. It measures a









student' s ability to name letters therefore one can conclude that there are limited relationships

between teachers' knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and students' scores. Although

some studies have shown that teacher' knowledge does impact student learning (Bos, Mather,

Narr et al., 1999; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; O'Connor,

1999), this study found limited evidence to show any correlations between teacher' s knowledge

of phonemic awareness and student learning. There could be multiple reasons for these findings.

First, the PAKS and PASS were both adapted surveys and were not used in previous

studies. Since both surveys were used for the first time in this study it could be assumed that they

are not accurate measures of what teachers know about phonemic awareness. Research has also

yet to determine what kinds of questions are the most sensitive and a meaningful indicator of

how well a teacher is likely to perform in the classroom.

Second, since classroom observations were not conducted on the teachers who participated

in this study, it is hard to connect what teachers know to what they teach in the classroom to their

students or how they teach it. The PASS examined teachers' ability to segment and blend

phonemes within words. It could be assumed that, if teachers do not know how to segment and

blend phonemes within words, they do not know how to model that skill for their students. The

PAKS examined what teachers reported they do in their classrooms. An observation checklist

might be a more reliable way to capture what instructional strategies related to phonemic

awareness the teachers are using in their classrooms. Future studies should examine what

teachers know and what teachers are actually implementing in their classroom.

It would also be beneficial to examine the type of curriculum used in Reading First

schools verses non-Reading First schools. Since the curriculum used in Reading First schools is

rigorously examined prior to adoption teachers may have a different knowledge base because of









the type of reading programs used in their schools. Perhaps with particularly well designed

curricula teachers' knowledge becomes less important. Future research should examine the

different types of reading programs used in Reading First and non-Reading First schools and

teachers' knowledge base of phonemic awareness.

Finally, since DIBELS scores were the only record of classroom performance (DIBELS is

a one minute timing of student' s automaticity of their phonemic awareness skills), information

about students' phonemic awareness development was limited. It is possible that a more in depth

assessment that measures more specific concepts of phonemic awareness (e.g., Comprehensive

Test of Phonological Processing, CTOPP) could yield student results more connected to what

teachers' know about phonemic awareness.

Since DIBELS has been demonstrated to correlate with the CTOPP (Hintze, Ryan &

Stoner, 2003), DIBELS was an appropriate measure to use given the number of participants in

the study and the limited amount of time and resources to assess each child. Table 5-1 displays

the correlations for scores of the CTOPP and DIBELS. Examination of the coefficients indicates

that both the ISF and the PSF tasks of the DIBELS correlate most strongly with the subtests of

the CTOPP that are designed to measure both phonological awareness and memory (i.e., Elision,

Blending Words, Sound Matching and Nonsense Word Repetition). It was also found that both

the ISF and PSF tasks of the DIBELS correlates less strongly with those tasks that involve rapid

naming activities (i.e., Rapid Color Naming, Rapid Object Naming and Memory for Digits). The

LNF task also correlated strongly with subtest of the CTOPP that represent both phonological

awareness and memory as well as rapid naming abilities. These findings support the idea that

student data from the CTOPP might connect more to what teachers know about phonemic










awareness because the subtest on the CTOPP are a more detailed measure of what students know

about phonological awareness and their ability to store that information in their memory.

Although recent studies have shown that DIBELS has been demonstrated to be a good

predictor of performance on state reading tests (Good, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 2000), it should

be noted that the use of DIBELS, and other one-minute assessments, should be used with caution

because DIBELS is an assessment of fluency and automaticty. Since DIBELS measures a

students' automatacity, and students at the kindergarten level may not be at a point of

automaticity, the CTOPP may capture more of what students know about phonemic awareness.

The CTOPP examines students' ability to perform the tasks without the focus on fluency and

automaticity.

Table 5-1. Ccorrelations for Scores on the DIBELS and CTOPP
Measure ELI RCN BLW SM RON MD NWR
LNF .45 .59 .38 .53 .59 .43 .44
ISF .52 .21 .51 .51 .24 .34 .44
PSF .47 .08 .63 .25 .14 .32 .33
Note: LNF=Letter Naming Fluency; ISF=Initial Sound Fluency; PSF=Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency; ELI=Elision; RCN=Rapid Color Naming; BLW=Blending Words; SM=Sound
Matching; RON=Rapid Obj ect Naming; MD=Memory for Digits; NWR=Nonsense Word
Repetition
Limitations to the Present Study

This study had several limitations. The next section will discuss the threats to external

validity, measurement issues and statistical issues.

The participants in the study were volunteers. Instead of selecting the participants

randomly, participants were asked by their Reading First coach to participate in the study. The

participants in the study were teachers who taught in Reading First schools. Therefore, it is

difficult to draw conclusions about what typical kindergarten teachers know about phonemic

awareness. Although the schools were diverse among race and socioeconomic status (SES),

participants in this sample are not reflective of the teachers across the state of Florida or across









the United States. Although the participants were compensated with a professional development

book for participating in the study, not all teachers chose to participate. Non-participating

teachers did not share reasons for not participating, but it is possible that they chose not to

participate because they felt they lacked knowledge about phonemic awareness. Although the

overall scores for the two surveys were low, teachers who did participate could have participated

because they felt they had a strong knowledge base which could have skewed the results of the

surveys.

The demographics surveys asked the teachers to indicate the type of professional

development they participated in within the last twelve months. Participants did not indicate

professional development activities that they participated in prior to the previous school year.

Many of the participants noted that they did participate in Reading First professional

development but it was not within the twelve month period. It would have been useful to have

more detailed information about previous professional development experience. However, the

effort to keep the survey short interfered with the collection of this potentially useful data.

The PAKS was an adapted survey and has not been used in previous studies. The PAKS

was developed to assess teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness pedagogy. The PAKS

asked the teachers' six open ended questions about phonemic awareness. Although all of the

questions were deemed appropriate as a result of the pilot study, this study demonstrated that the

last question on the survey was too long. The last question asked the teachers to expand their

answer from the previous question. The teachers were asked to describe the methods, time

devoted to teaching phonemic awareness, grouping arrangements, the types of assessments used

and specific instructional skills that were taught. This question should focus on one or two of the

instructional methods so that teachers answering the questions can elaborate on their answers.









The reliability of the PAKS was low, confirming that the test should be adapted before it is used

in future studies.

In the phoneme deletion section of the PASS, directions were stated as follows. "If you

said the word best without the sound /s/, you would say...." Since the directions did not ask the

participants to specify a real word as their answer some of the participants answered by a correct

phonological representation of the word (i.e., instead of me, nzea and nzee were accepted as

correct answers). The directions should have specified "If you said the word best without the

sound /s/, what word would you say?" Then, there would be only one correct answer per item.

The answers were scored based on the correct phonemic representation of the word.

The experimenter effect is a term used to describe any number of cues or signals from an

experimenter that may affect the performance of the participants in the experiment (Rosenthal,

1998). Since the surveys were administered by three different data collectors, it is possible that

the surveys were administered differently. Although there were scripted administration

procedures for both the PAKS and the PASS it is possible that the data collectors influenced the

performance of the participants.

The Hawthorne effect refers to a phenomenon which is thought to occur when participants

observed during a research study temporarily change their behavior or performance because they

know they are being studied. Prior to participating in this study, participants signed a consent

form which informed them about the study. It is possible that the participants' results could be

skewed because they knew their answers were being reviewed.

Although recent studies have shown that DIBELS has been demonstrated to be a good

predictor of performance on state reading tests (Good, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 2000), it should

be noted that the use of DIBELS and other one-minute assessments as a measure of phonemic









awareness has been criticized by some researchers. As previously noted, a more in depth

assessment (e.g., CTOPP) of student' s phonological skills may have yielded different results.

Implications for Future Research

This study yields several important implications for future research. Although

measurement of teachers' knowledge is challenging for researchers, acquiring an understanding

of what teachers know and how it effects classroom practice is critical for improving teachers'

practice through effective teacher preparation and professional development activities.

Survey Design

The Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) was developed to examine teachers'

knowledge of phonemic awareness concepts and pedagogy. Although a large body of

converging evidence related to teacher knowledge has revealed that teachers lack overall

knowledge about phonemic awareness, few studies have examined teachers knowledge related to

more advanced concepts about language (Adams, 1990; Adgar, Snow & Christian, 2002; Moats,

1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Reading Excellence Act, 1996; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998;

The National Right to Read, 1993). Specifically, researchers have yet to examine what kinds of

questions are the most sensitive and a meaningful indicator of how well a teacher is likely to

perform in the classroom.

The PAKS was designed to examine teachers' understanding of phonemic awareness

related to the importance of phonemic awareness and to examine their understanding of

phonemic awareness assessment and instruction. Further research is also needed on developing

teacher knowledge surveys and connecting them to be valid predictors of how well a teacher is

likely to do in reading instruction. Many of the surveys used to uncover teachers' knowledge of

phonemic awareness have not been identified as valid predictors of how well a teacher teaches

reading.









Although the reliability of the PAKS was low, on average teachers failed to provide

adequate answers related to phonemic awareness pedagogy. The survey did reveal that teachers

had many misconceptions about phonemic awareness; specifically, teachers indicated that

phonemic awareness was the letter/sound connection (phonics). Future research should examine

why teachers have this misconception about phonemic awareness.

Professional Development

Participants involved in this study were all part of the Reading First initiative. All

participants should have participated in some type of Reading First professional development

within the past twelve months. Despite similar professional development experiences across the

state due to teachers' involvement in Reading First (i.e., site-based reading coaches, Reading

First academy), teacher knowledge about phonemic awareness varied widely. It was noted that

27% of the participants reported that they did not participate in any type of Reading First

professional development activities. This finding was discouraging since all the teachers had a

site-based reading coach at their school. All teachers teaching in Reading First schools are

required to attend annual professional development activities.

Since studies have shown that effective professional development models ensure teachers

application of successful literacy instruction (Lane et al., 2008; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002;

Mather et al., 2001; O,Connor, 1999), future research should focus on the implementation of

effective professional development models. These types of models must provide educators with

ample time to collaborate and must be supported by school personnel (Moats, 2004; Foorman &

Moats, 2004). The Reading First initiative supports effective professional development models

by placing a site-based Reading First coach at each school. Although teachers may have the

resources at their schools, many schools still fail to ensure effective professional development

models by not connecting professional development to classroom practice.









Teacher Preparation

Participants in this study indicated that they had some college coursework related to

reading instruction. Specifically, 46% of the participants indicated that they had taken between

zero and two college classes related to teaching reading and 54% of the teachers had taken two

or more reading courses. Teachers' lack of knowledge related to phonemic awareness could be

related to their level of preparedness to teach reading (Ehri & Williams, 1995). Research has

found that teachers who are well prepared to teach reading expressed confidence in the

knowledge and instructional practices, verses teachers who are less prepared expressed their

frustration at the disconnect between their training and their teaching (Foorman & Moats, 2004;

Taylor, Peterson, Pearson & Rodriguez, 2003). Future research should examine the knowledge

base of teachers from different types of preparation programs. Different types of field

experiences and methods courses should be examined to see if there is a different knowledge

base for teachers from varying levels of preparation.

Although this study examined teachers' knowledge of phonemic awareness, it did not

address teachers' ability to put their knowledge into action in the classroom. Future research

should also examine how teachers put their knowledge of phonemic awareness into action at the

classroom level. Research has shown that teachers who have a solid knowledge base about

reading and apply their knowledge to instructional practices have a greater impact on student

learning (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Moats, 1996; Whitehurst, 2002).

Conclusion

Policy makers and researchers in reading development have made significant advancement

in early detection and treatment of students with reading difficulties. However, unless teachers

understand and are prepared to implement these research based practices, students will continue

to demonstrate a difficulty in learning how to read (Moat, 2004, Strickland, Snow, Griffin, Burns









& McNamara, 2002). Since research on teacher education is a relatively new enterprise, many

questions still need to be answered. Future research should examine current teacher education

programs, valid measures that predict teachers' ability to teach reading, the amount of content

knowledge needed to be effective reading teachers and effective professional development

models related to reading.

Recent mandates in the area of reading instruction have encouraged teacher education

programs to renovate their current requirements for teacher certification. The No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) legislation requires that teachers participating in federally funded programs

must be "highly-qualified" (Moats, 2004). Studies have found that current licensing programs are

not preparing teachers to meet the diverse needs of students who are at risk for reading failure

(Moats, 1994; Darling-Hammond, 1997). State certification programs have minimal

requirements, which range from no course work in reading to an average of twelve course hours.

Other researchers have found that the average reading teacher only completes two reading

courses (McCardle & Chhabra, 2004). Through extensive research, researchers and policy

makers must examine the current licensing procedures and determine specific criteria that must

be met prior to receiving a teaching certificate.

Recent research has also demonstrated that students must be taught by teachers who are

knowledgeable about emergent literacy development and reading instruction (Bos, Mather, Narr

et al., 1999; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; O'Connor, 1999; Foorman & Moats, 2004;

Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich & Stanovich, 2004). Although the present study did not find any

correlations between teachers' knowledge and student outcomes, other studies have found

connections between teachers' knowledge of reading and student learning (Bos, Mather, Narr et

al., 1999; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; O'Connor, 1999; Foorman & Moats, 2004;









Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich & Stanovich, 2004). Although this study did not find any

evidence to show that students' success in literacy development is dependent on their teachers'

knowledge of phonemic awareness, other studies have shown that it is still important for teacher

education programs to incorporate phonemic awareness training within their programs (Moat,

2004, Strickland, Snow, Griffin, Burns & McNamara, 2002). As teachers gain more knowledge

about the benefits of using phonemic awareness activities in their classroom, students' literacy

development will flourish. Future research efforts should continue to contribute to our

understanding of these relationships and continue to further our efforts toward solving them.






















































MathlScience

Technology


APPENDIX A
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

Personal Data

Name Sex : Female Male

Please indicate your racelethnicity (circle all that apply):

White Native American

Black Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic (of any race) Other:

Please list all levels of education, year degree was obtained, institution and major:


Level of
Education

Bachelors

M asters

Specialist

Doctorate


Year


Institution


Major


Professional Data

School

Number of years teaching experience

Other teaching experience


District

Experience at K level


Area(s) of Florida Teacher Certification or Endorsement (circle all that apply):


Elementary

Early Childhood

Special Education

Other:


Reading Certification

Reading Endorsement

ESOL









College Coursework and Professional Development

How many credit hours of college coursework have you taken that related to teaching
reading?
None 7-15 hours
1-3 hours More that 16 hours
4-6 hours

Have you participated in any reading-related professional development (PD) other than
university coursework within the past year? If so, what type of PD did you engage in?
Please check all that apply and indicate the approximate number of hours.

Type of Professional Development Approximate number of hours

Reading First Academy

Reading First (district training)

Reading First on-site (reading coach at school)

LiPS training

DIBELS training

Great Leaps

FDLRS training

Orton Gillingham

SRA training

UFLI training

FCRR

Other:

Other:

Follow-up Data (optional)
We will be conducting follow-up interviews with some participants. If you would be
willing to participate in a follow-up interview via telephone or email, please provide
your contact information here:

Telephone best time to call

Email address









APPENDIX B
PHONEMIC AWARENESS KNOWLEDGE SURVEY

Please answer each of the following six questions to the best of your ability in the space
provided below the question.


1. What is phonemic awareness?















2. Why is phonemic awareness important?
















3. What phonemic awareness skills are most important?









4. How can phonemic awareness be assessed?


5. What instructional methods could be used to develop phonemic awareness?















6. Describe briefly the instructional methods you use to develop students' phonemic
awareness skills, including the methods, time devoted to phonemic awareness
instruction (minutes per day and days per week) grouping arrangements, types of
assessments used and specific instructional skills that are taught.










Thank you for your time and effort!











Table B-1. Scoring Rubric for Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness Surve
General Meaning. of Assigned Rating
0 1 2 3
Shows no knowledge or Shows little knowledge and Shows some or acceptable Shows excellent, expert level
provides insufficient detail to some information may be level of knowledge-- of knowledge--knowledge at
tell how much they know incorrect knowledge at a surface level. a deep, detailed level.
Scoring Rubric for Question 1: What is phonemic awareness?
Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators:
No answer or incorrect Indicates that PA is the Indicates that PA is the Indicates that PA is the
answer letter/sound connection ability to hear and identify ability to hear, identify and
Vague and general (phonics/alphabetic sounds. manipulate sounds in spoken
Lacks details principle). I indicates that sounds make words (does not include
up words (does not letters).
include manipulation).
Scoring Rubric for Question 2: Why is phonemic awareness important?
Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators:
Indicates Phonemic Indicates that PA is Indicates that PA is Indicates that PA is
Awareness is important for important because students important for decoding (does important for reading
reading, comprehension, must be able to sound out not mention the letter/sound because it teaches students
writing, and fluency. words before they can connection). how to break apart sounds
Vague and general begin to read (refers to OR (phonemes) in words.
Lacks details letter/sound connection). Indicates that PA is OR
OR important for blending or Indicates that PA is
Prere uisite to other se menti g. im ortant for blending and
reading skills (spelling, segmenting (as a prerequisite
invented spelling, language to phonics).
development).











Table B-1. Continued
Scoring Rubric for Question 3: What phonemic awareness skills are most important?
0 1 2 3
Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators:
Answer incorrect Indicates that it is Names or describes blending Names or describes blending
Vague and general important to identify and/or or segmenting. and segmenting.
Doesn't answer the question hear letters/sounds in
Focuses on what teachers do, words (has letter/sound
not what students need to connection).
learn.
Mentions ALL skills are Skills are mentioned
important. (blending and segmenting
are omitted).

Scoring Rubric for Question 4: How can phonemic awareness be assessed?
Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators
Answer incorrect Name 1 appropriate Names 1 skill and 1 method. Name 3 skills or 3 methods.
Vague and general method or skill. OR
Doesn't answer the Names 2 skills or 2 methods.
question--doesn't tell how Mentions only "DIBELS" OR
to assess or tells about (does not mention any Names specific subtests of
instruction subtest). DIBELS.











Table B-1. Continued.
Scoring Rubric for Question 5: What instructional methods could be used to develop phonemic awareness?
0 1 2 3
Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators:
Response relates to at least Response relates to at least 2 Response relates to 3 or
Methods mentioned do not 1 method that includes the methods (does not include more methods.
address phonemic awareness use of letters. the use of letters).
Response includes at least 3
Does not include oral Response includes more than different skills (does not
language skills. 1 phonetic skill. include letters).
Connects letters once oral
piece is mastered.
Scoring Rubric for Question 6: Rating of Methods Indicated
Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators: Specific Indicators:
Does not mention any Describes 1 or 2 indicators. Describes 3 or more Mentions all 5 indicators.
indicators or mentions indicators. Indicators described must be
inappropriate indicators Indicators described must research based.
be research-based. Indicators described must be OR
Time research based.
Grouping Describes in detail effective
Methods instructional methods and
Assesment includes indicators to support
Skills methods.









APPENDIX C
PASS SURVEY

Phonological Awareness Skills Survey
SECTION 1: Phoneme Deletion


Items 1-4: Listen for directions.

Sample Item

1. 3.

2. 4.

SECTION 2: Phoneme Countinq

Items 5-10: How many speech sounds are in each word?

Sample Item

cat 3

5. tie 8. mix

6. laughed 9. thrown

7. chalk 10. kitchen


SECTION 3: Phoneme Identification

Items 11-16: What is the 3rd Speech sound in each of the following words?

Sample Item

shook k

11. joyful 14. folks

12. scratch 15. sheets

13. protect 16. lightning


104









SECTION 4: Phoneme Matchinq


SECTION 5: Phoneme Seqmenting and Blendinq


21. teach

22. pitch

23. sigh

24. spill_

25. face


Items 17-20: Read the first word in each line and note the sound that is presented by
the underlined letter or letter cluster. Then select the word on the line that contain the
same sound. Underline the words you select.

Sample Item


push


duty


raid

votes

lip

flare


although sugar


pump


friend

rice

kite

pillar


17. we(

18. does

19. pjtch

20. far


pie

miss

fly

march


height

nose

hair

scary


Items 21-25: Reverse the sequence of speech sounds in each of these words. Write the
new word next to the line of the word presented. Think of the sounds, not the letters

Sample Item


puck


cup


Thank you for your time and effort!









Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (With Answers)
SECTION 1: Phoneme Deletion


Items 1-4: Listen for directions. Sample Item BET

1. ME or MEA or MEE 3. GOAT or GHOT

2. DRIER or DRYER 4. FRIENDS or FRENZ or FRIEND

FRINZ or FRIENDS or FRENDZ or FRENZ or FRIENDS


SECTION 2: Phoneme Countinq

Items 5-10: How many speech sounds are in each word?

Sample Item

cat 3

5. tie 2 8. mix 4

6. laughed 4 9. thrown 4

7. chalk 3 10. kitchen 5


SECTION 3: Phoneme Identification

Items 11-16: What is the 3rd Speech sound in each of the following words?

Sample Item

shook k

11. joyful F 14. folks K

12. scratch R 15. sheets T

13. protect O 16. lightning T









SECTION 4: Phoneme Matchinq


SECTION 5: Phoneme Seqmenting and Blendinq


CHIP


SAFE


Items 17-20: Read the first word in each line and note the sound that is presented by
the underlined letter or letter cluster. Then select the word on the line that contain the
same sound. Underline the words you select.

Sample Item


push


duty


raid

votes



flare


although sugar


pump


friend

rice

kite

pillar


17. we(

18. does

19. pjtch

20. far


pie

miss

fly

march


height

nose

hair

scary


Items 21-25: Reverse the sequence of speech sounds in each of these words. Write the
new word next to the line of the word presented. Think of the sounds, not the letters

Sample Item

cup puck


21. teach


CHEAT


22. pitch

23. sigh ~

24. spill _


ICE

LIPS


25. face


Thank you for your time and effort!









APPENDIX D
DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION

Administration Procedures

Once all teachers are in the room, please verbally confirm that all teachers all K teachers.

1. Pass out a file folder to each teacher. Ask teachers not to open folders until they receive
directions. Please have teachers take out blue and green consent forms. Have teachers read and
sign the (blue consent) form. Collect form confirming that all participants have signed the
consent form place forms in envelope labeled "Consent Forms" .Tell teachers that the green form
goes with them (GREEN =GO). Have teachers place form under the table or in their bag.

2. Ask teachers to take out yellow form. Please read instructions in bold aloud to the teachers.
Inform teachers that once they have finished they can take out the pink form (teachers info.
form) and start filling out their personal information. (Once you see that a teacher has completed
the yellow form and they have moved on to the pink form collect yellow form and place in
envelope labeled PAKS"

3. Once you have collected all yellow forms, ask teachers to take out cream form. The first part
of the cream form must be completed as a group. Make sure all teachers are on the sample item
of section 1. Read Sample item (white sheet in folder). Give teachers 30 seconds to answer the
question and then give the answer to the teachers. "If you said best without the sound /s/ you
would say bet". "Let' s begin item 1". Please read the next 4 items to teachers (you may repeat
the question only once). Give the teachers 30 sec. before you move on to the next item. Once you
have completed the first section, review the sample items for sections 2-5. Ask teachers if they
have any questions, then ask teachers to complete the rest of the survey on their own. Once they
have completed the cream sheet, collect and place in envelope labeled "PASS" and ask the
teachers to complete the pick sheet.

4. Ask teachers to completely fill out pink sheet (please scan to make sure they have filled out all
parts of the pink sheet before you collect the forms. Place pink sheet in envelope labeled
"Teacher Info Form".

5. Pass out book for compensation.

OTHER NOTES:
1. PLEASE MAKE SURE ALL CONSENT FORMS HAVE BEEN SIGNED.

2. Before collecting forms and placing in them in the appropriate envelope, please make
sure that they have COMPLETELY filled out the forms (all forms in file folder have an
ID number so it is OK to collect the forms once they have completed each part of the
survey).

3. REMIND teachers that survey should be done independently (you might want to place
folders with spaces in between teachers so they don't look at each other' s answers.
THEY CANNOT COMPARE ANSWERS











4. REMIND teachers that scores will not be reported by individuals or by schools...scores
will be aggregated by county.

REMINDERS :

BLUE FORM: Please remind teachers to sign and DATE
YELLOW FORM: Please remind teachers to fill out both sides
PINK FORM: Please remind teachers that PD must be within the past year
CREAM: Please remind teachers there is only 1 correct answer for each item in section 4

Reading endorsement goes under other for PD

PLEASE CALL ME AT ANYTIME DURING ADMINISTRATION TO ASK ME ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT ANY PARTS OF THE SURVEY.








Directions for PASS


SECTION 1: PHONE1VE DELETION
"The first section must be done as a group. Let's review the sample item
together". "I am going to read the sample item twice and then I will give you the
answer"
Read Item. Wait 10 sec. Read item again. Provide answer. Ask participants if they
have any questions regarding this section.
Sample Item

"If you said the word best without the sound /s/, you would say:

(a) B et

"I am going to read each item twice".
Proceed with first item. Read item 1, wait 10 seconds, read item 1 again. Wait
about 30 seconds between each item.


1. If you said the word meat without the sound /t/, you would say:

2. If you said the word driver without the sound /v/, you would say:


3. If you said the word ghost without the sound /s/, you would say:


4. If you said the word frenzy without the sound /y/ (this is the long "e" sound),
you would say:

"OK, I am going to review the sample items within each section and then you can
complete the survey independently". Once you have completed the survey you
may complete the pink form".


"Now let's review the sample item in each section." Ask participants if they have
any questions after each section.








SECTION 2: PHONE1VE COUNTING

Items 5-10: How many speech sounds are in each word?

Sample Item

cat 3

SECTION 3: PHONE1VE IDENTIFICATION

Items 1 1-16: What is the 3rd speech sound in each of the following words?

Sample Item

shook k


SECTION 4: PHONE1VE IVATCHING

Items 17-20: Read the first word in each line and note the sound that is presented
by the underlined letter or letter cluster. Then select the word on the line that
contain the same sound. Underline the words you select.

"There is only one correct answer per item".

Sample Item

push although sug-ar duty pump


SECTION 5: Phoneme Seg~menting~ and Blending-

Items 21-25: Reverse the sequence of speech sounds in each of these words. Write
the new word next to the line of the word presented. Think of the sounds, not the
letters

Sample Item

cup puck










School :


Name :


SECTION 1: Phoneme Counting


Items 1-6: How many speech sounds are in each word?


