Teaching Older Struggling Readers: Novice 4–12th General and Special Education Teachers’ Knowledge of Foundational Reading Skills

Abstract

There is a need for teachers in 4–12th grade to possess strong foundational reading skills to support older students who persistently struggle with reading. The present study examined novice, 4–12th grade teachers’ knowledge of foundational reading skills and their perceptions of and beliefs about teaching reading using the Survey of Reading-Related Knowledge and Perceptions. Participating novice teachers (n = 333) included elementary general education teachers (n = 113), special education elementary teachers (n = 120), secondary general education teachers (n = 73), and special education secondary teachers (n = 27). Survey data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results indicated that novice teachers, on average, scored below 50% on reading-related knowledge items. Novice teachers, on average, self-reported higher scores for their beliefs and perceived ability to teach reading than their actual knowledge of foundational reading skills. Implications for supporting novice teacher knowledge related to foundational reading skills are provided.

1. Introduction

A notable shift occurs in upper elementary grades from learning how to read to using foundational reading skills to comprehend, analyze, and synthesize increasingly complex text (Snow, 2018). However, student difficulty with text comprehension in the upper elementary, middle, and high school grades has been documented in research (e.g., Kamil et al., 2008; Vaughn et al., 2022) and reported in national standardized measures of reading. In the most recent Nation’s Report Card, 69% of fourth-grade students and 70% of eighth-grade students in the United States scored at or below the Basic achievement level in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, National Center for Education Statistics, 2024). According to the NAEP, to possess a basic level of reading skills, students can comprehend text, which implies that students have already mastered foundational reading skills (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency) needed for accurate word recognition level (i.e., the ability to recognize written words accurately and effortlessly, which leads to fluent reading). There are likely numerous factors contributing to students scoring at the Basic level; however, some fourth-grade students and beyond may benefit from systematic intervention to enhance their overall reading abilities (Scammacca et al., 2015; Donegan & Wanzek, 2021).

1.1. Teaching Older Struggling Readers

In this paper, we refer to older struggling readers as students in grades 4–12th who read below grade level expectations and need additional targeted reading instruction or intervention (Kamil et al., 2008; Scammacca et al., 2015). Older readers are tasked with “build[ing] knowledge by comprehending different kinds of texts, mastering new vocabulary, and sharing ideas with others” (Kamil et al., p. 6). However, as noted by Wanzek and Vaughn (2009), this “may be difficult for struggling readers who may still be learning to accurately and fluently decode grade-level text” (pp. 890–891). As such, older struggling readers are likely to benefit from targeted instruction to support accurate word reading and/or fluency (Goodwin et al., 2013; Henry, 2020; Roberts et al., 2008; Wexler et al., 2008). This may include instruction in foundational reading skills, such as phonemic awareness, phonics, advanced word study, and fluency (Filderman et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2017). Teachers of older struggling readers who experience word reading difficulties are tasked with being able to: (a) identify the foundational reading skills in which students have difficulty and (b) tailor instruction to meet those foundational skill needs. Without key foundational reading skills, older readers are likely to experience and/or continue to have difficulty with text comprehension (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006; Stevens et al., 2019).

1.2. Foundational Reading Skills Defined

Foundational reading skills have been defined as those taught to “foster students’ understanding and working knowledge in concepts of print, the alphabetic principle, and other basic conventions of the English writing system” (Common Core State Standards, 2010, para. 1). More specifically, these skills include conceptual knowledge and skills linked to understanding the structure of the English language: phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, morphology and morpheme awareness, and fluency (Common Core State Standards, 2010; Moats, 2020).

Phonological awareness includes the ability to manipulate parts of spoken language, such as onset-rime, alliteration, sentence segmentation, syllable segmentation, and phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness, the most sophisticated and essential phonological awareness skill, includes the manipulation (e.g., isolation, deletion, blending, and segmentation) of individual phonemes (the smallest unit of sound). In this study, we focus on teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness and related skills as this component of phonological awareness is most necessary for decoding and word recognition (National Reading Panel (US) et al., 2000).

Phonics refers to instruction that focuses on building an individual’s knowledge of the relationship between printed letters and spoken sounds and their ability to apply that knowledge to decode words in a text. Phonics instruction begins with simpler grapho-phonetic word structures (e.g., CVC words with short vowel sounds [cat, dog, mat]) and progresses to more complex word structures. Morphology is the study of words and word parts (e.g., prefixes, suffixes, root words, base words) and how individual units of meaning (i.e., morphemes) are used to create meaning and understand words. Thus, morpheme awareness is the ability to manipulate individual morphemes in words to determine and create meaning.

Fluency is “the ability to read a text accurately, quickly, and with proper expression (prosody) and comprehension. Because fluent readers do not have to concentrate on decoding words, they can focus their attention on text meaning” (Hougen & Smartt, 2020, p. 364). On the other hand, dysfluent readers read slowly and laboriously, which impedes their understanding of a text. Thus, fluency is an essential foundational reading skill because it bridges the gap between automatic word recognition and comprehension.

1.3. Need for Knowledgeable Reading Teachers

Researchers have noted that teachers need a strong knowledge of concepts related to foundational skills to provide explicit and systematic word level reading instruction that many struggling readers need (Binks-Cantrell et al., 2012; Moats, 1999, 2014; Spear-Swerling, 2009). Specifically, Moats (1999), in her well-known article for the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Teaching Reading is Rocket Science, purported that being a skilled reader alone is not enough to teach reading and that “expert teaching of reading requires knowledge of language structure at all levels” (p. 17). Twenty-one years later, Moats (2020) echoed this same need for teachers to have strong pedagogical content knowledge of concepts related to foundational skills.

