Pre-service and in-service early childhood educators’ self-efficacy and knowledge for early literacy instruction

Abstract Evidence suggests that educators are not sufficiently prepared to teach foundational literacy concepts. With early childhood educators (ECEs) on the front lines of children’s early literacy development, the present study assessed both pre-service and in-service ECEs’ early literacy knowledge and self-efficacy for early literacy instruction. The present study revealed significant gaps in ECEs’ early literacy knowledge and identified differences between pre-service and in-service ECEs’ early literacy knowledge and experiences. The lack of adequate knowledge and self-efficacy in phonemic awareness and oral language instruction among participants highlights a need for improved training and professional development for ECEs with respect to foundational literacy concepts including phonemic awareness and oral language.


Introduction
Young children's language and literacy skills form the foundation for all other academic learning. Literacy development begins early in life, before formal schooling, and accelerates as young children enter structured learning settings. The foundational literacy skills developed in early childhood are strongly correlated with a child's future reading success (Blachman, 2000;Crampton & Hall, 2017;Crim et al., 2008). A growing body of research identifies the risks associated with delayed development of early literacy skills and highlights the importance of high-quality early learning environments for teaching foundational literacy skills (Bleses et al., 2016;Crampton & Hall, 2017;Eadie et al., 2021;Hayiou-Thomas et al., 2010;Hayiou-Thomas et al., 2021). Research shows that those children who have difficulty developing certain early literacy skills, such as phonological awareness and other oral language competencies, may be at risk for reading difficulties or reading failure (Burgess, 1999). Fortunately, targeted and explicit skill instruction has been shown to enhance early reading and spelling skills (Ball & Blachman, 1991;Bleses et al., 2021;Ciesielski & Creaghead, 2020). Furthermore, research examining young children at an increased risk of reading failure and low academic self-concept highlights the role of high-quality preschool programs in providing opportunities for skill and self-concept building (Crampton & Hall, 2017). Thus, literacy development can and should be taught and supported within the context of early learning environments.

Effective early literacy instruction
Consistently noted in scholarship that advocates for evidence-based, effective early literacy instruction, is the listing of phonological awareness and specifically phonemic awareness (Ciesielski & Creaghead, 2020;Ehri et al., 2001;Learning First Alliance, 2000;National Early Literacy Panel, 2008;National Reading Panel, 2000;Rehfeld et al., 2022), and vocabulary instruction (Learning First Alliance, 2000;National Early Literacy Panel, 2008;National Reading Panel, 2000;Suggate et al., 2018) as vital components of effective early literacy instruction.

Phonemic awareness instruction
Phonemic awareness (PA), the ability to identify and manipulate individual sounds in words, is a component of phonological awareness that is particularly important in the early years. Several sources point to the predictive value of PA on children's later reading performance and overall literacy development (Ciesielski & Creaghead, 2020;Ehri et al., 2001;National Early Literacy Panel, 2008;National Reading Panel, 2000;Rehfeld et al., 2022). PA skills, however, are not static; Findings from the National Reading Panel (2000) meta-analysis suggest that explicitly teaching PA is effective and contributes directly to improvement in children's PA skills. Evidence suggests that instruction on manipulating individual sounds, or phonemes, in words leads to reading and spelling improvements across different stages of children's literacy development (Ehri, 2020;Ehri et al., 2001;National Reading Panel, 2000;Rehfeld et al., 2022).
The focus of explicit instruction in Ontario Kindergarten classrooms has primarily been developing phonological awareness skills such as identifying syllables, onsets, and rimes. However, students are expected to have developed some phonemic awareness as they enter senior Kindergarten (Ontario Ministry of Education (OME), 2016). Therefore, teachers and ECEs must gain a rich understanding of speech sounds and best practices for explicit PA instruction to effectively prepare young students for future literacy development (Learning First Alliance, 2000).

Oral language and vocabulary instruction
Oral language is a broad term encompassing all aspects of spoken language, including the sounds, structures, meaning, and uses of language (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008). Vocabulary development is a significant component of oral language development, and much of the literature examining oral language development tends to focus on vocabulary development (Learning First Alliance, 2000;National Reading Panel, 2000). Comprehensive metanalyses examining bestpractices in literacy instruction (National Reading Panel, 2000) suggest that vocabulary development requires educators to provide both incidental (e.g., contextual opportunities for indirect word learning) and explicit vocabulary instruction (e.g., unpacking the vocabulary in a given text before, during, and after reading) through which students are repeatedly exposed to a variety of developmentally appropriate words. Vocabulary, however, is not the only aspect of oral language development critical for students' overall literacy development in the early years. Evidence suggests that reading comprehension and decoding skills also support several oral language skills such as grammar and listening comprehension, along with vocabulary (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008;Suggate et al., 2018).