Sample Item
cat: 3


1. tie 2 4. mix 4

2. laughed 4 5. thrown 4

3. chalk 3 6. kitchen 5




SECTION 2: Phoneme Identification


Items 7-12: What is the 3rd speech sound in each of the following words?

Sample Item:
shook: K



7. joyful f 10. folks k

8. scratch: r 11. sheets t

9. protect o 12. lightning: t










SECTION 3: Phoneme Matching


Items 13-16: Read the first word in each line and note the sound that is presented by the
underlined letter or letter cluster. Then select the word or words on the line that contain the same
sound. Underline the words you select.


Sample Iterr
push


13. weigh

14. does

15. pitch

16. far


although


pie

miss

fly

march


duty


raid

votes




flare


sugar


height

nose

hair

scary


pump


friend

rice

kite

rash


SECTION 4: Phoneme Segmenting and Blending


Items 17-21: Reverse the sequence of speech sounds in each of these words. Write the new word
next to the line of the word presented. Think of the sounds, not the letters


Sample Item
cup: puck~


17. teach: cheat

18. pitch: chip


19. sigh:_


20. spill: lips_

21. face: safe









SECTION 5: PHONE1VE DELETION


Items 22-25: Circle the letter that best represents the word without the identified sound (items
will be presented orally).


Sample Item



If you said the word best with the sound /s/, you would say:

(b) b et

(c) beast

(d) bets

(e) I'm not sure


22. If you said the word meat with the sound /t/, you would say:

(a) meet

(b) me

(c) mead

(d) I'm not sure


23. If you said the word driver with the sound /v/, you would say:

(a) drive

(b) dive

(c) dryer

(d) I'm not sure









24. If you said the word ghost without the sound /s/, you would say:

(a) ghots

(b) goat

(c) got

(d) I'm not sure


25. If you said the word frenzy without the sound /y/, you would say:

(a) fritz

(b) friendly

(c) friends

(d) I'm not sure











APPENDIX E
PARTICIPANT DATA


Table E-1. Participant data codes.


Variable
Name:
Sex:

Race:






Levels of Education




School:
Disrtict





No. of years teaclung:
Experience at K level
Other Teaching Experience:


















Areas of FTC


Code
WRITE-IN
Female:1
Male:2
White:1
Black:2
Hispanic:3
Native American:4
Asian/Pacific Islander:5
Other:6
Bachelors:1
Masters:2
Specialist:3
Docto rate:4
WRITE-IN
Alachua:1
Marion:2
Putnam: 3
Flagler:4
Duval:5
WRITE-IN
WRITE-IN
Substitute:1
Teacher Assistant:2
Tuto ring:3
ESE:4
Pre K-5:5
6-8:6
9-12:7
College:8
Volunteer:9
Intern:10
Montessori:11
Reading Coach:12
2/3 Year olds:13
Principal/Leadership: 14
Media Specialist: 15
Elementary:1
Early Childhood:2
Special Education: 3
Reading Certification:4
Reading Endorsement:5
ESOL:6
Math/Science:7
Technology:8
Other: 9


116











Table E-1. Continued.
Variable
College Coursework


Code
None:1
1-3 hours:2
4-6 hours:3
7-15 hours:4
More than 16 hours:5
Reading First Academy:1
Reading First (district training):2
Reading First (on-site):3
LiPS training:4
DIBELS training:5
Great Leaps:6
FDLRS training:7
Orton Gillingham:8
SRA training:9
UFLI training:10
FCRR training:11
Other:America Choice Conference: 13
Other:FLKRS: 14
Other: ELIC:15
Other: Literacy Center:16
Other:Inclusin: 17
Other: Book Clubs:18
Other: Brain Gym: 19
Other:Writing Workshop:20
Other:Florida Reading Initiative:21
Other: Kindergarten Workshop:22
Other: Guided Reading:23
Other: Success For All :24
Other:CRISS:25
Other:Fox in the Box:26
Other:Literacy 101: 27
Other: ECHOS: 28
Yes:1
No:2

Correct:1
Incorrect:0


Type of Professional Dev.

































Follow-Up Data:


Cream Form:











APPENDIX F
IRB FORMS



1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL: Relationships among Teachers' Phonemic Awareness
Knowledge and Skills and their Students' Emergent Literacy Growth

2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS:

Holly Lane, Ph.D. Meridith Taylor Strout, M.Ed.
Assistant Professor Docioral Candidate
Special Education Special Education
G315 Norman Hall G315 Norman liall
PO Box 117050 PO Box 117050
392-0701, exi.246 392-0701, exi.246
hlane~coe.ufi.edu MTayl orStroui~aol .com

3. DATES OF PROPOSED PROTOCOL: January 2007-January 2008

4. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL: none

5. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION: This study will examine the
relationship between teacher knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and
student reading achievement.

6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Potential participants will include classroom teachers teaching kindergarten from
the Reading First elementary schools in randomly selected Florida counties/districts.
We have a goal of 200 participants, so we will send an invitation 10 participate to 400
teachers. These participating teachers could be male or female and of any adult age.

The only activity that teacher-partici pants will in engage is filling out a three-padt
survey. This survey includes an informed consent screen, a page to collect
background information on the teacher, a six-item questionnaire about phonemic
awareness and a 25-item skills survey about phonemic awareness. It should lake
approxi mately 5 minutes to fill out the demographic information and 20 to 30 minutes
io complete the questions and survey about reading fluency. The dain collected will
go automatically inio a database with a code assigned io each participant. The
dem ographi c i nformati on willI be kepi separate from ihe survey information and onl y
ihe researchers will have the master list linking the two. These procedures are meant
io protect the confidentiality of the partici pati ng teachers' responses.

All participating teachers are in schools that provide student reading daia 10 the
Florida Center for Reading Research. The dela from participating teachers' students
will be analyzed in conjunction wiih ihe survey daia to examine potential relationships
between teacher knowledge and student achieve ent. The researcher will never
know the students' identities, and the only dain ihey are supplying are from
standardized reading lests called the DIBELS. The DIBELS have already been
administered for educationallinstruciional purposes in the schools. These dain will
be accessed after the fact from a computer database via class-wide means for each

















parti cipating teacher. Estimating that each teacher has between 1 5 and 20 students,
daia from 3000 to 4000 children will be included. These students could be male or
female and will range in age from 5 to 7 years. Students will not engage in any
activity ihat is outside the scope of their regular education plan or solely for the sake
of ihis study. Therefore, here will be no experimental procedures, instructions, or
special incentives given 10 students.

7. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND POTENTIAL RISKS: There are no risks associated
with partici pati on i n thi s proj ect.

B. DESCRIBE HOW PARTICIPANTS WILL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER AND AGE
OF THE PARTICIPANTS, AND PROPOSED COMPENSATION: Participants will be
kindergarten teachers and students from a sample of schools in Florida that represent
the demographics of the siate. No participants will be excluded due to any particular
characteristics. Once the particular schools are identified, kindergarten teachers at
each school will be asked 10 participate in the survey. Teachers will be given a
professional book ($28 value) to compensate them for their participation.

9. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS: Teachers will be given a letter
of consent (attached) which must be signed before 1hey receive a copy of the survey.
Children's assent will not need to be obtained. Although student standardized test
daia are being analyzed in relationship 10 teachers' responses on the survey, the daia
will be collected from an existing database. This database does noi allow the
researcher to have access to student names and ihe daia collected will be limited to a
class-wide mean for each teacher. The researchers will never see individual student
daia.















|UNIVERSITY of

UK IFLORD
Department of Special Education G-315 Norman Hall
PO Box 117050
Gainesville, FL
32611-7050

352-392-0701
352-392-2655 Fax
Dear Teacher,

We ame researchers in the College of Education at the University of Florida We are conducting
a research study to determine what kindergarten teachers in Reading First schools know about
phonemic awareness. Please read this consent statement carefully before you decide to
participate in this study.

We ame request ng your parti cipation in thi s study. Your parti cipation will involve answernng
some questions about phonemic awareness that will take about 20-30 minutes. Your
participation in the study is voluntary Of you choose not to participate or to wnithdraw from the
student at any time, theme will be no penalty. The results of this research study may be
published; however your responses will not be shared by name with anyone and will be kept
confidential to the fullest extent of the law. Any results will be published as group averages. A
professional book ($28 value) will be offered as compensation for the time required to complete
the survey

While there are no direct benefits or risks to you for participating In thi s study, the poss ible
benefits of thi s research are to improve the professional development and teacher prepaati on
efforts In the State of Florida with the Intention to Improve the academic success of children
across the state.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please contact Meridith Taylor Stmout
at 352-392-0701 or taylorml~qufl.edu Als o, questions or concerns about the research
participants' rights can be directed to the UFIRB office, PO Box 112250, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, 3261 1-2250, (352) 392-0433. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,



Holly B La eidih Tylr Stro Ed


Please sign this copy and return. Keep the second copy for your records.

I have read the procedure described about, and I have received a copy of this letter.

I, voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
(Print name here )


Signature Date

The F~~tounatonfo The Gator Nation
An ~quai pp~ztund~i~tyltiutiio

















Sample Survey Questions


Demographic Informaiion

Are you male or female?
What ethnic or racial group do you identify yourself in?
What is the highest level of your education?
What areas are you certified or endorsed to teach in?
Htow many years have you been teaching?
What grade do you teach this year?
Hoow many years have you iaughl ihis grade?

Phonemic Awareness Knowledge

What is phonemic awareness?
Why is phonemic awareness imporiani?
What phonemic awareness skills are most important?
How can phonemic awareness be assessed?
What instructional methods could be used 10 develop phonemic awareness?
From the instructi onal methods you just described, which do you implement in your
classroom and how often?


Phonemic Awareness Skills

How many speech sounds are in each word?
What is the 3" speech sound in each of the following words?
Reverse the sequence of speech sounds in each of these words.
Circle the letter that best represents the word without ihe i dentill ed sound









APPENDIX G
STUDIES RELATED TO PHONEMIC AWARENESS










Table G-1. Studies related to Teacher Perceptions/Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness
Author (s) & Year Sample Experimental Type of Knowledge Measures
Description Design examined
Troyer & Yopp, 1990 N=165 Survey Knowledge of Emergent 3-Part
Literacy Concepts Questionn
Moats, 1994 N=89 Survey Knowledge of phonics, Informal
inservice phoneme and morpheme Survey of
teachers awareness, descriptive Linguistic
enrolled in terminology about Knowledg
graduate morphology (Moats,


Results


1994); 15
item survey,
open-ended
questions
Titile
Recognition
Test
(Cunningham
& Stanovich,
1990);
Knowledge
Survey
(modified
version of
Moats, 1994);
Likert scale


laire



re


Less experienced teachers knew
more about phonemic awareness
Teachers could not identify
descriptive terminology, could not
identify phonemes or morphemes







Only 10% of teachers were able to
identify half or more of the titles;
limited knowledge related to PA;
Teachers tended to overestimate
knowledge of PA


course
(diverse
group)

N=722
(K, 1st, 2nd,
3rd)


Cunningham, Perry,
Stanovich & Stanovich,
2004


Knowledge of
Children' sLiterature-
Phonolgical Awareness
Knowledge; Phonics
Knowledge; Knowledge
calibration in 3 domains










Table G-2. Studies related to Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness and Student Learning
Author (s) & Year Sample Experimental Type of Knowledge Measures
Description Design examined
McCutchen, Harry, N=59 Correlational Knowledge of Title
Cunningham, Cox, Teachers (K, Literature; Knowledge Recognition
Sidman & Covil, 2002 1st, 2nd, SE) of Phonology; General Tests
Knowledge; Teacher (Cunningham
Beliefs; Classroom & Stanovich,
Practice; Student 1991);
Learning Informal
Survey of
Lingui sti c
Knowledge
(Moats,
1994); 45-
item test
(Stanovich &
Cunningham,
1993); TORP
(Deford,
1985); Coded
field notes;
Gates-
MacGinitie
Reading
Tests, WIAT,
writing
sample


Results

Less knowledgeable about
phonology and orthography,
relationship between knowledge of
phonology and student learning











Table G-3. Studies related to Teacher Know
Author (s) & Sample Experimenta
Year Description Design
Bos, Mather, N=11 Intervention
Narr & Elementary Pre-test-
Babur, 1999 level (K, 1st, Post-test
2nd, SE)
(intervention
group)
N=17
(control
group)
O'Connor, 2 models of Intervention
1999 Professional Pre-test-
Development Post-test
Model A
(intensive)
N=10
(intervention
group)
N=4 (control
group
Model B
(traditional)
N= 9
(intervention
group)
N= 8 (control
group)


ledge of Phonemic Awareness/ Professional Development and Student Learning
l Type of Knowledge Measures Results
examined
Teacher Attitude; TAERS Survey Teachers involved in RIME
Knowledge of Language (DeFord, 1985) had higher knowledge score
Structures; Student likert scale; and higher student scores th
Learning Knowledge Survey control group; Control


(modified version of
Moats, 1994) 22-
item multiple
choice; Woodcock-
Johnson III
Intensive model
verses traditional
model; PPVT, short
term memory,
phonological
assessments, letter
knowledge,
Woodcock Johnson;
field notes


groups' knowledge scores did
not change



Students from PD classrooms
made greater gains than
students from control groups;
Students from Model A
classrooms had gains in letter
naming, word identification
and spelling, no significant
difference in blending or
segmenting


:s
an


Models of Professional
Development; Student
learning; Classroom
ob servati ons











Table G-3. (continued)
Author (s) & Sample
Year Description
McCutchen, N=44
Abbott, (K, 1st
Green, teachers)
Beretvas, n=24
Cox, Potter, (intervention
Quiroga & group)
Gray, 2002 n=20
(control
group)
N=492 (K
students)
N=287 (1st
students)
Moats & N= 50
Foorman, Phase I (K,
2003 1st, 2nd)
n=41
Phase II (2nd,
3rd)
n=103
PhaselII
(3rd,4th>


Experimental
Design
Intervention
Pre-test-
Post-test
(2-week
summer
institute


Type of Knowledge
examined
Knowledge of the
Structure of Language;
General Knowledge;
Teacher Practice;
Student Learning


Measures

Informal Survey of
Lingui sti c
Knowledge (Moats,
1994); 45-item test
(Stanovich &
Cunningham, 1993);
Field notes; TOPA,
MRT, Gates-
MacGinitie Reading
Tests, times fluency


Results

Teachers in intervention
group had higher post-test
scores; Teachers in
intervention group spent more
time on explicit instruction;
students in classrooms of
intervention group had higher
in reading comprehension






Few accurate responses to
open-ended questions,
teachers on all 3 forms had a
difficult time identifying
speech sounds


Experimental Knowledge of the
Survey Structure of Language


Informal Survey of
Lingui sti c
Knowledge: 3
different forms
(Moats, 1994)









Table G-3. Continued
Author (s) & Sample
Year Description


Experimental Type of Knowledge


Measures


Results


Design


examined


Swerling &
Brucker,
2004


N=147 (SE)
Group 1
(n=39)
Class and
supervised
tutoring
Group 2
(n=49)
Class no
training
Group 3
(n=59)
Control
group


Intervention
Pre-test-
Post-test


Knowledge of Word
Structure; Student
Learning


The Test of Word-
structure Knowledge
(3 parts)
Graphophonemic
segmentation,
Syllable types,
Irregular words;
CORE phonics
survey


Group 1 had higher post-test
scores; No significant
difference between Group 1
and Group 2; Participants
with prior preparation (Group
1) had more knowledge;
neither group scored high on
the pre-test









REFERENCES


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

Adgar, C., Snow, C. & Christian, D. (2002). What Teachers Need to Know about Language.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Literacy.

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

Blachman, B. (2002). Phonological Awareness. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson, Handbook of
Early Literacly Research. (pp. 483-502).

Blachman, B.A., Ball, E.W., Black, R.S., & Tangel, D.M. (1994). Kindergarten teachers
develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms: Does it make a
difference? Reading and Writing, 6, 1-18.

Bos, C., Mather N., Dickson, S., Podhaj ski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and
knowledge of pre-service and in-service educators about early reading instruction.
Annals ofDyslexia, 51, 97-120.

Bos, C., Mather, N., Narr, R., & Babur, N. (1999). Interactive, collaborative professional
development in early reading instruction; Supporting the balancing act. Learning
Disabilities Research and Pralctice, 14, 215-226.

Brady, S., & Moats, L.C. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for
teacher preparation. A position paper of the International Dyslexia Association.
Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.

Burns, M.S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C.E. (1999). Starting out Right: A guide to promoting
children 's reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Chall, J. (1967). Learning to Read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chhabra, V. & McCardle, P. (2004). Contributions to Evidence-based Research. In Chhabra,
V. & McCardle, P, The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research (pp.3-12) Baltimore,
MD. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Cunningham, A.E. (1990). Explicit verses implicit instruction in phonemic awareness.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429-444.

Cunningham, A.E. & Stanovich, P. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in
children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83, 264-274.









Cunningham, A., Perry, K., Stanovich, K. & Stanovich, P. (2004). Disciplinary Knowledge
of K-3 Teachers and their knowledge Calibration in the Domain of Early Literacy.
Annals ofDyslexia, 54, 139-167.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investigating in quality teaching.
New York: National Committee on Teaching and America's Future.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing Teachers for a Changing World.
What teachers should learn and be able to do. The National Academy of Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Education Series.

Deford, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 361-267.

Ehri, L. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition
and reading disability. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 22, 356-364.

Ehri, L.C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in
English. In J.L. Metsala & L.C. Ehri (Eds.), Word Recognition in Beginning Reading
(pp.3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Ehri, L.C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for
teaching. Learning and Teaching Reading, 1, 7-28.

Ehri, L.C. & Williams, J.P. (1995). Learning to read and learning to teach reading. In F.
Murray (Ed.), The Teacher Educator's Handbook: Building a Knowledge Base for the
Preparation of Teachers (pp.23 1-244). San Francisco: Jossey-Base.

Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Willows, D., Schuster, Zadeh, Z & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic
Awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National
Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.

Florida School Indicators Report. (2006), Florida Department of Education. Retrieved on
September 5, 2007 from http://data.fidoe. org/fsir.

Foorman. B. & Moats, L. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early
reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 51-69.

Foorman, B. R. & Torgesen, J.K. (2001). Critical Elements of classroom and small-group
instruction promote reading success in all children. Leaning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 16, 203-212.

Gambrell, L., Morrow, L.M. & Pressley, M. (2007). Best Practiced in Literacy Instruction.
3rd Ed. New York. The Guildford Press.

Good, R.H. & Kaminski, R.A. (Eds.) (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Early Basic Literacy
Skills (6th ed.). Euguee, OR: Institute for Development of Educational Achievement.










Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Smith, S., Simmons, D.S., Kame'enui, E.J., & Wallin, J. (In press).
Reviewing outcomes: Using DIBELS to evaluate a school's core curriculum and system
of additional intervention in kindergarten. In S.R. Vaugn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.). Reading
in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning/ Baltimore: Paul H.
Brooks.


Good, R.H., Simmons, D.S., Kame'enui, E.J., Kaminski, R.A., & Wallin, J. (2002).
Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional
recommendations in kindergarten through third grade (Technical Report No. 11).
Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Gray, A. L. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice,
and student learning. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 35, 69-86.

Hintze, J., Ryan, A. & Stoner, G. (2003). Concurrent Validity and Diagnostic Accuracy of the
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and the Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Processing. School Psychology Review, 32, 541-556.

Juel, C. (1991) Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosebthal, & P.D. Pearson
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 750-788). New York: Longman.

Lane, H., Hudson, R., Leite, W., Kosanovich, M., Taylor-Strout, M., Fenty, N. & Wright, T.
(2007). Teacher Knwoledge about Reading Fluecny Growth in Reading First Schools.
Reading Writing Quarterly.

Lane, H. & Pullen, P. (2004). Phonological Awareness: Assessment and Instruction: A
Sound Beginning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lane, H.B., Pullen, P.C., Eisele, M.R., & Jordan, L. (2002). Preventing Reading Failure:
Phonological Awareness assessment and instruction. Preventing School Failure, 46
(3) 101-110.

Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of pre-service and in-
service teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 34,
472-482.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of Psychological Assessment. American Psychologist, 50 (9),
741-749.

McCutchen, D., Abbot, R.D., Green, L.B, Beretvas, S.N., Cox, S., Potter, N.S., Quiroga, T.,
& Gray, A.(2002). Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student
learning. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 35, 69-86.

McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V.W. (1999). Those who know teach well; Helping teachers
master literacy related content knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 14. 215-226.









McCutchen, D., Harry, D., Cunningham, A., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. (2002).
Reading teachers content knowledge of children's literature and phonology.
Annals ofDyslexia, 52, 207-228.

Moats, L. C. (1994). Knowledge of language. The missing foundation for teacher education.
Annals ofDyslexia, 52, 207-228.

Moats, L, C. (1999). Teaching Reading is Rocket Science. Washington, DC: American
Federation of Teachers.

Moats, L. Speech to Print. (2003). Baltimore, MD. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Moats, L. & Foorman, B. (2003). Measuring teachers' content knowledge of language and
reading. Annals ofDyslexia, 53, 23-45.

Moats, L, C. & Lyon, G. R. (1996) Wanted. Teachers with Knowledge of language. Topics
in Learning Disabilities, 16, 73-86.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (NCES). (2006, January). Digest of educational
statistics 2006. Washington, DC: Author. Also available on-line: http://nceseed~gov/.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Children to read: An evidence based assessment
on the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (P.L. 107-1 10 [20 U. S.C. 7801]).

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002. (P.L. 107-1 10 [20 U. S.C. 7801]).

O'Connor, R. (1999) Teachers learning ladders to literacy. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 14, 203-214.

Reading First in Florida. (2002). Retrieved on September 11, 2007 from
http://www. ed. gov/programs/readingfirst/index. html.

Reading Excellence Act, PL 1055-277, 112 Stat. 2681-337, 2681-393, 20 U.S.C.

Spear-Swerling L. & Brucker, P.(2004). Teachers' acquisition of Knowledge about English
Word Structure. Annals ofDyslexia, 53, 72-103.

Shanahan, T. (2003). Research based reading instruction; Myths about the National Reading
Panel Report. Reading Teacher, 56, 646-656.

Snider, V.E. (1995). A Primer on Phonemic Awareness: What it is, why it's important, and
how to teach it. School Psychology Review, 24, 3.










Snider, V.E. (1997). The Relationship between phonemic awareness and later reading
achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 4.

Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, M. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC; National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.

Stanovich, P. & Cunningham, A.E. (1993).Where does knowledge come from? Specific
associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 211-229.

Stevenson, L.P. (2003). Reading First: A critical policy analysis. Reading Teacher, 56,7.

Strickland, D., Snow, C., Griffin, P., Burns, M.S. & McNamara, P. (2002). Preparing our
Teachers. Washington, DC. Joseph Henry Press.

Sweet, R. (2004). The Big Picture: Where we are Nationally on the Reading Front and How
we Got Here. In Chhabra, V. & McCardle, P, The Voice of Evidence in Reading
Research (pp.3-12) Baltimore, MD. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Taylor, B., Peterson, M., Pearson, D. & Rodriguez, M. (2003).Reading growth in high-
poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive
engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal. 104, 1.

Torgesen, J.K. (1999). Preventing Reading Failure in young children with phonological
processing disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology. 91, 579-599.

Torgesen, J.K. (2002a). Lessons learned from intervention research in reading. A way to go
before we rest. Learning and Teaching Reading, 1, 89-203.

Toregsen, J.K. (2002b). The prevention of reading disabilities. Journal of School
Psychology, 40. 7-26.

The National Right to Read Foundation. (2006). Retrieved January 05, 2006, from
http://www. nrrf org/.

Troyer, S.J., & Yopp, H.K. (1990). Kindergarten teachers' knowledge of emergent, literacy
concepts. Reading Improvement, 27, 34-40.

Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). Research on Teacher Preparation and Professional Development.
Issue paper prepared for the White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow's
Teachers, Washington, DC.

Yopp, H.K. (1992). Developing Phonemic Awareness in Young Children. The Reading
Teacher, 45, 9, 696-703.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Meridith Taylor Strout was born in Lexington, SC, to John and Jean Taylor. She grew up

in Chester, VA, and attended Thomas Dale High School. She attended Lynchburg College in

Lynchburg, VA where she earned her bachelors degree in special education in 1999. She moved

to Gainesville, FL, where she attended the University of Florida and earned a masters degree in

2000 in the Department of Special Education, specializing in learning disabilities. She taught

both in public and private schools in Gainesville, as a special education teacher. She won

"Rookie Teacher of the Year" for Alachua County in 2001 and then she won a statewide

competition in 2003. She obtained a position with the Multidisciplinary Diagnostic Training

Program (MDTP) at the University of Florida as an educational diagnostician.

Meridith entered the Ph.D. program at the University of Florida in 2003. Her studies

focused on the remediation and prevention of reading disabilities. She was supported by a

federally funded proj ect (Proj ect ABC: Access to Books for Children) She also worked for the

Lastinger Center for Learning at the University of Florida which focused on professional

development for teachers who work in high poverty schools.

Upon completion of her Ph.D. program, Meridith intends to teach at the college level and

continue to volunteer at the community level. She currently resides in St. Augustine, FL, with

her husband Stephen and her son Brandon.