However, researchers have reported that teachers of older struggling readers may not know how to intervene and often feel ill-prepared to tailor instruction, especially at the foundational skill level (Kamil et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2020). To prepare teacher candidates (TCs), professional organizations (e.g., International Dyslexia Association, IDA; International Literacy Association, ILA) include standards that reflect the content and pedagogical content knowledge related to foundational reading skills. For example, International Literacy Association’s (2017) standards for the preparation of literacy professionals states coursework should prepare TCs to “demonstrate knowledge of the theoretical, historical, and evidence-based foundations of literacy and language and the ways in which they interrelate and the role of literacy professionals in schools” (n.p.).

Although these standards have been adopted by university-based teacher preparation programs to effectively prepare TCs to instruct students across grade levels and abilities (International Dyslexia Association, 2018; International Literacy Association, 2017), researchers have found that teachers in K-3rd grade have limited knowledge of foundational reading skills that are necessary to teach all students but especially struggling readers (Aro & Björn, 2016; Washburn et al., 2016; Cheesman et al., 2009; Piasta et al., 2009; Stark et al., 2016). In addition, only a few studies have explored 4–12th grade teachers’ knowledge of foundational reading skills (Washburn & Mulcahy, 2019). Additionally, there appears to be a disconnect between K-3rd grade teachers’ actual knowledge of foundational reading skills and their perceptions of and beliefs about teaching reading (Aro & Björn, 2016; Cunningham et al., 2004; Martinussen et al., 2015; Stark et al., 2016), yet this notion is underexplored for teachers of older struggling readers. Since reading difficulties can persist well beyond third grade, it is essential to further explore teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs about teaching reading at the upper elementary, middle, and high school level, as these concepts are essential when working with struggling readers.

The purpose of this paper is threefold: (a) to examine novice 4–12th grade teachers’ knowledge of foundational reading skills, including phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency; (b) investigate any associations between novice 4–12th grade teachers’ perceptions of and beliefs about teaching reading; and (c) examine the associations between novice 4–12th grade teachers’ perceptions of and beliefs about teaching reading on their knowledge of foundational reading skills. Therefore, the following research questions guided this study:

• What do novice 4–12th grade general and special education teachers know about foundational reading skills? To what extent, if any, does general and special education teachers’ knowledge about foundational reading skills differ?
• What are novice 4–12th grade general and special education teachers’ perceptions about teaching constructs related to foundational reading skills? To what extent, if any, do general and special education teachers’ perceptions about foundational reading skills differ?
• What are novice 4–12th grade general and special education teachers’ beliefs about teaching reading to older students? To what extent, if any, do general and special education teachers’ beliefs about foundational reading skills differ?
• Do novice 4–12th grade general and special education teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about teaching reading predict their knowledge about foundational reading skills?

1.4. Teacher Knowledge, Beliefs, and Perceptions Related of Foundational Reading Skills

Studies have been conducted on K-3rd grade preservice and inservice teachers’ knowledge of reading-related concepts, with an intentional focus on foundational reading skills (e.g., phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency) (Tortorelli et al., 2021). Overwhelmingly, researchers have found that both preservice and inservice teachers have limited knowledge of foundational reading skills (Washburn et al., 2016; Aro & Björn, 2016; Cheesman et al., 2009; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Piasta et al., 2009; Stark et al., 2016). For example, Stark et al. (2016) assessed 78 Australian early elementary teachers’ knowledge of basic language constructs (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, word identification, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension) using a 37-item online questionnaire. The results indicated that 47% of teachers correctly defined phonological awareness, 38% of teachers correctly defined phonemic awareness, 87% correctly identified the phonemes in “knee”, and 5% correctly identified the phonemes in “box”. In terms of phonics, 71% correctly identified words with a soft c, and 22% identified a word with a voiced consonant. In addition, 53% of teachers correctly defined morphology. When asked to identify the number of morphemes words, teachers’ scores ranged from 26% for “bookkeeper” to 54% correct for “disassemble”. The results from this questionnaire indicated the teachers’ limited knowledge of basic language constructs and a disconnect between their demonstrated and perceived knowledge.

However, teacher preparation can serve as a context to build teacher knowledge of foundational reading skills and that knowledge base can support struggling readers in the context of tutoring and/or small group instruction (e.g., Al Otaiba et al., 2012; Spear-Swerling, 2009, 2019). For example, Spear-Swerling (2009) found that preservice teachers’ knowledge of foundational reading skills, specifically knowledge of phonics concepts, improved significantly after course instruction focused on teaching reading in special education along with course-related fieldwork (tutoring a struggling student). Moreover, in an experimental study, Al Otaiba et al. (2012) reported similar results with a group of preservice teachers taking an early literacy course in that knowledge of foundational reading skills changed significantly before and after the course and related fieldwork.

Targeted professional development with inservice teachers can be effective in helping build and bridge teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge to their classroom reading instruction (see Hudson et al., 2021; for a review). For example, Piasta et al. (2009) explored this notion and determined students who were instructed by first-grade teachers with strong knowledge of foundational reading skills outperformed students taught by less knowledgeable teachers. In addition, Podhajski et al. (2009) reported that first and second grade teachers who participated in a 35-hour professional development course focused on foundational reading skills had higher knowledge scores than their peers who were not enrolled in professional development. Moreover, Podhajski et al. (2009) noted that the students of teachers who were involved in professional development had higher scores on standardized measures of reading (e.g., letter-naming, phonemic segmentation, nonsense word fluency, oral reading) than students whose teachers were not involved in the professional development. Though this research base is promising, the focus of this body of this empirical work has been on K-3rd grade teachers (Hudson et al., 2021).

