Letter Name Learning in Early Childhood Literacy

Letter naming is a strong predictor (along with phonological awareness) of phonics acquisition and reading fluency (Evans, Bell, Shaw, Moretti, & Page, 2006; National Reading Panel, 2000; Treiman, Weatherston, & Berch, 1994; Stage, Shepard, Davidson, & Browning, 2001).

Letter Name Learning is a Constrained Reading Skill. Scope – Finite set of 26 letters (52 with upper and lower case) Learning curve is steep Time period is relatively brief

Importance –

Centrality to process of becoming a reader Typicality of the process of becoming a reader

Range of Influence

Limited to the process of developing decoding automaticity Found in the earliest stages of literacy development

Letter Name Learning is a Constrained Reading Skill Unequal Learning – Some letter names and sounds are learned more easily, quickly and deeply than others. Result of unequal exposure rates to letter names and sounds.

Mastery – Letter name learning is mastered early, quickly and completely.

Universality – Letter name learning needs to be learned by all learners. Letter name learning is composed of identical information or learning elements.

Letter Name Learning is a Constrained Reading Skill Codependency Previously reported positive correlations between “constrained” early reading skills and later acquisition of “unconstrained” reading skills are not shown to remain stable at later points in reading development or skill acquisition.

Letter Name Learning time should be constrained Letter name learning is not the end-all, be-all of early literacy instruction. Copious amounts of instructional time also be allocated for students to build rich networks of world knowledge and word meanings .

Six Stances or Guided Principles for Letter Name Learning

1. Letter name learning is both universal and important for young students. Because of this, letter name instruction is vital for young students to learn to make progress in early reading. 2. Letter name learning is a “constrained” reading skill. Because of this fact, instructional time and attention given to letter name learning should be similarly constrained to allow for other learning to take place. 3. Letter names are learned “unequally.” Because of this classroom letter name instruction should give increased time and attention to those letters that are learned less easily and quickly.

Six Stances or Guided Principles for Letter Name Learning 4. Letter name learning should be taught regularly to promote students’ complete mastery of the entire set of 26 letter names and the commonly associated letter sounds in kindergarten and first-grade. 5. Letter name learning has a limited range of influence and because of this is codependent with learning other constrained and unconstrained reading skills. Teachers should assure that the reading instruction program gives adequate attention to learning phonemic awareness, concepts about print, word meanings, and listening comprehension. 6. Letter name learning requires students to actively process a variety of information about letters including recognition of letter forms (upper and lower case), formation of letters in writing, and the speech sounds commonly associated with specific letters.

Theories and Research

Reutzel, D. R. (In Press, 2015). Inside Track - Early Literacy Research: Findings Primary Grade Teachers Will Want to Know. The Reading Teacher, 70, xxxxxx. Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2012). Enhanced alphabet knowledge instruction: Exploring a change of frequency, focus, and distributed cycles of review. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 33(5), 448-464. Jones, C. D., Reutzel, D. R., & Clark, S. K. (2012). Enhancing alphabet knowledge instruction: Research implications and practical strategies for early childhood educators. Early Childhood Education Journal. DOI 10.1007/s10643-012-0534-9. Justice, L. M., Pence, K., Bowles, R. B., & Wiggins, A. (2006). An investigation of four hypotheses concerning the order by which 4-year-old children learn the alphabet letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 374–389. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Piasta, S. B. & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Developing Early Literacy Skills: A MetaAnalysis of Alphabet Learning and Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 45(1), pp. 8-38.

Multi-Componential Letter Name Instruction is the Most Powerful and Effective sounds graphic image name critical features transcription categories discrimination

Categories into which this symbol can be sorted

Discriminate this symbol from others

Name the symbol

Motor codes used in transcription

Paired Associates: Objects Pictures

Recognize graphic symbol

Made from x number of critical features

Associated sound

Pattern Recognition Theories

Template Matching Theory Prototype Matching Theory Critical Feature Analysis Theory

Template Matching Theory

Is there a match?

