Learning letter names and sounds: Effects of instruction, letter type, and phonological processing skill

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.12.008Get rights and content

Abstract

Preschool-age children (N = 58) were randomly assigned to receive instruction in letter names and sounds, letter sounds only, or numbers (control). Multilevel modeling was used to examine letter name and sound learning as a function of instructional condition and characteristics of both letters and children. Specifically, learning was examined in light of letter name structure, whether letter names included cues to their respective sounds, and children’s phonological processing skills. Consistent with past research, children receiving letter name and sound instruction were most likely to learn the sounds of letters whose names included cues to their sounds regardless of phonological processing skills. Only children with higher phonological skills showed a similar effect in the control condition. Practical implications are discussed.

Introduction

Alphabet knowledge is essential for learning to read and spell in English (Adams, 1990, Ehri, 1987, Ehri, 1998). Along with oral language and phonological awareness, it represents one of the most important emergent literacy skills acquired by young children (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Children’s alphabet knowledge has long been deemed one of the best predictors of later word reading ability (e.g., Adams, 1990, Hammill, 2004, Scarborough, 1998, Schatschneider et al., 2004). Likewise, failure to acquire such knowledge is an important indicator of risk for later reading difficulties (e.g., Gallagher et al., 2000, O’Connor and Jenkins, 1999, Torppa et al., 2006).

The significance of alphabet knowledge for acquiring literacy skills is reflected in many recent initiatives. For example, many state curriculum frameworks include letter name and sound learning for young children (Florida Department of Education, 2009, Massachusetts Department of Education, 2001, Ohio Department of Education, 2007). Both the Early Reading First and Reading First programs set explicit goals seeking to increase participants’ letter knowledge and understanding of letter–sound correspondences (U.S, 2002, U.S, 2003), as does the Head Start program (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). Early childhood curricula used in preschool and kindergarten classrooms commonly include an alphabetic component (Justice, Pence, Bowles, & Wiggins, 2006). These curricula vary markedly in how alphabet knowledge is taught, perhaps a reflection of our current lack of knowledge about letter name and sound development and best practices for fostering their acquisition (Piasta & Wagner, 2010). Despite widespread agreement as to the importance of letter name and sound knowledge, we know much less about children’s alphabet knowledge development than we do about the development of other emergent literacy skills.

In the current study, we modeled children’s gains in alphabet knowledge as a result of targeted letter name and/or sound instruction to examine the role of letter names in promoting letter sound acquisition. In so doing, we sought not only to answer basic research questions concerning children’s alphabet development but also to provide insight into how such knowledge might translate into practice in early childhood classrooms.

A number of letter properties appear to affect the ease with which their names and sounds are learned. These include whether the letter is a consonant or a vowel, the letter’s position within the alphabet, the letter’s manner of articulation, whether the letter is associated with more than a single sound (e.g., B and /b/ vs. C and /k/, /s/), the age at which the sound is typically produced, the confusability of the letter’s shape or pronunciation with other letters, and frequency in print materials (Evans et al., 2006, Justice et al., 2006, McBride-Chang, 1999, Treiman and Kessler, 2003, Treiman et al., 2001, Treiman et al., 2006, Treiman et al., 2007, Treiman et al., 1998).

The current study focused on one particular letter property: letter name structure. Letter name structure refers to how letter sounds are represented in their names and has been found to influence knowledge of letter sounds in young children (Evans et al., 2006, Justice et al., 2006, Levin et al., 2006, McBride-Chang, 1999, Read, 1971, Treiman et al., 1993, Treiman et al., 2008, Treiman et al., 1996, Treiman et al., 1997, Treiman et al., 1994, Treiman et al., 1998). Many letter names contain their corresponding sounds, taking one of two forms: the consonant–vowel (CV) pattern of /consonant sound/ + /i/ as in the letter B or the vowel–consonant (VC) pattern of /ε/ + /consonant sound/ as in the letter F. Preschoolers are well aware of these regularities, particularly the CV form (Treiman et al., 1997). These findings are consistent with the idea that children use their segmentation abilities and the initial sounds of letter names as cues for the letters’ sounds. Treiman et al., 1997, Treiman and Broderick, 1998 reported that children were more likely to know the sounds of letters in which the first sounds of the letter names correctly correspond to their sounds (i.e., CV letters) than of letters with names that began with vowels (i.e., VC letters) or letters with names and sounds that are not associated (i.e., NA [no association] letters such as W) (see also Justice et al., 2006, McBride-Chang, 1999).

