1. Could Phonemic Awareness Instruction Be (Part of) the Answer for Young EFL Learners? A Report on the Early Literacy Project in Malaysia Presenter: Yi-Chen Alison Tsai Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu Date: March 23, 2011 1
2. Johnson, R. C., & Tweedie, M. G. (2010). Could phonemic awareness instruction be (part of) the answer for young EFL learners? A report on the early literacy project in Malaysia. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 822-829. 2
4. Introduction 4 The Ministry of Education Malaysia syllabus: The Curriculum Specifications for English “… instruction in phonemic awareness (PA) should be part of the acquisition of word recognition skills”
6. 6 Location: rural Malaysia difficult to achieve these specifications frustrations for teachers and teacher-trainers Can direct instruction in PA be helpful?
7. 7 Literature Review PAacquisition, and its application in reading and writing, were found to be accelerated in the group receiving treatment. (Stuart, 1999)
8. 8 Literature Review Phonics instruction significantly improved students’ ability to ready in English. (Takeda, 2002)
12. 12 English language coordinators (ELCs) Early Literacy Project (ELP) Purpose of the project (ELP): to create a contextually suitable approach for schools and teacher Value of the approach: to be conducted in entry-year classrooms long after the research study was completed Background Information
14. 14 Treatment Procedure 15 randomly selected students in each class 6 weeks students in treatment group receive direct PA instruction
15. 15 Instruments (5 tests) lower-case letters write what they hear read words and short sentences mox, nup -from a page -fingers held up by the examiner
17. 17 Can the acquisition of phonemic awareness in entry-year rural Malaysian English language learners be accelerated through direct phonemic awareness instruction? Test for Group Differences Between ELP and Control Group ELP students (E) Control students (C) ELP was successful in accelerating the acquisition of numeracy and literacy skills
18. 18 1a. Letter recognition: Students name letters of the alphabet 3a. Numeracy: Students name numbers presented as digits (e.g., “1”)
19. 19 Liner Regression Analysis for ELP Group and Control Group Combined the 3 most significant factors influencing performance on the posttest: 1. Pretest total t = 35.100 p = 0.000 2. ELP/control t = -8.923 p = 0.000 3. Preschool t = -5.957 p = 0.000
20. 20 Liner Regression Analysis for ELP Group Alone 3 most significant factors influencing performance on the posttest among ELP students: 1. Pretest total t = 31.165 p = 0.000 2. Preschool 3. Teacher t = -4.774 p = 0.000 t = -2.910 p = 0.000
