Learning Letter Names and Sounds: Effects of Instruction, Letter Type, and Phonological Processing Skill [Letter names and sounds instruction vs. numbers instruction]
Piasta, Shayne B.; Wagner, Richard K. (2010). Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, v105 n4 p324-344. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ876203
-
examining38Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Letter names and sounds instruction)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter sound recognition |
Letter names and sounds instruction vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Letter name and sound vs. number identification groups;
|
6.22 |
4.44 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter Naming |
Letter names and sounds instruction vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Letter name and sound vs. number identification groups;
|
10.31 |
8.78 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Preschool Emergent Literacy (TOPEL) Phonological Awareness Subtest |
Letter names and sounds instruction vs. Other intervention |
0 Months |
Letter name and sound vs. number identification groups;
|
13.76 |
13.11 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter Name Recognition |
Letter names and sounds instruction vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Letter name and sound vs. number identification groups;
|
12.17 |
11.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Letter names and sounds instruction vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Letter name and sound vs. number identification groups;
|
99.77 |
99.72 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Black 14% Other or unknown 14% White 72%
Study Details
Setting
The students attended four private child-care centers in a mid-sized city in the southeastern United States.
Study sample
Most children (72%) were Caucasian, 14% were African American, and 14% were of other races/ethnicities (Indian, Hispanic, or Asian). Almost half (48%) of the sample was female. Half (50%) of the children had parents with college degrees, and 9% had parents that completed postgraduate training. Children were 3 or 4 years old.
Intervention Group
An instructor delivered an eight-week curriculum (34 lessons of 10-15 minutes each) to small groups of three to five children as a pull-out program. The instructor taught three or four lessons per week. In the combined letter name and sound condition, each letter was consistently referred to by its name and linked to its most common corresponding sound (e.g., the letter C that makes the sound /k/) in all lesson activities (further described below). There was a lesson for each letter, and eight review lessons (roughly one a week). The curriculum taught the most common sound associated with individual letters (e.g., /k/ for C, /g/ for G) and short vowel sounds (e.g., /æ/ for A, /a/ for O) were taught. Lessons followed a fixed random sequence. Lessons were scripted, but instruction was delivered in an interactive manner. First, children practiced saying the letter name and/or sound, recognized the letter from an array of magnetic letters, and listened for words starting with the letter sound, as aided by picture cards. The study used eight different commercially available alphabet books that included all 26 letters, with a page being devoted to each individual letter and its corresponding sound. Children also participated in weekly review sessions.
Comparison Group
An instructor delivered an eight-week curriculum (34 lessons of 10-15 minutes each) to small groups of three to five children as a pull-out program. Of these 34 lessons, 16 were devoted to instruction on a particular number, 0–15, with one to three individual number lessons being provided each week. Children also received 18 review lessons. The authors designed number lessons to be as similar as possible to alphabet lessons in format, activities, intensity, and duration.
Support for implementation
The authors trained implementers to deliver lessons during two training sessions, where lesson plans and instructional materials were distributed and implementation was modeled. Implementation was monitored throughout the course of the study. In particular, the authors reviewed audio recordings of 30% of lessons and addressed implementation challenges as they emerged. Fifteen percent of lessons were randomly chosen to support fidelity assessments.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).