PAGE 1

1 RELATIONSHIPS AMONG TEACHERS PHONEMIC AWARENESS KNOW LEDGE AND SKILLS AND THEIR STUDENTS EMERGENT LITERACY GROWTH By MERIDITH TAYLOR STROUT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Meridith Taylor Strout

PAGE 3

3 To my parents John and Jean, thank you both for your endless years of love and support.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This has been an incredible journey. This journey has not only been about wisdom but also about persistence. There have been many indi viduals who have supported me throughout this experience, and I would like to expre ss my love and gratitude to them. I would first like to thank Dr. Glen Buck who contributed to cultivating my passion for working with children who have special needs. He was the one who has transformed me from a hornet to a gator. I thank my committee member s for being such wonderful mentors and role models: Dr. Holly Lane, my advisor and chair; Dr. Nancy Corbett; Dr. Cyndy Griffin; and Dr. Miller. I feel extremely privileg ed to have had the opportunity to work with such a talented group of individuals. I would like to thank the staff in the Department of Special Education. Shaira, Vicki and Michell have been supportive colleagues a nd friends. They touch many lives by their commitment to the students and faculty in the department. I would also like to thank the site-based coach es and regional coordi nators from Reading First for helping me recruit participants for my study. Florida Center for Reading Research was also an active participant who helped me retrie ve student data from th e Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN). I would like to thank Kathy Garland for help ing me with my data collection and Jenny Bergeron for teaching me that statistics can be fun. I would also like to thank Grace-Anne for helping me with my data analysis. I would like to thank my parents, John and Jean Taylor, for teaching me that failure is not an option. My parents have always been my biggest fans and they have supported me throughout my journey in life. They have given me many things, but their greatest gift has been a

PAGE 5

5 gift of believing in myself. I would also like to thank my brother John for his support and encouragement. I would like to thank my son Brandon for gi ving me the gift of motherhood. Thank you for always giving me an excuse to take time to laugh; you keep me grounded. Finally, I had to save the best for last. I w ould like to thank my best friend and husband Stephen. His words of encouragement throughout th is journey have made me a better wife, Mom and teacher. I now know that to accomplish any task I must always remember to keep my feet moving. I thank him for allowing me to pursue my dreams.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................................10ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............11 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM ............................................................................... 13Rationale for the Study ...........................................................................................................15Scope of the Study ..................................................................................................................162 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ..............................................................................18Beginning Reading Instruction ...............................................................................................19Phonemic Awareness and Reading ......................................................................................... 22Phonemic Awareness Assessment ................................................................................... 24Phonemic Awareness Instruction ....................................................................................25Teacher Knowledge and Skills in Phonemic Awareness ....................................................... 27Perceptions/Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness ...........................................................28Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness and Student Learning ...........................................34Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness, Pr ofessional Development and Student Learning .......................................................................................................................35Summary of Teacher Knowledge Studies Reviewed ...................................................... 42Reading First ...........................................................................................................................43Directions for Future Research ...............................................................................................443 METHODS AND PROCEDURES ........................................................................................ 46Setting ....................................................................................................................... ..............46Description of the Sample ..................................................................................................... .47Teachers ...................................................................................................................... ............47Students ...................................................................................................................................52Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... ........54Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) ......................................................... 54Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) ...................................................................57Student Measures ....................................................................................................................59Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................................60Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................61Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........62

PAGE 7

7 4 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... ........63Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........63Descriptive and Inferential Statistics ...................................................................................... 63Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) ......................................................... 64Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) ...................................................................69Student Scores (DIBELS) ................................................................................................72Statistical Analysis of the Data .............................................................................................. .74PAKS and PASS ..............................................................................................................74PASS and Level of Teaching Experience .......................................................................74PAKS and Level of Teaching Experience .......................................................................75Teachers Knowledge and Student Outcomes .................................................................75Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........805 DISCUSSION AND RE COMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 82Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........82Summary of Results ................................................................................................................82Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) ......................................................... 82Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) ...................................................................85Teacher Knowledge and Student Scores ......................................................................... 86Limitations to the Present Study ............................................................................................. 89Implications for Future Research ............................................................................................ 92Survey Design .................................................................................................................92Professional Development ...............................................................................................93Teacher Preparation .........................................................................................................94Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ..........94APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT INFORMATION .........................................................................................97B PHONEMIC AWARENESS KNOWLEDGE SURVEY ......................................................99C PASS SURVEY ....................................................................................................................104D DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION ..........................................................................108E PARTICIPANT DATA ........................................................................................................116F IRB FORMS ..................................................................................................................... ....118G STUDIES RELATED TO PHONEMIC AW ARENESS ..................................................... 122REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... ........128BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................133

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Number of schools that pa rticipated in the study ............................................................... 49 3-2 Teacher Demographics ......................................................................................................50 3-3 District Size ........................................................................................................................51 3-4 Number of Teachers who pa rticipated in the stud y ........................................................... 51 3-5 Florida School Indicator s Report 2005-2006 by District ................................................... 52 3-6 Student demographics ...................................................................................................... ..53 3-7 Reliability and Validit y of DIBELS assessment ................................................................ 60 3-8 Research Questions and Plan for Analysis ........................................................................ 61 4-1 PAKS Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................................. 66 4-2 PAKS Item Analysis ..........................................................................................................66 4-3 PAKS Scores by Category ................................................................................................. 66 4-4 Sample responses from the PAKS .....................................................................................68 4-5 PASS Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................... 70 4-6 PASS Frequency Distribution ............................................................................................70 4-8 PASS Scores by Category ..................................................................................................72 4-9 Mean Score for each subtest by County ............................................................................ 73 4-10 Correlations between variables usi ng difference between m ean over time ....................... 76 4-11 Full Regression Model (NWF) .......................................................................................... 77 4-12 Full Regression Model (PSF)............................................................................................. 78 4-13 Full Regression Model (ISF) ............................................................................................. 78 4-14 Full Regression Model (LNF) ............................................................................................ 79 4-15 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis f or Teachers Knowledge and Skills and Student Outcomes ..............................................................................................................81

PAGE 9

9 5-1 Ccorrelations for Scores on the DIBELS and CTOPP ....................................................... 89 B-1 Scoring Rubric for Teacher Knowle dge of Phonem ic Awareness Survey ...................... 101 E-1 Participant data codes. .....................................................................................................116 G-1 Studies related to Teacher Percep tion s/Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness .................123 G-2 Studies related to Teacher Knowledge of Phone mic Awareness and Student Learning 124 G-3 Studies related to Teacher Knowledge of Phone mic Awareness/ Professional Development and Student Learning ................................................................................. 125

PAGE 10

10 DEFINITION OF TERMS An understanding of applicable term inology is critical to the implementation and interpretation of this study. Th e following section defines relevant terms as they apply to this study. Blending is the act of combining word part s together to form words. This can be done at the syllable level, onset and rime level and the phoneme level. Grapheme is a letter or letter comb ination that represents a spoken sound or phoneme. Phoneme is the smallest unit of sound in spoken language. Phonemic awareness is the insight that every spoken word can be conceived as a sequence of phonemes (Snow et al., 1998). Phone mic awareness is the ability to manipulate the sounds in language at the smallest unit of sound, the phoneme. Phonological awareness is the s ound sensitivity to the sound stru cture of language. It is the awareness that spoken language can be broken into smaller units of sounds. Phonological awareness includes the ability to detect, isolate, manipulate, blend, or segment units of sound within the speech flow (Ehri, 1989). Segmenting is breaking spoke n language into smaller uni ts of sound. This can be done at four different levels: word level, syllable level, onset and rime level and the phoneme level.

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy RELATIONSHIPS AMONG TEACHERS PHONEMIC AWARENESS KNOW LEDGE AND SKILLS AND THEIR STUDENTS EMERGENT LITERACY GROWTH By Meridith Taylor Strout May, 2008 Chair: Holly Lane Major: Special Education Reading research shows that early syst ematic instruction in phonemic awareness improves students early reading and spelli ng skills. Therefore, teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness is an important aspect of st udents ability to lear n how to read. Many researchers have connected teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness to students reading development. This relationship demonstrates the importance for teachers to have an understanding of the components of language development. Although re search confirms that this knowledge increases students understanding of read ing, research continues to demonstrate that teachers are not familiar with phonemic awareness activities. Our purpose was to investigate the relations hips among kindergarten teachers knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and their students emergent literacy development. Specifically, it examined teachers knowledge about phonemic awareness and their ability to manipulate and identity specific phonemes within words. Participants were involved in two surveys about phonemic awareness. The Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) assessed teachers knowledge about phonemi c awareness pedagogy and the Phonemic

PAGE 12

12 Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) assessed teacher s ability to manipulate and identify phonemes within words. Data were analyzed by using a multiple regres sion analysis. The results of the analysis revealed that teachers lacked basic knowle dge related to phonemic awareness knowledge and skills. It was found that teachers who had advanc ed degrees scored higher on both the PAKS and the PASS than teachers who had a bachelor. Findings also revealed that teachers who had an early childhood certificate had a higher mean on both the PAKS and PASS than teachers who just had an elementary certificate. There was limited evidence to s how a connection between teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness and students literacy development.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM A num ber of important educational policy in itiatives have shaped childrens literacy instruction in recent years (Chhabra & McCard le, 2004; NRP, 2000; Stevenson, 2003; Strickland & Shanahan, 2004). These initiatives have o ccurred due to the overwhelming number of students who currently demonstrate difficulties with learning how to read (Moats & Foorman, 2003). In 2006, the National Assess ment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that 35% of all fourth grade students in the United States ar e currently reading below the basic level, 30% are reading at the proficient level and only 10% are reading at the advanced level (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2006). Lo cally, the number of fourth grad ers in the state of Florida is behind the national averages with 65% reading be low the basic level, only 21% reading at the proficient level and 3% reading at the advanced level (National Ce nter for Educational Statistics, 2006). These staggering statistics have encouraged national reforms in r eading instruction. In 1998, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the Department of Education collaborated on the National Research Council Consensus Report and concluded that reading is a highly valued skill and essential for social and economic advancement (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). More recently, congress put together a team of researchers, educators and pare nts to form a National Readi ng Panel (NRP) to examine the research related to effective reading instru ction (Shanahan, 2003). This report had a profound effect on the nature of reading instruction and co ntinues to dominate current reforms. Reading First and Early Reading First are also nationa l initiatives linked to NCLB that support professional development, instructional materials and diagnostic instruments for low performing

PAGE 14

14 schools. These initiatives were designed to ameliora te the current deficits in students ability to acquire the necessary skills to become proficient readers. These initiatives have become powerful documents that dictate what and how teachers teach reading. A major conclusion from the research based on these init iatives is that early systematic instruction in phonemic awareness improves early reading skills (Adams, 1990; Blachman, 2002; Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podha jski & Chard, 2001; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Despite recent increases in the research ba se about phonemic awareness, the process of translating this knowledge into teacher practi ce has been relatively slow (McCutchen & Berninger, 1999). Phonemic awareness requires th e ability to attend to one sound in the context of other sounds in the word (Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Zadeh & Shananhan, 2001). This can be a difficult task to teach to students because speech sounds are not discrete but rather co articulated within other speech sounds. Althoug h teachers and teacher preparation programs are both critical factors, studies consistently find that teachers have limited knowledge about the structure of language (Bos, Mather, et al., 2001; Moats, 1994; Troyer and Yopp, 1990). Specifically, teachers lack the knowledge about the construct of PA, knowledge about PA pedagogy and lack the skills necessary to teach PA effectively (McCutchen & Berninger, 1999, Moats, 1994). Although leading educational agen cies concur about the nature of reading instruction, only a few studies have examined what teachers know about these important components of early reading instruction (Bos, Mather Dickson et al., 2001; Bos, Ma ther, Narr & Babar, 1999; Brady & Moats, 1997; Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich & Stanovich, 2004; Mc Cutchen, Abbot, Green, Beretvas, Cox, Potter, Quiroga & Gray, 2002; McCutchen, Harry, Cunningham, Cox, Sidman &

PAGE 15

15 Covill, 2002; Moats, 1994; Moats & Foor man, 2003; OConnor, 1999; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004; Troyer & Yopp, 1992). Of the studi es that have been conducted, these studies have demonstrated that teachers have limited kn owledge about the structure of language and how it relates to reading acquis ition (Moats, 1994; Moats & F oorman, 2003; OConnor, 1990; Yopp, 1990). Other studies have demonstrated that teacher knowledge can be improved and the increase in their knowledge base about PA can enhance their students reading development (McCutchen, Abbott et al., 2002; Moats & Foorman, 2003). Rationale for the Study Recent findings regard ing reading acquisition ha ve demonstrated that the acquisition of phonemic awareness is highly predictive of late r reading success (Adams, 1990). Specifically, longitudinal studies have found that phonemic awaren ess abilities in kinderg arten (or in that age range) appear to be the best single predic tor of successful readi ng acquisition (IRA, 2005; Torgesen, 2002b; Troyer & Yopp, 1990). Phonemic awareness instruction should involve the understanding that speech is ma de up of a sequence of sounds and those sounds are represented by symbols or letters. Children who are beginni ng to learn about phonemic awareness should have many opportunities to engage in activities that teach them about rhyme, beginning sounds, and syllables. This type of in struction should be taught at an early age. Phonemic awareness instruction at the kindergarten le vel has been proven to minimize or prevent reading problems for children in later grades (Adams, 1990; Foorman & Moats, 2004, Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Torgesen, 2002b). Based on these findings, one may conclude that most reading failure is preventable and most high-risk students can improve their r eading and writing achievement with expert instruction (Moats & Lyon, 1996; Moats, 1994). It is imperative for teachers to have an understanding of effective literacy instruction development before students can ac quire the skills

PAGE 16

16 necessary to become successful readers. Teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness and language development is an important aspect of students ability to learn how to read (McCutchen & Berninger, 1999). Many research ers have connected teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness to students reading deve lopment (Bos, Mather Narr et al., 1999; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; OConnor, 1999). This relationship demonstrates the importance for te achers to have an understanding of effective beginning reading instruction. Fortunately, there is now evidence that te achers who have an understanding about the structure of language and effectively teach thos e skills to their students can positively effect students reading achievement (McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; Moats & Foorman, 2003; OConnor, 1999). Although recent studies have demonstrated that teachers lack overall knowledge related to PA instruction, few studies have examined teacher s knowledge and skills related to PA instruction. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships among kindergarten teachers knowledge about phonemi c awareness, their phone mic skills and their students emergent literacy development. More specifically, this study examined the relationship between teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness pedagogy and teachers own phonemic awareness skills and their studen ts phonemic awareness growth. Scope of the Study This study was conducted within a lim ited scope. The study was delim ited by the geographical location of five sc hool districts in Florida: Alac hua County, Duval County, Flagler County, Marion County and Putnam County. Two districts were cons idered small-sized (Flagler and Putnum), two districts were considered medi um-sized (Alachua and Marion) and one district was considered a large-sized dist rict (Duval). The subjects were 211 kindergarten teachers and

PAGE 17

17 3,468 kindergarten students in the 42 schools of th e five counties. The sc hools were selected based on their participation in a fede ral program called Reading First. The study was conducted with kindergarten teac hers who were teaching in Reading First schools. The data from participating teachers st udents were analyzed; these students were in kindergarten. The effect of phonemic awareness professional development activities at different points in the year may confound the results when t eacher data are examined in relation to student data collected across the entire school year. Th e teacher data collected from the study were collected during the middle of the school year. The results of this study cannot be generalized to older or younger students.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter begins with a discussion of polic y papers and reports that have exam ined the effectiveness of beginning read ing instruction and a secti on on phonemic awareness and how phonemic awareness and its relations hip are related to the reading process. The main portion of this chapter is a summary and analysis of the prof essional literature related to previous studies of teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness. Th e chapter concludes with a summary of the research findings, including the imp lications for future research. The literature review is organized into three s ections. First, studies that examine teachers knowledge and perceptions are reviewed. Next, studi es that have investig ated the relationship among teachers knowledge, beliefs, instructional practice and student outcomes are presented. Finally, studies that have used professional development activities as an intervention to enhance teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness ar e discussed. Tables G1 through G-3 contain descriptive information for each of the studies. To obtain the most recent literature, a search of publications and documents from 1980 to the present was conducted using an electronic search of the Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsychINFO and EBSCO host. The descriptors for the electronic search were teacher knowledge and phonemic awarene ss; teacher knowledge and phonological awareness; teacher knowledge and reading. An an cestral search of the reference lists from these articles was also conducted, as was a hand sear ch of recent issues or relevant journals. Studies selected for inclusion in this review were included based on the following criteria: (a) teachers involved in the surveys were teaching at the elementary level (b) knowledge surveys examined teachers knowledge and/or skills of phonemic awareness (c) studies were published in or after 1980.

PAGE 19

19 Beginning Reading Instruction Beginning reading instruction has been a topic of interest among researchers and policym akers for the past three decades (Bi nkley, 1988; Chall, 1967;). Researchers have examined the effectiveness of different types of instructional intervention s for children who have difficulty in learning how to read (Adams, 1990). Although there has been a plethora of research regarding reading instruction in re cent years, one of the most critic al aspects of reading research is the principle of convergi ng evidence (Adams, 1990; Chhabra & McCradle, 2004; Grambrell, Morrow & Pressley, 2007; Stanovich & Stanovic h, 2004). Research is considered convergent when a series of experiments consistently support a given theory while collecting and eliminating the most important competing explanations (Adams, 1990). Since converging evidence is critical as a basis for policy and in making sound instructional decisions regarding reading instruction, a number of educational polic ies have been conducted to analyze the nature of reading instruction (Ada ms, 1990; Adgar, Snow & Christian, 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Reading Excellen ce Act, 1996; The National Right to Read, 2006; Snow et al., 1998). The National Right to Read Foundation. The National Right to Read Foundation (NRRF) was established in 1993 to promote comp rehensive, scientific ally-based reading instruction. One of the goals of NRRF was to disseminate reading related research findings from the National Institute of Child Health and Hu man Development (NICHD). The NRRF made the dissemination of this information the immediate and vital focus of its efforts to advance the cause of evidence-based reading in struction. Policymakers started to require that some states include a strong explicit systema tic phonics component in their schools. Researchers began to publish articles about the need for systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics instruction (National Right to Read, 2006).

PAGE 20

20 Reading Excellence Act. In 1996, the Reading Excellence Act was formed to encourage volunteers across America to read to students. The act also provided $260 million annually to states to establish effective professional de velopment programs, instructional materials and diagnostic assessment instruments for teachers. Teachers were expected to implement what was termed scientifically-b ased reading instruction. This term was first defined in the Reading Excellence Act and was carefully written to reflect common goals of researchers and policymakers across the nation. The Reading Excellence Act became a law in 1998. Although the act was only funded for 3 years, it became a solid foundation for Reading First, which was part of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. Reading First re quires that schools employ explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, fluency and comprehension (Sweet, 2004). National Research Council Consensus Report. A National Research Council (NRC) consensus report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow et al., 1998) conducted a study of the effectiven ess of interventions for young ch ildren who were at risk of having problems learning how to read. The goals of the project were to define a research base, translate recent research findings into advice a nd guidance for parents, ed ucators and publishers and to convey the advice through a variety of publications, conferences and other outreach activities (Snow et al., 1998). The members of the council were well respected researchers representing diverse viewpoint s on reading instruction. The me mbers of the council concluded that beginning readers need explic it instruction and practice, whic h should lead to an awareness that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds. Their report laid the groundwork for the next report which was published by the National Reading Panel (Sweet, 2004).

PAGE 21

21 National Reading Panel. The National Reading Panel (NRP) issued a report in 2000 that responded to a Congressional mandate to help pa rents, teachers and policymakers identify key skills and methods central to reading achievement. In order to expand the work of the NRC, the NRP developed an objective re view of methodology. The panel applied the methodology to evidence-based experimental and quasi-experiment al research literature relevant to a set of selected topics judged to be of central impor tance in teaching children to read (NRP, 2000). These topics included alphabetics, fluency, comprehension, te acher education and reading instruction and computer technol ogy and reading instruction. The NRP researched a number of studies related to reading instruction and afte r two years of work, they completed a report summarizing hundreds of research studies (NRP, 2000). Copies of th e full report have been sent to school districts all over America and the NRP summarized the report, Put Reading First, and distributed it to parents and teachers acro ss the country. This summary provides helpful information about early reading instruction and is written using teacher-friendly language. The report is now used as a foundation for the Nati onal Elementary and Secondary Education Act also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Shanahan, 2003). No Child Left Behind Act: Reading First and Early Reading First. The significance of the NRP was so powerful that it became the basis of the Reading First and Early Reading First initiatives, which are both essential compone nts of the NCLB act of 2002. These initiatives provide states with Reading First grants which are used to provide professional development to kindergarten through third-grade teachers, inst ructional materials and funds to purchase screening and diagnostic assessments to determine which students are at risk for reading failure. Early Reading First supports the development of early childhood centers of excellence that focus on all areas of development, especially on the early language, cognitive and pre-reading skills

PAGE 22

22 that prepare children for continued school succe ss and that serve primarily children from lowincome families ( NCLB, 2002). The instructiona l materials and methods that are supported through these initiativ es are based on the findings of scien tifically based reading research and include instruction in the areas of oral language, phonological awar eness and alphabetic principal (NCLB, 2001; NCLB, 2002). Readi ng First and Early Reading Firs t schools are evaluated each year, and their evaluations are base d on their students reading scores. These reports have all conc luded that one of the most significant components of implementing effective reading instruction is us ing an approach that is based on scientific evidence. Current reforms and policy initia tives have documented and concurred through scientific evidence that intensive, systematic inst ruction is necessary for at-risk students to learn how to read (Adams, 1990; Adgar et al., 2002; Ball & Blachman, 1991; Blachman, 2002; Moats, 1999; NRP, 2000; NCLB, 2002; Reading Excellence Act, 1996; Snow et al., 1998; The National Right to Read, 1993). Intensive, systematic inst ruction teaches students that spoken language can be analyzed into strings of wo rds and that words can be divided into a sequence of phonemes. Mounting evidence indicates that students need to have basic early understandings of print and how print works. This knowledge supports the converging eviden ce that one key to effective beginning reading instructi on is phonemic awareness (N RP, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). Phonemic Awareness and Reading Phone mic awareness is an understanding that speech is composed of individual sounds and these sounds are manipulated to make words. There is a growing consensus that phonemic awareness bears an important re lationship to achievement in reading (Snider, 1995). The NRP along with a number of other policy papers and reports have identified phonemic awareness as one of the best predictors of how well childre n will learn to read (Adams, 1990; Adgar et al., 2002; Ehri, 1989; Moats, 1999; NRP, 2000; NCLB, 2002; Reading Excellence Act, 1996; Snow

PAGE 23

23 et al., 1998; The National Right to Read, 1993; Yopp, 1992). Recent studies have identified phonemic awareness and letter knowledge as the tw o best indicators of how well children will learn to read, specifi cally during the first two years of instruct ion (Adams, 1990; Ball & Blachman, 1991; Blachman, 2002; NR P, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). Language development occurs when a child learns to attend to and analyze the internal phonological structure of spoken words (Burns, Griffin & Snow, 1999). This awareness is referred to as phonological awarene ss. Phonological awareness includ es the abilities to detect, isolate, manipulate, blend or segment units of sounds within the spee ch flow (Ehri,1989, ). Phonological awareness in cludes the awareness of words, syllables, onsets and rimes, and phonemes. Phonemic awareness is different from phonological awareness b ecause it only applies to phoneme-level awareness and in cludes the ability to detect, segment and blend phonemes and to manipulate their position in words (L ane & Pullen, 2004; Snow et al., 1998). Phonemic awareness is necessary to read and sp ell because English is alphabetic and in an alphabetic language, letters repr esent sounds. Phonemic awareness instruction should involve the understanding that speech is ma de up of a sequence of sounds and those sounds or phonemes are represented by letters or graphemes (Blachman, Ball, Black & Tangel, 1994; Ehri, 1998, Juel, 1991). Phonemes are the smallest units of spoken language, and in the English language there are approximately 44 phonemes (Ehri et. al., 2001, Ehri 2002). Phonemes are difficult to segment during speech because most words consist of a blend of phonemes, such as check with 3 phonemes. Since phonemic awareness requires st udents to manipulate individual phonemes within words, it is considered a much more difficult task than syllabic or intrasyllabic manipulation (Lane & Pullen, 2004). Phonemes (smallest units of spoken language) are different from graphemes, which are uni ts of written language.

