This blog post is part of our Research Article of the Month series. For this month, we highlight “Preschool Instruction in Letter Names and Sounds: Does Contextualized or Decontextualized Instruction Matter?” an article by Theresa A. Roberts, Patricia F. Vadasy, and Elizabeth A. Sanders. For more information and resources for alphabet instruction, visit our Spark Early Literacy Hub.

Find more information on terminology specific to literacy learning in our reading glossary. Important words related to research are bolded throughout this post, and definitions of these terms are included at the end of the article in the “Terms to Know” section.

Key Takeaway

Preschool children who are taught letter names and letter sounds during decontextualized lessons demonstrate significantly higher outcomes in phonemic awareness and letter-name and letter-sound identification accuracy and fluency than those who are taught these skills in the context of storybook reading.

What Did the Researchers Examine?

According to the Simple View of Reading, skilled reading requires both word recognition and language comprehension ability (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). Thus, it is vital that students develop proficiency in word recognition skills such as alphabet knowledge (knowledge of letter names and sounds) and phonemic awareness. Emerging readers who learn to accurately and automatically decode words are equipped with the tools they need to develop more complex literacy skills.

While the importance of alphabet knowledge in early reading is largely undisputed, methods for teaching letter names and letter sounds vary widely across classrooms (Justice et al., 2006). Additionally, much research on alphabet instruction has focused on students whose first language is English, so less is known about effective instructional approaches for multilingual learners. 

This study is the third in a series of studies in which researchers investigated several areas of uncertainty related to methods of alphabet instruction for preschool students. In this specific study, the researchers compared the effects of contextualized and decontextualized alphabet instruction on preschool students.

Contextualized approaches to alphabet instruction integrate letters and letter-sound learning into authentic and meaning-focused activities, such as read-alouds or creative writing activities. In contrast, decontextualized approaches present letters and letter-sounds in isolation. Typically, students are explicitly taught the individual names and sounds each letter represents in a predetermined instructional sequence, utilizing specialized instructional tools such as letter cards or tiles.

In this study, the researchers investigated the effects of contextualized and decontextualized alphabet instruction on learning outcomes and student engagement levels for preschool students. Additionally, they investigated whether there was a difference in outcomes between multilingual learners and monolingual learners.

What Did the Researchers Find?

The researchers found that both students exposed to contextualized instruction and those receiving decontextualized instruction made statistically significant gains in alphabet knowledge (i.e., letter-name and letter-sound identification in isolation accuracy, letter-name and letter-sound identification in isolation fluency, and letter-name and letter-sound identification in word contexts accuracy). However, they also determined that students who received decontextualized instruction demonstrated consistently and significantly better outcomes in both letter-sound identification and phonemic awareness compared to those who received contextualized instruction. 

Furthermore, the researchers found that student engagement scores were 27% higher for those receiving decontextualized instruction than they were for those receiving contextualized instruction. 

Finally, the researchers did not find any significant differences between monolingual and multilingual students with regards to letter learning (i.e., letter-name and letter-sound identification), phonemic awareness, or engagement. Rather, they discovered that the same method of explicit, decontextualized instruction was most effective for both groups of children. 

What Are the Implications of These Findings?

This research suggests that preschool educators should be encouraged to provide decontextualized alphabet instruction to all students to increase letter-sound learning, phonemic awareness, and engagement. Additionally, caregivers can be encouraged to facilitate decontextualized instruction at home to further develop their children’s pre-kindergarten reading skills.

To learn more about how caregivers can support early reading skills, explore our Spark Early Literacy Hub. 

How Did the Researchers Find This?

To draw these conclusions, the researchers conducted an experimental study. After screening preschool students for baseline alphabet knowledge, the researchers randomly assigned 132 preschool students to small groups of three or four students. Before receiving instruction, the students completed pretests to assess their initial letter-name and letter-sound identification fluency and accuracy, phonemic awareness, English-language oral proficiency, and receptive vocabulary. 

After the pretest, each group of students was randomly assigned to one of two treatments: decontextualized or contextualized alphabet instruction. 

Students in both groups received instruction in ten letters of the alphabet: A, B, D, F, H, I, K, M, S, and T. These letters were chosen as they represent a range of letter features, frequencies of use, and positions in the alphabet. In both contextualized and decontextualized instruction, the letters were taught in the same sequence, using similar materials, and with lessons of similar lengths. 

Students receiving contextualized instruction were introduced to each new letter through a storybook read aloud. Students were also encouraged to look for the target letter in their own names or the name of an animal.  Students receiving decontextualized instruction were introduced to each new letter using letter cards. Students then completed a series of games and activities that focused on practicing letter names and sounds in isolation, rather than in the context of whole words or sentences.

Throughout the fourteen weeks of instruction, students’ engagement was also measured. Engagement was observed at the third, sixth, and ninth weeks of instruction. Observers scored each child on a 3-point scale where 1=high engagement and 3=low engagement. Observers were provided with various criteria to determine child engagement, including attention levels, participation, and physical affect. During the first week of the study, inter-rater reliability was established between the study’s primary research assistant and one of its authors in order to minimize the effects of inconsistent observer ratings.

After fourteen weeks of instruction, all students participated in a posttest that replicated the measurements administered during the pretest. The researchers used a multilevel modeling approach to analyze the resulting data, allowing them to examine data organized at multiple levels, such as students within groups or classrooms within schools, and to account for similarities among individuals within the same groups. The researchers calculated and reported pretest-posttest gains in each skill area for (a) all students receiving decontextualized instruction, (b) only multilingual students receiving decontextualized instruction, (c) all students receiving contextualized instruction, and (d) only multilingual students receiving contextualized instruction. 

What Are the Limitations of This Paper?

While the participants in this study demonstrated significant gains overall, approximately one-third of students learned fewer than three letter sounds or letter names. Therefore, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the comparative effectiveness of the two instructional approaches, as neither was strongly effective for a sizeable portion of the students. The researchers note that, as previous evidence has suggested, decoding skills can be quite difficult to learn, further emphasizing the need for long-term, high-quality instruction.

Terms to Know

• Experimental study: In an experimental study, researchers manipulate one or more independent variables on the outcome, or dependent variable, of a task or process. In this study, the independent variable was the type of alphabet instruction students received: contextualized or decontextualized instruction. The dependent variables were students’ alphabet knowledge (accuracy and fluency of letter-name and letter-sound identification), phonemic awareness, language outcomes, and engagement. 
• Random assignment: Random assignment ensures that all participants in a study have the same chance of being assigned to any treatment group, which reduces the impacts of bias and other variables on the study outcomes.  
• Multilevel modeling: A multilevel model is a statistical model in which outcomes vary at more than one level. For example, in this study, learning outcomes varied depending on which treatment group students were assigned to AND whether the students were multilingual learners, making a multilevel model the most effective way to visualize and analyze the data.
• Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability measures the degree of agreement and consistency between two or more individuals documenting the same observed behavior.

References

Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

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(3), 374–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.010

Roberts, T. A., Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2019). Preschool instruction in letter names and sounds: Does contextualized or decontextualized instruction matter? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(4), 573–600. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.284