The letter name-to-sound facilitation effect suggested by this correlational research has been investigated in three training studies (see also de Jong, 2007). Using a completely within-participants design, Treiman and colleagues (1998) demonstrated that the effect was due to ease of learning and not to factors extrinsic to the child. Moreover, two recent studies conducted with Hebrew-speaking students provided some experimental evidence supporting the letter name facilitation effect. Share (2004) showed an advantage in pseudoletter learning when associated names and sounds were taught. Levin and colleagues (2006) demonstrated that children who are taught letter names attempt to use this knowledge in extrapolating letter sounds. The validity of these results for English-speaking children in typical U.S. preschool settings, however, remains to be tested.

Other researchers have focused on influences of child characteristics on alphabet knowledge acquisition. These include the letters in children’s names (Treiman and Broderick, 1998, Treiman et al., 2007, Treiman and Kessler, 2004) as well as various cognitive and emergent literacy skills such as oral language, memory, print awareness, rapid naming, and phonological processing (Burgess and Lonigan, 1998, de Jong and Olson, 2004, Evans et al., 2006, Lonigan et al., 2000, Mann and Foy, 2003). Phonological processing, in particular, may play an important role in alphabet knowledge development. Phonological processing refers to children’s awareness of and ability to manipulate segments (phonemes, onsets/rimes, and syllables) of language and is related to both word reading ability (e.g., Lonigan et al., 2000, Torgesen et al., 1994, Wagner and Torgesen, 1987, Wagner et al., 1994, Wagner et al., 1997) and letter name and sound knowledge (e.g., Burgess and Lonigan, 1998, Lonigan et al., 1998, Mann and Foy, 2003, McBride-Chang, 1999, Share, 2004, Wagner et al., 1994).

Relations between phonological processing and alphabet knowledge are relatively robust. Phonological processing is a unique predictor of letter name and letter sound knowledge after other characteristics have been controlled (Burgess and Lonigan, 1998, Lonigan et al., 2000), and it accounts for individual differences in children’s alphabet knowledge above and beyond environmental factors such as home literacy environment and alphabet instruction from parents (Torppa et al., 2006). Together with intervention work demonstrating the combined benefit of phonological plus alphabet training on letter sound outcomes (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991), these results are consistent with bidirectional relations between letter name and sound knowledge and phonological processing skill (Burgess and Lonigan, 1998, Foulin, 2005, McBride-Chang, 1999): Letter knowledge influences phonological skill, and phonological skill influences letter learning. In fact, phonological skill may provide the mechanism by which the letter name-to-sound facilitation effect occurs (Piasta, 2006, Share, 2004). Children must use their phonological abilities to derive the letter sound from its name, isolating the corresponding sound from the full syllable of the letter name (e.g., /b/ from /bi/). Share (2004) found preliminary evidence supporting this hypothesis in the small to moderate correlations between phonemic analysis and letter sound gains in his experimental sample.

The current study was carried out to investigate the letter name-to-sound effect on the alphabet learning of U.S. preschoolers. We implemented three training conditions: (a) combined letter name and sound instruction, (b) letter sound only instruction, and (c) number identification instruction as a treated control. Basic results concerning the overall impacts of the various training conditions are presented in Piasta, Purpura, and Wagner (in press). The letter name-to-sound effect investigated in the current analyses was tested via the counterfactual produced by the combined letter name and sound versus letter sound only comparison in which only letter name instruction was manipulated. These results were also compared with findings for the treated control representing typical learning without experimental manipulation. Note that a condition providing only letter name instruction was not included because this did not represent a counterfactual of interest (i.e., a difference in letter sound learning between letter sound only and letter name only instructional conditions could have been due to the provision of letter sound instruction in one condition but not the other rather than the provision of letter name instruction) and was not practically feasible given resource and statistical power limitations.

Of particular interest in the current study was an examination of the letter name-to-sound facilitation effect on children’s alphabet learning. Specifically, we examined whether particular types of letters were more likely to be learned and whether such learning was moderated by children’s phonological abilities. The letter name-to-sound effect ought to hold only for those letters whose names provide cues to their sounds. Thus, any advantage of combined letter name and sound instruction should be limited to CV and VC letters to the exclusion of NA letters. Furthermore, the letter name-to-sound effect mainly ought to benefit children capable of segmenting letter names into their constituent sounds. Consequently, positive relations between phonological abilities and letter sound learning were expected for CV and VC letters, and children with higher phonological abilities were expected to show a more pronounced letter name-to-sound effect for CV and VC letters as compared with children with lower phonological abilities. Acquisition of NA letters should not be dependent on phonological skill. Finally, we also examined children’s acquisition of vowel letters, although such analyses were largely exploratory in nature. Although some studies suggest that vowels are often more familiar than consonants (Evans et al., 2006, Treiman et al., 1998), evidence concerning the effects of instruction and letter name-to-sound facilitation did not support specific predictions for vowel learning.