PAGE 24

24 Phonemic Awareness Assessment Substantial evidence indicates that early assessm ents of phonemic awareness are highly predictive of childrens later reading success ( Adams, 1990; A dgar et al., 2002; Ehri, 1989; Snow et al., 1998; McCutchen, Harry, Cunningha m, Cox, Sidman, & Covil, 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Yopp, 1992). Phonemic awar eness assessments have been effective in determining students current phonemic awaren ess capabilities (Blachman, 2002; Snow et al., 1998). The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early L iteracy Skills (DIBELS) assessment is one assessment that has been widely used to assess students phonemic awaren ess and early literacy skills. There are four DIBELS subtests that are used at the kindergarten level to assess beginning literacy skills: (a) Initial Sound Fluency, which assesses a students abil ity to recognize and produce the beginning sound(s) in an orally presented word; (b) Letter Naming Fluency, which provides a measure of a students proficiency in naming upper and lower case letters; (c) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, which measures a st udents ability to segm ent threeand fourphoneme words into their individual phonemes; and (d) Nonsense Word Fluency, which taps into the students knowledge of letter-s ound correspondence and his/her ab ility to blend letters into words (test of the alphabetic principle). Several other activities have been documented to be effective tools to assess students phonemic awareness abilities (Lane & Pullen, 2004; NRP, 2000; Yopp, 1992). Phoneme isolation requires students to rec ognize sounds in words; for example, students need to be able to state the first sound in vase. Phoneme isol ation teaches students to recognize individual sounds in words. Phoneme identity requires studen ts to recognize the same sounds in different words, for example, students need to be able to decipher the same sound that is in mall, mouse, and mouth. Phoneme categorization requires stud ents to recognize the odd sound in a sequence of three words; for example, students need to be able to know which word does not belong in

PAGE 25

25 bike, bell, and radio. Phoneme blending requires students to listen to a sequence of separately broken sounds and combine them into a word; for example, students need to be able to blend the sounds in /s/ /k/ /u/ /l/ (school). Phoneme segmentation requires stude nts to break a word into its sounds by tapping out or counting the sounds; for ex ample, students should be able to decipher the number of phonemes in ship. Phoneme deletion requires students to recognize what word remains when a specified phoneme is deleted from a word; for example, What is smile without /s/?. Phoneme addition requires students to make a new word by adding a phoneme to an existing word; for example, What word do you ha ve if you add /s/ to th e beginning of park?. Phoneme substitution requires children to substitu te one phoneme to another to make a new word; for example, The word is dog. Change /d/ to /h/. These activities can be used to assess a childs ability to manipulate the spoken sounds of words. Researchers have found that early assessments of childrens phonemic awareness abili ties contribute to rele vant and appropriate literacy instruction (Ehri et al ., 2001; Lane & Pullen, 2004; Lane Pullen, Eisele, & Jordan, 2002; Snider; 1995; Snider, 1997; Yopp, 1992). Phonemic Awareness Instruction The ability to decipher sounds within the st ructure of spoken language can be a difficult and challenging task. A lack of understanding of the sound structure of la nguage can inhibit a childs ability to gain valuable opportun ities to understand and com prehend text. The objective of any phonemic awareness activity should be to f acilitate childrens ab ility to understand that their speech is made up of a series of sounds (pho nemes) (Ehri et al., 2001). It is important for phonemic awareness tasks to be developmentally appropriate, and phonemic awareness tasks should engage children in a playful yet e ducational activity (Cunningham, 1990: Snider, 1995) In a study reviewed by Snow et al. (1998) young children who receiv ed specific training in phonemic awareness were able to learn to r ead more quickly than children of similar

PAGE 26

26 backgrounds who did not receive such training. Th is study illustrates th at early reading is facilitated by the ability to manipulate sounds. A sm all percentage of student s are able to acquire phonemic awareness skills through oral language and print exposure (A dams, 1990). However, there are many more students who have a difficult time acquiring phonemic awareness and need direct systematic instructi on (Adams, 1990). For most childre n, awareness of the phonological structure of words develops naturally over the years of preschool. Other students need direct systematic instruction on how to manipulate sounds within words (Snow et al., 1998). Effective instruction for teaching phonemic awareness must follow general effective teaching guidelines. Teachers must first model the activity before providing time for guided practice, and there should be car eful sequencing of activities from easy to hard (Snider, 1995). Phonemic awareness instruction should be taugh t by introducing larger units before smaller units. Phonemic awareness is a part of a hierarchy of metalinguisitic skills that begins with wordlevel awareness and then move s to phoneme-level awareness. Although it is not essential, students typically develop an understanding of ma nipulation of sounds at the word, syllable and onset-rime level before acquiring phoneme-level skills (Lane & Pullen, 2004; Snider, 1995). Many activities have been developed to promote students phonemic awareness development. Teachers can use sound matchi ng, sound isolation and sound addition/substitution activities to develop th eir students phonemic awareness sk ills (Yopp, 1992). These tasks require students to identify or provide different sounds within words. Blending and segmenting activities are also effective strategies to increase students phonemic awar eness abilities. Multisensory activities such as Elkonin boxes can be incorpor ated with blending and segmenting to enhance students phonemic awareness. Elkonin boxes are picture cards with boxes under each picture representing the number of phonemes in the word (Lane & Pullen, 2004). The student can move

PAGE 27

27 a chip or token each time he/she says a phoneme in the word. Students can eventually substitute the token or chip with letter s that represent the sound (phoni cs instruction). Many phonemic training activities also include segmentation activities. Segmentation activities require the student to say the individual sounds in words (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Blachman, 2002). Segmentation activities can includ e phoneme deletion or grouping wo rds that begin or end with the same sounds. Although the importance of phonemic awareness has been discussed widely in the research literature, the concept is still not well understood by classroom t eachers (Bos, Mather, Dickson et al., 2001; Bos, Mather, Narr et. al., 1999; Cunningham et. al., 2004; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; McCutchen, Abbot et. al., 2002; Moats, 1994; Moats & Foorma n, 2003; OConnor, 1999; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004; Troyer & Yopp, 1990). Recent reading initiatives maintain the expectation that beginning reading instruction will include instruction in phonemic awareness, but only a few studies have examined what t eachers know about these important components of phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990; Adgar et al., 2002; Bos, Mather, Dickson et al., 2001; Bos, Mather, Narr et. al., 1999; Cunningham et. al ., 2004; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; Gray, 2002; McCutchen, Abbot et. al., 2002; Moats, 1994; Moats & Foorman, 2003; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2002; OConnor, 1999; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004; Troyer & Yopp, 1990). Teacher Knowledge and Skills in Phonemic Awareness Although research has dem onstrated that early systematic instruction in phonemic awareness improves students beginning readin g and spelling skills (Mather et al., 2001), teachers continue to lack understanding of phonemic awareness (Mather et al., 2001; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; O,Connor, 1999) Three categories of teacher knowledge emerged from this literature review: (a) pr eservice and inservice teachers knowledge and perceptions about phonemic awaren ess; (b) the relationship among teachers knowledge, beliefs,

PAGE 28

28 instructional practice and student phonemi c awareness outcomes; and (c) professional development activities as an intervention to enhance teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness. Perceptions/Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness It is im portant for teachers to have an in itial understanding of phonemic awareness and the structure of spoken language. Before teachers can teach reading to children at risk for reading failure, teachers need to possess knowledge a nd positive perceptions regarding the role of phonemic awareness instruction (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999; Mather, Bos & Babur, 2001; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; Moats, 1994; Snow et al., 1998; OConnor, 1999). Several studies have examined the perceptions and knowledge held by preservice and in-service teachers regardi ng their knowledge of phonemic awareness. Troyer and Yopp (1990) embarked on one of the first studies related to teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness. The researchers conducted a study that examined kindergarten teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonemic se gmentation. The researchers constructed a three-part self report questionna ire and administered the survey to 165 kindergarten teachers. The researchers sent the questionnaire, a pre-pa id return envelope and a letter explaining the study to randomly selected schools in Orange C ounty, California. The researchers had a response rate of 66%. The first part of the questi onnaire asked the respondents to indicate how long they had taught kindergarten, their highest level of education, and if they ever had a student teacher. Using this information, the researchers divided the participants into le ss experienced, more experienced, and veterans teachers. The seco nd part of the survey asked the teachers to indicate their level of knowledge about five educational terms. After reading a particular category, the teachers marked one of three categor ies: familiar with the concept, have heard

PAGE 29

29 the term, but I am unsure of the meaning, or unfamiliar with the term. Since the term phonemic awareness was the item of specific inte rest in the study, the f our other terms were included in the survey to make the survey less threatening to teachers unf amiliar with the target term. The third part of the questionnaire asked the teachers to indicate how important specific emergent literacy skills were in order for kindergarten students to become independent readers. Teachers indicated their responses by ci rcling numbers on a Likert scale. Once the surveys were collected, teachers we re categorized into groups based on their years of experience and their educational level. Teachers with 1-5 years of experience were considered less experienced, teachers with 615 years of experience were considered more experienced and teachers with 16-30 years of experience were considered veterans. An analysis of the results confirmed that the less experienced teachers were most familiar with the educational concepts on the questionnaire. The results demonstrated that 51% of the less experienced teachers were knowledgeable about the term phonemic awareness while only 24% of the experienced teachers unders tood the term. Overall, only 35% of all the respondents were familiar with the concept of phonemic awareness a nd most of the teachers thought the concept of phoneme segmentation was not important for late r reading success. Another interesting finding revealed that teachers with Masters degrees showed more concept familiarity with the terms than those with Bachelors degrees, indicati ng that teachers who had higher degrees also had more knowledge related to the concepts presente d. This study had several limitations. First, the participants were self-selected and the data co llected from the survey was self-reported, which indicates that the partic ipants had a vested interest in gaining more knowledge about phonemic awareness. Next, the authors did no t report the reliability or the validity of the survey that was

PAGE 30

30 used. Finally, the researchers analyzed thei r surveys by visual inspection and hand tallying responses in each category, which could cause a mi srepresentation of data and skewed results. In another early study, Moats (1994) investig ated the teachers knowledge of speech sounds, their identity in words, correspondences between sounds and sy mbols, concepts of language, and presence of morphemic units in sounds. Moats used the Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge to collect data on 89 teach ers who were enrolled in a graduate level course. The teachers were a diverse group a nd included reading teachers, speech-language pathologists, special education teachers, classroo m teaching assistants and graduate students. The 15-item survey asked the teachers to define term s, locate or give examples of phonic, syllabic, and morphemic units and analyze words into speech sounds, syllables and morphemes. Moats revealed that teachers were comm only misinformed about differences between speech and print. Many subjects were unaware of what was meant by the term speech sound or phoneme. Specifically, many of the subjects thought le tters were equivalent to speech sounds. When teachers were asked to isolate and pronoun ce speech sounds, they were typically unable to identify the third phoneme in a word. Teachers were also unaware of the difference between many of the terms associated with phonemic aw areness. Moats found that the scores were surprisingly low, indicating that even experienced teachers displayed a lack of knowledge about the differences between speech and print and abou t how print represents speech. Although this study increased awareness about the lack of teacher knowledge regarding phonemic awareness, there were two main limitations to this study. First, the participan ts were self-selected for the study by participation in the class. Since the course was not require d for certification many of the participants enrolled out of interest in the topi c. Therefore, the results of the survey may be

PAGE 31

31 overly optimistic as a reflection of teachers knowl edge in general. Next, the author did not state the reliability or validity data for the survey that was used. Bos, Mather, Dickson et al. (2001) compared the perceptions and knowledge of pre-service teachers (teachers in training) a nd in-service teachers (experien ced teachers) and the role of explicit instruction. The researcher s collected data on 252 pre-servi ce teachers and 286 in-service teachers. Teachers were given the Teacher Perc eptions about Early Reading and Spelling which was adapted from an instrument developed by DeFord (1985). The survey was developed to focus on two theoretical orientati ons, explicit code inst ruction (EC) and implic it code instruction (IC). Teachers were asked to rate each of the 15 items on a six-point Likert scale. The Structure of Language assessment (adopted from Moats, 1994) consisted of a 20 item multiple-choice assessment that examined knowledge of the Eng lish language at both the word level and the sound level. To address perceptions and knowledge of preservice and in-service teachers, the means for each group were computed and the means of the individual item responses were visually examined. Similar to Moats (1994) findings, less than two-thirds of both the pre-service and inservice teachers had mastered knowledge related to the structure of language. It was found that although both groups of teachers were unable to answ er at least half of the questions correctly, in-service teachers possessed si gnificantly more knowledge of phonemic awareness than preservice teachers. These findings suggest that experienced teache rs are more knowledgeable about phonemic awareness than teachers who lack expe rience. These findings contradict Troyer and Yopps (1990) study. They found th at less experienced teachers we re more knowledgeable about phonemic awareness than the experienced teachers.

PAGE 32

32 The researchers also concluded that although both groups had positive perceptions about phonemic awareness and felt prepared to use phone mic awareness activities in their classrooms, both groups lacked basic knowledge related to phonemic awareness inst ruction. The results indicate a dichotomy between teachers knowledg e of phonemic awareness and their perceptions about the role and importance of phonemic awar eness training. While both groups of teachers perceive phonemic awareness as an important component of reading in struction, the authors found that both groups lacked knowledge relate d to phonemic awareness instruction. This study had several limitations that are important to consid er in interpreting the findings. First, the results relied exclusively on self-report data. The researchers did not c onduct any field-based observations. Next, the data were collected in a face-to-face context. This means the data might be prone to social desirability bias. Lastly, although the surveys were field tested, both surveys had low reliability. The internal consistency on the Teacher Perceptions about Early Reading and Spelling was .70 for explicit code instruction and .50 for implicit code instruction, and the Structure of Language had an internal consistenc y of .60. This can be attributed to the limited number of items on the survey. Recently, Cunningham et al. (2004) investigated the knowledge calibration in the domain of reading. Specifically, they examined t eachers knowledge of childrens literature, phonological awareness, and phonics The researchers surveyed 722 kindergarten through third grade teachers from 48 elementary schools in a large, urban school district in northern California. To assess teachers knowledge of childrens literat ure, the researchers used the Title Recognition Test (TRT) (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991). Th e TRT lists 35 childre ns book titles and 15 false book titles; the participants were instructed to put a check mark next to the book titles they recognized. A modified version of the Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (Moats, 1994)

PAGE 33

33 was used to assess the teachers knowledge of phonological awareness. T eachers were asked to supply the number of phonemes or sounds in 11 di fferent words. Researchers used two different tasks to assess teachers knowledge about phonics. First, teachers were asked to identify words that contained regular and irregular spelling patterns. Then, teachers were asked to respond to seven multiple choice questions rela ted to the structure of Englis h language at the level of both words and sounds. The researchers then assessed teachers perceptions of their knowledge in the three domains by asking them to answer a questi on about their current skill level by marking one of four choices: (1) no experien ce, (2) minimal experience, (3 ) proficient, (4) expert. After analyzing and reviewing the results, the authors found th at 90% of the teachers were not familiar enough with the most popular books fo r children in kindergarten through third grade to recognize a majority of the titles. Af ter examining teachers knowledge of phonological awareness, it was found that 20% of the teachers were not able to correctly identify the number of phonemes in any of the eleven words presented. Specifically, only 29% of teachers were able to determine that grass had four phonemes. When examining teachers levels of implicit knowledge of phonics, only 11% of the teachers were able to identify all 11 irregular words. When examining teachers levels of explicit knowledge of phonics, it was found that only 28% of the teachers were able to correctly respond to the seve n multiple choice questions. When examining the relationship between t eachers actual knowledge and perceived knowledge of childrens literature, teachers did show some evidence of calibration of knowledge. However, in the domain of phonological awaren ess and phonics knowledge, teachers displayed very little ability to calibrate their knowledge. Te achers tended to overestimate rather than underestimate their knowledge. Over all, the authors were able to conclude that the knowledge base of K-3 teachers is not aligned with the la rge body of research demonstrating the importance

PAGE 34

34 of phoneme awareness in learning how to read. Many of the teachers in their sample could not do what is asked of a kindergarten child in a be ginning reading program. The authors did have a limitation of their study. The task that was de signed to assess teach ers explicit knowledge displayed low reliability (Cronbach s alpha .40). This is attributed to the limited amount of items on the scale. Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness and Student Learning Teachers k nowledge of phonemic awareness is an important aspect of students ability to learn how to read (McCutchen & Berninger, 1999 ). Many researchers have connected teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness to students r eading development (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; McCutche n, Harry et al., 2002; OConnor, 1999). This relationship demonstrates the importance for teachers to have an understanding of the components of language development. The following study discusses this relationship. Recently, McCutchen, Harry et al. (2002) conducted a study to examine the relationship between teacher knowledge of phonology and student learning. The researcher s investigated the relationships between 59 kindergarten, first and second grade teachers kno wledge of literature and phonology. To assess teachers knowledge of liter ature, the researchers administered a series of three Title Recognition Tests (TRT) (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991). To assess teachers knowledge of the structure of langu age, the researchers used the Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (Moats, 1994). The researchers used a 45-item test developed by Stanovich and Cunningham (1993) to assess teachers general know ledge and the researchers used the DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Read ing Profile (TORP) (DeFord, 1985) to assess teachers theoretical orientation. To investigate classroom practice, researchers took field notes during reading instruction. Student data were coll ected to connect student learning.

PAGE 35

35 The researchers correlated the teachers knowledge with their philo sophical orientation, classroom practice and student learning. They found that t eachers content knowledge of phonology was related to their students end-of-the y ear scores only at the kindergarten level. No correlations were found between teachers content knowledge of phonology and student learning at the first and second grade level. This conf irms the importance of phonemic awareness training at the early intervention level. It was also found that teachers overall phonemic awareness scores were low. The study had some limitations. First, there were some validity problems with the TORP. Specifically, there was a restricted range in teachers TORP scores. This could be due to the fact that the TORP was deve loped twenty years ago, and change s in theoretical orientations might have changed since then. Next, there was lo w internal reliability of the TRT for first and second grade teachers. This is due to the lim ited number of items of the test. Finally, the participants were self selected. Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness, Profes sional Development and Student Learning Other studies point to profe ssional d evelopment activities as an intervention to enhance teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999; Cunningham et al., 2004; Foorman & Moats, 2004; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; OConnor, 1999). The following studies discuss the relationship between te achers knowledge gained through professional development activities and their students learning. Bos, Mather, Narr et al. (1999) examined the results from Project RIME (Reading Instructional Methods of Efficacy) which is an interactive collaborative professional development project designed to encourage elem entary teachers to integrate more explicit reading instruction in their curriculum for childre n at risk. Eleven teachers participated in the project as the experimental group and 17 teachers participated as the control group. The experimental group participated in an 18 da y inservice and a year-long collaboration with

PAGE 36

36 university researchers. Project RIME focused on the structur e of spoken language with an emphasis on strategies to improve phonemic awar eness and instructional methods for teaching rhyming, segmenting and blending sounds and letter manipulation. Project RIME included content on factors that affect early reading a nd spelling development, teaching strategies and methods and techniques for e xplicit reading instruction. The researchers assessed teacher attitudes by using the Teacher Attit udes of Early Reading and Spelling (Deford, 1985). To assess teachers knowledge of language, the researchers used the Structure of Language (adapted from Mo ats, 1994), which is a 24-item multiple choice assessment that examined teachers knowledge of the structure of the English language at the word and sound levels. Student data were collect ed to evaluate the effectiveness of project RIME. Using repeated measures of analysis ( ANOVA), Bos, Mather, Narr et al. (1999) found Project RIME to be a success at many levels. First, students who worked with teachers involved in the project made greater gains in reading acq uisition than students who worked with teachers in the control group. Teacher knowledge of phonological awareness, specifically phonemic awareness, played a direct role in students literacy acquisition. Next, teachers involved in Project RIME became more positive in their attit udes toward using explicit, structured language approaches. After completing Project RIME, evid ence from the teachers journals, classroom observations and collaborators fi eld notes revealed that profe ssional dialogues did include use and application of terminology related to diffe rent components of phonemic awareness. Finally, teachers knowledge of the structure of la nguage increased during the intervention and maintained throughout the yearlong collaboration. St udent data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the two types of professional development programs.

PAGE 37

37 OConnor (1999) found similar results when she compared kindergarten teachers involvement in professional development activities and student achievement. The kindergarten teachers were from a large, rural Midwestern school district. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase one included one group of teachers who participated in an intensive professional development program (n=10) and a group of teachers who served as the control group (n=3). The second phase of the study (two years later from phase 1) included one group of teachers who participated in a traditional professional de velopment program (n=9) and one group of teachers who served as the control group (n=8). Both the intensive and traditional professional development programs focused on instructing teachers on how to incorporate phonemic awareness skills in their reading instruction. The intensive professional development program encouraged teachers to interact by observing each other teach and by colla borating about specific questions related to phonemic awareness and print awareness. The traditional professional development program scheduled teachers to meet through three half-day sessions spaced across the school year. Project staff coordinators obser ved teachers and collected field notes on teachers involved in the intensive and trad itional professional development programs to verify that they were implementing the activities. OConnor conducted a repeated measures analys is of variance (ANOVA) to analyze the results. Phase one of the study indicated that children in classrooms of teachers who were involved in the intensive professional developm ent program performed be tter than children in classrooms of teachers who partic ipated as the control group. Ph ase two of the study indicated that children of teachers who were involved in the traditional professional development program performed better than children of teachers who participated as the control group. Across both phases of the study, children of teachers who were involved in the intensive professional

PAGE 38

38 development program performed better than ch ildren of teachers who participated in the traditional professional development program. Sp ecifically, OConnor (1999) found that children of teachers who received intensive in-service ach ieved higher outcomes in letter naming, word identification and spelling. There were no significa nt differences in the areas of blending or segmenting. There were several limitations of th is study. First, the sites differed in terms of urban or rural location. Next, the sites differed in the number of teachers who participated at each location. For example, phase one of the study ha d ten teachers involved in the intensive model and only three teachers involved in the control group. Next, the sites differed in terms of pre-test measures of the participating children. McCutchen, Abbot et al. ( 2002) also found that a profe ssional development activities between teachers and a team of university re searchers increased student achievement. The experimental group consisted of twenty-four kindergarten and first grade teachers who participated in a two week long summer ins titute. The control group consisted of twenty teachers who did not participate in the two-week long summer inst itute. After completion of the institute, the university researchers followed both groups of teachers into their classrooms for a year of collecting data on 492 kindergarten and 287 first grade students. Researchers collected data on teachers knowledge about the structure of language by usi ng a modified version of the Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (Moa ts, 1994). To assess teachers general knowledge, the researchers administered a 45-item cultural literacy te st developed by Stanovich and Cunningham (1993). The researchers also observ ed teachers literacy instruction during the school year and recorded extensive field notes which were coded for into four categories. Students literacy development was assessed four times throughout the school year.

PAGE 39

39 During the institute, university researchers focused on deepening the teachers understanding of phonology, phonemic awareness and it s role in a balanced reading program. This was done by devoting considerable time to deepening understanding of the importance of phonemic awareness and its role in a balanced reading approach. Teachers were engaged in a number of authentic activities. These activitie s encouraged teachers to count the number of phonemes in words, analyze the typical seque nce of development in childrens phonemic awareness and provided the teacher s with opportunities to observe and then administer phonemic awareness assessments to children of various ages. The instructional intervention continued across the year in the context of three follow up sessions. University re searchers also observed teachers literacy instruction and recorded their activities th roughout the year. After conducting a repeated measures analys is of variance (ANOVA), researchers found that although teachers in the experimental group and the control group were comparable in their general knowledge and phonological knowledge at pre-test, teachers in the experimental group had higher post-test scores on their knowledge su rvey. It was also found that the kindergarten teachers in the experimental group spent more time on explicit phonolo gical activities than teachers in the control group. Although the overall time spent on phonological awareness was lower in first grade, first grad e teachers in the experimental group spent more time on explicit comprehension instruction than first grade teach ers in the control group. Researchers were able to document that teachers involved in the tw o week intervention changed their classroom practice by engaging their students in explicit instruct ion of word sounds and the alphabetic principle. Also, the researchers found that kinde rgarten students in classr ooms of experimental group teachers made greater gains across the year in orthographic fluency. First grade students in

PAGE 40

40 the classroom of experimental group teachers ou tperformed their control classroom peers on phonological awareness, readi ng comprehension, vocabulary and writing measures. This study documented changes in teacher knowledge and practice as well as links between those changes and student learning. The researchers had th ree major findings. First, the two week institute deepened teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness. Second, teachers can use new knowledge to make changes in their instructional practice. Thir d, the changes that are made can positively affect student learning. Th e researchers found that the teachers initial understanding of phonology and concepts on early literacy instruction were low in comparison to what the researchers expected. Moats and Foorman (2004) found similar resu lts with the Early Intervention Project funded through the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development. Teacher knowledge was measured by an experimental, nine teen question multiple choice survey (Moats, 1994); teachers classroom prac tice was measured with a structured observation instrument (Texan Teacher Appraisal System, TTAS); and student end of year outcomes were assessed using the Woodcock Johnson basic reading and broa d reading clusters. Teachers participated in a professional development program that was multidimensional. Teachers attended a two to four day summer workshop which focused on program implementation; teachers were involved in courses; teachers received bi-monthly visits to each classr oom from university observers; monthly visits and demonstration lessons from publishers program consultants; and regular informal meetings with project staff. Regression analysis uncovered th ree major findings. First, teach er rated as more effective in their classroom teaching techniques had st udents with higher read ing outcomes. Teachers were rated based on their classroom observat ions. Next, teachers who scored higher on the

PAGE 41

41 knowledge survey who had students that had high er reading achievement. Finally, it was also found that teachers who routinely participated in the professional development program scored higher on the knowledge survey th an the teachers who had lower attendance rates. There are limitations included in this study. The survey that was used was an experimental survey and the authors did not report any reliab ility or validity measures. Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2004) investig ated 147 novice teachers knowledge about word structure. The participants consisted of pr e-service and in-service teachers enrolled in a special education teacher certif ication program. Participants formed three different groups. Teachers in group 1 were taking day sections of an upper-level special education course and received supervised tutoring of children in a lo cal elementary school. Teachers involved in group 2 were taking the same course without the supe rvision. Teachers in group 3 were the comparison group and did not receive any instruction re garding the English word structure. The authors used the test of Word-Structure Knowledge to investigate teachers knowledge of the English word structure. They examined three specific tasks to measure word structure knowledge and grapho-phonemic segmentation of words, classifying pseudo words by syllable type and classifying real words as either phoneti cally regular or irregul ar. The grapho-phonemic segmentation task attempted to assess whether th e participants understood how to segment words by phonemes. This type of knowledge is important for accurate interpretation of childrens errors in reading and spelling. Knowledge about syllable types and irregula rities can enable teachers to avoid the use of inappropriate words in instruction. A way-one analysis of variance indicated th at teachers involved in group 1 and group 2 scored significantly higher on the post-test th an teachers involved in group 3. There was no difference in post-test scores between teacher s involved in Group 1 and teachers involved in

PAGE 42

42 group 2. Although tutored children show ed significant progress in all areas of tutoring, there was no clear support for the idea that supervised tu toring enhances teachers knowledge of word structure. There were limitations to this st udy. The sample size was small and the researchers were not able to randomly assign th e participants to the groups. Th e participants were also selfselected for this study. Summary of Teacher Knowledge Studies Reviewed Four studies that ex amined pre-service and in-service teachers perceptions and knowledge of phonemic awareness were reviewed. Alt hough there was a discrepancy between who possessed more knowledge between the in-service teachers and pre-service overall, it was found that teachers lack the knowledge necessary to use phonemic awareness inst ructional activities in their classroom. Other studies connected teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness to students reading development without providing any professional development activities. Researchers were able to conclude that teachers content knowledge of phonemic awareness was related to their students end-of-the year scores only at the kindergarten level. Several studies examined professional developm ent activities as an intervention to enhance teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness. These studies also connected teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness to their st udents reading development. Bo s, Mather, Narr et al. (1999) verified that interactive collaborative profe ssional development training increased teachers attitudes towards using explicit structured la nguage approaches to teaching early literacy acquisition. McCutchen, Abbot et al. (2002) also discovere d that a two week, on going collaborative professional devel opment program increased teachers attitudes and abilities to use phonemic awareness instruction in their classr oom. Researchers have documented that

PAGE 43

43 professional development activities increase s teachers knowledge of phonemic and that knowledge increases studen ts reading abilities. Several conclusions can be drawn from resear ch associated with teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness. First, teacher s generally have an insufficient grasp of spoken and written structures of language. Next, changes in teache r knowledge and classroom practice can improve student learning. Finally, effective professional development programs can deepen teachers understanding of phonemic awareness instru ction and enhance student learning. Reading First Reading First is a federally funded p rogram that focuses on putting proven methods of early reading inst ruction in the classroom (NCLB, 2002) Through Reading First, states and districts receive support to apply sc ientifically based read ing research to ensure that all children learn to read well by the end of third grade (NCLB, 2002). R eading First schools are also involved in intensive professional development activities that are impl emented throughout the school year. Floridas Reading First professi onal development model is a collaborative approach to the development and provision of programs for teachers and administrators. These programs encourage teachers to observe and practice research-based instructional strategies for reading. Each Reading First school is re quired to utilize a portion of th e Reading First funds to hire Reading First coaches. Each Reading First coach works closely with school administrators in planning and monitoring school improvement. Read ing First coaches are also required to work closely with classroom teachers to model effec tive reading techniques a nd strategies. Reading First coaches are required to attend on-going pr ofessional development through the district on recent reading research as well as techniques re lated to mentoring. Depending on the size of the

PAGE 44

44 school and the school district, a reading coach might serve one school full-time or a coach might serve several schools in the district. Teachers involved in Reading First schools are also involved in on-going professional development. This professional development may be provided by the on-site reading coach or by the district level reading coach. Teachers participating at Read ing First schools receive guidance in the five reading areas outlined by the NC LB act of 2002 (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension). Teachers may attend a number of institutes that are usually provided during the summer or winter breaks. On going professional development is offered at both the school level and the distri ct level throughout the school year. Teachers are required to attend school level tr aining provided by the on-site reading coach as well as attend local district level trainings. The federal Reading First grant initiatives have led to overall improved reading instruction and student achievement (Manzo, 2006). Many feel th is is due to the teachers participation in the on going professional devel opment activities as well as th e on going support provided by the Reading First coaches at each participating school (Manzo, 2006). Directions for Future Research Reading res earch has demonstrated that early systematic instruction in phonemic awareness improves students early reading and spelling skills (Adams 1990; Adgar et. al., 2002; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Moats, 1999; Snow et. al., 1998; The National Right to Read, 1993; Reading Excellence Act, 1996 ). Although research confirms that this knowledge increases students understanding of read ing, research continues to demonstrate that teachers are not familiar with phonemic awareness activities (Mathe r et al., 2001; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; O,Connor, 1999). Professional development activities have been shown to increase teachers knowledge and skills (Mather et al., 2001; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; O,Connor, 1999).