Few studies have examined what preservice and/or inservice teachers working with older readers (grades 4–12th), particularly older struggling readers, know about foundational reading skills. Though much of the instructional focus for older readers is on comprehension, as noted earlier, some older readers will likely continue to struggle with word recognition and related factors. Meta-analyses of reading interventions for older readers have revealed that multi-component interventions inclusive of word-level instruction (e.g., multisyllabic word reading, structural analysis) can be effective (Edmonds et al., 2009; Roberts et al., 2008; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2009). Although Kim et al. (2017) noted that most of the interventions synthesized in these meta-analyses were delivered by trained researchers rather than through teacher implementation. Moreover, teachers of older readers are often ill-equipped to support struggling readers in their classrooms (e.g., Hall et al., 2011). To help support older readers with targeted, multi-component reading instruction, it has been suggested that teachers use methods that help students break apart multisyllabic words through structural analysis to support both word recognition and comprehension (Edmonds et al., 2009; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2009). The degree to which teachers understand the foundational reading skills essential to these instructional methods remains underexplored.

Researchers have also explored teachers’ perceptions of and beliefs about teaching reading. Again, much of this research has been conducted with K-3rd grade teachers in which findings, in general, reveal a disconnect between teachers’ perceived ability and demonstrated knowledge of foundational reading skills (Cunningham et al., 2004; Martinussen et al., 2015; Stark et al., 2016; Washburn et al., 2011). For example, on items related to phonemic awareness, researchers have found teachers hold positive perceptions of their ability to teach students regardless of their actual knowledge on skill-based items (Martinussen et al., 2015; Stark et al., 2016). The lack of calibration between teachers expected and actual knowledge is cause for concern. As noted by Stark et al. (2016):

Teachers who are not aware of the gaps or shortcomings of their knowledge, or do not know what they do not know, are less likely to be inclined to seek professional learning or development in this area of content knowledge, and furthermore, those who do access or receive professional learning opportunities may not be receptive to new ideas or content if they believe their existing level of knowledge is high

(p. 41).

Thus, teachers need to calibrate their knowledge accurately to be aware of what they do and do not know and may be more likely to seek out professional development opportunities (Cunningham et al., 2004; Stark et al., 2016).

2. Materials and Methods

To explore the research questions, descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated to explore novice 4–12th grade teachers’ knowledge of foundational reading skills and their perceptions of and beliefs about teaching reading using the Survey of Reading-Related Knowledge and Perceptions. In this paper, we use the term novice teachers to indicate teachers with 0–5 years of teaching experience and who were teaching or planning to teach students in the upper grades (4–12th) at the time of the study.

2.1. Participants

As shown in

Table 1. Participant demographic I = information.

		General Education				Special Education
		Elem (n = 113)		Sec (n = 89)		Elem (n = 104)		Sec (n = 27)
		n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Program status	Undergraduate	84	74%	40	45%	61	62%	8	30%
	Graduate	29	26%	49	55%	43	38%	19	70%
Highest degree earned	High school	70	62%	41	46%	59	57%	8	30%
	Bachelor’s degree	39	34%	44	49%	40	38%	15	55%
	Master’s degree	4	4%	4	5%	5	5%	4	15%
Number of literacy courses taken	>1	77	68%	24	27%	43	41%	13	48%
	1	12	11%	38	43%	14	14%	11	41%
	0	24	21%	27	30%	47	45%	3	11%
Teacher status	Inservice teacher	17	15%	9	10%	26	25%	18	67%
	Preservice teacher	96	85%	80	90%	78	75%	9	33%

, 333 novice teachers from nine university-based teacher preparation programs participated in the present study. At the time of survey distribution, TCs were preparing for either an initial or additional certification in general or special education. Regarding teaching and grade level, many participants were focused on elementary education: general elementary education teachers (n = 113) and special education elementary teachers (n = 104). The remaining participants consisted of secondary general education teachers (n = 89) and special education secondary teachers (n = 27). The novice teachers were studying at the graduate (n = 140) or undergraduate level (n = 193) in seven states across four regions of the United States, including the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. On average, the teachers reported taking two literacy courses at the time of the study. Regarding previous teaching experience, all were novice as defined earlier with the majority of participants in this study having no years of teaching experience (n = 291). The remaining 42 participants had a range of teaching experience: 1 year (n = 11), 2 years (n = 16), 3 years (n = 6), 4 years (n = 5), and 5 years (n = 4).

We used purposive (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007) and convenience sampling to recruit participants for the study. Purposive sampling is non-probability sampling used to target a specific group of participants with similar characteristics (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). Sampling was purposive because we wanted to recruit participants who were seeking initial or additional certification in general or special education and at either the elementary or secondary levels to explore novice teachers across teaching contexts. Convenience sampling was also used as we contacted colleagues who taught education courses at institutions of higher education across the United States and asked if they would serve as a facilitator for participant recruitment and survey administration at their prospective institutions. For each participating institution, the researchers first contacted the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to obtain permission to collect data. Some IRBs required additional human subjects review through their institutions, while others relied on the human subjects review at the researchers’ home institution.

2.2. Data Source

The Survey of Reading-Related Knowledge and Perceptions was used to measure novice teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge related to teaching reading and teachers’ beliefs and perceived ability to teach reading. The survey was based on surveys and questionnaires used by other researchers in the field (Binks-Cantrell et al., 2012; Bos et al., 2001; Moats, 1994) and was created to assess the knowledge base of teachers of older readers (Grades 4 and above). The entire survey contains a total of 58 items. Of the 58 items, there are 39 knowledge-related items (Cronbach’s α = 0.88) with 20 items measuring knowledge of foundational reading skills (Cronbach’s α = 0.85) in the following ways: (a) explicit knowledge of phonemes through phoneme identification (b) explicit knowledge of morphemes through morpheme identification, and (c) knowledge of and/or familiarity with instructional applications for teaching phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency. The remaining 19 knowledge items, which assess teacher knowledge of vocabulary and comprehension, were not analyzed in this study because they did not address the research questions and fell outside the scope of the study’s purpose.