D Template for upper-case D in the brain.

What the eye sees.

Prototype Matching Theory

Does the prototype look like this letter?

Flexible, Prototype for upper-case D in the brain.

What the eye sees.

Critical Feature Analysis Theory All letters are analyzed into and constructed a small set of critical features shown below .|/\

Critical Feature Analysis Theory

Shared critical features make some letters confusable. Young children don’t understand the identity change that occurs in the 2 dimensional print world. Unlike their previous 3 dimensional object world experience.

dpb mnu This doesn’t mean kids are dyslexic!

What does research have to say about factors that affect how young children learn letter names and sounds?

Research has shown that learning letter names is facilitated through six different “advantages” (Justice, Pence, Bowles & Wiggins, 2006): Own-Name Advantage (where letters occur in children’s names) Alphabetic order (where letters are taught in alpha order) Letter pronunciation effect (where the sound of the letter is also in the name) Letter frequency effect (letters that occur most frequently in written language) Consonant Phoneme Acquisition order effect (order of sounds the child first learns to articulate in oral language. Letter Writing Advantage : (where explicit letter formation is taught and practiced)

Research has shown that learning letter names can be facilitated in a variety of ways (Justice, Pence, Bowles & Wiggins, 2006): Letters that occur in children’s names (Krech, 2000)

Research has shown that learning letter names can be facilitated in a variety of ways (Justice, Pence, Bowles & Wiggins, 2006): Alphabetic order

Teaching the Alphabet as a serial list in order can lead to “list learning effects” as shown by the bowed serial position curve below: Figure 1

Using Alphabetic Order and Read Aloud S o r t B o o k s b y :

Reading aloud alphabet books and discussing letters (Brabham, Murray, and Bowden, 2006). Singing and writing alphabet songs can be used to support children’s learning of letter names (Smith, 2000).





Research has shown that learning letter names can be facilitated in a variety of ways (Justice, Pence, Bowles & Wiggins, 2006): Letter name pronunciation effect (where the sound of the letter is also in the name)

in

Naming the Letters Saying the names of letters not only reinforces the names of letters but also many of the sounds (except g (hard g sound), h, q, w & y): Vowels – a, e, i, o, & u Consonants – b, c, d, f, j, k, l, m, n, p, q, r, s, t, v, x, z Letters where the sound of the letter is at the beginning of the letter names are learned easiest, then at the end of the letter names, and then not in the letter names (Treiman, et al., 1994; 1997; 1998; 2003).





Research has shown that learning letter names can be facilitated in a variety of ways (Justice, Pence, Bowles & Wiggins, 2006): Letter frequency effect (how often letters are found in written or printed language)

Using Letter Frequency (Fry, 2004) Consonants in order of frequency: r, t, n, s, l, c, d, p, m, b, f, v, g, h, k, w, th, sh, ng, ch, x, z, j, qu, wh, y

Vowels in order of frequency: Short i, a, e, schwa, long o & e, short u & o, long a, u, & i, r controlled a & o, ou, oo, oi, air, ar





Research has shown that learning letter names can be facilitated in a variety of ways (Justice, Pence, Bowles & Wiggins, 2006)

Consonant Phoneme Acquisition order effect (order of sounds the child first learns to articulate in oral language.

Using Consonant Phoneme Acquisition Order: Normative, developmental order of consonant phoneme acquisition includes the consonant phonemes of n, m, p, h, t, k, y, f, ng, b, d, g w, and s during the first four years . The consonant phonemes acquired after age 4 include: l, r, v, z, sh, ch, j, zh, and th (voiced sound as in that and unvoiced sound as in think).

Writing the Letters Explicit teaching and guided practice of letter forms facilitates writing and letter naming fluency (Graham, Harris & Fink, 2000; Schlagal, 2007).