PAGE 45

45 The literature reviewed in this chapter provide s a theoretical and empirical basis for this study. Researchers have demonstrat ed that phonemic awareness is cr itical for beginning readers to learn how to read. Recent studies have dem onstrated teachers lack of knowledge of phonemic awareness instruction and how this lack of knowledge has di re implications for student achievement and growth. This study builds on the existing research base by examining other forms of surveys to examine teachers knowledge and skills of phonemi c awareness. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between teachers knowledge about phonemic awareness, teachers own phonemic awareness skills and their students phonemic awareness growth.

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships am ong ki ndergarten teachers knowledge and skills of phonemic awar eness and their students emer gent literacy development. Specifically, it examined teachers knowledge about phonemic awareness and their ability to manipulate and identity specific phonemes with in words. This study examined the knowledge base of teachers who teach reading to beginning readers. The survey assessed the specificity and depth of teachers knowledge to reveal misc onceptions, lack of know ledge or absence of information related to phonemic awareness in struction (Moats, 1994). Teachers knowledge scores were correlated with their students learning. In addition, teachers demographics were examined in relation to teacher knowledge a nd student learning. Usi ng teacher and student assessments, this study sought to answer the following overarching question: What are the relationships among kindergarten teachers knowledge about phonemic awareness, their phonemic skills, and their students emergent literacy development? More specifically, the study will examine the following tw o research questions: 1. What is the relationship between teache rs knowledge of phonemic awareness pedagogy and their students phonem ic awareness growth? 2. What is the relationship between teachers own phonemic awarene ss skills and their students phonemic awareness growth? This chapter details the methodology used to conduct this study. It in cludes the school setting, participants, development of the te acher instrumentation, student assessments, assessment procedures and analysis. Setting This research study took place in five different school districts locate d in north Florida. The five counties were chosen based on thei r participation in Reading First and their

PAGE 47

47 demographic differences. As show n in Table 3-3, one district was considered a large-sized district, two districts we re considered medium-sized district s and two districts were considered small-sized districts. The study was conducted in 42 Reading First schools from five different school districts. To qualify for Reading First, sch ools must show that the percentage of students reading below grade level is greater than the state average and at least 15% of the student population is eligible for free and reduced lunch (Reading First in Florida, 2006). Reading First schools were selected because of the type and amount of professional development that is at each school is somewhat uniform across the Reading Fi rst districts and schools. Teacher data were collected by the principal investig ator during a meeting at the teachers schools. Student data were collected from Progress Monitoring Repor ting Network (PMRN), a statewide database, after obtaining consent from the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR). Description of the Sample Participan ts included 211 kindergarten teach ers and 3,468 kindergarten students enrolled in Floridas Reading First schools. Participants we re volunteers who responded based on letters of invitation that were sent to Reading First coaches of Readi ng First schools throughout the five school districts. Once consent was obtained from FCRR, the data from participating teachers students were analyzed in conjunction with the survey data to examine potential relationships between teacher knowledge and st udent achievement. Parental c onsent was not obtained because the students participating in the study were anonymous. Teachers There were 42 participating schools f rom five pa rticipating districts from central Florida. As shown in Table 3-1, the number of participating Reading First schools varied in each district. It should be noted that not all the schools were in vited to participate in two of the participating districts. Schools in Alachua and Marion C ounty were chosen based on the number of

PAGE 48

48 kindergarten teachers at each Reading First school As noted in Table 3-1, the schools were categorized based on the number of Reading First schools in each district. Flagler and Putnam Counties were categorized as small-sized di stricts. Alachua and Marion Counties were categorized as medium-sized districts and Duval County was categorized as a large district. The overall participation rates in each district were high which indicated that the sample in this study is an accurate representation of the sample within each district. The population included 211 kindergarten teachers and 3,468 kindergarten students enrolled in Floridas Reading First schools. Not all the teachers at each participating school elected to participate in the study so participation rates were calculated for each school. Overall, participation rates were high which means that teachers were willi ng to participate in the study. Table 3-2 represents a summary of the demogr aphics for the teachers participating in the study. There were 206 females and five males who participated in the study. Seventy-nine percent of the participants were Caucasian and 21% of the par ticipants were from minority groups. Sixty nine percent of the participants had a bachelors degree and 31% of the participants had an advanced degree. Participants had an average of 11.4 years of teaching experience and an average of 6.9 years of teaching experience at the kindergarten level. The years teaching ranged from 1 to 37 years with a mean of 11.4 and a SD of 10.5. Ninety-two percen t of the participants had been teaching between one and five years. Th is means that 44% of the participants were beginning teachers. Twenty-two perc ent of the participants had b een teaching over twenty years. Over sixty percent of the participants had betw een one and five years of teaching experience at the kindergarten level. Although all the teachers we re teaching at the kindergarten level, only 181 of the participants indicated that they had an elementary cer tification. Ninety-eight of the teachers indicated that they had an early childhoo d certificate, five teacher s indicated that they

PAGE 49

49 Table 3-1. Number of schools that participated in the study County Number of Reading First Schools that participated in each county Total Number of Reading First schools in each county Participation Rate Alachua (medium district) *5 *10 *50% Duval (large district) 19 22 86% Flagler (small district) 2 2 100% Marion (medium district) *6 *12 *50% Putnam (small district) 10 10 100% Total 42 56 *Not all schools in the county were asked to participate in this study.

PAGE 50

50 Table 3-2. Teacher Demographics Teachers n % Gender Female 206 98 Males 5 2 Race of Teacher White 167 79 Black 24 11 Hispanic 12 6 Asian/Pacific Islander 3 2 Other 3 2 No response 2 Highest Level of Education Bachelors 146 69 Masters 57 27 Specialists 6 3 Doctorate 2 1 Years Teaching 0-5 92 44 6-10 35 17 11-15 13 6 16-20 22 10 > 20 47 22 No response 2 Experience at the K level 0-5 130 62 6-10 34 16 11-15 15 7 16-20 17 8 > 20 15 7 Areas of Certification/Endorsement Elementary 181 Early Childhood 98 Reading Certification 5 Reading Endorsement 1 Year of Last Degree < 1970 3 1 1970-1979 21 10 1980-1989 34 16 1990-1999 43 20 2000-present 104 49 No response 6

PAGE 51

51 Table 3-2. Continued Teachers n % College Coursework related to Reading None 23 11 1-3 Hours 14 7 4-6 Hours 35 17 7-15 Hours 50 24 More than 16 Hours 63 30 No response 26 Professional Development Reading First Academy (only) 21 10 Reading First: district training (only) 16 8 Reading First: on-site (only) 32 15 Reading First Academy and District 1 1 Reading First Academy and on-site 32 15 District and on-site 24 11 Participated at all 3 levels 28 13 Did not participate at any level 57 27 Table 3-3. District Size District Frequency Percentage Large District 84 40 Medium District 61 29 Small District 66 31 Total 211 Table 3-4. Number of Teachers w ho participated in the study County Number of K Teachers who participated in each county Total number of K teachers in each county who were asked to participate in the study Participation Rate Alachua (medium district) 19 20 95% Duval (large district) 84 108 77% Flagler (small district) 16 21 76% Marion (small district) 42 47 89% Putnam (small district) 50 54 81% Total 211 250 84%

PAGE 52

52 Table 3-5. Florida School Indicat ors Report 2005-2006 by District Distict Free and reduced lunch Advanced Degrees Average number of years teaching Alachua 53.3 49.9 14.5 Duval 49.3 29.1 13.4 Flagler 38.7 30.1 10.8 Marion 59.8 28.2 13.4 Putnam 71.8 26.9 14.1 had a reading certificate and onl y one participant indicated that he/she had a reading endorsement. Almost 50% percent of the teachers indicated th at they had received their last degree since 2000 and only three of the participan ts indicated that they had ear ned their last degree before 1970. Eleven percent of the partic ipants indicated that they ha d not taken any reading related courses in college. Although all participants were teaching at Reading First schools, 27% of the participants indicated that th ey have not participated in any Reading First professional developments activities within the last year. Table 3-5 represents data from the Florid a Indicators Report ( 2006). According to the report, in 2005-2006, 34.3% of elementary school teachers in the state of Florida had advanced degrees and teachers had an average of 12.5 years of teaching experience. Thirty-one percent of participants in this study had a dvanced degrees and participants had an average of 11.4 years of teaching experience. Based on this report, fewer teachers in this study had advanced degrees and the teachers were less experienced than the av erage teacher in the state of Florida. Students There were 3,468 students who participated in the study. As shown in Table 3-6, 48% of the students were fem ale and 52% of the studen ts were male. Students re presented a number of different exceptionalities although most of the students who were categorized as ESE were speech or language impaired. Ten percent of the students were retained and 62% of the sample

PAGE 53

53 were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Seven pe rcent of the sample were identified as limited English proficient (LEP) but were not enrolled in classes specially de signed for LEP students. Table 3-6. Student demographics Teachers n % Gender Female 1,662 48 Males 1,802 52 Ethnicity White 1127 33 Black 1737 50 Hispanic 389 11 Asian/Pacific Islander 29 >1 Other 156 4 ESE exceptionality Educable/Trainable Mentally Handicapped 24 >1 Orthopedically Impaired 4 >1 Speech/Language Impaired 227 7 Deaf or Hard of Hearing 1 >1 Specific Learning Disabled 52 >1 Gifted 9 >1 Hospital/Homebound 6 >1 Autistic 1 >1 Developmentally Delayed 79 2 Other Health Impaired 10 >1 Retention Yes 366 10 No 3099 89 Lunch status Student did not apply 1162 34 Applied but not eligible 125 3 Eligible for free lunch 1936 56 Eligible reduced lunch 221 6 Limited English Proficient (LEP) LEP but not in classes 254 7 Two year follow-up program 32 >1 Not applicable 3158 91

PAGE 54

54 Instrumentation Several instrum ents were used to assess teach ers and students. One test was designed to measure teachers knowledge about phonemic pedagogy (Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey, PAKS), and one test was designed to measure teachers phonemic awareness skills (Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey, PASS). These test s were developed to be correlated with students reading measures. St udents reading measures were collected from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (D IBELS) assessment, which measures students phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency skills. The DIBELS have already been administered for educational/instructional pur poses in the schools. Student data were accessed from the Progress Monitoring Reporting Networ k (PMRN), a statewide database. The teacher instruments were designed after a comprehensive review of the literature to establish a rationale for a te st that examines teachers knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness. After reviewing previous measures that have been used to examine teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness, two instru ments were development, the Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) and the P honemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS). The process included the following steps: test adaptation and constr uction, initial field tests and assessments of validity and reliabi lity. Each of these steps is discu ssed in the following sections. Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) The Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (P AKS) was developed to exam ine teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness concepts a nd pedagogy (see Appendix B). A large body of converging evidence related to teacher knowle dge has revealed a number of conclusions regarding specific understandings of language and reading pr ocesses (Adams, 1990; Adgar, Snow & Christian, 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Reading Excellence Act, 1996; Snow et. al., 1998; The National Right to Rea d, 1993). However, research has yet to resolve

PAGE 55

55 questions related to more advanced concepts abou t language that are relevant to both assessment and instruction. Specifically, rese archers have yet to examine wh at kinds of questions are the most sensitive and a meaningful indicator of how well a teacher is likely to perform in the classroom. Although recent evidence has concluded that teachers need explicit knowledge of phonemic awareness to teach reading, surveys ha ve yet to examine teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990; Adgar et. al ., 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Snow et. al., 1998). While many of the exis ting surveys have focused on teachers abilities to identify and manipulate sounds within words, a questionnaire related to teachers knowledge of the terminology and uses of phonemic awarene ss has yet to be developed. The PAKS was designed to examine teachers understanding of phonemic awareness related to the importance of phonemic awareness and to examine their unders tanding of phonemic awareness assessment and instruction. Test adaptation and construction. The test was developed to examine teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness. Six questions were developed and all questions were openended questions. The questions were spaced across two pages so that each page had a total of three questions. The orders of the questions were also considered. The questions begin by asking the participants to define the term and then prom pt the participants to provide examples of how phonemic awareness should be assessed and used for instructional purposes. Initial field test. The initial field test had 20 respondent s who were enrolled in a graduate level reading course. The participants represen ted a range of teaching experience. The initial field test was administered duri ng a class, and the participants were asked to answer the six questions on the survey to the best of their ability. Many of the participants answered the

PAGE 56

56 questions in full and added any comments about the wording of the quest ions. The participants responses were reviewed, and a scoring rubric was developed for each question based on their responses. Validity and reliability. Validity entails an evaluation of the value implications of both test interpretation and test us e (Messick, 1980). Several measures were taken to ensure both validity and reliability of the PAKS. The conten t validity for the PAKS derived from the major consensus reports related to teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990; Adgar, Snow & Christian, 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). The PAKS was divided into two knowledge areas: (1) know ledge about the construct of PA and (2) knowledge about PA pedagogy. In order for teachers to have an explicit understanding of PA they should be grounded in both the construct of PA, as well as the pedagogy related to PA (Moats, 1994). In order to investigate constr uct validity, the respondents of the pilot survey were asked whether the purpose of the test was apparent and the questions were comprehensible. Since the respondents were all enrolled in a graduate level reading course, their evaluation of the test assisted the researcher in determining if there was face evidence of validity of the measurement. The respondents indicated that th e questions were clear, and they felt there was ample amount of space to answer the questions. Reliability is the extent to which an experime nt, test or any measuring procedure yields the same result on repeated trials (Babbie, 1990). In ter-rater reliability was used to ensure the consistency of the implementation of the meas urement. The six item questionnaire was coded by the use of a rubric on a scale from zero to th ree. All the questionnair es were coded by the researcher and another expert on th e field to enhance inter-rater re liability of the questionnaire.

PAGE 57

57 Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) The Phonemic Awarenes s Skills Survey (PASS) was developed to assess teachers own phonemic skills. The inclusion of a test to asse ss teachers phonemic awareness skills was based on the findings from the NRP, as well as on a number of other reports and policy papers. These reports have identified phonemic awareness as one of the best predictors of how well children will learn to read (Adams, 1990; Adgar et. al., 2002; Moat s, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Reading Excellence Act, 1996; Snow et. al., 1998; The National Right to Read, 1993). Recent studies have identified phonemic aw areness and letter knowledge (alphabetic principle) as the two best indicators of how well children will learn to read specifically during the first two years of instru ction (Adams, 1990; Ball & Blachma n; 1991; Blachman, 2002; NRP, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). Because phonemic awar eness is a prerequisite to decoding, it is imperative that teachers have the skills to detect, segmen t and blend phonemes; and to manipulate phoneme positions in words, so they can teach these skills effectively to their students. As discussed in chapter two, previous measures were reviewed. Test adaptation and construction. The Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) was constructed based on the lack of validity and reliabi lity of scores reported from previously used phonemic awareness surveys and the broad coverage of topics related to the structure of language. The questions on the PASS were adapte d from the Moats (1994) survey, the Moats and Foorman (2004) survey and the survey used in the Bos, Mather, Narr et al. (1999) study. The 25 items on the PASS comprise multiple-choice items and fill-in-the-blank items. The survey is divided into five different sections related to phonemic awar eness skills; (1) phoneme counting, (2) phoneme identification, (3) phoneme matching, (4) phoneme segmenting, and blending, and (5) phoneme deletion. The survey was designed to examine teachers phonemic

PAGE 58

58 awareness skills only, not their knowledge of other aspects related to reading acquisition (Moats, 2003). Initial field test. The initial field test of this instru ment included 20 respondents who were enrolled in a graduate level reading course. The participants represented a range of experience levels. The initial field test was administered during class and the partic ipants were asked to answer all items on the assessment. The researcher reviewed sample items in each section with the participants before instructing them to begin the assessment. Validity and reliability. The validity and reliability of the PASS were assessed using a variety of methods. The content evidence of validity was based of several studies that have examined teachers knowledge and skills of PA (Moats, 1999; Adams, 1990; Snow et al., 1998; NRP, 2000; Adgar et. al., 2002; NCLB, 2002). Many of the studies demonstrated an association between teachers knowledge of PA and student literacy growth. Questions in the measurement were modified from previous research studies (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999; Foorman & Moats, 2004; McCutchen, Abbot et al. 2002; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; Moats, 1999; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Moats, 1994; OConnor, 1999;Troyer & Yopp, 1990). A test analysis was conducted using the re sults from a 25-item pilot test to provide additional construct evidence of validity and es tablish reliability. SPSS was used to measure the statistics of the measurement. Although there we re 25 items in the survey only 19 items were analyzed due to the fact that 4 items had zero variance and were removed from the scale and two items were removed based on the number of inco rrect responses. The mean number of correct responses were 79% for the participants (n=20). Once the two items were removed, the reliability of the measurement was .76 (Cronbachs coeffici ent alpha). The item difficulty ranged from 40%

PAGE 59

59 to 95% of respondents answering correctly, whic h indicates that there is a large range of difficulty. Student Measures Students sk ills were assessed using subtests from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment. Reading Fi rst requires an assessment of each child three times per year using grade-appropriate reading measures that are intended to monitor progress and predict future reading success. DIBELS is us ed at all Reading First schools to satisfy this requirement. Student data were collected from th e PMRN database. Four DIBELS subtests were used: (a) Initial Sound Fluency, wh ich assesses a students ability to recognize and produce the beginning sound(s) in an orally presented word ; (b) Letter Naming Fluency, which provides a measure of a students proficiency in nami ng upper and lower case letters; (c) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, which measures a students ability to segment threeand four-phoneme words into their individual phone mes; and (d) Nonsense Word Fl uency, which taps into the students knowledge of letter-s ound correspondence and his/her abil ity to blend letters into words (test of the student s understanding of the al phabetic principle). The DIBELS assessments are intended to provid e data to inform instruction and to review school level outcomes. The measures are intende d to be brief and there are over 20 forms for each measure. The DIBELS assessments were originally developed at the Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and De velopment at the University of Oregon. There has been extensive research done on the DIB ELS assessments, specifically on how accurately they predict performance on important outcome s that depend on the ability to read and comprehend text (Good, Kaminski, Smith, Simm ons, Kameenui, & Wallin, in press; Good, Wallin, Simmons, Kameenui, & Kaminski, 2002; Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR),

PAGE 60

60 2005). The reliability and validity for these te sts have been found to be acceptable (Good & Kaminski, 2001) and are presented in Table 3-7. Data Collection Procedures Reading First schools were invited to particip ate in the study. Letters of invitation were sent to principals and Reading First coaches throughout the five selected school districts. The researcher m et with the teachers who were inte rested in participating in the study during Table 3-7. Reliability and Va lidity of DIBELS assessment Test Alternative-form reliability Validity Letter Naming Fluency .88 .70 (a) Initial Sound Fluency .72 .48 (b) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency .88 .54 (d) Nonsense Word Fluency .83 .36 (e) (a) The median criterion-related validity of LNF with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised readiness cluster standard score is 70 in kindergarten. (b) C oncurrent criterion-related validity of ORF with DIBELS PSF is .48 in January of kindergarten and .36 with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery Readiness Cluster score. (d) Concurrent criterion validit y of PSF is .54 with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery Readin ess Cluster score in spring of kindergarten. (e) Concurrent criterion-validity of DIBELS NWF with the Woodcock-Johnson Psyc ho-Educational BatteryRevised Readiness Cluster score is .36 in January and .59 in February of first grade (retrieved from Good et al., in preparation). grade-level meetings and obtained consent from each teacher. Demographic data (i.e., personal data, educational data and professional development activities) were collected from each participating teacher (see Appendix A). The rese archer administered the PAKS and the PASS to teachers from each site participating in the st udy. Teachers participati ng in the study were all teaching students at the kindergarten level. Teachers were provided as much time as needed to complete the surveys, but they were not allowe d to take the surveys out of the room or to collaborate with their peers while completing the surveys. Once the teachers completed the surveys, the researcher collected all the surveys. Teachers participating in the study were given a book as compensation for completion of the survey (Phonological Awareness: Assessment and Instruction: A Sound Beginning by Holly B. Lane and Paige C. Pullen).

PAGE 61

61 Student data were obtained from the PMRN database. DIBELS is administered by school administrators and is given to all kindergarten students enrolled in Read ing First schools three times a year (fall, winter and spring). School administrators th en enter DIBELS data into the PMNR statewide database. The researcher did not have access to the students identities, and the only data collected were from the DIBELS asse ssment. Students did not engage in any activity that is outside the scope of th eir regular education plan or so lely for the sake of this study. Therefore, no experimental procedures, instru ction or special incenti ve were given to the students. Table 3-8 identifies the research que stions, along with the data source and plan for analysis for each question. Table 3-8. Research Questions and Plan for Analysis Question Data Sources Analysis 1. What is the relationship between teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness pedagogy and their students phonemic awareness growth? Teacher responses to PAKS (knowledge about PA pedagogy) Student DIBELS scores Multiple regression analysis 2. What is the relationship between teachers own phonemic awareness skills and their students phonemic awareness growth? Teacher responses to PASS (skills related to PA) Student DIBELS scores Multiple regression analysis Data Analysis The analysis of results b egan with a preliminary analysis for each comparison. Descriptive statistics were analyzed which included an an alysis for missing data, missing subjects and an analysis to check for any outliers that had unnecessary influence on the data. A multiple regression analysis was then used for statisti cal analysis. To account for differing knowledge among teachers, other factors were entered into th e regression analysis. These factors included: teachers years of teaching experience, profe ssional development and educational background.

PAGE 62

62 The questionnaire was scored using a rubric to quantify the teachers responses regarding their current knowledge of phonemic awareness ( knowledge about PA pedagogy). In addition to the quantitative scoring, this information was an alyzed for common themes related to teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness. Summary This chapter presented the m ethodology for this study. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between kindergarten teachers phonemic awareness knowledge and skills and their students emergent literacy development. A description of the school setting, participants, development of the teacher inst rumentation, student assessments, assessment procedures and analysis were included. Chapter 4 will discuss the results of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 contains a discussion of the results as related to previous research, limitations to the present study and implications for future research.

PAGE 63

63 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships am ong ki ndergarten teachers knowledge and skills of phonemic awar eness and their students emer gent literacy development. Specifically, it examined teachers knowledge about phonemic awareness and their ability to manipulate and identity specific phonemes within words. The general question of this study was as follows: What is the relationship between teachers knowledge and skills about phonemic awareness and their students phonemic awareness growth? To investigate this research question, teachers knowledge and skills was assesse d, analyzed and then correlated with their students literacy scores. Using a multiple regression analysis, the relationship between teachers knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and their students phonemic awareness growth were measured and compared. This chapter will focus on the data findings fo r this study. It will begin with the descriptive statistics on the PAKS and PASS, which will be followed by the results of the teacher knowledge surveys (PAKS and PASS) and student assess ments. The chapter will conclude with a presentation of the findings for the relati onship between teacher knowledge and student outcomes, and the relationship between teacher demographics, teacher knowledge and student outcomes. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics This section will in clude the re sults of the teacher knowledge tests and student assessment scores. The section will begin with an examina tion of the Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) and Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS). This section will conclude with an examination of the DIBELS student scores.