Examining interactions among training, letter, and child characteristics is facilitated by recent statistical advances allowing the study of both letter and child factors simultaneously. The study integrates a body of research that had previously focused exclusively on either letter or child characteristics. A multilevel analytic technique was required to examine the anticipated interactions among training condition, letter name structure, and phonological processing. The advantages of this technique are discussed further in the following section.

As indicated, studies of alphabet knowledge acquisition have typically involved the investigation of either letter properties or child characteristics but not both simultaneously. One problem for investigating such factors simultaneously has been limitations in statistical methods that preclude examination of effects from two units of analysis (i.e., letters and children) at the same time. Studies with letters as units of analysis necessarily ignored the variability that exists among children (cf. Justice et al., 2006), whereas studies with children as the units of analysis ignored the variability that exists among letters. This problem is akin to the “language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy” debated in the cognitive literature (Clark, 1973, Coleman, 1964) with the same model misspecification problems that can result in biased estimates of effects and errors in significance testing (Clark, 1973, Lorch and Myers, 1990, Richter, 2006). Multilevel modeling provides a solution to this problem (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Generalized multilevel models allow simultaneous examination of the effects of both letter properties and child characteristics on alphabet knowledge (see Richter, 2006, for further discussion regarding the use of multilevel models when both stimuli and participant effects are of interest). Combining the effects of letter properties and child characteristics in the same study of letter name and letter sound knowledge confers important theoretical, statistical, and practical advantages.

First, the simultaneous examination of effects of both letters and children on alphabet knowledge allows the generation and testing of new hypotheses. In the current case, these new hypotheses concerned possible interactions among instructional condition, letter name structure, and phonological processing skill. Incorporation of interaction terms also confers statistical benefits in preventing model misspecification. As a rule, interactions between factors modify the interpretation of either factor’s main effect alone (Maxwell & Delaney, 2004). Thus, if interactions between letter properties and child characteristics are found, previous interpretations of either the letter property or child characteristic effects need to be amended.

Multilevel models also correctly partition the variance in alphabet knowledge into its two sources: variability due to differences among letters and variability due to differences among children (Evans et al., 2006). Estimates of effects are unbiased, and significance tests are corrected. Significant results may be interpreted as reliable across both units of analysis. The robustness of effects across letters is particularly important to note. An effect that is reliable across letters is interpreted as holding, on average, for all letters regardless of other properties specific to individual letters (e.g., letter frequency or exposure, position in alphabet). The results are robust despite allowing such factors to vary.

The multilevel model used in the current study also does not assume a normal distribution, addressing arguments that alphabet knowledge is a “constrained skill” (Paris, 2005, Paris et al., 2005) for which parametric analyses might not be appropriate. Instead, letters are scored dichotomously, as correct or incorrect, and these dichotomous data serve as the outcome of interest in the (generalized) multilevel model. In this way, the model is essentially a multilevel logistic model, giving odds ratios or probabilities of correctly responding to letters with particular characteristics.

Lastly, integrated analysis of letter properties and child characteristics in multilevel models may aid in clarifying those factors genuinely related to children’s acquisition of alphabet knowledge and thus may have practical value for instruction. For example, learning might become more efficient if the time spent learning different letters reflected their differential difficulty. The current study begins to tackle such questions when considering the effectiveness of two approaches to alphabet instruction on the learning of CV, VC, and NA letters.

Section snippets

Participants

Four private child-care centers located in a mid-sized city in the southeastern United States participated in the study. Center staff distributed consent forms to parents of English-speaking 3- and 4-year-olds demonstrating little familiarity with alphabet letters.

Of children with parental consent (N = 113), 63 met eligibility criteria for participation in the study. These children produced fewer than eight letter names on an uppercase letter name production task.