Instructional expectations of early childhood educators
Given the importance of establishing a foundation for literacy in the early years, ECEs hold significant responsibility in providing young children with the fundamental concepts and skills to support their future literacy learning. To do so, ECEs themselves must be confident educators with sufficient knowledge and training in these areas. However, precisely what is expected of ECEs, in terms of their expertise and responsibilities in supporting and instructing young children in their early literacy development, must be examined.
In the context of Ontario, The Ontario Human Rights Commission recently published a report (2022) finding that in their analyses of teacher education and professional development programs across Ontario, little emphasis is placed on systematic instruction in foundational word reading skills. Furthermore, the report concluded that with few exceptions, Ontario students were not being taught foundational reading skills using an explicit and systematic approach to teaching phonemic awareness, phonics and decoding, placing them at greater risk for future reading problems (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2022). While this report focused on pre-service and in-service training for schoolteachers, the findings are relevant to ECEs, given their prominent role in Ontario's Full-Day Kindergarten classrooms.
Documentation that outlines the roles and responsibilities of ECEs, do not specifically relay the importance of ECEs' having literacy knowledge. The Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice in Ontario, for example, sets out six standards of professional practice that are meant to promote excellence and consistency in the field (College of Early Childhood Educators, 2011). However, none of the standards, including Standard IV: Professional Knowledge and Competence, include an expectation for ECEs to have specific literacy knowledge. While knowledge of "pedagogy related to early learning, curriculum, [and] program planning . . . " (College of Early Childhood Educators, 2011, p. 19) is broadly referred to, clearer language related to learning expectations, including expected learning in literacy, is lacking.
In the case of kindergarten in Ontario, the classroom teacher and ECE share a partnership in establishing the learning environment and planning and implementing the early learning curriculum (Ontario Ministry of Education (OME), 2016). The Kindergarten Program curriculum (Ontario Ministry of Education (OME), 2016) does not explicitly differentiate the roles of the classroom teacher but instead describes the "educator team" and uses the term "educator" to refer to both the ECE and teacher (Ontario Ministry of Education (OME), 2016). The curriculum for schoolteachers identifies key expectations for educators to establish a learning environment and implement a program that will foster early literacy development (Ontario Ministry of Education (OME), 2016). Drawing specific attention to expectations related to phonological and phonemic awareness, it is expected that as children progress through kindergarten, they develop skills in exploring sound, rhythm, and language structures, both with guidance and independently (Ontario Ministry of Education (OME), 2016, Expectation 1.1, p. 184). Children are also expected to demonstrate phonemic awareness in their ability to identify and manipulate the sounds within words (Ontario Ministry of Education (OME), 2016, Expectation 1. 11, p. 193). In oral language development and vocabulary, there are several expectations pertaining to using language and specialized vocabulary in various contexts (Ontario Ministry of Education (OME), 2016; 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, pp. 183-193). Therefore, in the case of kindergarten in Ontario, there are clearly articulated expectations of educators to support developing early literacy skills, and, given that ECEs are an integral part of this educator team, they must possess the knowledge and skills necessary to support and instruct kindergarten children effectively in order to achieve these learning goals.

Professional knowledge in early literacy instruction
In this study, the term pre-service refers to ECE candidates who are currently undergoing their ECE training and have not yet completed the requisite qualifications to obtain membership with the College of Early Childhood Educators (CECE) of Ontario. The term in-service refers to ECEs who have completed their pre-service program and are currently active and registered members of the CECE of Ontario.

Literacy knowledge among pre-service educators
Studies indicate that pre-service educators (both ECEs and kindergarten/primary schoolteachers) need more training around key literacy concepts, including phonemic awareness, to be more effective literacy teachers (Cheesman et al., 2009;Fielding-Barnsley, 2010;Tetley & Jones, 2014). Cheesman et al. (2009) examined the phonemic awareness knowledge of 223 first-year teachers who recently graduated from teacher education programs. The results indicate that performance on items related to phonemic awareness knowledge was weak; on average, ECEs scored 56% on nine knowledge questions. Questions related to the application of phonemic awareness concepts were slightly higher; participants answered 63% of the six skill questions correctly. These results differ from other studies, which indicate that application of phonemic awareness yield lower scores than the knowledge questions (Fielding-Barnsley, 2010). In their study with 162 pre-service ECEs and primary schoolteachers, Fielding-Barnsley (2010) found that 73% of participants could correctly define a phoneme. However, when asked to apply their knowledge of phonemes to the counting of sounds in words, just 22% answered correctly.