PAGE 64

64 Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) Table 4-1 represents the descrip tive statistics for the PAKS survey which was administered to 211 kindergarten teachers. The survey asked the participants six open ended questions about phonemic awareness. Participants were given unlim ited time to complete the survey, and most participants used about 15 minutes to compose their responses. The surveys were scored with a rubric, using a scale from zero to three. The rubric was developed by the researcher and adapted from a similar study related to teacher knowledge (Lane et al., in press). It was developed based on the findings from the National Reading Panels (NRP, 2000) report on phonemic awareness. If an an swer demonstrated no knowledge or lacked sufficient detail it received a zero. If a response showed little knowledge or some information was incorrect it received a one. If the response showed some level of knowledge or knowledge at a surface level it received a score of two. If an answer demonstrated excellent, expert level of knowledge it was correct and received a three. In a very small number of cases the respondents answers received a score of .5 because the response fell between two scores on the rubric. That is on some items participants received a .5, 1.5 or 2 .5. If a participant answered all six questions correctly, he/she received an eight een. The entire rubric, including th e specific indicators used to arrive at a score, can be found in Appendix B. Once the rubric was developed, an inter-ra ter reliability score was conducted using a percentage agreement. Two experts in the field of reading scored 29 randomly selected surveys and out of 174 items, the researchers agreed on 161 items which gave them a 93% agreement rate. The mean score for the survey was 7.82. The minimum score was a zero and the maximum score was an eighteen. Using Cronbachs alpha, the reliability of the test was .67. An item

PAGE 65

65 analysis was conducted to exam the mean and st andard deviation of each item. Overall, item three had the highest mean of 1.64 and item 2 had the lowest mean of .99. PAKS scores were also anal yzed by district, education le vel and by certification. It was found that participants in the medium sized distri ct had the highest mean and participants in the large district had the lowest mean. Participants with an advanced degree scored higher than participants with a bachelors degree. It was also found that particip ants who had an early childhood certificate scored higher th an participants who did not have the specialize d certificate. Participants who were involved in Reading Firs t professional development activities had a higher mean score than those who did not participat e in any of the Read ing First professional development activities. Teachers responses to the PAKS items revealed both their knowledge and misconceptions about both constructs included in the survey. After reviewi ng the answers provided by the participants for each item, common themes we re identified based on misconceptions about phonemic awareness. Table 4-4 displays samp le responses for each item on the PAKS. Item 1: Item one asked the participants, What is phonemic awareness? Most participants who answered this question inappropriately indicated that phonemic awareness was the letter/sound connection or knowing the sounds of the letters. This type of response indicates a common confusion between PA and phonics. Correct responses included participants indicating that phonemic awareness was the ability to h ear, identify and manipulate sounds in spoken words. This confusion could be due to the fact that the NRP states in their Put Reading First handbook that Phonemic awareness is most effec tive when children are taught to manipulate phonemes by using the letters of the alphabet (NRP, 2000). T eachers who indicated that

PAGE 66

66 Table 4-1. PAKS Descriptive Statistics Number of Teachers taking PAKS 211 Number of items 6 Mean (M) 7.82 standard deviation (SD) 3.17 Minimum score 0 Maximum score 18 Test Reliability (Cronbachs ) .67 Table 4-2. PAKS Item Analysis Mean SD PAKS Item 1 1.58 .72 PAKS Item 2 .99 .70 PAKS Item 3 1.64 .99 PAKS Item 4 1.10 .91 PAKS Item 5 1.23 1.01 PAKS Item 6 1.28 .77 Table 4-3. PAKS Scores by Category PAKS Scores by District Size District Size Mean SD Large District (n=84) 7.20 2.96 Medium District (n=61) 8.80 3.22 Small District (n=66) 7.69 3.22 PAKS Scores by Educational Level Educational Level Mean SD Bachelors (n=146) 7.73 3.12 Masters of Above (n=65) 8.00 3.30 PAKS Scores by Early Childhood Certification Early Childhood Certification Mean SD Yes (n=98) 8.16 2.99 No (n=113) 7.52 3.31 PAKS Scores by Number of Professional Development Courses Number of PD courses Mean SD None (n=57) 6.98 3.06 One (n=69) 8.52 2.88 Two (n=57) 7.78 3.11 Three (n=28) 7.84 3.90 PAKS Scores by None verses at Least One Course Number of PD Courses Mean SD None 6.98 3.06 At least one 8.12 3.17

PAGE 67

67 phonemic awareness was the same as phonics ma y not have an understanding that phonemic awareness instruction can be taugh t without the use of letters. Item 2: Item two asked the participants, Why is phonemic awareness important? Participants who responded ina ppropriately either identifie d that phonemic awareness is important for students because they need to associate letters with sounds or they identified that phonemic awareness is important to learn how to r ead. Participants who answered this question correctly indicated that it teaches students how to blend or segment sounds in words or they identified phonemic awareness important because it is a prerequisite to reading. Many teachers felt that phonemic awareness was important but fe lt that it was important so that students could learn the letter/sound association. Item 3 : Item three asked the pa rticipants, What phonemic awareness skills are most important? Participants who responded inapprop riately indicated that teaching students the sounds of letters was the most important sk ill. Correct response s included blending and segmenting sounds. Item 4: Item four asked the participants, H ow can phonemic awareness be assessed? Participants who responded inappr opriately indicated that usi ng observations, running records and teacher made tests were the best ways to assess phonemic awareness. Correct responses included any component of the DI BELS assessment or any skills or methods that are based on research (i.e., Elkonin boxes, blending and segmenting spoken language and identifying beginning and ending sounds in words). Teachers who responded correctly to this question indicated an association between assessment a nd instruction. They identified a connection between the DIBELS assessment and the impor tance of phonemic awareness instruction.

PAGE 68

68 Table 4-4. Sample responses from the PAKS Item Score Sample Response 1 0 Its how we say words. 1 Phonemic awareness is the knowledge of letters and the sounds each letter makes. 2 Phonemic awareness is the knowledge of phonemes (the smallest units of sound). It is being able to connect sounds to the letters they represent. 3 Phonemic awareness is the knowledge and ability to discern the phoneme segments of words; in order that the learner can actually and fully sound out and read words. Phonemes are the segments that when combined make up words. 2 0 If the learner has a good understanding of phonemic awareness he or she will become fluent readers. 1 It helps students learn how to read words by teaching them the individual letter sounds. 2 It can help a child in beginning read ing by giving them the ability to decode words that may be beyond sight words. 3 To become a successful reader a student must have the ability to hear sounds in words which is the key to segmenting and decoding words. 3 0 Word identification and acknowledge ment of fluency in reading. 1 The most important skills to me are to be able to match letters to their sounds and to be able to identify letter sounds in words. 2 Segmenting phonemes, initial sound of words, onset and rime. 3 Phoneme segmenting, blending and rhyming. 4 0 Through individual and small group assessment. 1 DIBELS testing and reading series, teacher made tests, checklist, and individual testing. 2 Phonemic awareness can be assessed us ing sounds i.e., syllable blending, instructor asking students sounds of letters, ask students for rhyming words etc. 3 Through observations of activities where students blend sounds, find rhyming words, and segment sounds in words. 5 0 See how many words you can say in a minute. 1 Small group led exercises that focus on letter sounds. 2 Work with specific materials developed for phonemic awareness. Clapping/magnets on magnetic boards or any of the activities in the Reading First Academy. 3 Elkonin boxes, letter tiles, blank tiles and associating each tile with a sound, have students move tiles for the sounds and small group games. 6 0 I use the picture cards for my students and the sounds in writing. 1 I use an alphabet arc with sound boxes, pictures cards to segment sounds, rhyming puzzles etc. I work at risk students 30-45 minutes a day and group other students by ability for reading. 2 Rhyming work, phoneme segmentation, syllable work, onsets and rimes, small group instruction or one on one, initial reading instruction, 15-30 minutes a day, 5 days a week. 3 Games and activities from Phonemic Awareness: Reading First. Times: everyday small groups, 15 min. each whole group during skills block about 30 min. Specific activities, rhyming, segmenting, blending, syllables, count words in sentences and alliteration.

PAGE 69

69 Item 5: Item five asked the participants, Wha t instructional methods could be used to develop phonemic awareness? Inappropriate responses incl uded observation, conferencing, guided and independent reading and flashcards. Correct respons es included isolating sounds, identifying sounds, segmenting and blendi ng sounds and using Elkonin boxes. Item 6: Item six asked the participants,Describe briefly the instruct ional methods you use to develop students phonemic awareness sk ills (time, grouping, methods, assessment and skills)? Participants who responded inappropriately indicated th at 60-90 minutes a day, large group, observation and guided reading. Correct re sponses included 15-30 minutes, 35 times a week, small group instruction and blending and segmenting sounds and using the DIBELS assessment for progress monitoring. Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) Table 4-5 represents the descrip tive statistics for the PASS survey which was administered to 211 kindergarten teachers. The survey asked the participants 25 questions about phoneme manipulation. The participants had to delete, count, identify, matc h, segment and blend phonemes within words. Participants received one point for each correct answer. The mean score on the survey was 16.8. The minimum score was five and the maximum score was 24. Using Cronbachs alpha, the reliability of the measure was .80. Table 4-6, represents the fre quency distribution for the PA SS survey. More than half (52.6%) of the teachers answered at least 18 of the 25 items corre ctly. Less than half of the teachers (47.6%) answered 17 or fewer items correc tly. One participant only answered five of the 25 questions correctly and two participants answered 24 of the 25 answers correctly. As shown in Table 4-7, an item analysis was conducted on the PASS to determine if the items were valid measures of the objective of the test. Specifically, item difficulty and item

PAGE 70

70 discrimination were analyzed. Item difficulty refe rs to the percentage of teachers answering the item correctly and item discrimination refers to the correlation between an item of interest and the total score. Therefore, 98.6% of teachers an swered item 1 correctly and only 7.1% of the teachers answered item 8 correctly. Items with lo w or negative correlations indicate items not relating well with the total test score and may be targeted for removal. Items 1, 7 and 8 are all below .20 which means that they are poorly correl ated with the total PASS score and should be removed from the survey. Table 4-5. PASS Descriptive Statistics Number of Teachers taking PAKS 211 Number of items 25 Mean (M) 16.8 standard deviation (SD) 4.2 Minimum score 5 (out of 25) Maximum score 24 (out of 25) Test Reliability (Cronbachs ) .80 Table 4-6. PASS Freque ncy Distribution Number of items correct Frequency Percent 5 1 .5 6 5 2.4 7 3 1.4 8 1 .5 9 6 2.8 10 4 1.9 11 7 3.3 12 8 3.8 13 9 4.3 14 14 6.6 15 9 4.3 16 17 8.1 17 16 7.6 18 19 9.0 19 28 13.3 20 21 10.0 21 22 10.4 22 12 5.7 23 7 3.3 24 2 .9 Total 211 100

PAGE 71

71 Table 4-7. Item Anal ysis of PASS PASS (Correct Sound) Items Item difficulty (p) Item discrimination Item 1 0.986 .081 Item 2 0.829 .272 Item 3 0.848 .349 Item 4 0.697 .366 Item 5 0.938 .349 Item 6 0.754 .531 Item 7 0.635 .017 Item 8 0.071 .178 Item 9 0.521 .361 Item 10 0.313 .276 Item 11 0.725 .502 Item 12 0.322 .432 Item 13 0.417 .517 Item 14 0.479 .258 Item 15 0.806 .518 Item 16 0.711 .570 Item 17 0.825 .354 Item 18 0.725 .337 Item 19 0.986 .214 Item 20 0.905 .223 Item 21 0.853 .283 Item 22 0.791 .425 Item 23 0.199 .299 Item 24 0.815 .361 Item 25 0.682 .404 As shown in Table 4-8, PASS scores were also analyzed by district, education level and by certification. It was found that part icipants in the medium sized di strict had the highest mean and participants in the large district had the lowest mean. These findings are consistent with the PAKS. Participants with an advanced degree had a mean of 17.18 and participants with a bachelors degree had a mean score of 16.68. It was also found that participants who had an early childhood certification scored higher than par ticipants who did not have the specialized certificate. Participants who were involved in Reading First professiona l development activities had a higher mean score than those who did not participate in any of the Reading First professional development activities.

PAGE 72

72 Table 4-8. PASS Scores by Category PASS Scores by District Size District Size Mean SD Large District (n=84) 16.0 4.51 Medium District (n=61) 17.8 3.78 Small District (n=66) 16.9 4.17 PASS Scores by Educational Level Educational Level Mean SD Bachelors (n=146) 16.68 4.28 Masters or Above (n=65) 17.18 4.22 PASS Scores by Early Childhood Certification Early Childhood Certification Mean SD Yes (n=98) 16.81 4.57 No (n=113) 16.86 3.98 PASS Scores by Number of Professional Development Courses Number of PD courses Mean SD None (n=57) 16.46 4.36 One (n=69) 17.14 3.87 Two (n=57) 16.91 4.47 Three (n=28) 16.68 4.65 PASS Scores by None versus at Least One Course Number of PD Courses Mean SD None 16.46 4.36 At least one 16.97 4.22 Student Scores (DIBELS) As shown in Table 4-9, DIBELS wa s administ ered three times during the school year (Fall (1), Winter (2) and Spring (3). The letter naming fluency (LNF) subtest was administered in the fall and winter. The initial sound fluency (ISF) subtest was administered in the fall, winter and spring. The phoneme segmentation fluency ( PSF) subtest and the nonsense word fluency (NWF) subtest were both administered in th e winter and spring. There were 179 classrooms included in the study. Although data was collect ed on 211 teachers, student data were only

PAGE 73

73 obtained from 179 of the participating teachers. Class size ranged from 5 to 39 and the average class size was 19. Teacher and student data were analyzed and compared across the five districts. Teacher data showed that Alachua County had the highest teachers knowledge scores and the second highest teachers skills scores. As shown in Table 4-8, Duval County had the lowest scores in both the teachers skills and teach ers knowledge surveys. Student scores revealed that Flagler County had the highest means in a majority of the DIBELS subtests. Putnam County had the lowest means in the DIBELS subtests. Alachua County made the highest gains in the LNF but made the lowest gains in the PSF and the NWF. Marion County made the highest gains in ISF. Putnam County made the lowest gains in the LNF from the fall to the spring assessment. Flagler County made the highest gains in both the PSF and the NWF but the lowest gains in the ISF. It should be noted that the teachers in Putnam Coun ty scored the highest on the skills survey and their students made the greatest gains on th e PSF and NWF during the school year. Both subtests are a based on a students ability to segment and blend phonemes in a word. Table 4-9. Mean Score for each subtest by County Alachua (M) Marion (M) Putnam (M) Flagler (M) Duval (M) LNF (Fall) 11.03 9.89* 12.92 14.44** 10.28 ISF (Fall) 19.00 20.89 18.42* 24.77** 21.59 LNF (Winter) 30.19** 22.76 21.41* 27.31 22.47 ISF (Winter) 34.55 40.90** 35.42* 40.81 37.87 PSF (Winter) 27.47 28.23 24.75* 35.27** 25.11 NWF (Winter) 23.68 27.07 20.57* 31.12** 24.41 ISF (Spring) 43.23* 52.97 49.38 54.04** 49.71 PSF (Spring) 36.26* 38.90 37.44 45.83** 37.70 NWF (Spring) 35.93* 48.91 40.48 49.49** 40.93 ** Indicates the highest mean betw een the counties for each subtest Indicates the lowest mean between the counties for each subtest

PAGE 74

74 Statistical Analysis of the Data This sec tion will discuss the data findings for the relationship of variables in this study including a multiple regression analysis for each dependent variable, correlations between the PASS and PAKS, number of years teaching experience, number of years teaching at the K level and the correlations between teachers knowledge a nd students scores. The data were analyzed to determine if there were any statistically significant differen ces between teachers knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and students DIBELS scores. Additi onal analyses were conducted to explore further the results and to compare this study to previous studies. PAKS and PASS Correlations were com puted to test the rela tionship between partic ipants scores on the PAKS and the PASS. This correlation was conduc ted to examine if participants who did well on the PAKS survey to examine their ability to answer open-ended questions about PA also did well on the PASS a survey to examine their ability to manipulate sounds within words. An examination of the correlations reveals that par ticipants who did well on the PAKS also did well on the PASS. At the 0.01 level of significance (r=0.268, p<.01) a relationship was found between teachers score on the PASS and their score on the PAKS. PASS and Level of Teaching Experience Correlations were com puted to test the relationship between the PASS and years of teaching experience. An examination of the correlations reveals that there was a small but significant negative relationship between the PASS and years of teaching experience. At the .05 level of significance (r=-.146, p< .05) it was found that teachers with more years of teaching experience scored lower on the PA SS than teachers who had less years of teaching experience. It was also found at the .05 level of significan ce (r=-.149, p<.05) that there was a small but significant negative relationship between teachers scores on the PASS and years of teaching at

PAGE 75

75 the kindergarten level. It was found that teachers who had more experience teaching at the kindergarten level scored lower on the survey than teachers who had less years of teaching experience. PAKS and Level of Teaching Experience Correlations were com puted to test the re lationship between the PAKS and years of teaching experience. An examination of the co rrelations reveals that there was no significant relationship between the PAKS and years of teaching experience. At the .05 level of significance (r=-.018, p>.05) the corr elation indicates that there was no relationship between the two variables. Similar findings al so revealed that there was no relationship between the PAKS and years of teaching experience at the kindergar ten level. At the .05 level of significance (r=.034, p>.05) the correlation indica tes that there was no significan t relationship between the two variables. Teachers Knowledge and Student Outcomes As shown in Table 4-10, correlations were also computed between the means of the variables. If the subtest was gi ven three times, the difference was computed between the fall and spring assessments. If the assessment was only give two times during the year the mean was calculated between the fall and winter or the winter and spring assessm ents. Findings revealed that there was a positive correlation between teachers phonemic awareness knowledge and the LNF (r=.157, p<.05). Teachers who did well on the P AKS also had students who did well on the LNF. There were also positive correlations between the ISF and PSF (r=.334, p<.01), PSF and NWF (r=.325, p<.01) and ISF and NWF (r=.521, p<.01). Th is is due to the sk ills each subtest measures. If students did well on the PSF, they al so did well on the NWF a nd the ISF. All three subtests measure a students ability to identif y, segment and decode phonemes in words. There was a negative correlation be tween the LNF and the PSF (r=.-209, p<.01) which means that

PAGE 76

76 students who did well on the PSF did not do well on the LNF. This finding may be due to the fact that letter naming does not correlate with a childs ability to segment sounds in words. There were no correlations found between teachers skil ls of phonemic awareness and students scores. Table 4-10. Correlations between variables using difference between mean over time Knowledge Skills LNF (diff.) ISF (diff.) PSF (diff.) NWF (dif.) Knowledge 1.00 .268** .157* .064 -.146 .013 Skills .268** 1.00 .089 .030 -.135 .095 LNF (diff.) .157* .089 1.00 0.43 -.209** -0.53 ISF (diff.) .064 .030 .043 1.00 .334** .521** PSF (diff.) -.146 -.135 -.209** .334** 1.00 .325** NWF (dif.) .013 .095 -.053 .521** .325** 1.00 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Correlation in significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Multiple Regression Analysis A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the degree of association between the explanatory variables (teachers knowledge, teachers skills and the corresponding pre-test) and the outcome variables (DIBELS LNF (2), ISF (3), NWF (3) and PSF (3)). The multiple regression analysis was also conducted to test the following research questions. Question 1: What is the relationship between teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness pedagogy (PAKS) and their students phonemic awareness growth? Question 2: What is the relationship between teac hers own phonemic awaren ess skills (PASS) and their students phonem ic awareness growth? Four regression models were tested to i nvestigate the influence of teachers knowledge and skills on the increase in DIB ELS measures from the fall to spri ng, fall to winter or winter to spring assessments. Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) Using multiple regression, the first model was analyzed with all four variables present. In term s of the overall model, a significant F-ratio of F (3, 174) =92.17, p<.001 was reported. In addition, the adjusted R2 value of .614 indicates that the explanatory variables are jointly associated w ith 61% of the shared variance in the DIBELS

PAGE 77

77 NWF scores. When examining the influence of each variable on the DIBELS NWF (3) scores, the greatest predictor of the post-test score (NWF 3) was the pre-test sc ore (NWF 2) controlling for the knowledge and skills variables. This is indicated by the larg e standardized beta coefficient (=.779). Additionally, NWF (2) has th e largest absolute t value and the smallest significance ( t =16.49, p<.001). It was found that teachers knowledge and skills did not have predictive value on the NWF (3) with significance levels of p=.750 and p=.233 (at the .05 level of significance), making NWF (2) appear to be the strongest of the explan atory variables in the model. Table 4-11. Full Regression Model (NWF) Outcome Variable Explanatory Variables b t Significance Zero-Order Correlations NWF (3) NWF (1) 1.163 .779 16.49 p<.001 .781 Knowledge -.073 -.016 -.320 .750 .053 Skills .209 .059 1.197 .233 .096 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF). The second model that was tested was analyzed with all four variables present. In terns of the overall model, a significant F-ratio of F (3, 174) = 64.78, p<.001 was reported. The adjusted R2 of .528 indicates that the explanatory variables are jointly associated with 52% of the shared variance in the DIBELS PSF scores. When examining the influence of each variable on the outcome variable, the greatest predictor of the post-test scores was the pre-test score co ntrolling for knowledge and skills. This is indicated by the large standardized beta coefficient ( =.736). The pre-test score also has the largest t value and the smallest significance (t=13.89, p<.001). It was also found that teachers knowledge and skills did not have predictive value on the PSF (3) with significance levels of p=.227 and p=.444 (at the .05 level of significance), making P SF (2) appear to be the stronge r explanatory variable in the equation.

PAGE 78

78 Table 4-12. Full Regression Model (PSF) Outcome Variable Explanatory Variables b t Significance Zero-Order Correlations PSF (3) PSF (1) .751 .736 13.897 p<.001 .721 Knowledge -.234 -.066 -1.211 .227 .013 Skills -.113 -.042 -.767 .444 .058 Initial Sound Fluency (ISF). The third model that was tested indicated a significant F ratio of F (3,174) =14.83, p <.001. In addition, the adjusted R2 value of .193 indicates that the explanatory variables are jointly associated with 19% of the shared vari ance in the DIBELS ISF scores. When examining the influence of each variable on the outcome variable (ISF 3), the greatest predictor of the post-test scores was th e pre-test scores controlling for knowledge and skills. This is indicated by the large standardized beta coefficient (=.452). The pre-test score also had the largest absolute t value and the smallest significant ( t =6.618, p<.001) which suggests that ISF (1) has a large impact on scores predicted for I SF (3). Findings also revealed that teachers knowledge and skills did not have predictive value on the ISF (3) with significance levels of p=.516 and p=.748 (at the .05 level of significance), making ISF (1) appear to be the stronger explanatory vari able in the equation. Table 4-13. Full Regression Model (ISF) Outcome Variable Explanatory Variables b t Significance Zero-Order Correlations ISF (3) ISF (1) .709 .452 6.618 p<.001 .451 Knowledge .146 .046 .651 .651 .039 Skills .055 .023 .321 .321 .056 Letter Naming Fluency (LNF). The fourth model that was te sted indicated a significant F ration of F (3,174)= 3.21, p >.05. The adjusted R2 value of .053 indicates that the explanatory variables are jointly associated with only 5% of the shared vari ance in the DIBELS LNF scores. When examining the influence of each variable on the outcome variable (LNF 3), the greatest predictor of the post-test scores was the teachers knowledge score when controlling for skills

PAGE 79

79 and the pre-test scores (LNF 1). This is indicat ed by the standardized beta coefficient (=.158). Teachers knowledge also had the largest abso lute t score and the smallest significance ( t =2.04, p=<.05) which suggest that teachers knowledge has an impact on LNF (3). Findings also revealed that teachers skills and DIBELS LNF pre-test did not have a predictive value on the LNF (3) with significance level of p=.292 and p=.160 (at the .05 level of significance), making teachers knowledge appear to be the stronger explanatory variable. Although findings revealed that there is a relationship betw een knowledge and LNF (3), it is an extremely weak relationship as evidenced by the small t-value, the poor R2 and a F ration of only 3.74. Overall, this model in much weaker than the other three models. Table 4-14. Full Regression Model (LNF) Outcome Variable Explanatory Variables b t Significance Zero-Order Correlations LNF (3) LNF (1) .406 .158 1.412 p=.160 .120 Knowledge .162 .082 2.044 p<.05 .186 Skills .225 .106 1.057 p=.292 .136 Based on the multiple regression analysis condu cted to answer Research Question1, it is apparent that teachers knowledge of pedagogy is weakly associated with the scores on the LNF (3), and that the scores on the teachers knowledge survey are just slightly pr edictive of scores on the DIBELS LNF (3) measure ( t =2.04, p=<.05). Findings also revealed that there are no other relationships between teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness and students DIBELS scores. Based on the multiple regression analysis condu cted to answer Research Question2, it is apparent that teachers skills related to phonemi c awareness is not associated with students DIBELS sores. Although results indicated th at the full models were significant once the influence on each variable was examined, it was re vealed that there are no relationships between teachers skills related to phonemic awareness and students scores.

PAGE 80

80 Summary The purpose of this study was to exam ine th e relationships between teachers knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and students l iteracy outcomes. Data were collected from teachers using the PAKS and the PASS, and DIBELS data were collected from PMRN. A multiple regression analysis was used to test the relationship between teachers knowledge and students scores. Although there were limited relationships between teachers knowledge and skills and student outcomes, findings did reveal that th ere were statistical differences between teachers knowledge and th e LNF subtest of the DIBELS assessment. Findings also revealed positive correlations between the PAKS and the PASS. Teachers who did well on the PASS also di d well on the PASS. This chapter presented a description of the sa mple, a summary of results for the PAKS and PASS and results related to the relationship be tween teacher knowledge, teacher demographics and students scores. The final ch apter will discuss the results for the PAKS and PASS, results related to the relationship between teacher knowledge and students scores. Then, the implications of the study will be presented, which will be followed by generalizations, assumptions, limitations of the study and conclusi ons and recommendations fo r further research.

