1. Shayne B. Piasta
Florida 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
2. Overview
Introduction
Significance of alphabet knowledge/instruction
Research aims and supporting literature
Study design and research questions
Method
Basic results and general conclusion
Questions
3. 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
4. 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 research
Essentially 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)
5. 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)
6. 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/
> >
7. 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
8. 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?
9. 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
10. 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)
11. 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)
12. RQ1 Results
RQ1: What is the impact of alphabet instruction
on children’s alphabet learning?
Is the impact different for LNLS versus LS instruction?
16. 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
Probability
of
Correct
Response
CV VC NA
Letter Type
Vowel
LNLS
LS
Number
*Differences among letter types, within condition
*
*
*
*Differences within letter type
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
17. RQ3 Results
RQ3: Are gains in alphabet knowledge,
particularly for CV and VC letters, related to
phonological processing skill?
19. 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
20. 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