Literacy knowledge among in-service educators
Professionals in the field have demonstrated similar deficiencies in certain areas of literacy knowledge and instruction. Two studies of in-service ECEs' knowledge of language and literacy have suggested that ECEs may have knowledge deficits in key areas of early literacy and language instruction that could impact their practice (Hammond, 2015;Schachter et al., 2016).
In Hammond's study (Hammond, 2015), examining 30 experienced ECEs' actual and perceived knowledge about teaching early reading, ECEs demonstrated significant deficits in their understanding of concepts related to phonological and phonemic awareness. This study found that many ECEs lacked the knowledge to develop systematic and explicit instruction in phonological awareness, despite recognizing its importance in literacy development. When asked to differentiate between phonological and phonemic awareness, the average number of correct responses was below 50%. Similarly, when asked what "segmenting speech sounds in a word" referred to, only 43% of participants answered correctly. Schachter et al. (2016), in their study of 222 ECEs examining the relationships among knowledge, beliefs and practice in children's language and literacy-learning, found that in-service ECEs scored an average of just 65% on measures of language and literacy knowledge, which included specific measures related to phonological awareness and oral language and vocabulary. They also found that while overall content knowledge in oral language and vocabulary instruction was relatively low, that knowledge was predictive of instruction, demonstrating a positive relationship between ECEs' knowledge and instructional opportunities given to children.
Also, Crim et al. (2008), in a study of 64 randomly selected ECEs, determined that in-service ECEs did not have the requisite knowledge to build an adequate foundation for early literacy in their classrooms. This study found that ECE teachers had difficulty identifying specific print-to-speech concepts that are foundational skills related to beginning reading instruction. Specifically, ECEs were found to be lacking in instructional skills related to the area of oral language development, especially skills concerning phonology and phonemic awareness (with accuracy scores ranging from 15%-65%), including knowledge of concepts such as counting syllables in words and identifying the number of morphemes and phonemes in words.
Consistent with the findings of other studies examining the knowledge and application of key literacy concepts among in-service kindergarten/primary (K-3) schoolteachers (Cunningham et al., 2004;Mather et al., 2001;McCutchen, Abbott et al., 2002;Moats & Foorman, 2003), the results suggest that many practicing educators appear to lack sufficient knowledge in critical areas of literacy development related to beginning reading instruction-areas such as phonology and language structure.

Self-Efficacy for teaching early literacy
Self-efficacy for instruction can be defined as an educators' belief in their ability to perform tasks and overcome challenges attributed to their profession (Barni et al., 2019). For educators to provide effective literacy instruction, they must be responsive to the diverse needs of their students and make complex and immediate teaching decisions (Pinnell, 2002). However, an educators' ability to do so partially depends on their sense of self-efficacy of the knowledge and skills required to succeed on a given task (Taschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011). An educator with high self-efficacy, for example, would be more inclined to incorporate a variety of instructional strategies until struggling students are successful (Allinder, 1994). Comparatively, the continuous use of ineffective teaching strategies is more common amongst educators with a lower sense of efficacy (Soodak & Podell, 1993). Therefore, the instructional outcomes for students are highly impacted by the self-efficacy beliefs of educators.
Very little research pertains directly to self-efficacy for literacy instruction among ECEs. One study examining 67 ECEs teaching in an early intervention program and the relationship between the self-efficacy and instructional practices in science, literacy and math, found that while ECEs demonstrated the highest level of self-efficacy for literacy instruction (compared to math or science), their self-efficacy was significantly lower than classroom teachers' self-efficacy for literacy instruction (Gerde et al., 2018). This study also found a significant relationship between self-efficacy for instruction and instructional practices: ECEs were less likely to instruct children in a given curriculum area if their self-efficacy levels were low.
The literature on kindergarten/primary school teachers suggests that pre-service educators' self-efficacy can increase with more teacher training (Bostock & Boon, 2012;Shaw et al., 2007;Tetley & Jones, 2014). For instance, Shaw et al. (2007) examined the self-efficacy of 52 preservice primary teachers and found that levels of self-efficacy increased after taking a literacy course. Similarly, in a study conducted by Tetley and Jones (2014), a survey was given to 150 second-year and 74 third-year pre-service teachers assessing their perceived confidence levels for teaching reading. Results indicate that, on average, participants had some confidence in teaching different aspects of literacy, including phonics, phonemic awareness, and language terms (such as phoneme segmentation and phoneme isolation). Third-year students, who had completed kindergarten or grade 1 placements, showed higher confidence levels compared to second-year participants.
Educators' self-efficacy for literacy instruction is also strongly affected by the kind and quality of their teacher training. One study involving 101 pre-service primary teachers found that the quality of training in reading instruction they received influenced their teaching in terms of differences in understandings, beliefs and decision-making, which ultimately impacted their levels of selfefficacy (Maloch et al., 2003). Ciampa and Gallagher (2018) found that pre-kindergarten educators who took numerous highly specialized courses in literacy instruction during their education had higher self-efficacy in the areas of reading and writing connections.

