Close
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A psychogenetic analysis of spanish-speaking preschoolers’ emergent writing: a developmental trajectory toward the phonetization of speech
(USC Thesis Other)
A psychogenetic analysis of spanish-speaking preschoolers’ emergent writing: a developmental trajectory toward the phonetization of speech
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
A PSYCHOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF SPANISH-SPEAKING
PRESCHOOLERS’ EMERGENT WRITING: A DEVELOP-
MENTAL TRAJECTORY TOWARD THE
PHONETIZATION OF SPEECH
by
Joan M. Tardibuono
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
August 2006
Copyright 2006 Joan M. Tardibuono
UMI Number: 3238342
3238342
2007
UMI Microform
Copyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
ii
DEDICATION
To my husband Scott, whose intelligence, insight, and sense of humor
provided an invaluable source of support and encouragement.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My participation in the Ph.D. program in Literacy, Language, and Learning
would not have been possible without the support of the U.S. Department of Edu-
cation Title VII Doctoral Fellowship. The fellowship was disseminated through the
University of Southern California Center of Multilingual, Multicultural Research
under the direction of Dr. Reynaldo Baca and Dr. Michael Genzuk, with the help of
Carolina Castillo. For their support of my doctoral studies and their commitment to
bilingual education and research, I am most appreciative.
As my advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. David B. Yaden, Jr. was a source
of continued guidance, support, and encouragement. He has been a friend, confi-
dante, and mentor. His intelligence, vision, and insight have made this dissertation
possible. Dr. Yaden supported me in extensive research opportunities by encour-
aging me to participate in community-based research projects, present at research
conferences, and publish in scholarly journals. It was an honor and a pleasure to
work with and learn from such a widely respected researcher and leader in the liter-
acy research community. Dr. Yaden is an outstanding professor and made my doc-
toral experience unforgettable. I will be forever grateful for his support.
For their support and encouragement, I am also grateful to the members of
my dissertation committee: Dr. Robert Rueda and Dr. Carmen Silva Corvalán. I am
thankful for their participation on my Qualifying Exam Committee, along with Dr.
Melora Sundt and Dr. Michael Genzuk. Their knowledge, guidance, and sugges-
tions have been invaluable.
iv
The following members of the University of Southern California family
greatly contributed to my doctoral experience and have become cherished friends:
Laurie MacGillivray, Lucy Hunt, Margie Curwen, Lilia Del Carmen Monzó, Jenn
Palma, and Amy Ardell.
I am especially thankful to the children, parents, teachers, and staff of Para
Los Niños Daycare Center in downtown Los Angeles. This dissertation would not
have been possible without their participation and commitment.
I am indebted to my parents, Larry and Marcia Massa; my brother, Michael
Massa; my nephew, Kyle Lourenco-Massa; my cousin, John Gilligan; my father-in-
law, Dr. John Tardibuono; my mother-in-law, Mimi Tardibuono; my cousin, Eric
LoVecchio; my friend, Dawn Linko; my best friend, Kim Kittleson; and most
especially my husband, Scott Tardibuono, for their patience and unconditional love.
