Shayne B. PiastaFlorida State University

Florida Center for Reading Research

IES Pre-doctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Program

Promoting Preschoolers’ Acquisition of Alphabet Knowledge: A Comparison of Two Instructional Approaches

Overview

Introduction Significance of alphabet knowledge/instruction Research aims and supporting literature Study design and research questions

Method

Basic results and general conclusion

Questions

Significance of alphabet knowledge

Alphabet knowledge refers to knowledge of letter names (LN) and letter sounds (LS)

Alphabet knowledge as an essential emergent literacy component (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998) Provide basic mappings between speech and print Predictor of later reading success/difficulty

(e.g., Gallagher et al., 2000; O’Connor & Jenkins, 1999; Scarborough, 1998; Schatschneider et al., 2004; Torrpa et al., 2006)

Important component of early literacy instruction (e.g., Early Reading First, Head Start, state curriculum frameworks)

Yet, we know relatively little concerning alphabet knowledge development and how it is best promoted Purpose of the present study

Research Aim 1

Aim 1: Determine the impact of pure alphabet instruction on development of letter name and letter sound knowledge (and other emergent literacy skills)

Previous researchEssentially no studies of pure alphabet

instruction (NELP, Piasta & Wagner, 2007)

Strong, perhaps reciprocal, relations among letter name knowledge, letter sound knowledge, and other literacy skills (Burgess & Lonigan, 1998; McBride-Chang, 1999; Scarborough, 1998; Piasta, 2006)

Research Aim 2

Aim 2: Compare two types of alphabet instruction

LNLS instruction LN and LS reciprocally predictive (Burgess & Lonigan, 1998; Evans

et al., 2006; Mann & Foy, 2003; McBride-Chang, 1999)

LNs useful for learning LSs via LN structure effect (Evans et al., 2006; McBride-Chang, 1999; Piasta, 2006; Treiman et al., 1998)

LS only instruction Only LS knowledge required for reading and spelling LNs merely index other factors such as print exposure

(Foulin, 2005; Groff, 1984) LNs confusing (Groff, 1984; McGuinness, 2004; Venezky, 1975, 1979)

Research Aim 3

Aim 3: Investigate the letter name-to-sound facilitation effect, including relations with phonological processing

Previous research LN and LS reciprocally predictive Letter name structure effect: Letters with associated

names and sounds more likely to be known than those with unassociated names/sounds (Evans et al., 2006; Justice et al., 2006; McBride-Chang, 1999; Piasta, 2006; Treiman et al., 1998)

Phonological processing as mechanism for effect (Share, 2004; Piasta, 2006)

Letter name type:

Example:

No association

H, /h/

Vowel-consonant

F, /εf/

Consonant-vowel

B, /bi/> >

Research Design

Provide letter name and/or sound training to preschoolers with initially low alphabet knowledge

Screening (knew fewer than 8 LNs) N = 58 children at 4 preschools 48% female, 72% Caucasian, range of SES

3 experimental conditions LNLS training LS training only Number training (treated control)

Pretest, posttest LN and LS production Phonological processing, Letter-Word ID, emergent reading,

developmental spelling

Current Research Questions

RQ1: What is the impact of alphabet instruction on children’s alphabet learning? Is the impact different for LNLS versus LS instruction?

RQ2: What is the impact of alphabet instruction on the types of letters children are likely to learn (i.e., CV, VC, NA letters)?

RQ3: Are gains in alphabet knowledge, particularly for CV and VC letters, related to phonological processing skill?

Method

3 instructional conditions (LNLS, LS, Number) Small group (3-5 children) pullout program

Random assignment to condition and instructional group Avoided confounding conditions with Centers,

teachers, classes, implementers through design No pretest differences among conditions Avoided problems of nesting

Instruction

Alphabet instruction (LNLS, LS) All 26 uppercase letters taught in random sequence 3-4 letters taught per week (1 lesson/letter, weekly review) Careful to be consistent across letters

Same lesson format/activities for each letter Same total number of exposures to each letter

Same lessons across conditions, with exception of use of letter name in LN/LS condition

Number instruction (control) Numbers 0-15 taught Similar lesson format/activities to alphabet conditions

High fidelity to scripted lesson plans (M = 97.71%) LN mistakenly given in LS condition during 4 lessons

(0.78% of all lessons)

Analysis

All analyses controlled for age, implementer

RQ1: What is the impact of alphabet instruction on children’s acquisition of alphabet knowledge? Is the impact different for LNLS versus LS instruction? 3 (condition) x 2 (time) repeated measures ANOVAs Planned interaction contrasts for pairwise comparisons

RQ2&3: What is the impact of alphabet instruction on the learning of CV, VC, and NA letters, and are these gains related to phonological processing skill? Generalized cross-classified random effect models, crossing letters with

children (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Richter, 2006) Correctly partitions the variance and allows for interactions between

child (e.g., condition, PA) and letter (e.g., letter name type) factors Gives the probability of having learned a letter (residualized gain)

RQ1 Results

RQ1: What is the impact of alphabet instruction on children’s alphabet learning? Is the impact different for LNLS versus LS instruction?

RQ1 Results

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Gai

n

LN production LS production

*

**

*

RQ2 Results

RQ2: What is the impact of alphabet instruction on the types of letters children are likely to learn (i.e., CV, VC, NA letters)?

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Pro

babi

lity

of C

orre

ct R

espo

nse

CV VC NA

Letter Type

RQ2 Results

LN Production Gains

RQ2 Results

LS Production Gains

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Pro

babi

lity

of C

orre

ct R

espo

nse

CV VC NALetter Type

*Differences among letter types, within condition

*

*

*

*Differences within letter type

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

RQ3 Results

RQ3: Are gains in alphabet knowledge, particularly for CV and VC letters, related to phonological processing skill?

RQ3 Results

Phonological Processing

Pro

ba

bili

ty o

f C

orr

ect

Re

spo

nse

LS Production GainsPA at M +/-1SD

*

*no diff

*

*

*

*

no diff

no diff

Conclusions

Aim1: Impact of alphabet instruction Reliable LNLS instruction advantage for LS outcomes only,

although trends consistently favored LNLS condition No advantage of LS instruction over control No transfer to other emergent literacy skills

Aim2: LNLS versus LS instruction Trends favoring LNLS instruction in LS learning

Aim3: Letter name-to-sound facilitation Although patterns for LNLS instruction were consistent with

hypotheses, LS instruction resulted in atypical patterns Expected pattern of relations with phonological processing for

Number condition only Expected pattern of letter learning for LNLS condition that

overrode limitations of phonological processing

General Conclusion

Further research is warranted, particularly studies with greater instructional intensity and statistical power

However… Preliminary evidence of advantage in providing

combined LNLS instruction Trends consistently favored this condition LS acquisition accelerated but continuing to follow

typical developmental patterns

Shayne B. Piasta

piasta@psy.fsu.edu

Florida State University

Florida Center for Reading Research

IES Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Program

Questions?