PAGE 81

81Table 4-15. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Teachers Knowledge and Skills and Student Outcomes LNF ISF PSF NWF B t-stat B t-stat B t-stat B t-stat Knowledge 0.406 2.044 0.146 0.651 -0.234 -1.211 -0.073 -0.320 Skill 0.162 1.057 0.055 0.321 -0.113 -0.767 0.209 1.197 Pre-test 0.225 1.412 0.709 6.618 0.751 13.897 1.163 16.494 R Square 0.053 0.207 0.528 0.614 F-stat 3.212 14.863 64.782 92.171 Post-test (dependent measure) Winter Test Spring Test Spring Test Spring Test Pre-test Fall Test Fall Test Winter Test Winter Test

PAGE 82

82 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Researchers have found that early system atic instruction in phonemic awareness improves students beginning reading and sp elling skills (Mather et al., 2001) Although research confirms that this knowledge increases students unde rstanding of reading, research continues to demonstrates that teachers are not familiar w ith phonemic awareness activities (McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; Mather et al., 2001; O,Connor, 1999). The purpose of this study was to determine th e relationships among ki ndergarten teachers knowledge about phonemic awareness and their student s emergent literacy development. More specifically, this study examined the relationship between teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness pedagogy and teachers own phonemic aw areness skills and their students phonemic awareness growth. This chapter provides an overview of the cu rrent study and summarizes the results found in Chapter 4. First, a summary of results will be di scussed related to the te acher knowledge surveys. Next, a discussion of the generalizations, assump tions, and limitations of the study; threats to external validity; and measurement and statis tical issues will be reviewed. Finally, the dissertation will close with a summary and implications for future research. Summary of Results Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (PAKS) The m ean score for the PAKS was 7.82 out of a possible 18. The scores ranged from zero to eighteen which means that at least one of the participants did not answer any of the questions correctly and one participant recei ved a perfect score on all six items. An item analysis revealed that item two had the lowest mean (m=.99) and item three (m=1.64) had the highest mean. Item

PAGE 83

83 two asked the participants w hy phonemic awareness is important and item three asked the participants what phonemic awareness skills are most important. There was not much variance between the means of the items indicating that the pa rticipants lacked overall knowledge for all the items on the survey. Using Cronbachs alpha, th e reliability of the survey was .67. In the field of education, a reliability of .70 or higher is a cceptable (Tuckman, 1994). It is possible that the low reliability of the PAKS is due to the low nu mber of items on the survey. Reliability is higher when there are more items on the instrument (Tuckman, 1994). PAKS scores were also analy zed by district, education level, certification and professional development activities. Although there were variat ions found in the scores between the different categories, significant differences in scores were only found by th e district size. The medium sized districts, Alachua and Marion Counties, ha d the highest mean on the PAKS (M=8.80). This could be due to the fact that pa rticipants living in these counti es had advanced degrees because they were living closer to a public univers ity. Based on the Florida School Indicators report (2006), 49.9 percent of all Alachua county te achers and 28.2 percent of all Marion county teachers had advanced degrees. In comparison, only 29.1 percent of Duval county teachers, 26.9 percent of Putnam county teachers and 29.1 percen t of Flagler county teachers had advanced degrees. In addition, living closer to a University may have gi ven these teachers more access to professional development related to reading. In fact, in recent years Marion and Alachua county teachers have received extensive professional development specifically related to phonemic awareness from a University of Florida professor. Teachers who had advanced degrees scored hi gher on the PAKS than teachers who had only earned a Bachelors degree. Therefore, teachers who had a masters, specialist or doctorate did better on the PAKS than teachers who had a bachelors. These findings are consistent with

PAGE 84

84 similar studies related to teacher knowledge (T royer & Yopp, 1990). It was also found that teachers who have an early childhood certification had a higher mean on the PAKS and PASS than teachers who did not have the certification. Teachers who ha d this certification may have had more reading courses that focus on em ergent literacy development. Teachers who participated in at least one of the three R eading First professional development activities (Reading First academy, district tr aining or on-site training) had a higher mean (M=8.52) than teachers who did not participate in any type of professional de velopment (M=6.98). Although all the teachers participating in th e study were from Reading Firs t schools, many of the teachers indicated that they did not participate in any type of professional development. It should also be noted that there was a small but significant di fference between teachers who had one or more hours of professional development and teachers who did not have any hours of professional development. An independent t-test reveal ed a small but significant difference ( t=2.34, p=<.05) indicating that teachers who had one or more hours of professional development scored higher on the PAKS than teachers who had zero hours of professional development. However an independent t-test for the PASS revealed th at there were no significant differences ( t= .784, p>.05) between teachers who had one or more hours of professional development and teachers who had zero hours of professional development. Th ese results demonstrate that the scores are not equally dependent on profe ssional development. Teachers w ho participated in professional development scored higher on the PAKS than teachers who did not, and there were no differences between teachers who participated in professional de velopment and teachers who did not on the PASS. The findings of this survey are difficult to compare to other studies because studies comparable to this study examine teachers ability to identity, count and manipulate sounds

PAGE 85

85 within words. The items on the PAKS examin ed teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness pedagogy. Overall, the teachers lacked genera l knowledge about phonemic awareness; these findings are consistent with other studies relate d to teachers knowledge of the structure of language (Moats, 1994). The teachers misconcepti ons about phonemic awareness revealed that they knew little about the importance of phonemi c awareness assessment and instruction. The majority of the answers to the items on the PAKS indicated that teachers thought phonemic awareness was the letter/sound connection and fe w of the participants knew that phonemic awareness was the ability to manipulate, identif y and hear sounds in spoken language. Teachers used the word phonemic awareness and phonics interc hangeable as they answered their questions which indicated that they did not understa nd the difference between the two terms. Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) The m ean score for the PASS was 16.8 out of a possible 25. The scores ranged from 5 to 24. Therefore, none of the particip ants received a perfect score on the survey. The item difficulty ranged from .071 to .986. The item with the lowest percent of correct responses was an item in the phoneme counting section. Participants were asked to count the number of phonemes in the word mix. Ninety-three percent of the participants answered this item incorrectly. A majority of the participants indicated that there were th ree phonemes in the word when the correct answer was four. Participants did not account for the tw o phonemes in the x which were k and s. Many teachers indicated that the k and the s were one phoneme representing the x sound. There were two items that had the highest per centage of correct responses. The first item was in the phoneme deletion secti on. Participants were asked to delete the sound t in the word meat and come up with a new word. Accepta ble answers included me, mea, and mee. Although there were different spellings of the word, the different representations of the word were all phonetically correct. Ea ch answer included both phonemes in the word. Ninety-nine

PAGE 86

86 percent of the participants were able to answ er this item correctly. The second item was in the phoneme matching section. Participants were asked to match the underlined sound in pi tch to the word lip. Ninety-nine percent of the particip ants were able to answer this item correctly. The participants were able to match th e short i sound in both of the words. PASS scores were also analyzed by district, education level, certification and professional development activities. Simila r to the PAKS, significant differ ences were only found by district size (p=.032). The medium sized districts, Alac hua and Marion Counties, had the highest mean on the PASS (M=17.89). Duval County ha d the lowest mean (M=16.00). Teachers who had advanced degrees had a higher mean (M=17.18) on the PASS than teachers who had only earned a Bachelors degree (M=16.68). It was also found that teachers who have an early childhood certification scored slightly higher than t eachers who did not have the certification. Teachers who participated in at least one of the three Reading First professional development activities (Reading First academy, district training or on-site training) had a higher mean (M=17.14) than teachers who did not participate in any type of professional development (M=16.46). Correlations were computed to test the rela tionship between partic ipants scores on the PAKS and PASS. Findings revealed that particip ants who did well on the PAKS also did well on the PASS. Since both the PAKS and the PA SS examined teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness, it was expected that teachers who did well on the PASS also did well on the PAKS. Teacher Knowledge and Student Scores This study d emonstrates limited relationships between teachers knowledge and skills of phonemic awareness and student outcomes. Using a regression analysis, fi ndings revealed that there was a small relationship between teachers PAKS scores and the LNF subtest. Although the LNF is a subtest of DIBELS it is not a specific measure of phonemic awareness. It measures a

PAGE 87

87 students ability to name letters therefore one can conclude that there are limited relationships between teachers knowledge and skills of phone mic awareness and students scores. Although some studies have shown that teacher knowledg e does impact student learning (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999; McCutchen, A bbot et al., 2002; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; OConnor, 1999), this study found limited evidence to show a ny correlations between teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness and student learning. There could be multip le reasons for these findings. First, the PAKS and PASS were both adapte d surveys and were not used in previous studies. Since both surveys were used for the first time in this study it could be assumed that they are not accurate measures of what teachers know about phonemic awareness. Research has also yet to determine what kinds of questions are th e most sensitive and a me aningful indicator of how well a teacher is likely to perform in the classroom. Second, since classroom observations were not conducted on the teachers who participated in this study, it is hard to connect what teachers k now to what they teach in the classroom to their students or how they teach it. The PASS examin ed teachers ability to segment and blend phonemes within words. It could be assumed th at, if teachers do not know how to segment and blend phonemes within words, they do not know how to model that skill for their students. The PAKS examined what teachers re ported they do in their classroo ms. An observation checklist might be a more reliable way to capture what instructional strategi es related to phonemic awareness the teachers are using in their cla ssrooms. Future studies should examine what teachers know and what teachers are actually implementing in their classroom. It would also be beneficial to examine th e type of curriculum us ed in Reading First schools verses non-Reading First schools. Since the curriculum used in Reading First schools is rigorously examined prior to adoption teachers ma y have a different knowledge base because of

PAGE 88

88 the type of reading programs used in their sc hools. Perhaps with particularly well designed curricula teachers knowledge becomes less impo rtant. Future research should examine the different types of reading programs used in Reading First and non-Reading First schools and teachers knowledge base of phonemic awareness. Finally, since DIBELS scores were the only record of cla ssroom performance (DIBELS is a one minute timing of students automaticity of their phonemic awareness skills), information about students phonemic awareness development was limited. It is possible that a more in depth assessment that measures more specific con cepts of phonemic awareness (e.g., Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, CTOPP) could yield student results more connected to what teachers know about phonemic awareness. Since DIBELS has been demonstrated to co rrelate with the CTOPP (Hintze, Ryan & Stoner, 2003), DIBELS was an a ppropriate measure to use given the number of participants in the study and the limited amount of time and res ources to assess each child. Table 5-1 displays the correlations for scores of the CTOPP and DI BELS. Examination of the coefficients indicates that both the ISF and the PSF tasks of the DIBELS correlate most strongly with the subtests of the CTOPP that are designed to measure both phonological awareness and memory (i.e., Elision, Blending Words, Sound Matching and Nonsense Word Repetition). It was also found that both the ISF and PSF tasks of the DIBELS correlates le ss strongly with those tasks that involve rapid naming activities (i.e., Rapid Color Naming, Rapid Object Naming and Memory for Digits). The LNF task also correlated strongly with subtes t of the CTOPP that re present both phonological awareness and memory as well as rapid naming abilities. These findings support the idea that student data from the CTOPP might connect more to what teachers know about phonemic

PAGE 89

89 awareness because the subtest on the CTOPP are a more detailed measure of what students know about phonological awareness and their ability to store that information in their memory. Although recent studies have shown that DIB ELS has been demonstrated to be a good predictor of performance on state reading tests (Good, Simmons, & Kameenui, 2000), it should be noted that the use of DIBELS, and other one-m inute assessments, should be used with caution because DIBELS is an assessment of fluency and automaticty. Since DIBELS measures a students automatacity, and st udents at the kindergarten leve l may not be at a point of automaticity, the CTOPP may capture more of what students know about phonemic awareness. The CTOPP examines students ability to perf orm the tasks without the focus on fluency and automaticity. Table 5-1. Ccorrelations for Scor es on the DIBELS and CTOPP Measure ELI RCN BLW SM RON MD NWR LNF .45 .59 .38 .53 .59 .43 .44 ISF .52 .21 .51 .51 .24 .34 .44 PSF .47 .08 .63 .25 .14 .32 .33 Note: LNF=Letter Naming Fluency; ISF=Initial Sound Fluency; PSF=Phoneme Segmentation Fluency; ELI=Elision; RCN=Rapid Colo r Naming; BLW=Blending Words; SM=Sound Matching; RON=Rapid Object Naming; MD=Memory for Digits; NWR=Nonsense Word Repetition Limitations to the Present Study This study h ad several limitations. The next se ction will discuss the threats to external validity, measurement issues and statistical issues. The participants in the study were volunteers. Instead of selecting the participants randomly, participants were asked by their Reading First coach to partic ipate in the study. The participants in the study were teachers who ta ught in Reading First schools. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusions about what ty pical kindergarten teachers know about phonemic awareness. Although the schools were diverse among race and socioeconomic status (SES), participants in this sample are not reflective of the teachers across the state of Florida or across

PAGE 90

90 the United States. Although the participants were compensated with a professional development book for participating in the study, not all teache rs chose to participate. Non-participating teachers did not share reasons for not participatin g, but it is possible that they chose not to participate because they felt they lacked knowledge about phonemic awareness. Although the overall scores for the two surveys were low, teac hers who did participate could have participated because they felt they had a strong knowledge base which could have skewed the results of the surveys. The demographics surveys asked the teacher s to indicate the t ype of professional development they participated in within the la st twelve months. Participants did not indicate professional development activities that they participated in prio r to the previous school year. Many of the participants noted that they did participate in Reading First professional development but it was not within the twelve m onth period. It would have been useful to have more detailed information about previous professional development experience. However, the effort to keep the survey short interfered with the collection of this potentially useful data. The PAKS was an adapted survey and has not been used in previous studies. The PAKS was developed to assess teachers knowle dge of phonemic awareness pedagogy. The PAKS asked the teachers six open ended questions about phonemic awareness. Although all of the questions were deemed appropriate as a result of the pilot study, this study demonstrated that the last question on the survey was too long. The la st question asked the t eachers to expand their answer from the previous question. The teacher s were asked to describe the methods, time devoted to teaching phonemic awareness, grouping arrangements, the types of assessments used and specific instructional skills that were taught. This question should focus on one or two of the instructional methods so that t eachers answering the questions can elaborate on their answers.

PAGE 91

91 The reliability of the PAKS was low, confirming th at the test should be ad apted before it is used in future studies. In the phoneme deletion section of the PASS, directions were stated as follows. If you said the word best without the sound /s/, you would say.... Since the directions did not ask the participants to specify a real word as their answer some of the participants answered by a correct phonological representation of th e word (i.e., instead of me mea and mee were accepted as correct answers). The directions should have specified If you said the word best without the sound /s/, what word would you say? Then, there would be only one correct answer per item. The answers were scored based on the corr ect phonemic representation of the word. The experimenter effect is a term used to de scribe any number of cues or signals from an experimenter that may affect the performance of the participants in the experiment (Rosenthal, 1998). Since the surveys were administered by three different data collector s, it is possible that the surveys were administered differently. Although there were scripted administration procedures for both the PAKS and the PASS it is po ssible that the data collectors influenced the performance of the participants. The Hawthorne effect refers to a phenomenon wh ich is thought to occur when participants observed during a research study temporarily change their behavior or performance because they know they are being studied. Prior to participating in this study, particip ants signed a consent form which informed them about the study. It is possible that the particip ants results could be skewed because they knew their answers were being reviewed. Although recent studies have shown that DIB ELS has been demonstrated to be a good predictor of performance on state reading tests (Good, Simmons, & Kameenui, 2000), it should be noted that the use of DIBELS and other one-minute assessments as a measure of phonemic

PAGE 92

92 awareness has been criticized by some research ers. As previously noted, a more in depth assessment (e.g., CTOPP) of students phonological sk ills may have yielded different results. Implications for Future Research This study yields several im portant imp lications for future research. Although measurement of teachers knowledge is challeng ing for researchers, acquiring an understanding of what teachers know and how it effects classroom practice is critical for improving teachers practice through effective teacher preparation and professional development activities. Survey Design The Phonemic Awareness Knowledge Survey (P AKS) was developed to exam ine teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness concepts and pedagogy. Although a large body of converging evidence related to teacher knowledg e has revealed that teachers lack overall knowledge about phonemic awareness, few studies have examined teachers knowledge related to more advanced concepts about language (Adams, 1990; Adgar, Snow & Christian, 2002; Moats, 1999; NCLB, 2002; NRP, 2000; Reading Excellen ce Act, 1996; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998; The National Right to Read, 1993). Specifically, rese archers have yet to examine what kinds of questions are the most sensitive and a meaningful indicator of how well a teacher is likely to perform in the classroom. The PAKS was designed to examine teachers understanding of phonemic awareness related to the importance of phonemic awareness and to exam ine their understanding of phonemic awareness assessment and instruction. Fu rther research is also needed on developing teacher knowledge surveys and connecting them to be valid predictors of how well a teacher is likely to do in reading instruction. Many of the surveys used to uncover teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness have not been identified as valid predictors of how well a teacher teaches reading.

PAGE 93

93 Although the reliability of the PAKS was low, on average teachers failed to provide adequate answers related to phonemic awareness pedagogy. The surv ey did reveal that teachers had many misconceptions about phonemic awareness; specifically, teachers indicated that phonemic awareness was the letter/sound connection (phonics). Future res earch should examine why teachers have this misconcep tion about phonemic awareness. Professional Development Participants involved in this study were all part of the Reading First initiative. All participants should have participated in som e type of Reading First professional development within the past twelve months. Despite simila r professional development experiences across the state due to teachers involvem ent in Reading First (i.e., site-based reading coaches, Reading First academy), teacher knowledge about phonemic aw areness varied widely. It was noted that 27% of the participants reported that they did not participate in any type of Reading First professional development activities. This finding was discouraging since all the teachers had a site-based reading coach at their school. A ll teachers teaching in Reading First schools are required to attend annual profe ssional development activities. Since studies have shown that effective profe ssional development models ensure teachers application of successful liter acy instruction (Lane et al., 2008; McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002; Mather et al., 2001; O,Connor, 1999), future research should focus on the implementation of effective professional development models. These types of models must provide educators with ample time to collaborate and must be supported by school personnel (Moats, 2004; Foorman & Moats, 2004). The Reading Firs t initiative supports effective professional development models by placing a site-based Reading First coach at each school. Although teachers may have the resources at their schools, many schools still fail to ensure effective professional development models by not connecting pr ofessional development to classroom practice.

PAGE 94

94 Teacher Preparation Participan ts in this study indicated that th ey had some college coursework related to reading instruction. Specifically, 46% of the participan ts indicated that they had taken between zero and two college classes related to teaching reading and 54% of the teachers had taken two or more reading courses. Teachers lack of knowledge related to phonemic awareness could be related to their level of prep aredness to teach reading (Ehri & Williams, 1995). Research has found that teachers who are well prepared to teach reading expressed confidence in the knowledge and instructional practi ces, verses teachers who are less prepared expressed their frustration at the disconnect be tween their training and their teaching (Foorman & Moats, 2004; Taylor, Peterson, Pearson & Rodriguez, 2003). Fu ture research should examine the knowledge base of teachers from different types of pr eparation programs. Different types of field experiences and methods courses should be examin ed to see if there is a different knowledge base for teachers from varyi ng levels of preparation. Although this study examined teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness, it did not address teachers ability to put their knowledge into act ion in the classroom. Future research should also examine how teachers put their knowl edge of phonemic awareness into action at the classroom level. Research has shown that t eachers who have a solid knowledge base about reading and apply their knowledge to instructional practices ha ve a greater impact on student learning (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Moats, 1996; Whitehurst, 2002). Conclusion Policy m akers and researchers in reading deve lopment have made significant advancement in early detection and treatment of students with reading difficulties. Ho wever, unless teachers understand and are prepared to implement these re search based practices, students will continue to demonstrate a difficulty in learning how to read (Moat, 2004, Strickland, Snow, Griffin, Burns

PAGE 95

95 & McNamara, 2002). Since research on teacher e ducation is a relatively new enterprise, many questions still need to be answered. Future research should examine current teacher education programs, valid measures that predict teachers ability to teach readi ng, the amount of content knowledge needed to be effective reading te achers and effective pr ofessional development models related to reading. Recent mandates in the area of reading instruction have encouraged teacher education programs to renovate their current requirements for teacher certification. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation requires that teacher s participating in federally funded programs must be highly-qualified (Moats, 2004). Studies have found that current licensing programs are not preparing teachers to meet the diverse needs of students who are at risk for reading failure (Moats, 1994; Darling-Hammond, 1997). Stat e certification programs have minimal requirements, which range from no course work in reading to an average of twelve course hours. Other researchers have found th at the average read ing teacher only completes two reading courses (McCardle & Chhabra, 2004). Through ex tensive research, re searchers and policy makers must examine the current licensing proce dures and determine specif ic criteria that must be met prior to receiving a teaching certificate. Recent research has also demonstrated that students must be taught by teachers who are knowledgeable about emergent literacy developmen t and reading instruction (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; OConnor, 1999; Foorman & Moats, 2004; Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich & Stanovich, 2004) Although the present study did not find any correlations between teachers knowledge and student outcomes, other studies have found connections between teachers knowledge of readi ng and student learning (Bos, Mather, Narr et al., 1999; McCutchen, Abbot et al., 2002; OConnor, 1999; Foorman & Moats, 2004;

PAGE 96

96 Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich & Stanovich, 20 04). Although this st udy did not find any evidence to show that students success in literacy development is dependent on their teachers knowledge of phonemic awareness, other studies have shown that it is still important for teacher education programs to incorporate phonemic awar eness training within th eir programs (Moat, 2004, Strickland, Snow, Griffin, Burns & McNamara, 2002). As teachers gain more knowledge about the benefits of using phonemi c awareness activities in their classroom, students literacy development will flourish. Future research e fforts should continue to contribute to our understanding of these relationshi ps and continue to further our efforts toward solving them.

PAGE 97

97 APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT INFORMATION Personal Data Name Sex : Female Male Please indicate your race/ethni city (circle all that apply): White Native American Black Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic (of any race) Other: Please list all levels of education, year degree was obtained, institution and major: Level of Education Year Institution Major Bachelors Masters Specialist Doctorate Professional Data School District Number of years t eaching experience Experience at K level Other teaching experience Area(s) of Florida Teacher Certification or Endorsement (circle all that apply): Elementary Reading Certification Math/Science Early Childhood Reading Endorsement Technology Special Education ESOL Other:

PAGE 98

98 College Coursework and Pr ofessional Development How many credit hours of college coursework have you taken that related to teaching reading? None 7-15 hours 1-3 hours More that 16 hours 4-6 hours Have you participated in any reading-related professional developme nt (PD) other than university coursework within the past year ? If so, what type of PD did you engage in? Please check all that apply and indicate the approximate num ber of hours. Type of Professional Development Approximate number of hours Reading First Academy Reading First (district training) Reading First on-site (reading coach at school) LiPS training DIBELS training Great Leaps FDLRS training Orton Gillingham SRA training UFLI training FCRR Other: Other: Follow-up Data (optional) We will be conducting follow-up interviews with some participants. If you would be willing to participate in a follow-up intervie w via telephone or email, please provide your contact information here: Telephone best time to call Email address

PAGE 99

99 APPENDIX B PHONEMIC AWARENESS KNOWLEDGE SURVEY Please a nswer each of the following six questions to the best of your ability in the space provided below the question. 1. What is phonemic awareness? 2. Why is phonemic awareness important? 3. What phonemic awareness skills are most important?

PAGE 100

100 4. How can phonemic awareness be assessed? 5. What instructional methods could be used to develop phonemic awareness? 6. Describe briefly the instructional methods you use to develop students phonemic awareness skills, including the methods time devoted to phonemic awareness instruction (minutes per day and days per week) grouping arrangements, types of assessments used and specific instru ctional skills that are taught. Thank you for your time and effort!

PAGE 101

101Table B-1. Scoring Rubric for Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness Survey General Meaning of Assigned Ratings 0 1 2 3 Shows no knowledge or provides insufficient detail to tell how much they know Shows little knowledge and some information may be incorrect Shows some or acceptable level of knowledge knowledge at a surface level. Shows excellent, expert level of knowledgeknowledge at a deep, detailed level. Scoring Rubric for Question 1: What is phonemic awareness? Specific Indicators: No answer or incorrect answer Vague and general Lacks details Specific Indicators: Indicates that PA is the letter/sound connection (phonics/alphabetic principle). Specific Indicators: Indicates that PA is the ability to hear and identify sounds. Indicates that sounds make up words (does not include manipulation). Specific Indicators: Indicates that PA is the ability to hear, identify and manipulate sounds in spoken words (does not include letters). Scoring Rubric for Question 2: Why is phonemic awareness important? Specific Indicators: Indicates Phonemic Awareness is important for reading, comprehension, writing, and fluency. Vague and general Lacks details Specific Indicators: Indicates that PA is important because students must be able to sound out words before they can begin to read (refers to letter/sound connection). OR Prerequisite to other reading skills (spelling, invented spelling, language development). Specific Indicators: Indicates that PA is important for decoding (does not mention the letter/sound connection). OR Indicates that PA is important for blending or segmenting. Specific Indicators: Indicates that PA is important for reading because it teaches students how to break apart sounds (phonemes) in words. OR Indicates that PA is important for blending and segmenting (as a prerequisite to phonics).

PAGE 102

102Table B-1. Continued Scoring Rubric for Question 3: What phonemi c awareness skills are most important? 0 1 2 3 Specific Indicators: Answer incorrect Vague and general Doesnt answer the question Focuses on what teachers do, not what students need to learn. Mentions ALL skills are important. Specific Indicators: Indicates that it is important to identify and/or hear letters/sounds in words (has letter/sound connection). Skills are mentioned (blending and segmenting are omitted). Specific Indicators: Names or describes blending or segmenting. Specific Indicators: Names or describes blending and segmenting. Scoring Rubric for Question 4: How can phonemic awareness be assessed? Specific Indicators: Answer incorrect Vague and general Doesnt answer the questiondoesnt tell how to assess or tells about instruction Specific Indicators Name 1 appropriate method or skill. Mentions only DIBELS (does not mention any subtest). Specific Indicators: Names 1 skill and 1 method. OR Names 2 skills or 2 methods. OR Names specific subtests of DIBELS. Specific Indicators Name 3 skills or 3 methods.

PAGE 103

103Table B-1. Continued. Scoring Rubric for Question 5: What instructional methods could be used to develop phonemic awareness? 0 1 2 3 Specific Indicators: Methods mentioned do not address phonemic awareness Specific Indicators: Response relates to at least 1 method that includes the use of letters. Does not include oral language skills. Specific Indicators: Response relates to at least 2 methods (does not include the use of letters). Response includes more than 1 phonetic skill. Specific Indicators: Response relates to 3 or more methods. Response includes at least 3 different skills (does not include letters). Connects letters once oral piece is mastered. Scoring Rubric for Question 6: Rating of Methods Indicated Specific Indicators: Does not mention any indicators or mentions inappropriate indicators Time Grouping Methods Assesment Skills Specific Indicators: Describes 1 or 2 indicators. Indicators described must be research-based. Specific Indicators: Describes 3 or more indicators. Indicators described must be research based. Specific Indicators: Mentions all 5 indicators. Indicators described must be research based. OR Describes in detail effective instructional methods and includes indicators to support methods.

