157 International Peer Reviewed Journal The Importance of Knowledge Base among Kindergartner Teachers on Language Structure in Teaching Reading Effectively CHRISTIE MAE M. KILAT https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1359-9676 christiemae.kilat@gmail.com University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines Originality: 100% • Grammar Check: 99% • Plagiarism: 0% ABSTRACT Reading plays a vital role in learning, and yet it is a common problem in many classrooms nowadays. Many researchers are looking for a solution to this problem. Various methods and strategies are needed to come into solution. By then, the role of the teacher comes in; he will implement these methods and strategies intended for reading. As the teaching-learning process, still problem arises if the teacher has not enough knowledge on how to effectively teach reading. This study was conducted to determine the knowledge base of kindergartner teachers of Language Structure in teaching reading effectively in the schools of Gitagum, Libertad, and Initao, Misamis Oriental. This descriptive type of study involves thirty-three kindergartner teachers in the three municipalities of Misamis Oriental based on the District offices enrolment. The respondents were given survey-questionnaire to rate themselves on their level of knowledge on the basic components of reading and to test themselves on their knowledge and abilities on Language Structures. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics like mean, percentage, and t-test. The results showed inconsistency in their level of knowledge, the outcome of the knowledge, and ability test. Hence, Vol. 38 · October 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7719/jpair.v38i1.730 Print ISSN 2012-3981 Online ISSN 2244-0445 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 158 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research the kindergartner teachers are still lack of knowledge of language structure and in need of in-depth training and seminar-workshop. Keywords — Teacher Knowledge, Kindergartner Teacher, Language Structure, Descriptive design, Gitagum, Libertad, Initao, Misamis Oriental, Philippines INTRODUCTION Reading is an important language skill and a highly complicated act that everyone must learn. Reading is not solely a single skill but a combination of many skills and processes in which the readers interact with printed words and texts for content and pleasure. Through reading, one can teach writing, speaking, vocabulary items, grammar, spelling, and other language aspects (Al-Mansour & Al-Shorman, 2011). In the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP) of 2013, the reading level of fourth graders across the country is only eight percent (8%) are advanced readers, twenty-seven percent (27%) are proficient readers, thirty- three percent (33%) are basic readers and thirty-two percent (32%) are below the basic level. The No Child Left Policy of the US (2001) states that the state will provide assistance to educational agencies and local educational agencies for students in kindergarten to grade 3 in establishing reading programs based on scientific-based research to ensure that in his grade level or above, every student can read not later than, and of grade 3. Along with this, teachers are also provided assistance in professional development for them to recognize the precise reading blockage that the students are facing, and the teachers can also have a tool to help their students learn to read effectively. In the Philippines, there were several programs implemented by the Department of Education to make every Filipino child a reader. One of these is ECARP (Every Child is a Reader), which is designed to equip elementary pupils with strategic reading and writing skills to make them independent young readers and writers. As for teachers, they are given seminars and pieces of training for their professional development not only for Kindergartner Teachers but all teachers in all grade levels. At present, teachers are recommended to have units in Master’s Degree or Doctorate Degree for them to enhance or be fully equipped in the teaching field. 159 International Peer Reviewed Journal According to Moats (1994), teachers who teach beginning and/or struggling readers need to understand the phonological structure of words (example understanding that the word “cat” is made up of three individual sounds or phonemes: /c/a/t/) and how to direct students’ attention to the contracts in speech-sound sequence (Washburn, Joshi, Binks-Cantrell, 2010). Another study, cited by Washburn, Joshi, Binks-Cantrell, (2011) states that effective reading teachers can implement instruction that is research-based, identify struggling readers, and differentiate instruction depending on individual students’ needs. Therefore, Brady & Moats (1997); Moats (1994, 2004) suggested that teachers need to have a solid understanding of basic constructs of the English language. Findings also indicate that even though teachers may be literate, experienced, and educated in a university setting; they may still lack vital knowledge of basic language structure that is needed to teach beginning readers as well as effectively (Washburn, Joshi, Binks-Cantrell, 2010). FRAMEWORK Figure 1. This framework shows the importance of knowledge of kindergartner teachers in the basic concept of reading and language structure, together with the significance of the teacher’s profile. 