1. TEACHING ALPHABETIC KNOWLEDGE SKILLS TO PRESCHOOLERS WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT AND TYPICALLY DEVELOPING LANGUAGE Addie Lafferty, Shelley Gray, & M. Jeanne Wilcox Department of Speech & Hearing Science Infant Child Research Programs Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona Contact: addie.lafferty@asu.eduaddie.lafferty@asu.edu

2. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY l Explore emergent literacy skills in the area of print awareness, specifically in alphabetic knowledge l Determine if alphabetic knowledge could be taught to preschoolers using an intensive intervention

3. WHY IS ALPHABETIC KNOWLEDGE IMPORTANT? l Alphabetic knowledge refers to a child’s understanding of individual letter names and letter sounds l At school entry, these skills are one of the single best predictors of later reading achievement l Children with SLI are at risk for delays in developing early literacy skills and are at high risk for later reading difficulties l Research thus far has been predictive in nature l Virtually no data has been published on the training of these skills in children with SLI, particularly in preschool aged children

4. PARTICIPANTS l 2 children with SLI; 2 with TLD (typical language development) l 2 Hispanic; 2 White l Spoke English as primary language l Recruited from university preschool program l All began preschool in Fall of 2002 and attended school 2-3 days per week

5. DESIGN & PROCEDURE l Multiple baseline across subjects l Children participated in baseline of target skills for 3 sessions before treatment l First pair of children (1 SLI & 1 TD) received 3 sessions of treatment and demonstrated emerging learning criteria of 30% before next pair began treatment l Emerging learning criteria was average of 30% on all four skills in 2 of 3 sessions l Treatment provided individually 3 days per week for 30 minutes per session l Children pulled out of class for treatment l Mastery criterion was 60% for all four target skills. l New letter was not introduced until child achieved 60% criterion as measured during the learning assessment at the end of each session

6. TARGET SKILLS l Recognition of letter names (“Point to the letter B.”) l Production of letter names (“What is the name of that letter?”) l Recognition of letter sounds (“Point to the one that says /b/.”) l Production of letter sounds (“What sound does that letter make?”)

7. SELECTION OF LETTERS FOR TREATMENT l Letter name recognition & production task assessed which uppercase letters each child knew l Each child could name or recognize at least 2 letters during this task, and performance varied from 2 to 18 letters l Based on child’s performance, 5 letters were selected for treatment l All letters in child’s first and last name and all vowels were excluded from treatment

8. SEQUENCE OF TEACHING TASKS 1. Model l “This is the letter B. It says /b/.” 2. Elicited Imitation l “Say ‘B.’ Say ‘/b/.’” 3. Feedback l “That’s right, this is the letter B. It says /b/.” 4. Recognition & Production Probe l B D G H M “Find the letter B.” 5. Letter Name & Sound Learning Assessment l B P J K L R Z “Find the letter B. What sound does that letter make?”

9. PARTICIPANTS AJ: 4 year 4 month old male with SLI l CJ: 4 year old female with SLI l DW: 3 year 7 month old male with TD l EW: 4 year 8 month old male with TD

10. LETTER NAME RECOGNITION BY CHILD

11. LETTER NAME PRODUCTION BY CHILD

12. LETTER SOUND RECOGNITION BY CHILD

13. LETTER SOUND PRODUCTION BY CHILD

14. SUMMARY OF RESULTS BY CHILD Number Of Letters Recognized & Produced At Pre-Test Number Of Letters Recognized & Produced At Post-Test Number Of Treatment Sessions Number Of Letters Taught During Intervention AJ (SLI) Recognized 18 Produced 18 Recognized 22 Produced 21 144 CJ (SLI) Recognized 2 Produced 2 Recognized 7 Produced 5 10 1 DW (TD) Recognized 17 Produced 17 Recognized 26 Produced 25 10 3 EW (TD) Recognized 2 Produced 2 Recognized 14 Produced 8 142

15. INTERESTING FINDINGS l For 3 of 4 children, intervention was successful at teaching letter names & sounds l Each child learned at different rate and showed different patterns of acquisition for four target skills l More stability was seen in letter names than letter sounds l For 3 children who demonstrated learning, higher accuracy was noted in letter name recognition & production l All 4 children recognized & produced names of more untreated letters at post-test l Teacher and parent report suggested participation in intervention increased children's interest in learning letter names at home and school

16. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS l The authors would like to thank the children and parents who participated in this study. l This study was funded through U.S. Department of Education Grant H325D000004.