The survey also contains a total of 19 items that are designed to measure teacher beliefs and self-perceptions. Ten of these items measured beliefs (Cronbach’s α = 0.87) in which teachers were asked Likert-scale type questions such as “to what extent can you adjust your reading lessons to the proper level for individual students?” and rated their beliefs as “not at all”, “very little”, “some influence”, “quite a bit”, and “a great deal”. Nine of the 19 items measured teacher perceptions about their ability/expertise to teach specific reading-related constructs (e.g., phonemic awareness) (Cronbach’s α = 0.90) and asked teachers questions such as “how would you rate your ability to teach phonemic awareness”? and rated their ability as “minimal”, “moderate”, “very good”, or “expert”. Because the purpose of this study was to examine teacher knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs of foundational reading skills, we focused our analysis only on these items.

The survey was administered via paper and pencil with representative facilitators at each of the nine campuses. Surveys were administered in undergraduate and graduate courses in special education and/or literacy, with supervision provided by the facilitators (i.e., campus-affiliated colleagues of the authors) and took approximately 30 min to complete. Following administration, surveys were returned to us in pre-addressed envelopes for data entry and analysis.

2.3. Data Analysis

To answer all research questions, quantitative analyses were conducted using SPSS (Version 29). Prior to data analysis, model assumptions and missing data patterns were explored and tests of normality (e.g., skew and kurtosis) among teachers’ beliefs and perceived ability were examined. Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests of normality and Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance were conducted for each group on each of the survey item areas: (a) all foundational reading skills knowledge items, (b) all phonemic awareness knowledge items, (c) all phonics and fluency knowledge items, (d) all belief items, and (e) all perceptions items.

Regarding all foundational reading knowledge items, assumptions for normality were met for all groups: elementary general education teachers (D [113] = 0.053, p > 0.200), elementary special education teachers (D [104] = 0.040, p > 0.200), secondary general education teachers (D [89] = 0.073, p > 0.200), and secondary special education teachers (D [27] = 0.107, p > 0.200). Levene’s Test confirmed homogeneity of variance (F [3, 329] = 0.447, p = 0.719).

Regarding all phonemic awareness items, assumptions of normality were not met for any of the groups: elementary general education teachers (D [113] = 0.193, p > 0.001), elementary special education teachers (D [104] = 0.121, p > 0.001), secondary general education teachers (D [89] = 0.128, p > 0.001, and secondary special education teachers (D [27] = 0.186, p > 0.018). Levene’s Test confirmed homogeneity of variance (F [3, 329] = 0.084, p = 0.969).

Regarding all phonics and fluency items, assumptions for normality were not met for elementary general education teachers (D [113] = 0.122, p > 0.001), elementary special education teachers (D [104] = 0.156, p > 0.001), and secondary general education teachers (D [89] = 0.166, p > 0.001) but were met by secondary special education teachers (D [27] = 0.125, p > 0.200). Levene’s Test confirmed homogeneity of variance (F [3, 329] = 0.721, p = 0.540).

Regarding all belief items, assumptions were met for elementary special education teachers (D [89] = 0.060, p > 0.200), secondary general education teachers (D [78] = 0.060, p > 0.200), and secondary special education teachers (D [22] = 0.088, p > 0.200) but not for elementary general education teachers (D [80] = 0.113, p > 0.013). Levene’s Test confirmed homogeneity of variance (F [3, 329] = 0.745, p = 0.526).

Lastly, regarding perception items assumptions were met for elementary general education teachers (D [112] = 0.084, p > 0.051), elementary special education teachers (D [102] = 0.079, p > 0.124, and secondary special education teachers (D [27] = 0.116, p > 0.200) but not for secondary general education teachers (D [81] = 0.120, p > 0.006). Levene’s Test confirmed homogeneity of variance (F [3, 329] = 0.680, p = 0.565).

2.3.1. Research Question 1: Teachers’ Knowledge of Foundational Skills

To examine teachers’ knowledge of foundational skills, descriptive statistics were first calculated. To examine the extent to which, if any, the groups of teachers differed on demonstrated knowledge tasks, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted for all foundational reading skill knowledge with teacher group as the independent variable. Due to normality violations, Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted for all phonemic awareness items and for all phonics and fluency items.

2.3.2. Research Questions 2 and 3: Teachers’ Beliefs and Perceptions

To examine the teachers’ perceptions and beliefs, descriptive statistics were calculated. To examine the extent to which, if any, the groups of teachers differed on reported perceptions and beliefs, and due to normality violations, two Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted with the dependent variables of teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ perceptions.

2.3.3. Research Question 4: Relationship Between Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceptions, and Knowledge

A multiple linear regression was conducted to examine the relationship between teachers’ perceived ability and beliefs and their knowledge of foundational reading skills. Specifically, we conducted the analysis to examine the groups of teachers by certification focus (general education, special education) and age-group focus (elementary, secondary).

3. Results

3.1. Research Question 1: Teachers’ Knowledge of Foundational Skills

Teachers’ mean percent correct score on all knowledge items was 0.49 (SD = 0.19). When disaggregated, mean percent correct scores were as follows: elementary general education teachers (M = 0.56, SD = 0.19), secondary general education teachers (M = 0.45, SD = 0.17), elementary special education teachers (M = 0.47; SD = 0.18), and secondary special education teachers (M = 0.42, SD = 0.20). In

Table 2. Phonemic awareness items.