Writing the Letters Short daily practice sessions are most effective Teacher demonstrations of how to form a letter while describing how it is formed is best for younger children.

Writing the Letters Copying or tracing a letter from a correct model is helpful for children’s practice. When doing this children should use a “look, say, cover, write, check” technique. Using pictographs in story or song-based instruction for introducing letters such as is found in the British Letterland approach is

helpful.

Letter Dictation Supplies needed: Markers, pencils, or other writing supplies, gel boards, white boards, kleenslates, etc. for choral response or lined/numbered paper. Stop watch or wrist watch with second hand. Dictate random letters using upper and lower case. Begin slowly about 10 seconds per letter. Increase speed during the year. www.kleenslate.com

What does recent research say about the instructional pacing and review of letter names and sounds?

Breaking the Letter a Week Tradition Teaching a letter a week in Kindergarten is a long standing tradition. But the real question is this – “Is it effective to teach a letter a week?” Letter a week must be effective to some degree otherwise teachers would abandon the practice. Massed vs. Distributed Review and Practice

The Law of 10-20 for Memory Sets This law discovered by Hal Pashler (2006) has been tested for a wide range of memory set items such as letters, names of state capitol cities, historical dates, arithmetic times tables, etc. The optimal review cycle for a memory set is 10 to 20 percent of the time you want children to remember the items in the set. Memory for sets has been tested for up to six months or 182.5 days.

The Law of 10-20 for Memory Sets Example: You want children to learn all 26 letters and remember them for at least six months (this is the longest period this law has been tested). How long is six months? 182.5 days. What is 10-20 percent of 182.5 days? It is 18.5 to 37 days. This is the optimal teaching period and review cycle for the memory set to retained for up to six months.

The Law of 10-20 for Memory Sets So, if we are to review the memory set every 18-37 days, we must teach the entire memory set within that time frame. So why not teach “A Letter A Day” since this would fall near the mid point of the 18-37 day range - 26 days.

An Action Research Project on the “Letter a Day” Approach • 3 schools changed to a letter a day format including second lowest school of the 4 • 1 school remained unchanged with a letter a week • Results after a year on DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency subtest?

An Action Research Project on the “Letter a Day” Approach 4 schools in a Reading First School District matched on Demographics and Achievement levels 95-100 % poverty 75% second language learners Inner city setting 95% diversity Low achieving

Figure 3: Percentage Students At-Risk and Benchmarked on DIBELS Letter Name Fluency Subtest – Beginning and End of Year (Jones and Reutzel, In press) A sign test indicated significant differences at the end of year one between groups for students designated at risk, z = 2.35, p = .02 with fewer students at risk in the Enhanced Alphabet instruction group, M = 2.11, SD = .84, than students in the traditional alphabet instruction group, M = 1.57, SD = .81 (Figure 3).

Four Letter-a-Week Teachers’ Scores when they Changed to Letter-a-Day 50 45 40 35 30 25 At Risk

20

Benchmark

15 10 5 0

2006-2007

2007-2008

What does research suggest about designing effective letter name and sound instruction?

Letter Naming Lessons should be: Appropriately brief (10-15 minutes) Optimally engaging (not passively sitting or just verbally responding) Examine letters from a variety of cognitive perspectives (name, sound, form)

Letter Naming Lessons should be: Follow a predictable format – Name/Form Sound

Letter Naming Lessons should be: Follow a predictable format – Find or Search Write