160 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The goal of this study was to determine the knowledge base of kindergartner teachers of language structure from the different municipalities of Gitagum, Libertad, and Initao for them to teach reading effectively. METHODOLOGY Research Design This study is a quantitative method and descriptive design. The kindergartner teachers were given survey questionnaires to answer based on their knowledge and explore whether phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension are factors of the knowledge base in their language structure in teaching reading effectively. The questionnaire was answered by the teachers about the average time of 10 minutes. After, data were gathered and analyzed. To determine the significant difference between the teachers’ knowledge of language structure in teaching reading, the t-test was employed. The level of statistical significance of the findings was placed at 0.05 level. Research Site This study was conducted in the public schools of the three municipalities of Misamis Oriental, namely, Gitagum, Libertad, and Initao. It consists of 10 schools in Gitagum, Misamis Oriental, eight (8) schools in Libertad, Misamis Oriental, and 17 schools in Initao, Misamis Oriental. Figure 2 shows the Local Map of Gitagum, Libertad, and Initao, where the different schools are located for this study. 161 International Peer Reviewed Journal Respondents All kindergartener teachers from the municipalities of Gitagum, Libertad, and Initao participated in this study. Nine (9) kindergartener teachers were from Gitagum municipality, eight (8) from Libertad municipality, and sixteen (16) from the Initao municipality. Table 1 below shows the distribution of these teachers for each school according to the data given by the district offices. The number of teachers for each school was identified in the enrolment. Table 1. Distribution of Kindergartner Teachers for each School. School Number of Kindergartner Teacher GITAGUM Gitagum Central 1 Cogon ES/ Talao ES 1 Ulab ES/ G.Pelaez ES 1 C.P. Garcia ES 1 Pangayawan ES 1 Natalio Bongcas Memorial ES 1 Burnay ES/ Matangad ES 2 Quezon ES 1 Total 9 LIBERTAD Libertad Central 2 Gimaylan ES 1 Dulong ES 1 Retablo ES 1 Tangkub ES/Lubluban ES 1 Kimalok ES 1 Taytayan ES 1 Total 8 INITAO Initao Central 5 Tubigan ES 1 Jampason ES 1 162 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Gimangpang ES 1 Pagahan ES/ Puntacon ES 1 Kamelon ES/ Calacapan ES 1 Sinalac ES/ Tagpaco ES 1 Andales ES 1 Canetoan ES 1 Oguis ES/ San Pedro ES 1 Tawan-tawan ES 1 Aluna ES/ Casilihon ES 1 Total 16 Over-all Total 33 Instrumentation The researcher used a survey type of instrument to assess the knowledge and skills of the basic language of the kindergartner teachers. This was adapted from Binks-Cantrell (2012) survey instrument. The reliability of the entire survey was found to be 0.903 (Cronbach’s α). But the researcher further modified the tool to be suited and to be friendly to the respondents. The researcher added a component on the demographic profile of respondents consisting of their baccalaureate degree and major, highest educational attainment, years in teaching reading, and years in service as the first part. In the second part, the respondents assessed themselves in their knowledge of the five basic components of reading. The third part of the instrument was composed of 40 questions that measured the knowledge and skills of the teachers in their basic language structures. The teachers answered the statements given by checking either yes or no. The questionnaire was pilot tested in the Central School, considering a large number of kindergartner teachers. Prior to the pilot testing, letter-request was given to the school principal for approval. The researcher conducted pilot testing for the said school. 163 International Peer Reviewed Journal Table 2. Breakdown of Survey Items Table on Breakdown of Survey Items Item Number Phonemic Awareness 1-13 Phonological Awareness 14-20 Phonics 21-32 Morphology 33-40 Based on the pilot testing, the instrument was answered in an average of 10 minutes. Data Gathering Procedure Prior to the conduct of this study, a formal letter of request was submitted to the Division office of Misamis Oriental for approval to conduct the said. Another letter-request was sent to the principal of City Central School for pilot testing of the questionnaire. After the letter of request was approved by the Schools Division Superintendent and endorse, the permission was forwarded to the different Public Schools District Supervisor and Principals/School Heads in the District of Libertad (consist of Libertad and Gitagum Municipalities)and Initao. The researcher personally facilitated the conduct of the gathering of data. The kindergartner teachers of City Central School answered the questionnaire on the knowledge base of language structures of teachers. After the respondents answered the questionnaires, it was retrieved and analyzed. After the pilot testing, the researcher started to conduct the said study in the different schools in the municipalities in Gitagum, Libertad, and Initao by giving the questionnaires. With the help of the Principals/School Heads and Kindergartner Teachers, the questionnaires were then retrieved. Moreover, the study was conducted after academic subjects were done to avoid disruption of classes. The scores ranged from 1 to 4, 4 being the highest and one as the lowest. The scoring are as follows: 4 - The Kindergartner teacher is equipped with the knowledge of language structure to teach reading effectively. 