A special thanks to all of my family and friends.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ix
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................xi
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1
Background of the Problem............................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................3
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................4
Research Questions.........................................................................................5
Significance of the Study................................................................................5
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................6
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................7
Theories in Young Children’s Writing Development ....................................7
Process-Oriented Theories..............................................................................8
Children’s Writing Strategies as a Sociopsycholinguistic Process ................9
Patterns in Composition Strategies...........................................................9
Ethnographic Methodology ....................................................................10
Child as Informant ..................................................................................11
Children’s Writing Strategies .................................................................11
Toward a Transactional Theory of Written Language Learning............13
A Sociocultural Approach to Written Language Learning...........................14
Figurative Aspects of Children’s Unconventional Writing Products...........15
Children’s Writing Products...................................................................15
Patterns of Writing Development ...........................................................16
Principles of Writing ..............................................................................17
Microdevelopmental Theory in Children’s Writing.....................................19
Writing Behaviors...................................................................................19
Writing Sequences..................................................................................20
The Task Environment ...........................................................................21
Sociohistorical Perspectives in Early Written Language Development.......22
Gesture: A Precursor ..............................................................................23
Writing to Mean......................................................................................24
Luria’s Five Stages of Writing Development.........................................25
Psychogenetic Theory of Young Children’s Writing Processes ..................27
Piagetian Theory in Written Language Development ............................27
Psychogenesis of Written Language Development ................................28
Consistency and Logic............................................................................30
vi
The Social Environment .........................................................................32
Early Literacy Interventions and the Psychogenesis of
Children’s Writing............................................................................33
Similarities in Emergent Writing Theory .....................................................34
Research in Name Writing ...........................................................................36
Figurative Aspects of Name Writing......................................................36
Psychogenetic Theory of Name Writing ................................................42
Name Writing Level One .................................................................43
Name Writing Level Two.................................................................43
Name Writing Level Three...............................................................44
Name Writing Level Four.................................................................44
Name Writing Level Five.................................................................44
Developmental Nature of Name Writing Levels..............................45
Piagetian, Clinical Methodology ..................................................................45
Conclusion....................................................................................................47
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................49
Research Design ...........................................................................................49
Population and Research Setting ..................................................................49
The USC/CIERA Emergent Literacy Intervention.......................................51
Procedures and Materials..............................................................................54
Data Analysis................................................................................................55
Chapter 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS..............................................................58
Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................................58
General Writing Results .........................................................................59
Name Writing Results ............................................................................61
Relationship of General Writing to Name Writing ................................63
Progression of General Writing Conceptualizations ........................64
Progression of Name Writing Conceptualizations ...........................64
Progression of Children’s Name Writing Ability.............................66
Comparison of General Writing to Name Writing ...........................66
Presentation of Data......................................................................................67
Characteristics of Children’s General Writing Conceptualizations .......69
General Writing Level One ..............................................................69
General Writing Level Two..............................................................82
General Writing Level Three............................................................96
General Writing Level Four ...........................................................105
General Writing Level Five............................................................106
Characteristics of Children’s Name Writing Conceptualizations.........106
Name Writing Level One ...............................................................107
Name Writing Level Two...............................................................111
Name Writing Level Three.............................................................112
Name Writing Level Four...............................................................113
Name Writing Level Five...............................................................114
Comparison of General Writing Conceptualizations to Name
Writing Conceptualizations: Qualitative Descriptions ...................114
Summary.....................................................................................................118
vii
Chapter 5: COMPARISONS, INSIGHTS, AND CONCLUSIONS ..................120