Blaiklock, K.E. (2004). The importance of letter knowledge in the relationship between phonological awareness and reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(1),36–57. Caravolas, M., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2001). The foundations of spelling ability: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 751–774. Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T, Mozer, M.C., & Pashler, H. (2009).Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical analysis and practical implications. Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 236-246. Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T, & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 11, 1095-1102. Duncan, L. G., & Seymour, P. H. K. (2000). Socio-economic differences in foundation-levelliteracy. British Journal of Psychology, 91(2), 145-167. Durrell, D. (1980). Letter-name values in reading and spelling. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 159-163. Durrell, D., Nicholson, A., Olson, A. V., Gavel, S. R., & Linehan, E. B. (2008). Success in first-grade reading (reprinted from 1958). Journal of Education, 189(3), 1-21. Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In L. C. Ehri & J. L. Metsala (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, Catch-up growth for those who are behind. Kennewick, WA: New Foundation Press. Foulin, J. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read? Reading and Writing, 18, 129–155 Foy, J. G., & Mann, V. (2006). Changes in letter sound knowledge are associated with development of phonological awareness in pre-school children. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(2), 143-161. Fry, E. (2004). Phonics: A large phoneme-grapheme frequency count revisited. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1), 85-98. Gallagher, A., Firth, U., & Snowling, M. J. (2000). Precursors of literacy delay among childrenat genetic risk of dyslexia. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(2), 203-213. Hanna, P. R., Hanna, J.S., Hodges, R. E., & Rudorf, E. H. (1966). Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Hoorens, V., & Todorova, E. (1988). The name letter effect: Attachment to self or primacy of own name writing? European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 365–368. Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2011, in press). Enhanced Alphabet Knowledge Instruction: Exploring a Change of Frequency, Focus, and Distributed Cycles of Review. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, (31), xx-ss. Justice, L. M., Pence, K., Bowles, R. B., & Wiggins, A. (2006). An investigation of four hypotheses concerning the order by which 4-year-old children learn the alphabet letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21, 374–389. Lonigan, C. J. (2003). Development and promotion of emergent literacy skills in children at-risk of reading difficulties. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties (pp. 25-50). Baltimore, MD: York. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children. Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596-613. McBride-Chang, C. (1999). The ABCs of the ABCs: The development of letter-name and letter-sound knowledge. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 45, 285–308. Muter, V. & Diethelm, K. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual population. Language Learning, 51, 187–219. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665–681. National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction:Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Neuman, S. B. (2006). N is for nonsensical: Low-income preschool children need content-rich instruction, not drill in procedural skills. Educational Leadership, (October), 28-31. Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., and Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: a meta-analysis of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 8-38. Prather, E. M., Hedrick, D. L., & Kern, C. A. (1975). Articulation development in children aged two to four years. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 40, 179-191. Roberts, T. A. (2003). Effects of alphabet-letter instruction on young children’s word recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 41–51. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 406-412. Samuels, S. J. (1972). The effect of letter-name knowledge on learning to read. American Educational Research Journal, 9(1), 65-74. Sander, E. K. (1972). When are speech sounds learned? Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 73, 55-63. Share, D. L. (2004). Knowing letter names and learning letter sounds: A causal connection. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 213–233.

Stahl, S.A., & Murray, B.A. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 221–234. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Cognitive psychology, 4th Edition. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth. Stoel-Gammon, C. (1987). Phonological skills of 2 year olds. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 18, 323-329. Stuart, M. & Coltheart, M. (1988). Does reading develop in a sequence of stages? Cognition, 30, 175–190. Treiman, R., & Broderick, V. (1998). What’s in a name: Children’s knowledge about the letters in their own names. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 97–116. Treiman, R., Levin, I., & Kessler, B. (2007). Learning of letter names follows similar principles across languages: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 87–106. Treiman, R., & Rodriguez, K. (1999). Young children use letter names in learning to read words. Psychological Science, 10(4), 334-338. Treiman, R., Tincoff, R., Rodriquez, K., Mouzaki, A. & Francis, D. J. (1998). The foundations of literacy: Learning the sounds of letters. Child Development, 69(6), 1524-1540. Treiman, R., Weatherston, S., & Berch, D. (1994). The role of letter names in children's learning of phoneme-grapheme relations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 97-122. Vellutino, F.R. & Scanlon, D.M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321–363. Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K. & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 36–39.