Promoting Preschoolers' Alphabet Knowledge: A Comparison of Instructional Approaches

1. Promoting Preschoolers’ Acquisition of Alphabet Knowledge: A Comparison of Two Instructional Approaches Shayne B. Piasta Florida State University Florida Center for Reading Research IES Pre-doctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Program

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) > >

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?

13. RQ1 Results * * * *

14. 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)?

15. RQ2 Results LN Production Gains

16. * * * * * * * * * * * *Differences within letter type RQ2 Results LS Production Gains *Differences among letter types, within condition *

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

18. RQ3 Results LS Production Gains * PA at M +/-1SD * * * * Probability of Correct Response no diff no diff no diff * Phonological Processing

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

21. Questions? Shayne B. Piasta piasta@psy.fsu.edu Florida State University Florida Center for Reading Research IES Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Program