	General Education				Special Education
	Elem (n = 113)		Sec (n = 89)		Elem (n = 104)		Sec (n = 27)
Item and correct answer in italics	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
How many speech sounds are in the word “ship”? (3)	0.91	0.29	0.84	0.37	0.88	0.32	0.70	0.47
How many speech sounds are in the word “grass”? (4)	0.56	0.50	0.49	0.50	0.52	0.50	0.30	0.47
How many speech sounds are in the word “box”? (4)	0.11	0.31	0.11	0.32	0.16	0.37	0.04	0.19
How many speech sounds are in the word “moon”? (3)	0.80	0.40	0.71	0.46	0.74	0.44	0.59	0.50
How many speech sounds are in the word “brush”? (4)	0.56	0.50	0.46	0.50	0.46	0.50	0.33	0.48
How many speech sounds are in the word “knee”? (2)	0.86	0.35	0.73	0.45	0.75	0.44	0.74	0.45
How many speech sounds are in the word “through”? (3)	0.62	0.49	0.51	0.50	0.49	0.50	0.44	0.51
Which of the following is a phonemic awareness activity? a. having a student segment the sounds in the word cat orally b. having a student spell the word cat aloud c. having a student sound out the word cat d. having a student recite all the words that they can think of that rhyme with cat e. no idea	0.65	0.48	0.42	0.50	0.44	0.50	0.37	0.49
Total Phonemic Awareness Items	0.63	0.24	0.54	0.25	0.56	0.24	0.44	0.26

and

Table 3. Phonics and fluency items.

	General Education				Special Education
	Elem (n = 113)		Sec (n = 89)		Elem (n = 104)		Sec (n = 27)
Item and correct answer in italics	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Determine the number of morphemes in the word “disassemble”. (3)	0.15	0.36	0.07	0.25	0.10	0.30	0.04	0.19
Determine the number of morphemes in the word “heaven”. (1)	0.31	0.46	0.19	0.40	0.19	0.40	0.15	0.36
Determine the number of morphemes in the word “observer”. (3)	0.16	0.37	0.19	0.40	0.17	0.38	0.15	0.36
Determine the number of morphemes in the word “salamander”. (1)	0.22	0.42	0.09	0.29	0.13	0.34	0.11	0.32
Determine the number of morphemes in the word “bookkeeper”. (3)	0.38	0.49	0.18	0.39	0.27	0.45	0.19	0.40
Determine the number of morphemes in the word “frogs”. (2)	0.35	0.48	0.17	0.38	0.17	0.38	0.26	0.45
Which of the following is NOT an irregular word? a. said b. does c. have d. when e. no idea	0.50	0.50	0.40	0.49	0.41	0.50	0.30	0.47
Phonics instruction can best be described as: a. Instruction that directs students’ attention to individual sounds in spoken words b. Instruction that directs students’ attention to the different ways in which letters and sounds correspond c. Instruction that directs students’ attention to the meaning of words out of contextd. Instruction that directs students’ attention to the meaning of words in context e. No idea	0.68	0.47	0.48	0.50	0.59	0.50	0.59	0.50
Mr. Chong, a 9th grade English teacher, knows that incorporating morphology into his word study mini-lessons will help his students read and understand multisyllabic words. Therefore, he decides to teach: a. Denotations and connotations b. Affixes and root words c. Parts of speech d. Prosody e. No idea	0.63	0.49	0.58	0.50	0.47	0.50	0.48	0.51
Which of the following components of reading instruction are likely to be found in an intensive setting for adolescent readers who have difficulty with decoding: a. Vocabulary and text comprehension b. word study and fluency c. word study only d. text comprehension only e. no idea	0.29	0.46	0.13	0.34	0.23	0.42	0.37	0.49
Ms. Warren, a 4th grade teacher, has formed small, flexible groups for fluency instruction. She wants to incorporate fluency activities that will help students. Which of the following activities is NOT likely to be helpful? a. Repeated readings b. Round Robin reading c. Reading Poetry d. Reader’s Theatre e. No idea	0.47	0.50	0.22	0.42	0.37	0.48	0.33	0.48
Mrs. Ramirez is in charge of putting together a workshop for 3–5th grade teachers about fluency. One of her first tasks is to define fluency for her fellow teachers. Which of the following choices is the most accurate definition of fluency? a. Accurate yet quickly paced reading b. Accurate reading at a reasonable rate with prosody c. Independent reading d. Reading on grade level e. No idea	0.82	0.38	0.76	0.42	0.63	0.49	0.85	0.36
Total Phonics and Fluency Items	0.41	0.22	0.29	0.20	0.31	0.20	0.32	0.22

, we provide mean percent correct scores and standard deviations for teacher demonstrated knowledge on all items for phonemic awareness and phonics and fluency in disaggregated groups.

First, an ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in total knowledge scores on foundational reading skill items among the four novice teacher groups, F(3, 329) = 8.64, p < 0.001, η² = 0.08. Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests indicated that elementary general education teachers scored significantly higher than elementary special education teachers (p < 0.003), secondary general education teachers (p < 0.01), and secondary special education teachers (p < 0.02). No other pairwise comparisons were statistically significant.

Second, a Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a statistically significant difference in total knowledge scores on phonemic awareness items among the four novice teacher groups, H(3, 329) = 16.361, p < 0.001, η² = 0.05. Dunn’s post hoc tests indicated that elementary general education teachers scored significantly higher than secondary general education teachers (p < 0.023) and secondary special education teachers (p < 0.003). No other pairwise comparisons were statistically significant.

Third, a Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a statistically significant difference in total knowledge scores on phonics and fluency items among the four novice teacher groups, H(3, 329) = 21.034, p < 0.001, η² = 0.06. Dunn’s post hoc tests indicated that elementary general education teachers scored significantly higher than secondary general education teachers (p < 0.001), elementary special education teachers (p < 0.001), and secondary special education teachers (p < 0.039). No other pairwise comparisons were statistically significant.

3.2. Research Question 2: Teachers’ Beliefs

Table 4. Belief items.