A Psychogenetic Theory of Written Language: Young Children’s
Written Language Conceptualizations..................................................120
Comparison of the Patterns of Distribution Between the
Argentine and Los Angeles Samples..............................................121
The Psychogenesis of Written Language: Theoretical Implications ..........126
The Sociopsychogenesis of Written Language as a Developmental
Process..................................................................................................127
Variations in Children’s Written Language Interpretations .......................129
Comparisons Between the Argentine and Los Angeles Samples.........129
Similarities Between the Argentina and Los Angeles Studies .......130
Differences Between the Argentina and Los Angeles Studies .......131
The Developmental Trajectory of Children’s Written Language
Conceptualizations................................................................................136
Transitional Writing Conceptualizations..............................................137
Transitional Writing Conceptualizations: Multilevel
Hypotheses................................................................................138
Transitional Writing Conceptualizations: Precursory
Hypotheses................................................................................141
A Systemic View of Written Language Development .........................144
Graphic Representations Versus Written Language Conceptualizations ...145
Methodological Considerations..................................................................146
Language Differences Between the Los Angeles and the
Argentina Studies ...........................................................................146
Recommendations for Instruction ..............................................................149
Summary and Conclusion...........................................................................152
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................155
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number of General Writing and Name Writing Samples Analyzed........59
Table 2: Number of General Writing Samples.......................................................60
Table 3: Number of Name Writing Samples..........................................................62
Table 4: Color Codes for Interpreting Children’s Writing on the General
Writing Tasks...........................................................................................68
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Hildreth’s name writing levels ............................................................37
Figure 2: Hildreth’s (1936) name writing levels as adapted and
expanded by Lieberman into name writing transitions .......................40
Figure 3: Ferreiro and Teberosky’s levels of writing conceptualizations...........56
Figure 4: Ferreiro and Teberosky’s levels of name writing
conceptualizations ...............................................................................57
Figure 5: General writing conceptualizations .....................................................60
Figure 6: Name writing conceptualizations ........................................................62
Figure 7: Progression of general writing conceptualizations..............................64
Figure 8: Progression of name writing conceptualizations .................................65
Figure 9: Andrew, general writing level one, February 8, 2001 .........................71
Figure 10: Javier, general writing level one, March 9, 2001 ................................72
Figure 11: Alfred, general writing level one, February 9, 2001 ...........................74
Figure 12: Donald, general writing level one, March 23, 2001 ............................75
Figure 13: Sidnia, general writing level one, March 8, 2001................................77
Figure 14: Aaron, general writing level one, March 9, 2001................................78
Figure 15: Jonathon, general writing level one, February 23, 2001 .....................79
Figure 16: Nancy, general writing level one, June 18, 2001.................................81
Figure 17: Yolanda, general writing level one, March 9, 2001 ............................83
Figure 18: Alfred, general writing level one, June 1, 2001...................................84
Figure 19: Sidnia, general writing level two, June/July 2001...............................85
Figure 20: Jameson, general writing level two, June 29, 2001.............................87
Figure 21: Eden, general writing level two, July 5, 2001 .....................................88
Figure 22: Kayla, general writing level two, June 19, 2001 .................................89
x
Figure 23: Karla, general writing level two, February 8, 2001.............................90
Figure 24: Osvaldo, general writing level two, June 21, 2001 .............................94
Figure 25: Marina, general writing level two, July 5, 2001..................................95
Figure 26: Alonso, general writing level two, March 9, 2001 ..............................96
Figure 27: Adolfo, general writing level three, June 29, 2001 .............................98
Figure 28: Robert, general writing level three, March 9, 2001...........................100
Figure 29: Edith, general writing level three, June 19, 2001 ..............................103
Figure 30: Edith, name writing level one, December 8, 2000 ............................108
Figure 31: Jamaica, name writing level one, February 23, 2001 ........................110
Figure 32: Edgar, name writing level one, November 2, 2000...........................110
Figure 33: Comparison of general writing levels of middle- and lower-class
4-year-olds in the Argentina study with general writing levels of
4-year-olds in the Los Angeles study ................................................123
Figure 34: Comparison of general writing levels of middle- and lower-class
5-year-olds in the Argentina study with general writing levels of
4-year-olds in the Los Angeles study ................................................124
Figure 35: Comparison of name writing levels of children in the Argentine
and Los Angeles studies ....................................................................126
xi
ABSTRACT
This study explored the developmental writing progressions of 55 Spanish-
speaking 4-year-old children who participated in an emergent literacy intervention
at a nonprofit child care center in downtown Los Angeles over an 8-month period.
As part of the emergent literacy program, a writing center was available and child-
ren participated in a variety of writing activities, such as journal writing, group
story writing, dictation, labeling, and letter writing.
The purpose of the study was to examine (a) the early writing conceptuali-
zations of 4-year-old Spanish-speaking preschool children immersed in a literacy-
rich environment, (b) the nature of their name-writing development, and (c) the
relationship between this name-writing development and the children’s writing as a
representational system. The children’s written language conceptualizations were
investigated through an analysis of Piagetian-inspired clinical interviews conducted
during the 2000-2001 school year.