3 - The Kindergartner teacher has adequate knowledge of language structure to teach reading effectively. 2 - The Kindergartner teacher has minor knowledge of language structure to teach reading effectively; 164 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research 1 - The Kindergartner teacher needs further professional development to enhance his knowledge of language structure to teach reading effectively. Scale Range Description 4 3.5 – 4 Very Knowledgeable 32.5 – 3.4 More Knowledgeable 21.5 – 2.4 Knowledgeable 1.1 – 1.4 Less Knowledgeable Statistical Treatment To answer the research questions and to interpret the results, descriptive statistics: Mean, Percentage, and t-tests were used. Percentage of respondents’ profile were computed. The level of baccalaureate degree and major (BEED versus BSED, ECE versus non-ECE), highest educational attainment (Baccalaureate Degree versus Master’s Degree versus Master’s Degree Graduate), years in teaching reading both in private and public school (0-5 years versus more than 5 years) and years in service both in private and public school (0-5 years versus more than 5 years). All of those were interpreted based on the percentage of teachers who honestly answered each item. The percentage of teachers’ scores of the entire test were computed. T-test for independent samples was employed to determine whether there is a significant difference in the knowledge base of language structures of teachers according to their baccalaureate degree and major, highest educational attainment, years in teaching reading, and in service both in private and public school in the three municipalities of Gitagum, Libertad, and Initao. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Teachers’ Profile This study looked into the demographic profile of the kindergartner teachers from 36 schools in the three municipalities of Misamis Oriental, specifically on their Baccalaureate Degree, Specialization, Highest Educational Attainment, Number of Years Teaching Reading, and Number of Years in Service. 165 International Peer Reviewed Journal Table 3. Baccalaureate Degrees of Respondents Frequency Percent BEED 31 93.9 BSED 2 6.1 Total 33 100.0 Most of the graduates are Bachelor in Elementary Education (BEED) which designed college students to become a primary school teacher. This focuses on primary grades in which Kindergarten is a part of it. When teachers hold a bachelor’s degree and have specialized training in early childhood education, they are better able to support children’s healthy development and school readiness. In conclusion, teachers with a bachelor’s degree and specialized training in early childhood education are able to foster development in children’s cognitive, social and emotional skills children need to be ready for kindergarten. Table 4. Respondents’ Major/Specialization Frequency Percent ECE/ECD 9 27.2 FILIPINO 4 12.1 SPED 1 3.0 SCIENCE 1 3.0 GEN.ED. 18 54.5 Total 33 100.0 According to the list revealed by the Commission on Higher Education (2014) for A.Y. 2014-2018, the following are the in-demand courses in college: (1) Special Education, (2) Early Childhood Education and (3) Science. This implies that the following courses are useful in the field of education nowadays, most especially Special Education and Early Childhood Education when it comes to reading. Teachers with General Education as their or the so-called Generalist has no specific subject or major teaching; thus, this implies that they can teach any subject or grade level they are in to. A study shows that there is no evidence that education majors are significant and more productive as teachers than non-education majors (Harris & Sass, 166 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research 2007). Another study cited by Zuzovsky (2003), teachers’ academic degrees (e.g., bachelors or masters, etc.) are inconclusive. Some studies showed positive effects of advanced degrees (Betts, Zau, & Rice, 2003; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Wayne & Youngs, 2003), while others showed negative effects (Ehrenberg & Brewer, 1994; Kiesling, 1984). Table 5. Highest Educational Attainment Frequency Percent Baccalaureate 16 48.5 Master’s Degree Units 14 42.4 Master’s Degree – CAR 1 3.0 Master’s Degree 2 6.1 Total 33 100.0 Many of the respondents considered Educational Attainment as an investment for a teacher. It helps the teacher to be update on the latest educational trends. It will also refresh their minds with past knowledge in their college years. Based on the above