	General Education				Special Education
	Elem (n = 113)		Sec (n = 79)		Elem (n = 89)		Sec (n = 27)
Item	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
To what extent can you get students to believe they can do well in reading?	3.74	0.91	3.78	0.87	3.77	0.91	3.52	0.73
To what extent can you respond to students who are confused during reading?	3.85	0.83	3.77	0.90	3.72	0.89	3.57	0.90
To what extent can you meet the needs of struggling readers?	3.48	0.95	3.33	0.95	3.36	0.89	3.17	0.89
To what extent can you help your students value reading?	3.90	1.04	3.85	0.91	3.71	0.91	3.61	0.84
To what extent can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught?	3.84	0.95	3.71	0.93	3.65	0.78	3.83	0.83
To what extent can you adjust your reading lessons to the proper level for individual students?	3.70	1.05	3.62	0.97	3.55	0.92	3.39	1.20
To what extent can you use a variety of reading assessment tools?	3.74	1.03	3.67	1.08	3.58	1.03	3.48	1.20
To what extent can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable readers?	3.72	1.10	4.00	0.96	3.77	0.87	3.36	1.05
To what extent can you use assessment data to inform reading instruction that meets individual student’s needs?	3.62	0.98	3.63	0.96	3.56	1.00	3.35	1.11
To what extent can you differentiate reading instruction to meet the needs of all of your learners?	3.55	0.98	3.63	1.02	3.42	0.93	3.39	1.20
Total Belief Items	3.72	0.83	3.68	0.79	3.60	0.67	3.43	0.71

Note. Teachers were asked to rank their beliefs about teaching reading to the above items using a 5-point Likert style scale (5 = A great deal, 4 = Quite a bit, 3 = Some influence, 2 = Very little, 1 = Not at all).

shows the means and standard deviations for all belief items. Overall, participants indicated that they had “some influence” to “quite a bit” regarding reading assessment and instruction, with mean scores on all (total) items ranging from 3.43 to 3.72 across groups of novice teachers. On five of the ten belief items, elementary general education novice teachers had the highest mean scores. Conversely, secondary special education teachers had the lowest mean scores on seven of the ten belief items, with secondary general education teachers having the lowest mean scores of the other three items. The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed no statistically significant difference in beliefs among the four novice teacher groups, H(3, 329) = 5.147, p < 0.161. Dunn’s post hoc tests confirmed no other statistically significant pairwise comparisons.

3.3. Research Question 3: Teachers’ Perceptions

Table 5. Perception items.

	General Education				Special Education
	Elem (n = 113)		Sec (n = 81)		Elem (n = 99)		Sec (n = 27)
Item	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
How would you rate your ability to teach...
Typically Developing Readers	2.33	0.64	2.35	0.72	2.17	0.65	2.04	0.65
Struggling Readers	1.98	0.70	1.92	0.69	2.01	0.72	1.81	0.62
Phonological/Phonemic Awareness	2.15	0.74	1.96	0.81	2.05	0.75	1.63	0.63
Phonics	2.12	0.71	2.02	0.79	2.07	0.80	1.67	0.62
Fluency	2.13	0.73	1.99	0.62	2.02	0.71	1.89	0.70
Vocabulary	2.44	0.73	2.60	0.77	2.46	0.62	2.52	0.85
Comprehension	2.33	0.70	2.44	0.72	2.16	0.67	2.22	0.70
Pleasure Reading	2.64	0.74	2.54	0.70	2.56	0.74	2.44	0.85
Content Specific Reading	2.35	0.74	2.41	0.76	2.37	0.74	2.37	0.79
Total Perceptions	2.26	0.57	2.25	0.53	2.18	0.48	2.07	0.43

Note. Teachers were asked to rank their perceived ability to teach the above constructs using a four-point Likert style scale (4 = Expert, 3 = Very Good, 2 = Moderate, 1 = Minimal).

displays means and standard deviations for all participants regarding perceived teaching ability in typically developing readers, struggling readers, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, pleasure reading, and content specific reading (e.g., science, social studies, etc.). Overall, participants indicated that they perceived their ability to teach reading-related concepts to be “moderate” to “very good” on all items, with mean scores on all (total) items ranging from 2.07 to 2.26 across all groups of novice teachers. On five of the ten perceptions items, elementary general education novice teachers had the highest mean scores. Conversely, secondary special education novice teachers had the lowest mean scores on four of the ten belief items, one of the lowest mean score items was shared by both groups of special education novice teachers (teaching struggling readers), and the other five lowest mean scores were distributed across the other three groups of teachers. The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed no statistically significant difference in beliefs among the four novice teacher groups, H(3, 329) = 5.351, p < 0.148. Dunn’s post hoc tests confirmed no other statistically significant pairwise comparisons.

3.4. Research Question 4: Relationship Between Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceptions, and Knowledge

Multiple linear regression was used to examine the relationship between knowledge-based items (foundational reading skills), beliefs, and perceptions across the four groups of teachers (i.e., elementary general education teachers, secondary general education teachers, elementary special education teachers, secondary special education teachers). First, for elementary general education teachers, there were no significant associations between their beliefs (β = 0.02, se = 0.03, t = 0.64, p > 0.05, 95% CI: −0.04, 0.08) or perceptions (β = 0.04, se = 0.05, t = 0.80, p > 0.05, 95% CI: −0.06, 0.13) and their demonstrated knowledge of foundational reading skills. Second, for secondary general education teachers, there were no significant associations between their beliefs (β = −0.04, se = 0.03, t = −1.32, p > 0.05, 95% CI: −0.11, 0.02) or perceptions (β = 0.06, se = 0.05, t = 1.12, p > 0.05, 95% CI: −0.50, 0.16) with their demonstrated knowledge of foundational reading skills. Third, for elementary special education teachers, there were no significant associations between their beliefs (β = −0.02, se = 0.03, t = 0.479, p > 0.05, 95% CI: −0.05, 0.08) or perceptions (β = 0.03, se = 0.05, t = −0.73, p > 0.05, 95% CI: −0.10, 0.90) with their demonstrated knowledge of foundational reading skills. Fourth, for secondary special education teachers, there was no significant association between their beliefs and their demonstrated knowledge of foundational reading skills (β = 0.11, se = 0.06, t = 1.89, p > 0.05, 95% CI: −0.01, 0.23) but their perceptions were significantly associated with their actual knowledge of foundational reading skills (β = 0.21, se = 0.10, t = 2.20, p = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.42).