The children’s written language conceptualizations were analyzed accord-
ing to Ferreiro and Teberosky’s hierarchical writing levels as described in their
classic study Literacy Before Schooling. The present study investigated Latino pre-
school children’s written language interpretations longitudinally while they re-
ceived early literacy instruction in reading and writing.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Written language, in all its forms, is integral to and characteristic of a liter-
ate society (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Whether spoken, heard, written, or
read, the word is a powerful tool that differentiates man from other living beings. It
makes us uniquely human. The ability to communicate thoughts, ideas, feelings,
experiences, and observations is the very foundation upon which society is built
(Kohl de Oliveira & Valsiner, 1998). As a medium of communication humans have
available a variety of cultural tools, such as written language and speech, that have
allowed us to develop intellectually, socially, and culturally into a civilization that
is not dependent solely on interactions with those within immediate vicinity but
also with those who have gone before (Vygotsky, 1934/1987).
According to Vygotsky (1934/1987), language influences thought, which in
turn influences behavior. This behavior directly relates to how a person interacts
with others and the world. This interaction through the use of cultural tools thus
shapes the person’s world and thoughts. Today’s society reflects the notion that
written language is indispensable and vital to its survival and subsistence and “is
perhaps the most priceless tool of culture” (Luria, 1929/1998, p. 56). Written
language is key to the organization of society. It is evidenced in government, legal
systems, entertainment, transportation, businesses, homes, and educational systems.
Background of the Problem
In order to participate actively in and fully access a literate society, children
need to acquire knowledge of the sign systems of language, writing, and numbers
(Decker & Decker, 2001; Newkirk, 1989). As all cultures are different, children
2
need access to the sign systems used by the specific culture, as well as a developing
understanding of the purposes and functions of those sign systems (Luria, 1929/
1998; Rowe, 1994). This occurs when children observe and interact with others in
the culture and when using the tools and sign systems of the culture (Vygotsky,
1934/1987).
Therefore, the culture consists of and is regulated by language users who
continually use written language and speech to further the development of their
own knowledge and its transmittal to other members of the group. As a communi-
cative people, we begin indoctrinating our youngest members into the world of
language and communication with gestures, words, and tone of voice (Rowe,
1994). In natural settings, children observe demonstrations of language by those
around them (Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984; Luria, 1929/1998). They are en-
couraged and expected to experiment with language, and their approximations are
commended (Holdaway, 1979). They are also introduced to the uses and functions
of written language (Dyson, 1985; Teale & Sulzby, 1989).
Children learn about written language long before formal schooling begins
(Clay, 1982; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Teale & Sulzby, 1989). Although the
marks, letter-like forms, scribbles, and writing approximations are not conventional
according to adult standards (Sulzby,1985), these early attempts mean something to
young children and serve as a valuable resource for understanding how children
come to understand written language as a complex, representational system.
Through observation, parents, teachers, and researchers support, encourage, and
appreciate the process that children go through to become literate, as well as ex-
amine and evaluate the written products that they produce to document and com-
prehend this process (Dyson, 1999; Harste et al., 1984; MacGillivray, 1994; Moll,
3
Saez, & Dworin, 2001; Rowe, 1994). Understanding this process informs the adult
community of the importance of children’s initial, although often incorrect,
attempts at writing, allowing them to see it as natural and necessary (Harste et al.).
Statement of the Problem
Researchers have looked at children’s writing from many different per-
spectives (Clay, 1975; Chomsky, 1971; Dyson, 1989, 1993, 2003; Ferreiro &
Teberosky, 1982; Harste et al., 1984; Rowe, 1994; Sulzby, 1985; Sulzby, Barnhart,
& Hieshima, 1989; Tolchinsky, 2001), demonstrating just how complex and
monumental the task is in the development of a child. Researchers have looked at
how the child’s conceptualizations of written language change over time (Ferreiro
& Teberosky, 1982; Yaden & Tardibuono, 2004), the figural aspects of what
children’s writing looks like (Clay, 1975; Hildreth, 1936; Lieberman, 1985; Sulzby,
1985; Welsch, Sullivan, & Justice, 2003) and the influences that peers, adults, and
the environment have on a child’s learning of written language (Dyson, 2003;
Gundlach, McLane, Stott, & McNamee, 1985), all of which contribute to the
daunting task of understanding this complex process. However, the aesthetic quali-
ties of what the writing looks like, as well as any contributing social influences,
may not reveal the children’s underlying cognitive processes or their perceptions of
what the particular graphics that they are producing represent (Vernon & Ferreiro,
1999).
