How much phonological training should be done with students for maximum effectiveness?

Phonological awareness has been defined as the sensitivity to the sound structure of language. In order to be developed, it demands the ability to turns onés attention to sounds in spoken language leaving meaning aside (Yopp & Yopp, 2009). Phonological awareness develops as a continuous process (Phillips et al., 2008), with two dimensions that move from holistic and simple forms of awareness to more complex ones (Anthony, Lonigan, Driscoll, Phillips, & Burgess, 2003 in Yopp & Yopp, 2009). One dimension of phonological awareness is the size of the sound unit being attended to and manipulated. From larger to smaller, the sound units include words, syllables, onset-rime units, and phonemes. The second dimension is the type of manipulation of the sound units and the child's ́s ability to recognize and perform such changes. Manipulations may include substituting one sound for another in a word, adding or removing sounds from words, blending sounds together to make words and segmenting words into smaller sound units (Yopp & Yopp, 2009).

The relationship between phonological awareness and learning to read can be considered from three perspectives: a) as a prior and predictive development, b) as a causal relationship; that is, having phonological awareness as a requisite for learning to read; and c) as an interactive process (Bravo, 2002). In any of the three cases, there is theoretical agreement about the necessary input of phonological awareness for the decoding process.

The Spanish language has a transparent orthography and a regular grapheme-phoneme correspondence. This means that there is a consistent relationship between letters and their corresponding sounds (Goldenberg, Tolar, Reese, Francis Ray, & Mejía-Arauz, 2014). According to Quiroga, Lemos-Britton, Mostafapour, Abbott, and Berninger (2002), phonological awareness may transfer across oral and written language, and needs explicit instruction. Due to this, native Spanish-speaking children have benefited from explicit, systematic instruction that shared many of the same elements that have been proven to be effective with native English speakers (Mathes, Pollard-Durodola, Cárdenas-Hagan, Linan-Thmpson, & Vaughn, 2007).

Any effective pedagogical support needs an initial assessment or diagnosis to let the teacher know the real level of development of children’s abilities in order to plan subsequent activities in line with baseline levels (Phillips et al., 2008). With this information, teachers can plan ahead lessons that are required for that specific group of children, to help them achieve knowledge and usage levels that would lead to a proper development on reading comprehension. Ehri et al. (2001) stress the importance of ensuring that teachers can teach phonological awareness effectively. Children require explicit and systematic instruction that follows a carefully planned scope and sequence, and that is intentionally focused on building conceptual understandings as specific tasks are mastered. Instructional sequencing, modeling and explaining of the task, scaffolding and providing corrective feedback are some of the characteristics of such instruction. Ehri et al. (2001) hold that children who received instruction focused on only one phonological awareness skill, exhibited stronger results on reading achievement; so it would be prudent to teach one skill at a time. Similarly, teachers should consider the type of manipulation (identifying, segmenting, blending, deleting, substituting among others) applied to the unit of sound (syllable or phoneme) and whether the activities are oral or include concrete cues when they are planning and designing learning activities (Yopp & Yopp, 2000).

Another distinctive feature of phonological awareness instruction is the importance of a clear and consistent articulation in the activities that teachers use (Phillips et al., 2008). Gambrell and Morrow (2015) state that phonological awareness activities must be incorporated in the context of oral language, reading, or writing instances that take part of a daily basis routine.

On the other hand, the quality of instruction and responsiveness of children also matter. Even if research suggests that phonological awareness activities have to be done on a daily basis, even when instruction occurs two or three times a week, it is possible to observe positive results; so rather than the amount of time of instruction, it is the quality of instruction and responsiveness of children that matters the most (Yopp & Yopp, 2009).

Research demonstrates that children from lower-income families generally lag behind those from more affluent families in phonological awareness development (Lonigan, 2004), but that they also benefit the most from high quality instruction (Ehri et al., 2001). The amount of time spent on oral language development and quality is shown to be related to socioeconomic status (Dickinson & Snow, 1987; Raz & Bryant, 1990 in Lundenberg et al., 2012) and may have an influence over the development of phonological awareness acquisition. A rich language-stimulating environment in the regular classroom may facilitate literacy acquisition of children whose home literacy environment cannot improve due to literacy factors.

In exploring effective interventions to improve current practices, there is consensus in that quality in education responds to the actions taken by educators in the classroom and it cannot be achieved without teachers reflecting upon their everyday practices. To this effect, teachers’ instructional practices have become fundamental to achieve higher learning performance (Barber and Mourshed, 2007, Vaillant and Rossel, 2006). Therefore, demonstrating a reflective practice is of great relevance, since it contributes greatly to monitor learning from past experiences and improving (AEP, 2015). Another relevant element for effective instruction is tutoring (Ehri et al., 2001). Evidence has also demonstrated that students who receive individualized or small-group instruction on phonological awareness via minilessons overcome difficulties when beginning to read on their own (Pullen, Lane, & Monaghan, 2004).

Teaching requires a wide gamut of actions, all of which are demanding and relevant; however, oftentimes early childhood educators believe that teaching and planning absorb precious time and limit the instances for assessment, as well as, time to reflect on their own practices. Research has demonstrated that teachers’ understandings and beliefs about their own practice are key factors to improve student performance (Zeichner & Liston, 2013). Reflective analysis of instructional objectives, activities, pedagogical approaches, observational instances, and assessment, among many other things teachers do in the classroom, allows educators to better understand if they have been performing adequately or not, and if they are helping their students achieve the expected learning results. A reflective practitioner will therefore improve as a result of the analysis of his or her practices and the actions that can be implemented after such analysis (AEP, 2015).