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine novice 4–12th grade general and special education teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs about foundational reading skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency). Of the 333 novice teachers surveyed, 186 were general education teachers, and 147 were special education teachers. We examined the data by disaggregating general and special education teachers into groups based on teaching age groups (e.g., elementary and secondary).

4.1. Knowledge of Foundational Reading Skills

Regarding knowledge of foundational reading skills, teachers, on average, scored below 50% on all survey items. Disaggregation of the data revealed that elementary general education teachers, on average, had the highest total foundational reading skills knowledge score (M = 0.56, SD = 0.18). Both sets of secondary teachers scored the lowest with general education teachers scoring slightly higher (M = 0.45, SD = 0.17), on average, than special education teachers (M = 0.42, SD = 0.20). We were not surprised by the scores of secondary novice teachers as the overwhelming majority reported taking zero or one literacy course. Moreover, secondary teachers do not often have access to the same literacy coursework in their preparation programs as elementary teachers (International Literacy Association & National Council of Teachers of English, 2017). Interestingly, elementary teachers in this study did not score much higher than secondary teachers. This finding is consistent with other studies that have examined preservice and/or novice teachers’ knowledge of foundational skills (e.g., Tortorelli et al., 2021).

Within subsets of items, there was a range in teachers’ mean percent correct scores. Specifically, all novice teachers scored higher on phonemic awareness items than on phonics and fluency items. Notably, all novice teachers’ scores, on average, were at or below 63% on phonemic awareness items and at or below 41% on phonics and fluency items. Though scores were low, overall, results from ANOVA indicated that elementary general education teachers, on average, scored significantly higher than the other groups of teachers. Moreover, Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed that elementary general education teachers also had significantly higher scores on phonics and fluency items than the other groups of teachers. Given that the teachers in this study were focused on teaching older students, this finding is not necessarily surprising since elementary focused teachers are more likely to be required to take reading-related coursework than secondary focused teachers. Yet, it is important that teachers of older readers, specifically those who are likely to be responsible for providing intervention to students who experience persistent difficulty with reading, possess strong knowledge of phonics and fluency to provide targeted instruction based on students’ strengths and needs (Stevens et al., 2021).

4.2. Calibration Between Beliefs, Perceptions, and Knowledge

In the present study, many novice teachers self-reported higher scores for their beliefs and perceived ability to teach reading than their actual knowledge of foundational reading skills. For instance, on belief items ranging from 1–5, mean scores were as follows from most to least: elementary general education teachers (M = 3.72, SD = 0.83), secondary general education teachers (M = 3.68; SD = 0.79), elementary special education teachers (M = 3.60, SD = 0.76), and secondary special education teachers (M = 3.43, SD = 0.71). Although the general education teachers self-reported slightly higher scores than the special education teachers, the Kruskal–Wallis test indicated no significant differences among the groups. Moreover, on the perception items ranging from 1–4, similar results were found. General education teachers (elementary, M = 2.26, SD = 0.57; secondary, M = 2.25, SD = 0.853) self-reported higher perceptions than the special education teachers (elementary, M = 2.18, SD = 0.48; secondary, M = 2.07, SD = 0.43), and findings from the Kruskal–Wallis indicated no significant differences among the groups.

Further, based on the elementary teachers’ demonstrated knowledge, it appears that their beliefs and perceptions were poorly calibrated with their actual knowledge. Specifically, when exploring the relationships between the novice teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, and actual knowledge of foundation reading skills, the only significant finding was for secondary special education teachers whose perceptions were associated with their demonstrated knowledge of foundational reading skills (β = 0.21, se = 0.10, t = 2.20, p = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.42). When taking a closer look at the secondary special education teachers’ perceptions, they most often ranked themselves as “moderate” (M = 2.07; SD = 0.43), and on the knowledge items they scored the lowest across the groups (all foundational skill items, M = 0.47; SD = 0.19; phonemic awareness items, M = 0.44; SD = 0.26; phonics and fluency M = 0.32; SD = 0.22). Despite the lower scores, it does appear that the secondary special education teachers more accurately calibrated their beliefs and perceptions to their actual knowledge more so than the other groups. Such as, they held low perceptions of their ability to teach foundational reading skills and performed similarly on the knowledge items. This finding may also demonstrate novice special education teachers’ ability to understand the importance and need of working with students who are likely to have more persistent reading difficulties than typically developing students.

Researchers have noted similar findings of teachers in K-3rd grade (Aro & Björn, 2016; Helfrich & Clark, 2016; Martinussen et al., 2015; Spear-Swerling, 2009; Ulanoff & Fingon, 2015). For instance, Martinussen et al. (2015) explored elementary preservice TCs’ perceived and actual knowledge related to phonemic awareness. The researchers found that TCs’ had limited knowledge of phonemic awareness although the TCs perceived their ability to be much higher. Likewise, Aro and Björn (2016) found preservice teachers’ actual knowledge of phonological awareness, phonics, and morphology was weakly correlated with their perceptions, whereas inservice teachers’ knowledge and perceptions were unrelated. Cunningham et al. (2004) further noted teachers often overestimate their knowledge, which is concerning because they may be less receptive to professional development opportunities to increase their knowledge base and ill-prepared to increase student reading outcomes. This point is echoed by Stark et al. (2016), “It is very likely that teachers who have limited or inaccurate knowledge are not able to equip students, especially those who are struggling to acquire decoding skills, with the necessary skills to progress” (p. 41). However, Hindman et al. (2020) remind us that knowledge of these concepts is also “extremely complex to implement well” (p. 201) and that novice teachers also need opportunities to apply their content knowledge in meaningful and relevant ways. Thus, content knowledge is necessary but not a sole means to effective reading instruction.

