Teacher candidates’ mastery of phoneme-grapheme correspondence: massed versus distributed practice in teacher education

Abstract

Matching phonemes (speech sounds) to graphemes (letters and letter combinations) is an important aspect of decoding (translating print to speech) and encoding (translating speech to print). Yet, many teacher candidates do not receive explicit training in phoneme-grapheme correspondence. Difficulty with accurate phoneme production and/or lack of understanding of sound-symbol correspondence can make it challenging for teachers to (a) identify student errors on common assessments and (b) serve as a model for students when teaching beginning reading or providing remedial reading instruction. For students with dyslexia, lack of teacher proficiency in this area is particularly problematic. This study examined differences between two learning conditions (massed and distributed practice) on teacher candidates' development of phoneme-grapheme correspondence knowledge and skills. An experimental, pretest-posttest-delayed test design was employed with teacher candidates (n = 52) to compare a massed practice condition (one, 60-min session) to a distributed practice condition (four, 15-min sessions distributed over 4 weeks) for learning phonemes associated with letters and letter combinations. Participants in the distributed practice condition significantly outperformed participants in the massed practice condition on their ability to correctly produce phonemes associated with different letters and letter combinations. Implications for teacher preparation are discussed.

The Role of Practice and Feedback for Developing Teacher Candidate’s Opportunities to Respond Expertise

“…Similar to previous research on the effect of distributed practice on knowledge outcomes (Hocevar & Zimmer, 1994;Kupper-Tetzel, 2014;Sayeski et al, 2017), findings from this study demonstrated the efficacy of distributed practice on learning specific content (Research Question 1). Teacher candidates in the experimental condition significantly outperformed candidates in the business-as-usual condition.…”

“…Within higher education, several studies have demonstrated the power of distributed practice on students’ knowledge acquisition (Bude, Imbos, Van De Wiel, & Berger, 2011; Hocevar & Zimmer, 1994; Sayeski, Earle, Eslinger, & Whitenton, 2017). These studies have examined overall achievement in a college course (Hocevar & Zimmer, 1994) and on specific content-knowledge acquisition (Bude et al, 2011; Sayeski et al, 2017). Findings from the studies demonstrated greater gains in learning as a result of distributed practice.…”

“…Studies that compare distributed with massed practice demonstrate that initial gains in learning associated with massed practice fail to be retained over time; distributing shorter periods of practice over a longer time span consistently results in stronger gains on delayed tests of learning (Cepeda et al, 2006). Within higher education, several studies have demonstrated the power of distributed practice on students' knowledge acquisition (Bude, Imbos, Van De Wiel, & Berger, 2011;Hocevar & Zimmer, 1994;Sayeski, Earle, Eslinger, & Whitenton, 2017). These studies have examined overall achievement in a college course (Hocevar & Zimmer, 1994) and on specific content-knowledge acquisition (Bude et al, 2011;Sayeski et al, 2017).…”

Reviewing How Preservice Teachers Are Prepared to Teach Reading Processes: What the Literature Suggests and Overlooks

“…The authors studied the effects of specific instruction on word-level knowledge and found that the experimental group showed a statistically significant level of improvement over the control group. Similarly, Sayeski, Earle, Eslinger, and Whitenton (2017) worked with 52 preservice teachers enrolled in special education methods courses to study how two different approaches to teaching phoneme–grapheme correspondence and phoneme production might affect knowledge growth. Within each of two courses, instructors either delivered phoneme–grapheme instruction in a “massed practice condition” (one session for 60 min) or a “distributed practice condition” (four 15-min sessions; p. 30).…”

Examining Teacher Preparation for Code‐Related Reading Instruction: An Integrated Literature Review

“…; Fielding‐Barnsley, 2010). Sayeski, Earle, Eslinger, and Whitenton (2017) created an assessment that asked preservice teachers to orally provide the sounds associated with 56 letters or letter combinations (e.g., qu , oi ). Shaw et al (2007) created a short‐answer questionnaire that included three open‐ended questions that addressed technical knowledge (e.g., what are reading difficulties?)…”