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
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 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)
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)

Consonant- Vowel- No
Letter name type: vowel consonant association
> >
Example: B, /bi/ F, /εf/ H, /h/
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

8.00
*
7.00

6.00

5.00
*
*
Gain

4.00

3.00

2.00
*
1.00

0.00

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)?
RQ2 Results
LN Production Gains
1.00

0.90

0.80
Probability of Correct Response

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

CV VC NA
Letter Type
RQ2 Results
LS Production Gains
1.00

0.90
*
*
0.80
Probability of Correct Response

0.70

0.60 *
0.50

*
0.40

0.30
* *
0.20
*
0.10 * * *
0.00
*
CV VC NA
Letter Type

*Differences among letter

*Differences types,
within within
letter type condition
RQ3 Results
 RQ3: Are gains in alphabet knowledge,
particularly for CV and VC letters, related to
phonological processing skill?
 RQ3 Results

LS Production Gains
PA at M +/-1SD
*
*
*
*
Probability of Correct Response

*
no diff

no diff no diff
*
Phonological Processing
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
Questions?

Shayne B. Piasta
piasta@psy.fsu.edu

Florida State University

Florida Center for Reading Research
IES Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Program