Researchers have analyzed children’s thought processes and conceptualiza-
tions of the writing process (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Harste et al., 1984),
analyzed the artifacts that children produce (Clay, 1975), and identified factors that
foster children’s development in writing (Dyson, 2003). How children are
4
perceived to learn directly impacts how children are taught (Evans, 2001; McGee &
Richgels, 2004; Strickland & Morrow, 2000). Therefore, understanding the process
and the accompanying written product supports children in their learning and
parents and teachers in their interactions and instruction (Gambrell & Mazzoni,
1999).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore how Latino preschool children
view the writing process and to examine their interpretations of their own writing
products. The goal of the study was to develop an understanding of how children
conceptualize their writing attempts through the use of a Piagetian clinical analysis.
The children’s conceptualizations of writing, which includes name writing, were
assessed and examined according to a constructivist, hierarchical perspective of
writing levels developed by Ferreiro and colleagues (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982;
Vernon & Ferreiro, 1999). This study was nested within a larger study that focused
on increasing the reading and writing abilities of 4-year-old Latino children by
exposure to emergent literacy activities in English and Spanish.
The specific purposes of the study were to examine (a) the early writing
conceptualizations of 4-year-old Spanish-speaking preschool children immersed in
a literacy-rich environment, (b) the nature of their name writing development, and
(c) the relationship between this name writing development and the children’s
writing as a representational system. The children’s written language conceptual-
izations were investigated through an analysis of Piagetian-inspired clinical inter-
views conducted during the 2000-2001 school year.
5
Research Questions
1. What do children’s interpretations of their own writing reveal about the
nature of their written language development when they are exposed to a literacy-
rich environment?
2. What do children’s interpretations of their name writing reveal about the
nature of their written language development when participating in an emergent
literacy program?
3. What is the relationship between children’s name writing conceptualiza-
tions and their written language development?
Significance of the Study
Children are immersed in a world of print at birth (Rowe, 1994; Sulzby,
1985) and from there begin a long journey of discovery, experimentation, and
understanding of the power and importance of language in society (Harste et al.,
1984). This transfer of linguistic knowledge is paramount to the vitality of the
culture. To understand this transfer is to understand how newcomers, such as
children, learn about language, whether written or oral. How people believe
children learn affects how parents, researchers, teachers, and more capable users of
language determine what is taught and how it is taught. It affects the experiences
that are provided and the value placed on any given method of instruction or
demonstration (Harste et al.). In-depth knowledge and understanding of children’s
written language learning processes provide vital information regarding how
children learn. This study contributes to and expands current understandings of
children’s early learning processes within the area of written language
development.
6
Definition of Terms
Clinical method. Inspired by psychologist Jean Piaget, the clinical approach
to inquiry attempts to investigate children’s thinking by asking them questions
about what they are thinking and why they respond the way they do (Goodman,
1990).
Constructivism. A theory of learning in which an individual “constructs”
concepts not as a response to the environment but through social and cognitive
influences and interactions with the world (Yaden & Latta, 1994).
Emergent writing. Before children write conventionally, they experiment
with writing in the form of scribbles, letter-like forms, drawing, mock letters, and
random letters, with no phonetic relationship to what is written and invented
spelling (Clay, 1975).
Psychogenesis. Young children construct their own hypotheses about
written language before understanding its phonetic nature and orthography. These
original written language constructions develop and change over time with the
influence of children’s individual intellectual activity (Goodman, 1990). The
psychogenesis of written language may also be referred to as the psychological
evolution of the writing system (Ferreiro, 1990) or the ontogenesis of writing
(Tolchinsky Landsmann, 1990).
Sociogenesis. The written language hypotheses that children construct as a
result of cultural transmission from adults (Goodman, 1990).