4.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study’s limitations should be considered when interpreting and generalizing the findings. Due to the nature of this study’s cross-sectional design, teachers’ knowledge of foundational reading skills was only assessed at one point in time (Levin, 2006). Future research could survey teachers before, during, and after a university-based course or professional development focused on foundational reading skills to assess teacher knowledge of foundational skills over time. In addition, future research could interview novice teachers to understand their actual and perceived knowledge better. Further, because these data were self-reported they are subject to social desirability bias. Additionally, due to variability in sample sizes across the four groups of novice teachers, it is important to take into account the role that statistical power may have impacted the results and thus should be interpreted with caution. Lastly, future research using the survey in this study may consider reporting vocabulary and comprehension scores in addition to foundational reading skills as this information may give a fuller picture of what teachers in grades 4–12 know about teaching reading. Despite these limitations, the results of the study indicated a disconnect between novice 4–12th grade teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about teaching reading and their actual knowledge of foundational reading skills.

4.4. Implications for Practice

Teachers’ knowledge of foundational reading skills can be developed through university-based coursework, professional development opportunities (Aro & Björn, 2016; Cheesman et al., 2009; Stark et al., 2016; Washburn et al., 2016), or independent study. Moats’ (1999) suggests that it is not enough for teachers to be skillful readers themselves, but they must understand the structure of the English language and foundational reading skills to teach struggling readers. Specifically, research has been conducted that explores ways to build teachers’ knowledge base of sub-lexical skills. Martinussen et al. (2015) found preservice teachers’ knowledge of phonological awareness benefited from multimedia-enhanced discourse which explicitly targeted the teachers’ phonological awareness ability. Further, Spear-Swerling (2009) reported an increase in preservice special education teachers’ knowledge of literacy instruction through well-planned coursework with supervised field components.

Teachers can improve their knowledge of foundational reading skills and student outcomes using scientifically based reading instruction (Podhajski et al., 2009).

Table 6. Resources for teachers of older struggling readers.

Resources to Build Teacher Knowledge
Resource	Web Address	Overview	Key Features
Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR)	https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/ (accessed on 9 June 2025)	The center’s goal is to prepare students with disabilities to be college and career ready by supporting teachers and leaders to use multi-tiered systems of support and evidence based practices through reforming teacher preparation programs, licensure requirements, evaluation systems, and policy.	Program evaluation resources High-leverage practices in special education Course enhancement modules Webinars
IRIS Center	https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/ (accessed on 9 June 2025)	The center provides a diverse set of resources that are evidence-based and can be used by educational stakeholders to support college coursework, professional development, or individual learning.	Evidence-based practice summaries High-leverage practices PD certificates for teachers
The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk	https://www.meadowscenter.org/ (accessed on 9 June 2025)	The center generates and shares evidence-based research that can be used by policy makers, teachers, families, and related stakeholders to improve student outcomes.	Library search with access to recent peer-reviewed research Designing and Delivering Intensive Interventions: A Teacher’s Toolkit Daily sample lessons/activities: Phonics, word study, & word recognition
Reading Rockets	https://www.readingrockets.org/ (accessed on 9 June 2025)	The national multimedia project provides educators and parents with evidence-based resources to teach reading particularly to struggling readers.	Reading basics Phonological instruction for older students Resources and strategies to help struggling readers
Resources for finding and vetting programs aimed at supporting older struggling readers
National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII)	https://intensiveintervention.org/ (accessed on 9 June 2025)	Using multi-tiered systems of support and data-based individualization, the center provides evidence-based intensive interventions for students with persistent learning needs.	Intensive intervention Tools charts Intervention materials
What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)	https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ (accessed on 9 June 2025)	The center reviews evidence of effectiveness of programs, policies, and practices and helps educational stakeholders make evidence-based decisions.	Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices Providing Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4–9
University of Florida Literacy Institute (UFLI)	https://education.ufl.edu/ufli/virtual-teaching/main/ (accessed on 9 June 2025)	The Virtual Teaching Resource Hub includes materials for teaching foundational reading skills live with technology, such as video conferencing software.	Planning guides Lesson templates Management tips Engaging activities by grade level and by areas of reading
Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR)	https://fcrr.org/ (accessed on 9 June 2025)	The center is a research organization that provides resources to teachers and principals to support students of all reading abilities.	Student center activities Empowering teachers Principal reading walk-through checklists
Texas Center for Learning Disabilities: Effective Reading Interventions for Upper-Elementary Students	https://texasldcenter.org/teachers-corner/effective-reading-interventions-for-upper-elementary-students/ (accessed on 9 June 2025)	The center provides effective reading interventions for upper elementary students who struggle with reading.	Intervention guidebooks: Word recognition and fluency; Vocabulary and comprehension Reading intervention lesson plans for fourth and fifth-grade students

Note. Resources provided in the table were selected to support TCs’ knowledge of foundational reading skills who work with older students who struggle with reading. The resources provided are not intended as an exhaustive list of available resources.

presents resources to (a) build teacher knowledge and (b) find programs to support older struggling readers in 4–12th grade. Online centers such as Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR), IRIS, and The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk offer evidence-based practices, sample lesson plans, and webinars to support teachers and teacher educators. Additionally, resources for finding vetted programs to improve older struggling readers’ abilities can be found at National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII), What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), University of Florida Literacy Institute (UFLI), and Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR). The table is not intended to be an exhausted list of resources but a starting point for teachers to build from.

5. Conclusions

When students leave early grades without possessing needed foundational reading skills, such as phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency, the task of filling in these gaps falls onto teachers of older learners, such as in 4–12th grade. The present study results indicate the need to support teachers’ knowledge of foundational reading skills and their ability to calibrate their perceived and actual knowledge to better instruct students. Older students “deserve differentiated literacy instruction specific to their individual needs” (International Reading Association, 2012). Teachers’ knowledge of foundational reading skills cannot be developed in one off-hand course meeting or professional development session. Despite the time and effort required, developing teachers’ knowledge is important for ensuring that all readers have access to high-quality instruction.