The Effects of Kindergarten Instruction in Alphabet and Numbers on First Grade Reading

Abstract

The ability to recognize letters and numbers in kindergarten has been demonstrated to be a better predictor of end-of-first-grade reading skills than other accepted "readiness skills" or IQ. It would thus seem logical to hypothesize that instruction in recognizing letters and numbers in kindergarten should produce an increment to reading level attained at the end of first grade. To test this possibility, four classes of kindergarten children were given the Letters and Numbers Subtest of the Gates Reading Readiness Tests in the spring of their kindergarten year. Two classes were then given eight weeks of training in alphabet and numbers names, while the other two classes participated in the regular informal kindergarten program. Re testing at the end of this period showed that the experimental group did respond to training, achieving a level of recognition of numbers and letters higher than that of the control group. Follow-up testing at the beginning of first grade showed that the effects of training persisted through the summer vacation. Reading tests given at the end of first grade, however, demonstrated that the beneficiaf effects of kindergarten training in letters and numbers had dissipated by that time. The distribution of end-of-first-grade reading scores revealed no differences between the experimental and control groups. From these results, together with the results of earlier studies, one could conclude that formalized training in letters and numbers recognition affects only the scores achieved on subsequent recognition tests and does not affect eventual ability to read. In this regard, one may even question the value of formalized training in other reading readiness activities as well.

Early First-Grade Skills Related to Subsequent Reading Performance: A Seven Year Followup Study

“…The present finding adds to the already impressive research evidence relating the role of this skill in predicting short-term reading performance at first-grade level (Wilson & Flemming, 1938a, Wilson & Flemming, 1940Wilson, 1942;Gavel, 1958;Weiner & Feldman, 1963;Di Nello, 1965;Barrett, 1965;Silvaroli, 1965;De Hirsch et al, 1966;Muehl & Kremenack, 1966;Bond & Dykstra, 1967;Lowell, 1971;Hick & Santman, 1971;Askov, et al, 1972;Silberberg et al, 1972). Without exception naming letters proved to be the best single predictor, either in simple or multiple prediction.…”

“…Despite instruction, high IQ and upper middle-class background, the Ss still showed marked differences in letter naming at the end of the instructional program. Silberberg (1972) reported similar differences in 5s' ability to learn letters and numbers after eight weeks of instruction and practice. Di Nello (1965) found almost half of his male first graders named less than half the letters on a September readiness test.…”

“…Thus, children who come to school with knowledge of letter names have likely come from homes where they were exposed to books and other activities that provided practice and approval for developing pre-reading skills including letter naming. Several studies (Muehl, 1962;Ohnmacht, 1969;Silberberg et al, 1972) tended to support this explanation since they reported that teaching letter-names as such did not facilitate learning to read.…”

Effects of expanded language experience instruction on language processing skills of kindergartners

“…While the educational benefits associated with the LEA appear to be many (Hacker, 1980;Hall, 1981;Harste, Woodward & Burke, 1984;Jensen & Hanson, 1982;Lee & Allen, 1963;Sulzby, 1980Sulzby, , 1985, there are some kindergarten teachers, parents, and reading researchers (Barrett, 1965;Becker & Gersten, 1982;Haddock, 1976;Johnson & Baumann, 1984;Muehl, 1962;Pflaum, Walberg, Karegianes & Rasher, 1980;Samuels, 1972;Silberberg, Silberberg & Iverson, 1972;Williams, 1985) who are not convinced that language experience instruction will develop the literacy subskills required for success in beginning reading programs; their concern is that traditional LEA procedures do not include systematic instruction in subskill areas, such as sound/symbol relationships, visual discrimination, auditory discrimination, and use of context clues. As a reaction to this criticism, proponents of language experience instruction have offered suggestions for expanding and varying the use of the traditional LEA so that it includes subskill instruction, but few studies have examined empirically the effects of specific LEA expansions, or variations, on emergent literacy skills.…”

Emergent literacy: An exploratory study of the effects of an expanded language experience approach

“…In support of language/meaning instruction, research by several educators indicates the important roles played by prior knowledge (i.e., experience) and information processing during the process of obtaining meaning from text (Chomsky, 1972;Dunn, 198 I;Durkin, 1966Durkin, , 1974Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984;Heath, 1982Heath, , 1983Hirsch, 1985;Mason, 1984;Menyuk, 1988;Michaels, 198 I;Olson, 1984;Pearson, Hanson, & Gordon, 1979;Soderberg, 1977;Teale & Sulzby, 1986;Wells, 1981;Wilson & Anderson, 1985). There is also a great deal of research evidence which SUppOt1S subskill instruction, particularly in the areas of visual discrimination skills and phonics skills (Barrett, 1965;Becker & Gersten, 1982;Bond & Dykstra, 1967;Chal\, 1983;Haddock, 1976;Jeffrey & Samuels, 1967;Johnson & Baumann, 1984;Muehl, 1962;Olson, 1958;Pflaum, Walberg, Karegianes, & Rasher, 1980;Rosenshine & Stevens, 1984;Samuels, 1972;Silberberg, Silberberg, & Iverson, 1972;Venezky, 1975;Williams, 1985). Given the inconclusive nature of research findings on the issue of language/meaning emphasis versus subskill emphasis to aid the development of emergent literacy skills, it may be that the best strategy would be to combine elements of language/meaning and subskills instruction into a single, unified approach.…”