7
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Theories in Young Children’s Writing Development
The study of language, which includes speaking, listening, reading and
writing, is a vast field. Over the past 20 years much has been learned about how
children learn language. Written language is intertwined with oral language
development (Lacasa, Martín del Campo, & Reina, 2001; Sulzby, 1996), including
inner speech (Yaden & Latta, 1994), and learning to read (Langer & Flihan, 2000).
Written language has been studied from a variety of perspectives (Clay, 1975;
Dyson, 2003; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Harste et al., 1984). Some researchers
focus on the figurative or graphic features of children’s writing and attempt to
analyze what these visual features reveal about children’s emerging writing
performance (Clay, 1975; Hildreth, 1936; Sulzby, 1985; Sulzby, Barnhart, &
Hieshima, 1989). Others investigate the thought processes of children learning to
write, with more concentration on how children’s conceptualizations of written
language change over time (Bauer, 2004; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Kamaii,
Long, Manning, & Manning, 1991; Tolchinsky & Levin, 1985; Yaden &
Tardibuono, 2004). Researchers may look for patterns in children’s writing, not
being concerned with developmental stages but rather identifying the construction
processes that lead, through experience, to a conventional understanding of writing
(Harste et al.; Lieberman, 1985).
Studies such as these investigate the process of learning to write and
examine the resultant writing products; however, Anne Haas Dyson and Sarah
Freedman (2003) cautioned that
8
although writing can be logically analyzed into its varied aspects, a learner
comes as a whole, not displaying knowledge of these aspects in neat
sequential order, but in clumps that the researcher and the teacher (not the
learner) must separate into neatly organized categories. . . . The nature of
the individual learner, the nature of the situational context, and the complex
nature of the writing system itself all interact in written language growth,
just as they do in oral language growth. (Dyson, 1987, p. 977)
For this reason, researchers have also studied the external, social, and environ-
mental influences that contribute to a learner’s written language acquisition
(Dyson, 1993, 1999, 2003; Gundlach, McLane, Stott, & McNamee, 1985;
Gutierrez, 1993; Harste et al., 1984; MacGillivray, 1994; Rowe, 1994; Rueda,
1990).
Accordingly, novice/expert models of written language acquisition as
information and sociopsycholinguistic processes, in addition to sociocultural,
figurative, and microdevelopmental perspectives, provide insight into how children
come to know written language. Sociohistorical perspectives, along with
psychogenetic theory of children’s name writing and written language acquisition,
also shed light on this complex developmental process. This chapter reviews the
literature on written language development from several perspectives: (a) informa-
tion processing, (b) sociopsycholinguistic, (c) sociocultural, (d) figurative,
(e) microdevelopmental, (f) sociohistorical, and (g) psychogenetic. Similarities in
emergent writing theory are discussed, followed by a review of research in name
writing.
Process-Oriented Theories
Hayes and Flower (1980) looked into writers’ thought processes. Their
theoretical model of writing focused on the composition processes of older writers
in high school or college. Writing, according to this model, consisted of the
following main processes: planning, transcribing text, and reviewing. Writing is
9
also viewed as organized, involving problem-solving strategies. Hayes (1996)
revised the model into two major components: (a) the task environment, which
included social aspects such as audience, the social environment, and other texts;
and (b) the individual, which incorporates motivation, cognitive processes, and
memory.
Scardamalia (1981) studied the cognitive demands of children’s writing.
The children ranged in age from 10 to 14 years. The work of Hayes and Flower
(1980) and Scardamalia (1981) featured older students who had broken the
phonetic code and were dealing with the struggles of composition. However,
children as young as 4 or 5 years may struggle, as adults do, with similar issues in
composition or decision making in choosing and planning for a topic. The follow-
ing section addresses issues in writing that face both adults and children alike,
identifying strategies that both adults and children employ when facing the
complex task of composition.