data, the higher level of education and training teachers had can help improve teachers’ interaction with children in a positive way of learning. Reiterated in the study of Magsayo (2009), he said that there is a significant relationship between students’ achievement test scores and teachers’ highest educational attainment. It implies that teachers with Bachelor’s degrees only tend to have better-performing students in the National Achievement Test. It was found that teacher educational attainment is inversely related to students’ achievement in English Grammar. Table 6. Years of Experience in Teaching Reading Private Public Total < 5 years 10 19 19 ≥5 but <10 years 1 13 12 ≥10 years - 1 2 Total 11 33 33 Based on the data gathered in table 6, the respondents’ experience in teaching ranged from 1-6 years () in private pre-schools and 1- 16 years () in public pre- schools. The respondents’ total number of years teaching reading ranged from 167 International Peer Reviewed Journal 1-16 years, with a mean of 4.45 years. Twenty-two of the respondents has no experience teaching reading in private schools. In reading, it takes so much time to inculcate it to the minds of pupils. Reading will not happen just once or overnight; it takes a continuous and gradual process. The difference then takes place on how teaching reading is done in private and public schools based on their experience. Still, lots of teachers teach in private schools after their graduation, and if given the opportunity, they transfer to public school to render service in a permanent position. According to Kini and Podolsky (2016), teaching experience is positively associated with student achievement gains throughout a teacher’s career. Furthermore, researchers found teachers’ ability to improve student achievement persisted well beyond the three- to five-year mark while the teachers did make the most progress during their first few years in the classroom most especially in terms of reading (Sawchuk, 2015). Table 7. Years in Service Private Public Total < 5 years 10 19 18 ≥5 but <10 years 1 13 13 ≥10 years - 1 2 Total 11 33 33 In the case of the respondents’ length of service, table 7 showed that eleven (n=11, 33%) have served in private schools prior to working in public schools. Most of the respondents (n=30, 91%) have the same length of experience in teaching reading and their service, which means that they have no prior teaching experience in other fields. Walker (2010) noted that a more experienced teaching workforce, the more it offers numerous benefits to students and schools. The core work of schools includes greater individual and collective effectiveness in improving student outcomes as well as greater stability and coherence in instruction and relationship- building. On the one hand, the passage of time will make all teachers better or incompetent teachers effective (Kini and Podolsky, 2016). 168 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Table 8. Respondents Level of Knowledge on Basic Components of Reading Level of Knowledge (f (%)) Weighted Mean Standard Deviation DescriptionVery Knowledgeable More Knowledgeable Knowledge- able 1. Phonemic Awareness 5 (15%) 19 (58%) 9 (27%) 2.88 0.65 More Knowl- edgeable 2. Phonics 4 (12%) 20 (61%) 9 (27%) 2.85 0.62 More Knowl- edgeable 3. Fluency 1 (3%) 25 (76%) 7 (21%) 2.82 0.46 More Knowl- edgeable 4. Vocabulary 7 (21%) 19 (58%) 7 (21%) 3.00 0.66 More Knowl- edgeable 5.Comprehen- sion 11 (33%) 16 (49%) 6 (18%) 3.15 0.71 More Knowl- edgeable Legend: Less Knowledgeable: 1- 1.4, Knowledgeable: 1.5 -2.4, More Knowledgeable: 2.5-3.4, Very Knowledgeable: 3.5-4 Table 8 reveals the level of knowledge of respondents on the Basic Components of Reading. As per result in the gathered, they consider themselves as more knowledgeable in all areas or components. In all components, they rated phonemic awareness as the highest and comprehension as the lowest. But still, they are all more knowledgeable based on the weighted mean. Phonemic awareness is known as the basic early literacy skill, which predicts reading acquisition and future reading success. Early reading instruction and classroom practices are influenced by teacher knowledge of phonological awareness, which predicts student learning in kindergarten (Moats & Foorman, 2003). In contrast, of all of the components of reading, comprehension is the least component in which the respondents reported themselves as more knowledgeable. As defined by Pardo (2004), comprehension is a process in which readers construct meaning by interacting with the text through the combination of prior knowledge and previous experience and information in the text. Pardo (2004) also quoted that once teachers understand what is involved in comprehending and how the factors of reader, text, and context interact to create meaning, they can more easily teach their students to be effective in comprehending. 