Study purpose and research questions
Given that previous research with in-service ECEs (Crim et al., 2008;Hammond, 2015;Schachter et al., 2016) and other educators working with young children (Cunningham et al., 2004;Mather et al., 2001;Moats & Foorman, 2003) has exposed inconsistencies and deficits in knowledge of effective early literacy practices, this study seeks to provide greater clarity concerning the knowledge of effective early literacy practices among pre-service and in-service ECEs.
Despite the widespread research on schoolteachers' literacy knowledge and practices (Bostock & Boon, 2012;Cunningham et al., 2004;Mather et al., 2001;Moats & Foorman, 2003), there have been remarkably few studies examining literacy knowledge and instructional practices among ECEs (Alghazo & Hilawani, 2010;Crim et al., 2008;Hammond, 2015). Of the investigations conducted, none have concentrated on the differences between pre-service and in-service ECEs. Rather, the few existing investigations have focused on in-service ECEs (Crim et al., 2008;Hammond, 2015;Schachter et al., 2016). There is an urgent need to examine both pre-service and in-service ECEs' knowledge of literacy concepts and instructional practices in greater depth since ECEs work with our youngest and most vulnerable learners. Likewise, despite existing research examining schoolteachers' self-efficacy for literacy instruction (Taschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011), few methodologically sound studies have investigated this area for ECEs (Gerde et al., 2018). Thus, a primary goal of the present study was to examine some key questions in this significant and understudied area.
To achieve the goals of this research, the present study utilized a quantitative approach which included adapted versions of published measures to assess pre-service and in-service ECEs' early literacy knowledge and self-efficacy.

Research questions
The following research questions were explored in this study: (1) What knowledge and skills do pre-service and in-service ECEs have in the area of early literacy development and instruction?
(2) What is the self-efficacy of pre-service and in-service ECEs in terms of their perceived ability to support and instruct children in early literacy development?
(3) Are there differences between pre-service and in-service ECEs in the above-mentioned topics?

Participants
This study involved 54 ECEs enrolled in early childhood education programs at a university located in a major urban area in Ontario, Canada. Twenty-nine participants were pre-service ECEs who were enrolled in the final year of their full-time university program. Twenty-five ECEs were inservice ECEs, working as full-time professionals in early childhood-related careers, enrolled in a part-time university program to upgrade their ECE diploma to a four-year bachelor's degree. There were no significant differences between pre-service ECEs and in-service ECEs in the overall number of hours spent in literacy-focused courses during their studies.
During each stage of the research, the project investigators informed all participants why the research was being conducted, whether anonymity was assured, how the data collected was to be stored and how the research findings were to be published. The participant's right to confidentiality was always considered and all participants were fully informed about the aims of the research and if there were any risks associated. Participants' voluntary consent to participate was recorded and any legal requirements on data protection and the publication of research findings were adhered to.

Pre-service ECEs
Of the pre-service ECEs, 100% of participants (n = 29) were female and fell into the 18-24 age range category. All pre-service participants were undertaking full-time undergraduate studies in early childhood education at the time of data collection, and none had previously experienced training in early childhood education, obtained an ECE diploma, or had any full-time work experience in the field of early childhood education. At the time of data collection, all pre-service participants had completed all required program courses related to early literacy development and instruction.

In-service ECEs
All in-service participants (n = 25) were female, had obtained an ECE diploma from a two-year college program in Ontario, Canada, were registered with the College of Early Childhood Educators and enrolled in a part-time university program to upgrade their ECE diploma to a four-year bachelor's degree. All in-service participants had completed all courses required of their college programs related to early literacy development and instruction. All in-service participants were also, at the time of data collection, employed on a full-time basis in the field of early childhood education, in positions working directly with children in childcare and full-day kindergarten. 92% (n = 23) of in-service participants had more than two years of full-time work experience in early childhood education, and of all in-service participants, 64% (n = 16) had more than five years of full-time work experience in the field.

Description of measures
The purpose of the quantitative measures was to collect demographic information, assess what pre-service and in-service ECEs know about key early literacy concepts, and develop a greater understanding of their early literacy perceptions. No existing standardized measures of early literacy knowledge and self-efficacy were sufficient in their whole form to address the research questions of this study. The following three measures were selected, adapted, and developed to explore and answer the specific research questions of this study.

Measure of demographic variables
A survey was developed to identify the demographic characteristics of participants including personal characteristics such as age, gender and languages spoken, as well as to gather demographic data on prior training, practicum and education experiences related to early literacy. The survey included closed-ended questions, checklists, and multiple-choice items.