Children’s Writing Strategies as a
Sociopsycholinguistic Process
Patterns in Composition Strategies
Similar to Hayes and Flower’s (1980) work with adults and Scardamalia’s
(1981) work with older children, Harste et al. (1984) looked to identify the strate-
gies that writers employ when approaching the complex task of composition. They
looked for patterns in the strategies that young children employ in their written
language development and identified eight key concepts or language learning
principles that children demonstrate in their writing: organization, intentionality,
generativeness, risk taking, social action, context, text, and demonstrations. Harste
10
et al. claimed that all language users, adults and children alike, at every level of
written language competency, implement these strategies.
Written language is not viewed as mastered when conventionality is
achieved but rather improves and changes through a life-long process of fine tuning
and orchestration (Harste et al., 1984). The goal of written language at all levels is
to explore and expand the continuous, ongoing communication potential of the
learner. Harste et al. challenged researchers and teachers to develop early childhood
curriculum and activities that support young children’s learning and to identify and
refrain from those that impede it.
Ethnographic Methodology
The eight key concepts previously mentioned are characteristic of all
language users and were not predetermined or hypothesized prior to the collection
of data; rather, they emerged from the data, as is characteristic of ethnographic
research. Using ethnographic methods, Harste et al. (1984) looked at literacy as a
sociopsycholinguistic process, one in which the social context of the learner is
taken into consideration. They challenged their own methodological decisions,
struggling with the idea of abandoning a positivist paradigm and adhering to an
ethnographic one. They determined that the nature of their research required
observation and an “invention” of a new way of looking at written language
development. They reported the results of several ethnographic studies of
children’s written language development to determine how children come to
experience and value the strategies used in writing and how children use these
strategies to explore and expand their knowledge.
11
The results of these studies by Harste et al. (1984) were based on data
collected from 6 years of research with children ranging in age from 3 to 6 years.
The first study was conducted with 20 White, middle- and upper-class 3- to 6-year-
old children. The children were observed and videotaped in the field. The children
were asked to (a) read environmental print, (b) dictate a language experience story
and read and re-read it, (c) write their name and anything else they could write, and
(d) draw a self-portrait. The 3-year old children were then studied longitudinally for
3 years with the same tasks being administered every 6 months. Low- and middle-
income Black and White children were administered the same four tasks, along
with an additional story and letter writing task in a subsequent study. The research
team and their graduate students conducted longitudinal case studies on their own 6
children.
Child as Informant
Harste et al. (1984) used the term “child as informant” to describe the
qualitative methods that they used to obtain their data. As they administered the
reading and writing tasks in natural language settings, they investigated, through
questioning and observation, what the children were thinking. The researchers
viewed the videotapes several times and made note of any interesting observations.
They were more concerned with the process of what children were thinking and
doing during writing rather than the actual product.
Children’s Writing Strategies
According to Harste et al. (1984), children do not progress through develop-
mental stages; rather, they use the same strategies that adults use (cf. Hayes &
Flower, 1980). As discussed previously, these strategies include organization,
12
intentionality, generativeness, risk taking, social action, context, text, and demon-
strations. For example, Harste et al. claimed that all children organize their writing
and use the same set of cognitive processes that adults use when they approach the
task of writing. For instance, children as young as 3 years differentiate between
drawing and writing, organizing their work to reflect this belief. If circular marks
denote writing, then straight lines represent drawing, and vice versa. In their
analysis, Harste et al. compared children’s writing with organizational patterns seen
in the adult community and found that children organize their work in similar ways:
lists, letters, maps, stories, and notes. This implies children’s intentionality to mean,
or that marks carry meaning that is recognized and interpretable by others.
However, this interpretation may vary from individual to individual.
Although written language is used to maintain meaning, children’s purpose or
experiences may influence their interpretation of the text in a cognitive processing
strategy referred to as generativeness (Harste et al., 1984). Therefore, the interpre-
tation of a text may vary from situation to situation as “engagement and reengage-
ment in the language process increases the opportunities language users have to
discover for themselves the generativeness and self-educative aspects of language
in use” (p. 119). An individual’s ability to take risks allows for exploration and
discovery of the generativeness of literacy; therefore, a low-risk environment is
essential for written language learning.