169 International Peer Reviewed Journal Table 9. Respondents Who Got the Correct Answer per Item on the Knowledge and Abilities Respondents who got the correct answer F % Phonemic Awareness 1. phonemic awareness is the understanding of how letters & sounds are put together to form words 0 - 2.phoneme is single speech sound 32 97% 3.phoneme is a synonym to grapheme 19 58% 4. “moon” has 4 speech sound 27 82% 5. “knee” has 3 speech sound 26 79% 6. “brush” has 4 speech sound 15 46% 7. “through” has 7 speech sound 28 85% 8. “ship” has 3 speech sound 23 70% 9. in the word “cat,” if the word is said without the /k/ sound, it is called deletion 21 64% 10.“chip” and “chemist” begins with the same Sound 27 82% 11.“chef ” and “shoe” begins with the same Sound 29 88% 12. “ice” will be reverse in sound, it will become “easy” 10 30% 13. If the word, “enough” will be reverse in sound, it will become phone” 22 67% Phonological Awareness 14. phonological awareness is the understanding of how spoken language is broken down & manipulated 2 6% 15. “heaven” has 3 syllables 28 85% 16. “observer” has 3 syllables 33 100% 17. “pedestal” has 3 syllables 33 100% 18. “frogs” has 4 syllables 31 94% 19. “teacher” has 3 syllables 28 85% 20. “disassemble” has 4 syllables 31 94% Phonics 21. two or three consonants that keep its own identity is called consonant digraph 9 27% 22. consonant blend is formed by any two letters from the alphabet 13 39% 170 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research 23. “Chicago” has a soft ‘c’ 9 27% 24. “city” has a soft ‘c’ 27 82% 25. “cat” has a soft ‘c’ 27 82% 26. between the two non-sense words “bamb” and “phop”, bamb does not have a silent word 11 33% 27. paddle is an example of a word that has a final stable syllable 22 67% 28. wave is an example of a word that has a final stable syllable 15 46% 29. bacon is an example of a word that has an open syllable 21 64% 30. napkin is an example of a word that has a 2 closed syllable 27 82% 31. “c” is used for /k/ sound in the initial position before e, i or y 22 67% 32. “k” is used for /k/ sound in the initial position before a, o, u or any consonant 4 12% Morphology 33. morpheme is a letter 28 85% 34. morpheme is a single unit of meaning 26 79% 35. “heaven” has 1 morpheme 21 64% 36. “observer” has 3 morphemes 13 39% 37. “pedestal” has 3 morphemes 21 64% 38. “frogs” has 1 morpheme 10 30% 39. “teacher” has 2 morphemes 28 85% 40. “disassemble” has 2 morphemes 10 30% Table 9 shows the result of the respondents who got the correct answer per item in the different categories on the Knowledge and Ability of Language Structure. There are 4 categories (1) Phonemic Awareness, (2) Phonological Awareness, (3) Phonics, and (4) Morphology. In the first category, Phonemic Awareness, all of the respondents got wrong in the definition of phonemic awareness. While other items in this category, some of them answered it correctly, and only a few answered it wrong. This category talks about speech sounds in which phoneme awareness facilitates the growth in printed word recognition. Also, students who lack phoneme awareness may not even know what is meant by the term sound. They can usually hear well and may even name the alphabet letters, but they have little or no idea what letters they represent. In the Phonological Awareness, a lot of the respondents answered this category correctly, most especially in items of “observer” and “pedestal,” which have three syllables. However, only 2 (6%) of the respondents answered item 171 International Peer Reviewed Journal number 14, which is about the definition of Phonological Awareness. In the third category, Phonics, many of the respondents find it hard to answer correctly compared to the other categories. The items on Consonant Digraph and “Chicago” has a soft c, only 9 (27%) got it right. While the least answered is the usage of “k” sound in the initial position before a, o, u and any consonant. The last category is Morphology. The least answered items are “frogs” with one morpheme and “disassemble” with two morphemes having 10 (30%) of respondents answered. In general, phonological awareness tops the spot of the category that most of the respondents find it easy to answer because it is more just counting the number of syllables in each word given. More importantly, it is not abstract but concrete, in a way that can be easily heard or read. The more it is very easy for the teacher to understand phonological awareness, the more it is easy for them to teach this category to pupils. While Phonics is the category that most of the respondents found it difficult to answer. This shows a bit alarming because if teachers have difficulty in Phonics, the more difficult to teach it to the pupils. As the saying goes, you cannot give what you do not have. Phonics instruction should be explicit rather than implicit. This means that teachers should be modeling the relationship between sounds and written symbols. However, beginning readers in kindergarten through third grade all benefit from learning phonics skills. Explicit instruction is the most effective type of phonics instruction, especially for children at risk for reading difficulties. This suggests that teachers should have more professional development and training about phonics. Table 10. Knowledge and Abilities of Kindergarten Teachers on Language Structure (Scoring) No. of Items Minimum Maximum Mean Phonological Awareness 13 5 11 8.45 Phonemic Awareness 7 3 7 5.64 Phonics 12 4 10 6.27 Morphology 8 3 7 4.76 