Preschool Instruction in Letter Names and Sounds: Does Contextualized or Decontextualized Instruction Matter?

Roberts, Theresa A.; Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1002/rrq.284

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 105 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In experiment 3 (context; Roberts, Vadasy, & Sanders, 2020), we compared teaching letter names and sounds contextualized within storybook reading, words from stories, and personal names with a decontextualized format in which letters were taught in isolation as single letters. Letter names and sounds were taught in both formats, based on findings from experiment 1.…”

Section: Summary Of Four Recent Studies That Have Informed the Science Of Alphabet Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Letters: Evidence and Questions From a Science‐of‐Reading Perspective

Roberts¹

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I illustrate how research from cognitive science and the science of reading can inform research on the science of reading instruction. This purpose is accomplished by focusing on four recently published randomized control trials of instruction designed to teach alphabet letters to 3‐ and 4‐year‐old children (N = 342) attending preschool in the United States. Approximately 35% of the children were dual‐language learners. Instruction ranged from 10 to 12 weeks’ duration and was implemented in small groups taught by research assistants. Evidence for the value of explicit instruction in which paired‐associate learning connecting visual letter forms with their verbal letter labels (names and sounds) for learning letters is reviewed. The effectiveness of explicit instruction for promoting children’s motivation and engagement is identified. The relation of these studies to important features of a science of reading is discussed. Collective and individual instructionally related implications from the studies are elaborated, including replicated evidence of the benefit of visual–verbal paired‐associate learning of printed letters and their spoken names or sounds; the positive effects on motivation and engagement of such instruction; and the benefit of decontextualized letter instruction over letter instruction contextualized within storybook reading, real words, and personal names.

show abstract

Section: Summary Of Four Recent Studies That Have Informed the Science Of Alphabet Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Letters: Evidence and Questions From a Science‐of‐Reading Perspective

Roberts¹

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ms. Franklin is a PreK teacher who knows the value of supporting writing as well as reading by creating simultaneous experiences between the two, across the school day (e.g., Roberts, 2011; Rowe, 2018). More than just providing experiences, Ms. Franklin knows that these experiences should be meaningful and connected to capture interest.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Building a Bridge: Writing and Reading Connections in Early Childhood

Quinn¹,

Philippakos²

2023

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading and writing are essential components of literacy. Children's initial preschool experiences with literacy set important foundations for later school success. Instruction that can create a bridge between reading and writing to support children's developing understandings in both these areas of literacy has powerful implications for their literacy growth. This teaching and learning in action guide explores meaningful connections between reading and writing by examining the way in which one prekindergarten teacher supports children's reading–writing skills across various components of written language (i.e., sounds, letters, words, sentences, and content) and within various instructional contexts (centers, small groups, large group/read‐aloud). This article shares research‐based approaches in the context of specific examples in which the focal teacher fosters meaningful reading and writing connections using two key read‐alouds as starting points. How do we make reading–writing connections in preschool across contexts and learning experiences to support children's literacy in meaningful, engaging, and developmentally appropriate ways and make connections visible to children? What high‐quality reading and writing experiences influence preschoolers' engagement in activities? What ways are reading and writing addressed in your classroom across various instructional contexts (i.e., whole group, small group, centers)?

show abstract

“…For example, a child might recall "look" by remembering the "two eyes" in the middle of the word and making a connection with the word's meaning. For students to move from this initial phase to the next phase, the partial alphabetic phase, PA skills and letter knowledge must begin to develop through explicit PA and alphabetic instruction (Roberts, Vadasy, & Sanders, 2020). These two skills are essential to the development of the key feature of the partial alphabetic phase, known as phonetic cue reading.…”

Section: Definitions and Theoretical Foundations For Phonemic Awarene...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonemic Awareness: A Meta‐Analysis for Planning Effective Instruction

Rice

Erbeli

Thompson

et al. 2022

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Reading Panel identified phonemic awareness (PA) as one of the five components of reading and found explicit instruction effective in developing PA skills in students. In the current meta‐analysis, we explored the extent to which PA instruction was effective for developing PA skills in preschool through first‐grade students and examined moderators related to malleable instructional characteristics relevant to the effective implementation of PA instruction in schools (e.g., type of instructor, specifically including computer programs and parents aside from teachers as instructors) and their possible interactions. We collected data from 46 experimental and quasi‐experimental primary studies, with 59 independent samples providing 119 effect sizes (treatment groups, N = 1892; control groups, N = 1747). Using robust variance estimation, PA instruction was moderately effective (g = 0.63, p < .001) at improving PA outcomes. No statistically significant difference was found for type of instructor. Other moderator analyses revealed no significant differences for group size, duration, PA skills taught, use of letters, grade level, at‐risk for reading difficulties status, or English language learner status. Finally, examination of the interaction between type of instructor and at‐risk status suggested teachers, computer programs, and parents are effective instructors for both at‐risk and low‐risk students. As schools plan for effective PA instruction, results indicate computer programs and parents can be useful resources to build PA skills for students to supplement teacher instruction.

show abstract

Preschool Instruction in Letter Names and Sounds: Does Contextualized or Decontextualized Instruction Matter?

Abstract: research interests include early literacy processes and instruction, language development, and dual-language learners.

Cited by 15 publications

References 105 publications

Learning Letters: Evidence and Questions From a Science‐of‐Reading Perspective

Learning Letters: Evidence and Questions From a Science‐of‐Reading Perspective

Building a Bridge: Writing and Reading Connections in Early Childhood

Phonemic Awareness: A Meta‐Analysis for Planning Effective Instruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About