Measures of Early Literacy Knowledge
Linguistic Knowledge Assessment. This assessment was adapted from the Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (Moats, 1994). The original 15-item survey was designed to "assess the knowledge teachers have of speech sounds, their identity in words, correspondence between sounds and symbols, concepts of language, and presence of morphemic units in words" (Moats, 1994, p. 89). The adapted measure consisted of a shortened, ten multiple-choice questions related to linguistic knowledge in the early literacy context. This assessment provided a general idea of the participants' understanding of specific components of spoken language and linguistic knowledge. Sample items from this assessment include: 1) How many syllables are in the word, decidedly: (a) one; (b) two; (c) three; (d) four; (e) five, and 2) If you say the word, then reverse the order of sounds, "enough" would be: (a) fun; (b) phone; (c) funny; (d) honey; (e) gone.
Early Literacy Assessment. This assessment included items from the Phonemic Awareness Survey (Cheesman et al., 2009) and the Teachers' Knowledge of Oral Language Development (TKOLD) instrument (Prestwich, 2012) and was expanded to include specific items related to early literacy. The Phonemic Awareness Survey (Cheesman et al., 2009) was validated by the contributions and appraisals of 17 expert judges and a pilot study involving 127 participants conducted by convenience sample. An analysis of the internal consistency reliability yielded a Kuder Richardson 20 (K-R) coefficient of .69 (Cheesman et al., 2009). The Oral Language Development (TKOLD) Instrument was validated using a prepilot review of the instrument by literacy experts, and a pilot study was completed using a convenience sample of 250 participants. Reliability statistics demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (α = .86; Prestwich, 2012).
The Early Literacy Assessment consisted of thirty multiple-choice content questions related to phonemic awareness and oral language development. It was used to examine the scope of ECEs' knowledge. Sample items from this assessment include: 1) A phoneme is (a) the smallest part of written language; (b) the smallest part of spoken language; (c) a word part that contains a vowel sound; (d) I'm not sure, and 2) A child's receptive vocabulary refers to: (a) the words a child can say; (b) the words a child can both say and understand; (c) the words a child can understand; (d) I'm not sure. Multiple forms/orders of this assessment were used systematically to counterbalance possible order effects.

Measures of self-efficacy
All participants completed a measure of self-efficacy to explore ECEs' self-efficacy for early literacy instruction, including their self-efficacy for teaching skills and concepts related to phonemic awareness and oral language development, and to assess the relationship between knowledge and self-efficacy.

Self-Efficacy for Early Literacy Instruction Scale.
This twenty-five-item scale assessment was adapted from Taschannen-Moran and Johnson (2011). It assessed participants' perceptions of their competence to engage in various literacy-oriented instructional activities. Five items focused on phonemic awareness, five on oral language, four on early writing, nine on early reading, one on general early literacy skills, and the last focused on integrating play and literacy. A sample item includes: "To what extent can you help students figure out unknown words they are reading?" The original version of the scale had an internal reliability of .96 in a sample of practicing teachers, and all items loaded on a single factor. The assessment used in this research was adapted to include items relevant only to early literacy instruction, and this adapted scale had an internal reliability of .97. To determine the internal consistency of the self-efficacy subscales, reliability analyses were conducted and yielded an internal reliability of .95, .93, .88 and .91 for the self-efficacy for early reading instruction, early writing instruction, oral language instruction and phonemic awareness subscales, respectively. Because an acceptable level of internal consistency reliability was met, average composite scores for each self-efficacy scale were computed.

General linguistic knowledge
Participants' total knowledge score was computed by summing the number of correct items (possible score = 10) on the Linguistic Knowledge Survey. Results indicated that linguistic knowledge was variable and low (M = 4.46, SD = 1.73). Table 1 presents the percentage of participants who correctly answered each of the ten Linguistic Knowledge Survey questions.
As shown in Table 1, on only four questions did 50% or more of the participants select the correct item on the 10-item multiple-choice test. Some items were easier for participants. For example, 100% of participants chose the correct response on an item that required them to identify the number of syllables in the word "decidedly," and 63% of participants correctly selected the word with the same sound as the ending phoneme in the word "weigh". On the remaining six questions, 57.4% to 98.1% of participants chose an incorrect response.

Phonemic awareness knowledge
To assess phonemic awareness knowledge, a total knowledge score was computed for participants by summing the number of correct items (possible score = 15) on the Early Literacy Assessment. The distribution of raw scores ranged from 1 to 12 questions answered correctly (see, Table 2). Performance was generally low, with 81% of participants answering eight or fewer out of 15 questions correctly and 68.5 % answering fewer than half of the questions correctly.

Table 1. Percentages of correct answers on the linguistic knowledge survey Correct
Which word contains a short vowel sound: 42.6% A pronounceable group of letters containing a vowel is a:

50.0%
A diphthong is found in the word: 5.6% How many phonemes or speech sounds are in the word "fix"? 1.9% How many syllables are in the word "decidedly"? 100.0% Why may students confuse the sounds /b/ and /p/ or / f/ and /v/ ?

55.6%
A schwa sound (non-distinct vowel sound) is found in the word:

16.7%
If you say the word, then reverse the order of the sounds "enough" would be:

35.2%
Select the word that contains the same sound as the underlined letters in the word "weigh":

63.0%
What letters signal that a c is pronounced /s/? 31.5% There were only four questions that over 50% of participants answered correctly: 87% of participants were able to correctly identify a group of words with a common vowel sound, 61.1% of participants were able to correctly identify the activity that focused specifically on phonemic awareness skills, and 53.7 % of participants could correctly identify the definition of the word phoneme, as well as correctly identify the number of sounds in the word cube. Beyond these four questions, participants overwhelmingly failed to answer questions on this test correctly, reflecting their understanding of assessment and instruction of phonemic awareness. For example, 87% of participants could not correctly identify which activity was an example of explicit phonemic awareness instruction; 77.8% of participants could not correctly identify a pair of matching words with the same final sound; 74.1% of participants could not correctly identify the definition of phonemic awareness.