Total Score 40 19 32 25.12 172 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Table 10 shows the scoring of the minimal and maximum of knowledge and abilities on the language structure of Kindergartner Teachers. Among all of the categories, phonics is the least to have the less 50% correct answers, although the entire category has passed the 50% correct answer. Phonemic awareness shows that the teachers are good in this category with a maximum score of 7 and a minimum of 3. This would be their strength among all the categories of language structure. Meanwhile, in phonics, they got a maximum score of 10 and a minimum of 4. In which the respondents found this category difficult for them in totality and considered this as their weakness. Difference in Teachers’ Knowledge Base of Language Structure Bachelor in Elementary Education vs. Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education The baccalaureate degree is excluded in the interpretation of data because the number of respondents in the other group is not sufficient or not qualified for the t-test as a rule of thumb; each group should have at least six subjects or ideally more. Because of that, inferences for the population will be more tenuous with too few subjects. At the tertiary level, most students take the course Bachelor in Elementary Education rather than the Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education. According to some, BEED is considered an easy course than BSED in terms of subjects and the students to deal with. But both require the character and patience in order to lessen the burden. Most of all, it depends upon the teachers’ determination and their desire and passion for teaching these students. Table 11. Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Inter- val of the Difference t Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper Total score Equal varianc- es assumed -1.603 31 .119 -1.56985 .97961 -3.56778 .42808 An independent-samples t-test was conducted, as shown in table 11 to check if there is a significant difference in the knowledge base of language structures scores of teachers according to their highest educational attainment. This table also is the basis to know if there is a significant difference between the Bachelor’s Degree and Master’s Unit. 173 International Peer Reviewed Journal Table 12. Significant Difference of Bachelor Degree and with Masters Unit Highest Educational Attainment N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Total Score Bachelor’s Degree 16 24.3125 2.05649 .51412 With Masters Units 17 25.8824 3.37050 .81747 >0.05 - no significant difference, 0.05ك has significant difference These results suggest that both Bachelor’s degree holders and with Master’s Units area were all helpful for a teacher in teaching reading to kindergartner pupils. Specifically, the results suggest that all of the educational attainment does not give any difference in the teaching career of a teacher in reading. Table 13. Significant Difference of Less than 5 Years vs. More than 5 Years in Teaching Reading Years in Teaching Reading N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Total Score Less than 5 years 19 25.1053 2.60117 .59675 More than 5 years 14 25.1429 3.32490 .88862 Teachers’ effectiveness increases at a greater rate when they teach in a supportive and collegial working environment, and when they accumulate experience in the same grade level. Also, more-experienced teachers support greater student learning for school as a whole, as well as for their own students (Kini, & Podolsky, 2016). In teaching reading, an experienced teacher can help a pupil more based from their gained experience. Table 14. Significant Difference of Less than 5 Years vs. More than 5 Years in Service Years in Service N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Total Score Less than 5 years 18 25.000 2.63461 .62098 More than 5 years 15 25.2667 3.23964 .83647 The Levene’s test revealed that there was no significant difference in both less than five years and more than five years in service. Some studies show that the length of service has an impact on how a teacher teaches. Others would say that the teachers in their first years can teach better than those who have longer 174 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research teaching years. It is because they are still young and fresh from their college years. The result showed that the years in teaching reading and years in service are insignificant in teaching reading effectively. As Zuzovsky (2003) cited the studies of Kitgaard and Hall (1974); Murnane and Phillips (1981) that the effect of teacher experience on student learning have found a positive relationship between teacher effectiveness and their years of experience, but not always a significant. CONCLUSIONS Teachers Knowledge is very important when it comes to reading. This will help the teacher to teach further reading effectively with fun. As the teacher is very knowledgeable, the more he can easily transfer his own knowledge on reading. But then, the results of this study show that the teachers are still lack of such knowledge on language structure, more specifically in phonics. As defined, phonics