PAGE 104

104 APPENDIX C PASS SURVEY Phono logical Awareness Skills Survey SECTION 1: Phoneme Deletion Items 1-4: Listen for directions. Sample Item 1. 3. 2. 4. SECTION 2: Phoneme Counting Items 5-10: How many speech sounds are in each word? Sample Item cat 3 5. tie 8. mix 6. laughed 9. thrown 7. chalk 10. kitchen SECTION 3: Phoneme Identification Items 11-16: What is the 3rd speech sound in each of the following words? Sample Item shook k 11. joyful 14. folks 12. scratch 15. sheets 13. protect 16. lightning

PAGE 105

105 SECTION 4: Phoneme Matching Items 17-20: Read the first word in each line and note the sound t hat is presented by the underlined letter or letter cluster. Then sele ct the word on the line that contain the same sound. Underline the words you select. Sample Item pu sh although sugar duty pump 17. weigh pie height raid friend 18. does miss nose votes rice 19. pi tch fly hair lip kite 20. far march scary flare pillar SECTION 5: Phoneme Segmenting and Blending Items 21-25: Reverse the sequence of speech sounds in each of these words. Write the new word next to the line of the word pr esented. Think of the sounds, not the letters Sample Item cup puck 21. teach 22. pitch 23. sigh 24. spill 25. face Thank you for your time and effort!

PAGE 106

106 Phonemic Awareness Skills Survey (With Answers) SECTION 1: Phoneme Deletion Items 1-4: Listen for directions. Sample Item BET 1. ME or MEA or MEE 3. GOAT or GHOT 2. DRIER or DRYER 4. FRIENDS or FRENZ or FRIENZ FRINZ or FRENDS or FRENDZ or FRENZ or FRENDS SECTION 2: Phoneme Counting Items 5-10: How many speech sounds are in each word? Sample Item cat 3 5. tie 2 8. mix 4 6. laughed 4 9. thrown 4 7. chalk 3 10. kitchen 5 SECTION 3: Phoneme Identification Items 11-16: What is the 3rd speech sound in each of the following words? Sample Item shook k 11. joyful F 14. folks K 12. scratch R 15. sheets T 13. protect O 16. lightning T

PAGE 107

107 SECTION 4: Phoneme Matching Items 17-20: Read the first word in each line and note the sound t hat is presented by the underlined letter or letter cluster. Then sele ct the word on the line that contain the same sound. Underline the words you select. Sample Item pu sh although sugar duty pump 17. weigh pie height raid friend 18. does miss nose votes rice 19. pi tch fly hair lip kite 20. far march scary flare pillar SECTION 5: Phoneme Segmenting and Blending Items 21-25: Reverse the sequence of speech sounds in each of these words. Write the new word next to the line of the word pr esented. Think of the sounds, not the letters Sample Item cup puck 21. teach CHEAT 22. pitch CHIP 23. sigh ICE 24. spill LIPS 25. face SAFE Thank you for your time and effort!

PAGE 108

108 APPENDIX D DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION Adm inistration Procedures Once all teachers are in the room, please verba lly confirm that all te achers all K teachers. 1. Pass out a file folder to each teacher. Ask te achers not to open folders until they receive directions. Please have teachers take out blue an d green consent forms. Have teachers read and sign the (blue consent) form. Collect form conf irming that all participants have signed the consent form place forms in envelope labeled Cons ent Forms .Tell teachers that the green form goes with them (GREEN =GO). Have teachers pl ace form under the tabl e or in their bag. 2. Ask teachers to take out yellow form. Please r ead instructions in bold aloud to the teachers. Inform teachers that once they have finished they can take out the pink form (teachers info. form) and start filling out their personal inform ation. (Once you see that a teacher has completed the yellow form and they have moved on to the pink form collect yellow form and place in envelope labeled PAKS 3. Once you have collected all yellow forms, ask t eachers to take out cream form. The first part of the cream form must be completed as a group. Make sure all teachers are on the sample item of section 1. Read Sample item (white sheet in folder). Give teachers 30 seconds to answer the question and then give the answer to the teach ers. If you said best without the sound /s/ you would say bet. Lets begin item 1. Please read the next 4 items to teachers (you may repeat the question only once). Give the teachers 30 sec. before you move on to the next item. Once you have completed the first section, review the sample items for sections 2-5. Ask teachers if they have any questions, then ask teachers to complete the rest of th e survey on their own. Once they have completed the cream sheet, collect and pl ace in envelope labeled PASS and ask the teachers to complete the pick sheet. 4. Ask teachers to completely fill out pink sheet (pleas e scan to make sure they have filled out all parts of the pink sheet before you collect the forms. Place pink sheet in envelope labeled Teacher Info Form. 5. Pass out book for compensation. OTHER NOTES: 1. PLEASE MAKE SURE ALL CONSENT FORMS HAVE BEEN SIGNED. 2. Before collecting forms and placing in them in the appropriate envelope, please make sure that they have COMPLETELY filled out the forms (all forms in file folder have an ID number so it is OK to collect the forms once they have completed each part of the survey). 3. REMIND teachers that survey should be done independently (you might want to place folders with spaces in between teachers so they dont look at each others answers. THEY CANNOT COMPARE ANSWERS

PAGE 109

109 4. REMIND teachers that scores will not be re ported by individuals or by schoolsscores will be aggregated by county. REMINDERS: BLUE FORM: Please remind teachers to sign and DATE YELLOW FORM: Please remind teache rs to fill out both sides PINK FORM: Please remind teachers that PD must be within the past year CREAM: Please remind teachers there is only 1 correct answer for each item in section 4 Reading endorsement goes under other for PD PLEASE CALL ME AT ANYTIME DURIN G ADMINISTRATION TO ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT ANY PARTS OF THE SURVEY.

PAGE 110

110 Directions for PASS SECTION 1: PHONEME DELETION The first section must be done as a group. Lets review the sample item together. I am going to read the samp le item twice and then I will give you the answer Read Item. Wait 10 sec. Read item again. Pr ovide answer. Ask participants if they have any questions regarding this section. Sample Item If you said the word best without the sound /s/, you would say: (a) Bet I am going to read each item twice. Proceed with first item. Read item 1, wait 10 seconds, read item 1 again. Wait about 30 seconds between each item. 1. If you said the word meat without the sound /t/, you would say: 2. If you said the word driver without the sound /v/, you would say: 3. If you said the word ghost without the sound /s/, you would say: 4. If you said the word frenzy without the sound /y/ (this is the long e sound), you would say: OK, I am going to review the sample items within each section and then you can complete the survey independently. Once you have completed the survey you may complete the pink form. Now lets review the sample item in each section. Ask participants if they have any questions after each section.

PAGE 111

111 SECTION 2: PHONEME COUNTING Items 5-10: How many speech s ounds are in each word? Sample Item cat 3 SECTION 3: PHONEME IDENTIFICATION Items 11-16: What is the 3rd speech sound in each of the following words? Sample Item shook k SECTION 4: PHONEME MATCHING Items 17-20: Read the first word in each line and note the sound that is presented by the underlined letter or letter cluster. Then select the word on the line that contain the same sound. Under line the words you select. There is only one correct answer per item. Sample Item pu sh although sugar duty pump SECTION 5: Phoneme Se gmenting and Blending Items 21-25: Reverse the sequence of speech sounds in each of these words. Write the new word next to the line of the word presented. Think of the sounds, not the letters Sample Item cup puck

PAGE 112

112 Name:_____________________ School:________________________ SECTION 1: Phoneme Counting Items 1-6: How many speech sounds are in each word? Sample Item cat:___3_____ 1. tie _____2________ 4. mix_____4_________ 2. laughed _____4____ 5. thrown______4____ 3. chalk _______3______ 6. kitchen____5________ SECTION 2: Phoneme Identification Items 7-12: What is the 3rd speech sound in each of the following words? Sample Item: shook: ___K______ 7. joyful _____f_____ 10. folks____k__________ 8. scratch: ____r______ 11. sheets ____t__________ 9. protect ____o______ 12. lightning:___t_________

PAGE 113

113 SECTION 3: Phoneme Matching Items 13-16: Read the first word in each lin e and note the sound that is presented by the underlined letter or letter cluster. Then select the word or words on the line that contain the same sound. Underline the words you select. Sample Item: pu sh although sugar duty pump 13. weigh pie height raid friend 14. does miss nose votes rice 15. pi tch fly hair lip kite 16. far march scary flare rash SECTION 4: Phoneme Segmenting and Blending Items 17-21: Reverse the sequence of speech sounds in each of these words. Write the new word next to the line of the word presented. Think of the sounds, not the letters Sample Item cup:_____puck_______ 17. teach:____cheat _____________ 18. pitch:____chip_______________ 19. sigh:_____ice_______________ 20. spill:____lips_________________ 21. face:____safe_________________

PAGE 114

114 SECTION 5: PHONEME DELETION Items 22-25: Circle the letter that best represen ts the word without the identified sound (items will be presented orally). Sample Item If you said the word best with the sound /s/, you would say: (b) bet (c) beast (d) bets (e) Im not sure 22. If you said the word meat with the sound /t/, you would say: (a) meet (b) me (c) mead (d) Im not sure 23. If you said the word driver with the sound /v/, you would say: (a) drive (b) dive (c) dryer (d) Im not sure

PAGE 115

115 24. If you said the word ghost without the sound /s/, you would say: (a) ghots (b) goat (c) got (d) Im not sure 25. If you said the word frenzy without the sound /y/, you would say: (a) fritz (b) friendly (c) friends (d) Im not sure

PAGE 116

116 APPENDIX E PARTICIPANT DATA Table E-1. Participant data codes. Variable Code Name: WRITE-IN Sex: Female:1 Male:2 Race: White:1 Black:2 Hispanic:3 Native American:4 Asian/Pacific Islander:5 Other:6 Levels of Education Bachelors:1 Masters:2 Specialist:3 Doctorate:4 School: WRITE-IN Disrtict Alachua:1 Marion:2 Putnam:3 Flagler:4 Duval:5 No. of years teaching: WRITE-IN Experience at K level WRITE-IN Other Teaching Experience: Substitute:1 Teacher Assistant:2 Tutoring:3 ESE:4 Pre K-5:5 6-8:6 9-12:7 College:8 Volunteer:9 Intern:10 Montessori:11 Reading Coach:12 2/3 Year olds:13 Principal/Leadership: 14 Media Specialist: 15 Areas of FTC Elementary:1 Early Childhood:2 Special Education:3 Reading Certification:4 Reading Endorsement:5 ESOL:6 Math/Science:7 Technology:8 Other:9

PAGE 117

117 Table E-1. Continued. Variable Code College Coursework None:1 1-3 hours:2 4-6 hours:3 7-15 hours:4 More than 16 hours:5 Type of Professional Dev. Reading First Academy:1 Reading First (district training):2 Reading First (on-site):3 LiPS training:4 DIBELS training:5 Great Leaps:6 FDLRS training:7 Orton Gillingham:8 SRA training:9 UFLI training:10 FCRR training:11 Other:America Choice Conference: 13 Other:FLKRS: 14 Other: ELIC:15 Other: Literacy Center:16 Other:Inclusin: 17 Other: Book Clubs:18 Other: Brain Gym: 19 Other:Writing Workshop:20 Other:Florida Reading Initiative:21 Other: Kindergarten Workshop:22 Other: Guided Reading:23 Other: Success For All :24 Other:CRISS:25 Other:Fox in the Box:26 Other:Literacy 101: 27 Other: ECHOS: 28 Follow-Up Data: Yes:1 No:2 Cream Form: Correct:1 Incorrect:0

PAGE 118

118 APPENDIX F IRB FORMS

PAGE 119

119

PAGE 120

120

PAGE 121

121

PAGE 122

122 APPENDIX G STUDIES RELATED TO PHONEMIC AW ARENESS

PAGE 123

123Table G-1. Studies related to Teacher Perceptions/Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness Author (s) & Year Sample Description Experimental Design Type of Knowledge examined Measures Results Troyer & Yopp, 1990 N=165 Survey Knowledge of Emergent Literacy Concepts 3-Part Questionnaire Less experienced teachers knew more about phonemic awareness Moats, 1994 N=89 inservice teachers enrolled in graduate course (diverse group) Survey Knowledge of phonics, phoneme and morpheme awareness, descriptive terminology about morphology Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (Moats, 1994); 15 item survey, open-ended questions Teachers could not identify descriptive terminology, could not identify phonemes or morphemes Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich & Stanovich, 2004 N=722 (K, 1st, 2nd, 3rd) Knowledge of Childrens Literature; Phonolgical Awareness Knowledge; Phonics Knowledge; Knowledge calibration in 3 domains Titile Recognition Test (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990); Knowledge Survey (modified version of Moats, 1994); Likert scale Only 10% of teachers were able to identify half or more of the titles; limited knowledge related to PA; Teachers tended to overestimate knowledge of PA

PAGE 124

124 Table G-2. Studies related to Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness and Student Learning Author (s) & Year Sample Description Experimental Design Type of Knowledge examined Measures Results McCutchen, Harry, Cunningham, Cox, Sidman & Covil, 2002 N=59 Teachers (K, 1st, 2nd, SE) Correlational Knowledge of Literature; Knowledge of Phonology; General Knowledge; Teacher Beliefs; Classroom Practice; Student Learning Title Recognition Tests (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991); Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (Moats, 1994); 45item test (Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993); TORP (Deford, 1985); Coded field notes; GatesMacGinitie Reading Tests, WIAT, writing sample Less knowledgeable about phonology and orthography, relationship between knowledge of phonology and student learning

PAGE 125

125 Table G-3. Studies related to Teacher Knowledge of Phonemic Awareness/ Professi onal Development and Student Learning Author (s) & Year Sample Description Experimental Design Type of Knowledge examined Measures Results Bos, Mather, Narr & Babur, 1999 N=11 Elementary level (K, 1st, 2nd, SE) (intervention group) N=17 (control group) Intervention Pre-testPost-test Teacher Attitude; Knowledge of Language Structures; Student Learning TAERS Survey (DeFord, 1985) likert scale; Knowledge Survey (modified version of Moats, 1994) 22item multiple choice; WoodcockJohnson III Teachers involved in RIME had higher knowledge scores and higher student scores than control group; Control groups knowledge scores did not change OConnor, 1999 2 models of Professional Development Model A (intensive) N=10 (intervention group) N=4 (control group Model B (traditional) N=9 (intervention group) N=8 (control group) Intervention Pre-testPost-test Models of Professional Development; Student learning; Classroom observations Intensive model verses traditional model; PPVT, short term memory, phonological assessments, letter knowledge, Woodcock Johnson; field notes Students from PD classrooms made greater gains than students from control groups; Students from Model A classrooms had gains in letter naming, word identification and spelling, no significant difference in blending or segmenting

PAGE 126

126 Table G-3. (continued) Author (s) & Year Sample Description Experimental Design Type of Knowledge examined Measures Results McCutchen, Abbott, Green, Beretvas, Cox, Potter, Quiroga & Gray, 2002 N=44 (K, 1st teachers) n=24 (intervention group) n=20 (control group) N=492 (K students) N=287 (1st students) Intervention Pre-testPost-test (2-week summer insttitute Knowledge of the Structure of Language; General Knowledge; Teacher Practice; Student Learning Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (Moats, 1994); 45-item test (Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993); Field notes; TOPA, MRT, GatesMacGinitie Reading Tests, times fluency test Teachers in intervention group had higher post-test scores; Teachers in intervention group spent more time on explicit instruction; students in classrooms of intervention group had higher in reading comprehension Moats & Foorman, 2003 N= 50 Phase I (K, 1st, 2nd) n=41 Phase II (2nd, 3rd) n=103 PhaseIII (3rd,4th) Experimental Survey Knowledge of the Structure of Language Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge: 3 different forms (Moats, 1994) Few accurate responses to open-ended questions, teachers on all 3 forms had a difficult time identifying speech sounds

PAGE 127

127Table G-3. Continued Author (s) & Year Sample Description Experimental Design Type of Knowledge examined Measures Results Swerling & Brucker, 2004 N=147 (SE) Group 1 (n=39) Class and supervised tutoring Group 2 (n=49) Class no training Group 3 (n=59) Control group Intervention Pre-testPost-test Knowledge of Word Structure; Student Learning The Test of Wordstructure Knowledge (3 parts) Graphophonemic segmentation, Syllable types, Irregular words; CORE phonics survey Group 1 had higher post-test scores; No significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2; Participants with prior preparation (Group 1) had more knowledge; neither group scored high on the pre-test

PAGE 128

128 REFERENCES Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and learning about print Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adgar, C., Snow, C. & Christia n, D. (2002). What Teachers Ne ed to Know about Language. ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Literacy. Ball, E.& Blachman, B. (1991). Does phonemic awareness trai ning in kindergarten make a difference in early word recogn ition and developmental spelling?. Reading Research Quarterly 26, 49-66. Blachman, B. (2002). Phonological Awarene ss. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson, Handbook of Early Literacy Research. (pp. 483-502 ). Blachman, B.A., Ball, E.W., Bl ack, R.S., & Tangel, D.M. ( 1994). Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city cl assrooms: Does it make a difference? Reading and Writing, 6, 1-18. Bos, C., Mather N., Dickson, S., Podhajski B., & Chard, D. (2001 ). Perceptions and knowledge of pre-service and in-service ed ucators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia 51, 97-120. Bos, C., Mather, N., Narr, R., & Babur, N. ( 1999). Interactive, collaborative professional development in early reading instruc tion; Supporting the balancing act. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 14, 215-226. Brady, S., & Moats, L.C. (1997). Informed inst ruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation. A position paper of th e International Dyslexia Association. Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association. Burns, M.S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C.E. (1999). Starting out Right: A guide to promoting childrens reading success Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Chall, J. (1967). Learning to Read: The great debate New York: McGraw-Hill. Chhabra, V. & McCardle, P. (2 004). Contributions to Evidence -based Research. In Chhabra, V. & McCardle, P, The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research (pp.3-12) Baltimore, MD. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. Cunningham, A.E. (1990). Explicit verses im plicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429-444. Cunningham, A.E. & Stanovich, P. (1991). Tracki ng the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabul ary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 264-274.

PAGE 129

129 Cunningham, A., Perry, K., Stanovich, K. & St anovich, P. (2004). Disciplinary Knowledge of K-3 Teachers and their knowledge Calibration in the Do main of Early Literacy. Annals of Dyslexia 54, 139-167. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Do ing what matters most: Investigating in quality teaching. New York: National Committee on Te aching and Americas Future. Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransfor d, J. (2005). Preparing Teache rs for a Changing World. What teachers should learn and be able to do. The National Academy of Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Education Series. Deford, D. E. (1985). Validating the constr uct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 20, 361-267. Ehri, L. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities 22, 356-364. Ehri, L.C. (1998). Grapheme-phon eme knowledge is essential fo r learning to read words in English. In J.L. Metsala & L.C. Ehri (Eds.), Word Recognition in Beginning Reading (pp.3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum. Ehri, L.C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. Learning and Teaching Reading, 1, 7-28. Ehri, L.C. & Williams, J.P. (1995). Learning to read and learning to teach reading. In F. Murray (Ed.), The Teacher Educators Ha ndbook: Building a Knowledge Base for the Preparation of Teachers (pp.231-244). San Francisco:Jossey-Base. Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Willows, D., Schuster, Zadeh, Z & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic Awareness instruction helps children lear n to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panels meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287. Florida School Indicators Report. (2006), Florida Department of Education. Retrieved on September 5, 2007 from http://data.fldoe.org/fsir Foorman. B & Moats, L. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 51-69. Foorman, B. R. & Torgesen, J.K. (2001). Criti cal Elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Leaning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 203-212. Gambrell, L., Morrow, L.M. & Pr essley, M. (2007). Best Practiced in Literacy Instruction. 3rd Ed. New York. The Guildford Press. Good, R.H. & Kaminski, R.A. (Eds.) (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Early Basic Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Euguee, OR: Institute for Develo pment of Educationa l Achievement.

PAGE 130

130 Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Smith, S., Simmons, D. S., Kameenui, E.J., & Wallin, J. (In press). Reviewing outcomes: Using DIBELS to evalua te a schools core curriculum and system of additional intervention in kindergarten. In S.R. Vaugn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.). Reading in the classroom: Systems for observing teac hing and learning/ Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks. Good, R.H., Simmons, D.S., Kameenui, E.J ., Kaminski, R.A., & Wallin, J. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benc hmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through th ird grade (Technical Report No. 11). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Gray, A. L. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities 35, 69-86. Hintze, J., Ryan, A. & Stoner, G. (2003). Concurre nt Validity and Diagnostic Accuracy of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. School Psychology Review 32, 541-556. Juel, C. (1991) Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosebthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 750-788). New York: Longman. Lane, H., Hudson, R., Leite, W., Kosanovich, M., Taylor-Strout, M., Fenty, N. & Wright, T. (2007). Teacher Knwoledge about Reading Fluecny Growth in Reading First Schools. Reading Writing Quarterly. Lane, H. & Pullen, P. (2004). Phonological Awareness: A ssessment and Instruction: A Sound Beginning Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lane, H.B., Pullen, P.C., Eisele, M.R., & Jord an, L. (2002). Preventing Reading Failure: Phonological Awareness assessment and inst ruction. Preventing School Failure, 46 (3) 101-110. Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perc eptions and knowledge of pre-service and inservice teachers about ea rly literacy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities 34, 472-482. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of Psychological Assessment. American Psychologist, 50 (9), 741-749. McCutchen, D., Abbot, R.D., Gr een, L.B, Beretvas, S.N., Cox, S., Potter, N.S., Quiroga, T., & Gray, A.(2002). Links among teacher know ledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities 35, 69-86. McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V.W. (1999). Those who know te ach well; Helping teachers master literacy relate d content knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 14. 215-226.

PAGE 131

131 McCutchen, D., Harry, D., Cunningham, A., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. (2002). Reading teachers content knowledge of childrens literature and phonology. Annals of Dyslexia 52, 207-228. Moats, L. C. (1994). Knowledge of language The missing foundation for teacher education. Annals of Dyslexia 52, 207-228. Moats, L, C. (1999). Teaching Reading is Rocket Science. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. Moats, L. Speech to Print. (2003). Baltimore, MD. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. Moats, L. & Foorman, B. (2003). Measuring t eachers content knowle dge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia 53, 23-45. Moats, L, C. & Lyon, G. R. (1996) Wanted. Te achers with Knowledge of language. Topics in Learning Disabilities, 16, 73-86. National Center for Educational Statistics. (N CES). (2006, January). Digest of educational statistics 2006. Washington, DC: Author. Also available on-line: http://nces.ed.gov/ National R eading Panel. (2000). Teaching Childr en to read: An evid ence based assessment on the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. (P.L.107-110 [20 U.S.C. 7801]). No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002. (P.L.107-110 [20 U.S.C. 7801]). OConnor, R. (1999) T eachers learning la dders to literacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 14, 203-214. Reading First in Florida. (2002). Retrieved on Septem ber 11, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html. Reading Excellence Act, PL 1055-277, 112 St at. 2681-3 37, 2681-393, 20 U.S.C. Spear-Swerling L. & Brucker, P.(2004). Teache rs acquisition of Knowledge about English Word Structure. Annals of Dyslexia 53, 72-103. Shanahan, T. (2003). Research based reading instruction; My ths about the National Reading Panel Report. Reading Teacher, 56, 646-656. Snider, V.E. (1995). A Primer on Phonemic Awareness: What it is, why its important, and how to teach it. School Psychology Review, 24, 3.

PAGE 132

132 Snider, V.E. (1997). The Relationship be tween phonemic awarenes s and later reading achievement. Journal of Educational Research 97, 4. Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, M. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children Washington, DC; National Research Counc il, National Academy of Sciences. Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in re ading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406. Stanovich, P. & Cunningham, A.E. (1993).Wh ere does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology 85, 211-229. Stevenson, L.P. (2003). Reading First: A critical policy analysis. Reading Teacher 56,7. Strickland, D., Snow, C., Griffin, P., Burns, M.S. & McNamara, P. (2002). Preparing our Teachers. Washington, DC. Joseph Henry Press. Sweet, R. (2004). The Big Picture: Where we are Nationally on the Reading Front and How we Got Here. In Chhabra, V. & McCardle, P, The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research (pp.3-12) Baltimore, MD. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. Taylor, B., Peterson, M., Pearson, D. & R odriguez, M. (2003).Reading growth in highpoverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal. 104, 1. Torgesen, J.K. (1999). Prev enting Reading Failure in yo ung children with phonological processing disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychol ogy. 91, 579-599. Torgesen, J.K. (2002a). Lessons learned from intervention resear ch in reading. A way to go before we rest. Learning a nd Teaching Reading, 1, 89-203. Toregsen, J.K. (2002b). The prevention of reading disa bilities. Journal of School Psychology, 40. 7-26. The National Right to Read Foundation. (2006). Retrieved January 05, 2006, from http://www.nrrf.org/. Troyer, S.J., & Yopp, H.K. (1990 ). Kindergarten teachers knowledge of emergent, literacy concepts. Reading Improvement, 27, 34-40. Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). Resear ch on Teacher Preparation a nd Professional Development. Issue paper prepared for the White H ouse Conference on Pr eparing Tomorrows Teachers, Washington, DC. Yopp, H.K. (1992). Devel oping Phonemic Awarene ss in Young Children. The Reading Teacher, 45, 9, 696-703.

PAGE 133

133 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Meridith Taylor Strout was born in Lexington, SC, to John a nd Jean Taylor. She grew up in Chester, VA, and attended Thom as Dale High School. She attended Lynchburg College in Lynchburg, VA where she earned her bachelors de gree in special education in 1999. She moved to Gainesville, FL, where she attended the Univ ersity of Florida and earned a masters degree in 2000 in the Department of Special Education, sp ecializing in learning disabilities. She taught both in public and private schools in Gainesvi lle, as a special edu cation teacher. She won Rookie Teacher of the Year for Alachua C ounty in 2001 and then she won a statewide competition in 2003. She obtained a position with the Multidisciplinary Diagnostic Training Program (MDTP) at the University of Fl orida as an educational diagnostician. Meridith entered the Ph.D. pr ogram at the University of Florida in 2003. Her studies focused on the remediation and prevention of reading disabilities. She was supported by a federally funded project (Project ABC: Access to Books for Children) She also worked for the Lastinger Center for Learning at the Universi ty of Florida which focused on professional development for teachers who work in high poverty schools. Upon completion of her Ph.D. program, Meridith intends to teach at the college level and continue to volunteer at the comm unity level. She currently resi des in St. Augustine, FL, with her husband Stephen and her son Brandon.