Oral language knowledge
In assessing oral language knowledge, a total knowledge score was computed for participants by summing the number of correct items (possible score = 15) on the Early Literacy Assessment. The distribution of raw scores from the assessment of oral language knowledge ranged from 4 to 12 questions answered correctly (see , Table 3). Response accuracy indicated that ECEs knowledge was variable, with nearly all participants selecting the correct response on some questions, while very few participants responded correctly on others. For example: on a question requiring them to identify the predominant way that young children acquire vocabulary, 98.1% of participants selected the correct response; on a question asking how singing and music help to support early language development, 94.4% of participants responded correctly; and on a question asking which strategy is most beneficial for helping ELLs develop oral language competencies in English, 88.9% selected the correct response. In contrast, some other items were especially challenging for all, or nearly all, participants. 100% of participants, for example, were not able to correctly identify the most effective types of questions for building oral language skills when reading, and 81.5 % of participants could not correctly identify how educators should introduce new and unfamiliar vocabulary when reading a book.

Relations among variables
Pearson correlation coefficients were computed among the knowledge measures. The Bonferroni approach was used to adjust the criterion alpha level (.05/3 = .017). The correlation analyses demonstrated positive correlations among all knowledge measures indicating that participants with higher scores on one measure were more likely to have high scores on other measures. The results of these correlations are presented in Table 4.
Analyses were also performed to assess whether there were significant knowledge differences between the measures of phonemic awareness and oral language. Results of the paired samples t-test indicated that ECEs scored lower on the phonemic awareness assessment (M = 6.41, SD = 2.34) than the oral language assessment (M = 8.93, SD = 1.67), t(53) = −9.013, p < .01. The effect size index, Cohen's d, was 1.25, showing a large effect. These results indicate that ECEs performed less well on the test of phonemic awareness than they did on the oral language test.

Self-efficacy for early literacy instruction
Self-efficacy assessments included the Self-Efficacy Scale for Early Literacy Instruction (Adapted). The mean total score for the 25 items (max score 225) was situated around the mid-point (M = 136.87, SD = 32.48), an average of 5.47 per item. A subscale of this assessment consisting of five questions (max score 45) assessed participants' self-efficacy for phonemic awareness instruction. Results indicated that self-efficacy for phonemic awareness instruction was variable and, overall, modest as the mean total score was situated around the mid-point (M = 24.78, SD = 6.88), an average of 4.96 per item. Table 5 presents the mean score and standard deviation for each item in the phonemic awareness instruction subscale. Because of high variability in responses, the SD for each item is >1.
In addition, in a subscale consisting of five questions (max score of 45), participants were assessed on their self-efficacy for oral language instruction. Results indicated that self-efficacy for oral language instruction was also variable and modest as the mean total score was situated around the mid-point (M = 26.78, SD = 6.34), an average of 5.36 per item. Table 6 presents the results of the oral language instruction, item by item, for the five questions in the subscale.
Because a particular focus of this study was on self-efficacy for phonemic awareness and oral language development specifically, analyses were performed to evaluate any differences between self-efficacy on these subscales. A paired-samples t-test was performed to determine whether self-efficacy for phonemic awareness scores were significantly different from self-efficacy for oral language development scores. Results indicated that the mean phonemic awareness self-efficacy score (M = 24.78, SD = 6.88) was significantly lower than the mean oral language development self-efficacy score (M = 26.94, SD = 6.57), t(53) = −2.71, p < .01. The effect size index, Cohen's d, was 0.32, indicating a small effect. These results show that while only a modest difference, ECEs appear to be slightly more confident in their ability to instruct young children in oral language development and related concepts than in phonemic awareness, based on a comparison of their ratings on the items in the two respective subscales.
Subscales of early writing instruction and early reading instruction were also examined. The selfefficacy for writing instruction measure consisted of four questions (max score = 36). Results indicated that self-efficacy for writing instruction was variable and modest as the mean total score was situated around the mid-point (M = 21.5, SD = 6.54), an average of 5.38 per item. All participants were also assessed on the self-efficacy for reading instruction subscale, which consisted of nine questions (max score = 81). Results indicated that self-efficacy for reading instruction was variable and modest as the mean total score was situated around the mid-point (M = 52.43, SD = 12.984), an average of 5.83 per item.
Correlation coefficients were computed among the composite scores of the four self-efficacy scales (Table 7). Post hoc comparisons were computed using the Bonferroni approach to adjust the criterion alpha level (.05/6 = .008). Results indicated that all six correlations were statistically significant and were greater than or equal to .611. The results suggest that if participants report having higher levels of self-efficacy in one instructional domain, they tend to report having higher levels of self-efficacy in other instructional domains Surprisingly, no such relationships existed between the self-efficacy scales and the knowledge measures. Correlation coefficients were computed among the self-efficacy scales and knowledge measure scores. The Bonferroni approach was used to adjust the criterion alpha level (.05/  6 = .008). The results of the correlation analyses were not significant, suggesting that participants' knowledge scores were not related to their self-efficacy for instruction.