is the knowledge of letters, and their sounds are blended to become a written word. This component is the most commonly used to teach reading both with non-reader and at risk with a reading problem. But the problem arises if the teachers have difficulty with phonics, how they will teach reading to the children. Also, the teachers were confused between the definition of phonemic awareness and phonological awareness. Based on research, teachers should not only know the definition of the areas of language structure but also understand what each really mean. Hence, the teachers overestimated themselves towards their knowledge of the basic components of reading in which there is the inconsistency of the results. Moreover, this study shows that there is no significant difference if the teachers have a longer or shorter length of teaching experience and years in teaching reading when it comes to reading. For teaching reading is not how long your experience is but on how you exert so much effort to transfer your knowledge in the level of the child to know and to love reading. TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH This study will become an eye-opener for everybody, not only the kindergartner teachers but also all the teachers who teach children in school as well as the administrators and the Department itself. Becoming a teacher does not mean that all you should know is only limited in the four-sides of the classroom but to further indulge themselves with in the latest and more eye-catching high technologies present today. The teachers may use online learning about language 175 International Peer Reviewed Journal structures. Self-study is useful in a way that they will do researches using the internet. They may also watch videos to have more ideas in teaching reading that is fun in the eyes of the children. Interactive videos are both useful for the teachers and for the children, as well. Also, teachers can learn on videos with the alphabet letters with its corresponding example of words and pictures with it. For teachers who are resourceful, they can use the things around them, and an example is an active game on identifying the real objects or using flashcards. LITERATURE CITED Al-Mansour, N. S., & Al-Shorman, R. E. A. (2011). The effect of teacher’s storytelling aloud on the reading comprehension of Saudi elementary stage students. Journal of King Saud University-Languages and Translation, 23(2), 69-76. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksult.2011.04.001 Binks-Cantrell, E., Joshi, R. M., & Washburn, E. K. (2012). Validation of an instrument for assessing teacher knowledge of basic language constructs of literacy.  Annals of dyslexia,  62(3), 153-171. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1007/s11881-012-0070-8 DepEd Memorandum no.64, s.2005-National Work Conference on Building ECARP Models of Excellence. Retrieved from https://www.deped.gov.ph/ wp-content/uploads/2005/02/DM_s2005_064.pdf Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2007). Teacher Training, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement. Working Paper 3.  National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from https://bit. ly/31UNFSd Kini, T., & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness.  A Review of the Research, 15. Retrieved from https://bit. ly/2MyduUD Magsayo, Y. B. (2009). The influence of teacher quality on students’ performance.  ADDU-SAS Graduate School Research Journal,  5(1), 1-1. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/31QXXTo https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksult.2011.04.001 https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2005/02/DM_s2005_064.pdf https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2005/02/DM_s2005_064.pdf https://bit.ly/31UNFSd https://bit.ly/31UNFSd 176 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Moats, L. C. (2009). LETRS Module 3—Spellography for teachers: How English spelling works. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2NtC2xJ Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading.  Annals of Dyslexia,  53(1), 23-45. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-003-0003-7 Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The reading teacher,  58(3), 272-280. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1598/ RT.58.3.5 Sawchuk, S. (2015). New studies find that, for teachers, experience really does matter. Education week, 34(25), 1-10. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2ZfjrYb Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Cantrell, E. B. (2011). Are preservice teachers prepared to teach struggling readers?.  Annals of dyslexia,  61(1), 21-43. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-010-0040-y Zuzovsky, R. (2009). Teachers’ qualifications and their impact on student achievement: Findings from TIMSS 2003 data for Israel.  IERI Monograph Series. Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments, 2, 37-62. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/33MRsCA https://bit.ly/2NtC2xJ https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.3.5 https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.3.5