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics for children’s pretest and posttest scores in each of the intervention conditions are reported in Table 1. Preliminary analyses indicated that children in the three conditions did not differ on any demographic characteristics (gender, ethnicity, age, and average parent education) or pretest scores (ps > .340). Repeated measures analyses showed that children in the number condition learned significantly more numbers than children in the combined letter name and sound and

Discussion

The current study yielded several results with implications for understanding children’s letter acquisition. First, our results showed that letter name structure had little effect on the learning of letter names. Second, our results for letter sound learning were largely consistent with the letter name-to-sound effect: Children receiving combined letter name and sound instruction showed accelerated letter sound learning of CV and VC letters. Moreover, letter name-to-sound and training effects

References (88)

  • R. Treiman et al.

    Which children benefit from letter names in learning letter sounds?

    Cognition

    (2008)
  • M.J. Adams

    Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print

    (1990)
  • J.L. Anthony et al.

    Phonological sensitivity: A quasi-parallel progression of word structure units and cognitive operations

    Reading Research Quarterly

    (2003)
  • E.W. Ball et al.

    Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling?

    Reading Research Quarterly

    (1991)
  • Y. Benjamini et al.

    Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B

    (1995)
  • L. Berk et al.

    Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood learning

    (1995)
  • R. Brownell

    Receptive one-word picture vocabulary test

    (2000)
  • J. Cohen et al.

    Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (2003)
  • E.B. Coleman

    Generalizing to a language population

    Psychological Reports

    (1964)
  • C.M. Connor et al.

    Preschool instruction and children’s literacy skill growth

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2006)
  • C.M. Connor et al.

    Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of Child × Instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development

    Child Development

    (2009)
  • L.C. Ehri

    Learning to read and spell words

    Journal of Reading Behavior

    (1987)
  • L.C. Ehri

    Grapheme–phoneme knowledge is essential to learning to read words in English

  • M.A. Evans et al.

    Letter names, letter sounds and phonological awareness: An examination of kindergarten children across letters and of letters across children

    Reading and Writing

    (2006)
  • Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Sunshine state standards. Retrieved December 31, 2009, Available from...
  • B.R. Foorman et al.

    The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1998)
  • J.N. Foulin

    Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read?

    Reading and Writing

    (2005)
  • A. Gallagher et al.

    Precursors of literacy delay among children at genetic risk of dyslexia

    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

    (2000)
  • P.J. Groff

    Resolving the letter name controversy

    Reading Teacher

    (1984)
  • D. Gurney

    Soundabet

    (1999)
  • D.D. Hammill

    What we know about correlates of reading

    Exceptional Children

    (2004)
  • Jolly Learning. (n.d.). Jolly phonics: Parent/Teacher guide. Retrieved June 8, 2008, Available from...
  • C. Juel et al.

    Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies

    Reading Research Quarterly

    (2000)
  • H.J. Kesselman et al.

    The pairwise multiple comparison multiplicity problem: An alternative approach to familywise and comparisonwise Type I error control

    Psychological Methods

    (1999)
  • C.J. Lonigan et al.

    Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study

    Developmental Psychology

    (2000)
  • C.J. Lonigan et al.

    Development of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1998)
  • Lonigan, C.J., Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (2007). Test of preschool emergent literacy. Austin, TX:...
  • R.F. Lorch et al.

    Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1990)
  • E. Malofeeva et al.

    Construction and evaluation of a number sense test with Head Start children

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2004)
  • V.A. Mann et al.

    Phonological awareness, speech development, and letter knowledge in preschool children

    Annals of Dyslexia

    (2003)
  • Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001). Massachusetts English language arts curriculum framework. Retrieved...
  • S.E. Maxwell et al.

    Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective

    (2004)
  • C. McBride-Chang

    The ABCs of the ABCs: The development of letter-name and letter-sound knowledge

    Merrill–Palmer Quarterly

    (1999)
  • A. McGill-Franzen et al.

    Learning to be literate: A comparison of five urban early childhood programs

    (1997)
  • Cited by (63)

    • Are there developmental patterns in emergent bilingual children’s English letter-name knowledge?

      2024, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This study reports results from the dissertation of the first author while a doctoral student at Florida State University and the Florida Center for Reading Research. The research was supported by Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Grant R305B04074 from the Institute of Education Sciences and also Grant P50 HD052120-01 from the National Institutes of Health. The opinions articulated are the authors’ and do not represent views of the university or funding agencies. The authors acknowledge the following for their important contributions to the project: David Purpura, Avni Vyas, Caroline Phythian Sence, Christopher Lonigan, Carol Connor, Christopher Schatschneider, Mark Licht, and the staff and children at participating preschool centers.

    View full text