Differences in pre-service and in-service eces' knowledge
Pre-service ECEs (M = 3.92, SD = 1.78) scored lower than in-service ECEs (M = 4.93, SD = 1.58) in general linguistic knowledge. To illustrate these differences in the performance of pre-service and in-service ECEs, Table 8 shows the percentage of participants with correct responses for each item of the Linguistic Knowledge Survey.
As seen in Table 8, on virtually every question, pre-service ECEs performed more poorly than inservice ECEs. Differences in the percentage of participants selecting the correct responses were statistically significant on two questions. Pre-service ECEs were significantly less likely than inservice ECEs to correctly identify a pronounceable group of letters containing a vowel and correctly identify the word containing a schwa vowel sound.

Differences in pre-service and in-service eces' self-efficacy
Independent samples t-tests were performed to determine whether the self-efficacy ratings of pre-service and in-service ECEs differed on the Self-Efficacy for Early Literacy Instruction Scale as a whole and each subscale within it. Analyses looking for potential self-efficacy differences yielded no significant findings. Pre-service and in-service ECEs did not demonstrate significantly different levels of self-efficacy for early literacy instruction or phonemic awareness instruction, oral language instruction, writing instruction or reading instruction.

General linguistic knowledge
Overall scores on the general linguistic knowledge assessment were low and variable. Consistent with the findings of other studies examining general linguistic knowledge among educators of young children (Crim et al., 2008;Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005;Mather et al., 2001;McCutchen, Harry et al., 2002;Moats, 1994), the results suggest that participants had insufficient knowledge about fundamental concepts of English language structure, with overall mean scores of 4.46 out of 10 (45% correct). Several items were particularly difficult for participants. For example, 94.4% of participants could not correctly identify the word containing a diphthong, and nearly all participants (98.1%) could not correctly identify the number of speech sounds in the word "fix". These findings are of concern when considering the implications that ECEs' lack of knowledge may have on their educational practices and, in turn, the developing skills of young children.

Phonemic awareness and oral language knowledge
This section also reported the findings of ECEs' phonemic awareness and oral language knowledge. Phonemic awareness knowledge was generally low and variable, with average scores of 42.6% (M = 4.26). Consistent with other studies of ECEs' and primary teachers' phonemic awareness knowledge and skills (Cheesman et al., 2009;Fielding-Barnsley, 2010;Hammond, 2015;Stainthorp, 2004), ECEs demonstrated limited understanding of phonemic awareness concepts and instruction. Phonemic awareness is a component of early literacy that needs a strong focus in teacher professional development, as it is a key predictor of children's reading success (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008;National Reading Panel, 2000). However, research has indicated that with explicit instruction, children's phonemic awareness can increase and lead to improved reading and spelling outcomes in students at various ages, grades, and developmental levels (National Reading Panel, 2000). With that being said, to teach phonemic awareness to students, educators must have a strong sense of phonemic awareness for themselves. Thus, ECEs require extensive training in the area of phonemic awareness in order to effectively support the literacy development of young learners.
While participants had higher scores on the test of oral language knowledge than they did on the test assessing phonemic awareness knowledge, performance was variable. Inaccuracy rates for items in this section ranged from 0% to 98.1%. ECEs demonstrated a specific lack of understanding of how to use book reading as an opportunity to build on children's developing vocabularies and oral language competencies, despite evidence to suggest that best practices for vocabulary instruction include using texts as opportunities for teaching word meanings before, during, and after reading (National Reading Panel, 2000). This finding is consistent with other research looking at educators' oral language knowledge (Moats & Foorman, 2003;Schachter et al., 2016). As indicated by the results of this section, a significant number of ECEs may lack the necessary knowledge to implement adequate oral language and vocabulary instruction in their classrooms. Missed opportunities to provide meaningful, evidence-based instruction to young children during a particularly critical time for language and vocabulary development, can contribute to long-term consequences for young children (Eadie et al., 2021;Hayiou-Thomas et al., 2010;Hayiou-Thomas et al., 2021). As such, ECEs, who work with Ontario's youngest learners, must be knowledgeable and effective in oral language and vocabulary instruction.

