LMNOBeasts™: Using Typographically Inspired Toys to Aid Development of Language and Communication Skills in Early Childhood

  • Todd MaggioEmail author
  • Kerri Phillips
  • Christina Madix


Numerous approaches currently exist for providing young children with instruction in sound to symbol matching, each having merit in its own way. Children at risk for failure to learn sound to symbol correspondence as presented through the curriculum need additional support. The goal of the pilot study was to determine whether an abstract independent learning activity is at least as effective as a traditional-based intervention. A pilot study using quasi-experimental design investigated symbol recognition in 24 children aged 3 through 5 years. Children were recruited from two local preschool centers (Montessori and traditional). Data collected targeted identification and matching LMNOBeasts™ prototypes to the five symbolic letters presented each week (set 1 (a, b, s, m, t); set 2 (e, l, f, k, d); and set 3 (i, c, r, h, g)). While the data are limited, the study did find that children could correctly identify 2-D letters within the 3-D typo-zoomorphic prototypes. It was interesting to note that children being instructed in the Montessori Center were able make greater inferences when discussing the 3-D typo-zoomorphic forms. The value of new educational tools must be based on evidence that is grounded in learning theory and design theory in the quest to address problems in literacy.


  1. Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., & Deckner, D. F. (2004). The development of symbol-infused joint engagement. Child Development, 75(4), 1171–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beuker, K. T., Rommelse, N., Donders, R., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2013). Development of early communication skills in the first two years of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 36, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Courrieu, P., & De Falco, S. (1989). Segmental vs. dynamic analysis of letter shape by preschool children. Cahiers de psychologie cognitive, 9(2), 189–198.Google Scholar
  4. Fisher, P. (2008). Learning about literacy: From theories to trends. Teacher Librarian, 35(3), 8–12.Google Scholar
  5. Gelzheiser, L. M. (1991). Learning sound/symbol correspondences: Transfer effects of pattern detection and phonics instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(4), 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Horbach, J., Scharke, W., Croll, J., Heim, S., & Gunther, T. (2015). Kindergarteners’ performance in sound-symbol paradigm predicts early reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 13, 256–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Carroll, J. M., Duff, F. J., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). The casual role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read: Combining intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science, 23(6), 572–577. doi: 10.1177/0956797611435921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lillard, A. S. (2013). Playful learning and Montessori education. American Journal of Play, 5(2), 157–186.Google Scholar
  9. Mendive, S., Bornstein, M. H., & Sebastian, C. (2013). The role of maternal attention-directing strategies in 9 month old infants attaining joint engagement. Infant Behavior and Development Journal, 36, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Newland, L. A., Roggman, L. A., & Boyce, L. K. (2001). The development of social play and language in infancy. Infant Behavior and Development Journal, 24, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Paul, R., & Norbury, C. (2012). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence (4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Seward, R., O’Brien, B., Breit-Smith, A. D., & Meyer, B. (2014). Linking design principles with educational research theories to teach sound to symbol reading correspondence with multisensory type. Visible Language, 48(3), 87–108.Google Scholar
  13. Striano, T., Chen, X., Cleveland, A., & Bradshaw, S. (2006). Joint attention social cues influence infant learning. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(3), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thornburg, K., & Fisher, V. L. (1970). Discrimination of 2-D letters by children after play with 2-or 3-dimensional letter forms. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 30, 979–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57(6), 1454–1463. doi: 10.2307/1130423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Towner, J. C., & Evans, H. M. (1974). The effect of three-dimensional stimuli versus two-dimensional stimuli on visual form discrimination. Journal of Literacy Research, 6(4), 395–402.Google Scholar
  17. Vallotton, C. D., & Ayoub, C. C. (2010). Symbols build communication and thought: The role of gestures and words in the development of engagement skills and social-emotional concepts skills during toddlerhood. Social Development, 19(3), 601–626. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00549.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Hecke, A., Mundy, P., Block, J., Delgado, C., Parlade, M., Pomares, Y., et al. (2012). Infant responding to joint attention, executive processes, and self-regulation in preschool children. Infant Behavior and Development, 35, 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69(3), 848–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Woods, R. J., Davis, K., & Scharff, L. F. V. (2005). Effects of typeface and font size on legibility for children. American Journal of Psychological Research, 1(1), 86–102.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Louisiana Tech UniversityRustonUSA

Personalised recommendations