Richards and Farrell (2005) state that classroom observation is the most promising method for helping educators receive proper, honest feedback, and that by relying on this tool in a regular fashion with respect to their educational behavior; the basis for significant professional improvement is being constructed. Classroom observation allows educators to reflect upon their own practices, attending to correct any potential weaknesses observed. In this matter, classroom observation is an evaluation and, as with any evaluation process, the final purpose is decision making in favor of quality learning (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Observations need to give teachers useful feedback about their choices regarding lesson content and support their efforts to adapt them if needed. Good feedback practice will help clarify what good performance is and facilitates the development of reflection and self-assessment in learning (Nicol and Milligan, 2006, TNTP, 2013).

In the field of literacy, professional development has, over the past years, contributed significantly to our understanding of the importance of observation, coaching and reflective practice and their impact on instruction (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2010; Dole & Donaldson, 2006; IRA & National Council of Teachers of English, 2006). Literacy coaches have been out in the field for several years now, and there is evidence of the benefits that an embedded professional relationship can have on teachers who have instances to practice, receive feedback and reflect upon their own teaching (Joyce & Showers, 2011; Stover, Kissel, Haag, & Shoniker, 2011). Examining teaching decisions and their impact on student outcomes promotes positive change, as teachers and coaches converse about what happens in the classrooms, what teachers believe about teaching and learning, and about how teaching can be transformed so that all children can learn.

As described by Brookhart (2008, p. 54), “Providing professional development that is individualized, classroom practice based, and ongoing is critical to changing teaching practices”. According to the evidence found in the study of quality in Early Childhood Education conducted by Treviño in 2013 (p. 3), the “quality of early childhood education has plenty of room for improvement, especially with regards to teaching practices that promote the true development of children” (Lien Foundation, 2012; Sun, Correa, Zapata, & Carrasco, 2011).

It has been widely agreed that high quality teacher instruction in the classroom is crucial for students to learn at higher levels, multiple research studies about schooling efficacy indicate this (Darling-Hammond, Deborah, Jin, Julian, & Holtzman, 2005; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). This is also acknowledged by the Ministry of Education at the local level (MINEDUC, 2013) in its publication on Evidence for Public Policy in Education (Evidencias para Políticas Públicas en Educación, Compilación Serie Evidencias, 2012–2013). Similarly, assessment processes are more effective when feedback or results are reported back in a short period of time, indicating strengths and weaknesses as well as pedagogical orientations that lead to improvement. Understanding student outcomes provides teachers with immediate feedback focused on reducing the gap between the students’ current level of understanding and the place where it ultimately should be. This is the right way to carry out an intervention focused on observation, since it would help in the translation of information into real pedagogical action (Park, Takahashi, & White, 2014; Shavelson, 2006).

The empirical evidence about feedback on instruction is overwhelming; providing teachers with immediate help and feedback is essential to increase effectiveness in the process of teaching and learning (Hattie and Timperley, 2007, Ramsden, 2003, Shute, 2008). However, it has been proven that any information given after a classroom observation needs to be clarified through conversation and discussion in order to have a real picture of what was observed (Richards, 2011). A key principle behind performance-based evaluation is the need to offer ongoing training, support and immediate feedback to achieve individual professional development for each teacher, considering specific areas of strengths and weaknesses in their own teaching practice. It is also said that, in addition to observations, the use of valid metrics on student achievement, for example, standardized test scores, presumes a valuable component of accountability efforts, as it provides data that will directly inform those areas that need to be targeted (Pianta, Stuhlman, & Hamre, 2002).

Although phonological awareness is a critical skill in learning to read (Phillips, Clancy-Menchetti, & Lonigan, 2008), many early childhood still lack evidence-based, updated knowledge on this area (Sotomayor & Walker, 2009; Sotomayor, Parodi, Coloma, Ibanez, & Cavada, 2011). Eyzaguirre and Fontaine (2008), Strasser, Lissi, and Silva (2009) have documented the scarce amount of time devoted by Chilean preschool teachers to language stimulation, particularly among the most vulnerable students. Strasser et al. (2009) showed that less than 2% of instructional time in Chilean Kindergarten classrooms was spent on phonological awareness activities. Together with deficits in other reading and oral language components such as listening comprehension, vocabulary, and alphabetic principle, lack of phonological awareness skills has implications for reading development which, in the case of Chilean children from less advantaged backgrounds, jeopardize their academic success (Bizama, Arancibia, & Saez, 2011).

As evidence shows, Chilean children from less privileged homes are lacking the necessary tools to become competent readers, and their teachers need not only solid knowledge about phonological awareness instruction, but also consistent guidance and support in their implementation of the best strategies to help students acquire this skill. In this context, the question that guided our study is whether a guided, sequential teacher intervention in classroom practices contributed to a significant improvement of Kindergarten students’ metalinguistic phonological skills in a low-income context. To address this question, we designed an intervention that considered students’ academic achievements through prior and post intervention measurements.