Self-efficacy for early literacy instruction
The findings indicate that ECEs felt just moderately confident about their ability to provide meaningful instruction in all areas assessed. These results are consistent with the findings of other research examining educators' self-efficacy for literacy instruction, demonstrating that ratings of self-efficacy for phonemic awareness, oral language, writing and reading are modest (Gerde et al., 2018;Martinussen et al., 2015;Taschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011).
Correlations among the self-efficacy subscales were also reported. If ECEs reported higher selfefficacy in one instructional area, they were more likely to report higher self-efficacy in other instructional areas. ECEs reported slightly higher self-efficacy levels for oral language instruction than phonemic awareness instruction but, while a statistically significant difference, the effect size was small and scores for both instructional areas were modest.
Analyses also examined whether participants' feelings of self-efficacy to assess and teach various aspects of early literacy related to their actual knowledge and understanding in these areas. Consistent with research examining the relationship between self-efficacy for literacy instruction and literacy knowledge (Bostock & Boon, 2012;Leader-Janssen & Rankin-Erickson, 2013;Martinussen et al., 2015), no relationship was found between self-efficacy and knowledge scores. Self-reporting greater or lesser feelings of self-efficacy did not mirror underlying differences in early literacy knowledge, as determined by objective tests designed to assess knowledge and understanding. Furthermore, the literature suggests that the self-efficacy beliefs of educators have a large impact on instructional outcomes for students, with educators holding higher self-efficacy beliefs engaging in more effective instructional practices (Allinder, 1994;Soodak & Podell, 1993;Taschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011). As such, these findings underline a need for further research into the factors mediating the relationship between self-efficacy and effective literacy instruction, specifically amongst early childhood educators on the front lines of early literacy development.

Differences between pre-service and in-service ECEs
While there were no significant differences between pre-service and in-service ECES in phonemic awareness and oral language knowledge, notable differences were found in their general linguistic knowledge. Specifically, pre-service ECEs demonstrated lower linguistic knowledge scores than inservice ECEs, which could be attributed to their having more experience working with young children in an early childhood education context. A similar finding was made by Mather et al. (2001), who found that pre-service teachers possessed significantly less general linguistic knowledge than in-service teachers, but results suggested that both groups had insufficient knowledge.
There were no significant differences between pre-service and in-service ECEs regarding their self-efficacy for early literacy instruction on any of the subscales. For all participants, selfefficacy was modest. This finding is of considerable concern given the literature suggesting that self-efficacy is predictive of effective and successful instruction (Allinder, 1994;Soodak & Podell, 1993).

General discussion
The findings of this report identify a potential gap in ECEs' understanding of how to implement effective early literacy instruction. A growing body of research identifies the risks associated with delayed development of early literacy skills and highlights the importance of high-quality early learning environments for teaching foundational literacy skills (Crampton & Hall, 2017). As such, ECE's must be well-prepared to provide students with effective literacy instruction. The significant deficits in literacy-related knowledge and modest levels of self-efficacy for literacy educators observed amongst the ECEs, point to a need for future research examining avenues for ameliorating these deficits. Creating opportunities for evidence-based professional development reinforcing foundational literacy concepts is a necessary next step in rectifying the gaps in ECEs' knowledge in and self-efficacy for foundational literacy.

Limitations
The results of this study need to be considered alongside its limitations. First and foremost, the measures' reliability and credibility are important to note as a potential limitation of this study. Because of the lack of existing research examining ECEs' specific knowledge and self-efficacy of phonemic awareness and oral language instruction, no known published normed measures could be used to evaluate the research questions of this study. Instead, existing measures examining literacy in a different context (for example, among older children) and with a different population (for example, primary school teachers) were used for this study. While the investigator made every effort to adapt measures using content supported by the literature on what educators of young children should know about phonemic awareness and oral language, the lack of literature and psychometric procedures conducted to support their validity, reliability, and credibility, limits the implications of the findings from this study. Standardized measures of early literacy knowledge and self-efficacy are needed so that future research may examine ECEs' knowledge and selfefficacy with greater confidence in the reliability and credibility of findings.
Another limitation was that the design of this study did not allow for an examination of possible confounding variables that might explain some of the findings. This is particularly the case in comparing pre-service and in-service ECEs, where variables such as professional experience, program admission requirements, differences in practicum experiences, length of program, nature of program (college vs university) and core content of required literacy courses might explain some of the identified differences.
Finally, the composition of the participant sample may be considered a limitation of the study. The participant sample was context-specific in that it focused on ECE participants from two programs at the same university. Future research examining knowledge and self-efficacy of ECEs should be conducted using participants from a variety of college and university ECE programs which would enhance the credibility and transferability of the results.

Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, pre-service and in-service ECEs appear to have significant deficits in early literacy knowledge related to phonemic awareness and oral language, and demonstrate only modest levels of self-efficacy for early literacy instruction. ECEs play a primary role in the learning experiences of young children in early childhood education settings. As such, they have the opportunity to positively influence the early literacy development of young children. In order to help ensure that ECEs are prepared for their teaching roles and responsibilities in supporting early literacy development, an examination of their knowledge and self-efficacy is required. The present study represents an important early step toward understanding what aspects of early literacy education pre-service and in-service ECEs know and feel confident to implement. There is a need for additional research to corroborate the present findings and to explore the potential benefits of offering professional development opportunities to pre-service and in-service ECEs to raise their understanding and self-efficacy in foundational aspects of early literacy education.