Preschool Instruction in Letter Names and Sounds: Does Contextualized or Decontextualized Instruction Matter? [Decontextualized letter names and sounds instruction vs. contextualized letter names and sounds instruction]
Roberts, Theresa A.; Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2019). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED599352
-
examining127Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Decontextualized 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PPVT-III |
Decontextualized letter names and sounds instruction vs. Context Only instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
38.59 |
35.56 |
No |
-- | |
|
IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test |
Decontextualized letter names and sounds instruction vs. Context Only instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.63 |
16.27 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Taught Letter Sounds Identification in Isolation |
Decontextualized letter names and sounds instruction vs. Context Only instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.41 |
3.75 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phoneme Awareness |
Decontextualized letter names and sounds instruction vs. Context Only instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.66 |
1.65 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rapid Letter Sounds |
Decontextualized letter names and sounds instruction vs. Context Only instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.32 |
3.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Taught Letter Sounds in Contexts |
Decontextualized letter names and sounds instruction vs. Context Only instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.57 |
3.44 |
No |
-- | |
|
Taught Letter Names Identification in Isolation |
Decontextualized letter names and sounds instruction vs. Context Only instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.73 |
4.83 |
No |
-- | |
|
Taught Letter Names Identification in Contexts |
Decontextualized letter names and sounds instruction vs. Context Only instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.25 |
4.48 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rapid Letter Names |
Decontextualized letter names and sounds instruction vs. Context Only instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.33 |
5.32 |
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.
-
Suburban
-
- 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
West
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in five elementary schools in a suburban school district in the western United States. Each school had one full-day preschool classroom and two half-day preschool classrooms. All classrooms were taught in English only.
Study sample
The mean age for the 132 children randomized into small groups was 4.11 years. There were 74 females, and 48 children were identified as dual language learners (DLLs) as indicated by their parents. Enrollment in the preschool classrooms was determined by low-income eligibility thresholds.
Intervention Group
The decontextualized alphabet instruction and contextualized alphabet instruction differed in that decontextualized instruction only included letters while contextualized instruction included letters with an associated word. Decontextualized instruction included the following components: Introducing a new letter on a card by pointing and saying the letter, asking children which letter they have and what the letter sound is, playing an animal game where children had to feed an animal that started with the letter on the card, a cumulative review of letters, and a speed practice where children were given 10 seconds to say and stamp 12 letters. Contextualized instruction included the following components: daily review of letters taught with a word (e.g., B, Bear), introduce the new letter as story reading where the instructor displays a letter card with a target letter from the book, find the new letter in children's name cards, little word book cumulative review, and speed practice and a review day. In all of the components, students partook in activities in which reference was made to single letters that were presented in the context of a name or word and a series of tasks involving the letter names and/or letter sounds took place. Letters were never presented in isolation.
Comparison Group
In both conditions, instruction focused on 10 letters (A, B, D, F, H, I, K, M, S, and T), with one new letter taught per week over the course of 10 weeks during 12-15 minute lessons. In both conditions all letters were taught in the same order, presented in uppercase, and letter names and letter sounds were taught. In both conditions children were prompted to say the target letter name and sound 16 times, plus additional times during review and book reading. Contextualized instruction included the following components: daily review, introduce the new letter as story reading, find the new letter in children's name cards, little word book cumulative review, speed practice and a review day. In all of the components, students partook in activities in which reference was made to single letters that were presented in the context of a name or word and a series of tasks involving the letter names and/or letter sounds took place. Letters were never presented in isolation.
Support for implementation
Instructors were hired by the study and were provided with a one-day, eight-hour training on the implementation of the conditions, which was presented by the first author. Training stressed the importance of eliciting accurate responses from children, providing explicit models of precisely articulated letter names and letter sounds, and providing correct responses with child repetition on errors. Prior to instruction, all of the instructors visited the preschool classrooms in which they were assigned to teach, met the children, and introduced procedures for transitioning into small groups and participating in activities. Treatment integrity was determined via live observations of small groups in each condition.
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).