Thus, young writers’ social environments influence their written language
development and they become increasingly aware of their audience. Harste et al.
(1984) also found that print cannot be separated from the social conditions or
context in which it exists, such that an individual understands that the word
McDonalds is known by the culture as a place to eat. Therefore, written language
13
users create and interpret texts of varying signifying structures or organizational
patterns in context in a variety of low-risk social environments. Written language
acquisition and use are based on the ongoing demonstrations that are observed by
language users in these social environments; however, they vary due to the open
nature and generativeness of written language.
Toward a Transactional Theory of
Written Language Learning
Adopting a transactional theory of written language development, Harste et
al. (1984) saw the learner and the environment as coming together and affecting
what is learned. From this point of view, written language development is learned
or interpreted through experience and a search for meaning and not through cogni-
tive dissonance and biological factors, as is characteristic of a cognitive paradigm.
Children learn about written language by writing, as do adults. Harste et al. called
this the “authoring cycle.” Within this cycle, writing is seen as context dependent;
that is, writers of all ages build on what they know, search for meaning, learn how
written language works by learning about written language and through written
language (Harste et al.; cf., Rowe, 1994). Harste et al. advised teachers and
researchers to trust that the process of written language acquisition has a built-in
self-correcting strategy, just as in oral language development, and that teachers and
parents should support the process but not intervene in it. As Harste et al. indicated
in their study, children’s experiences, opportunities, and social and cultural
environments provide a foundation of literacy learning. Sociocultural theory also
addresses these influences and contributes to a comprehensive understanding of
written language acquisition.
14
A Sociocultural Approach to Written
Language Learning
In order to understand the complexity of children’s written language learn-
ing, Anne Haas Dyson (2003) explored the cultural worlds of children, and all its
influences, to see how children appropriate resources of a textual, symbolic, and
cultural nature as evidenced through examination of their written language develop-
ment and their interactions with other children in the context of a school environ-
ment. Although Dyson’s (2003) research was developmental, concerned with the
nature of change in children’s written language development over time, the focus
was not on establishing a set or series of developmental stages through which
children pass on their way to a conventional understanding of writing.
In contrast, Dyson (2003) challenged researchers and teachers to see written
language learning in an alternate way. From a “gestaltist”
1
perspective, Dyson
(2003) proposed to look at the whole child, not just study parts of a child’s growth
in isolation. She attempted to look at written language development in the context
of a child’s whole world and experiences, especially those from media sources. She
indicated the importance of textual influences, including radio shows, “DJ” person-
alities, television, and sports programs, on the lives and worlds of children. These
cultural resources are adapted and improvised by children and “their ways of
stretching, reconfiguring and rearticulating their resources, . . . are key to literacy
learning in contemporary times” (pp. 5-6). From a sociocultural approach to
development (Vygotsky, 1931/1997, 1934/1987; Wertsch & Tulviste, 1996), Dyson
(2003) described development as
1
“an organized whole is perceived as more than the sum of its parts”
(Lindberg, 2002, p. 562).
15
a process, not a series of stages nor a set of sequentially learned skills. This
process is enacted as children participate in, and thereby enact interpreta-
tions of, the recurrent social activities of their daily lives. These activities
are mediated by—revealed and accomplished through—socially organized
and symbolically mediated actions, especially ways of talking (Vygotsky,
1987). Although adults offer assistance of varied types (arranging the
environment, modeling, guiding, informing), children themselves are also
actively making sense of these activities, developing frameworks for action
(Bruner & Haste, 1987). (p. 11)
Other researchers have also looked at the social contexts for children’s
initial writing attempts from a sociocultural perspective (Dyson, 2001; Gee, 2001;
Rueda, 1990). However, Gundlach, McLane, Stott, and McNamee (1985) noted in
their study of young children’s writing that, while observation of children’s social
activities when writing may be recorded, determining which of these factors, such
as parental or teacher modeling (Box, 2002) or scaffolding (Bodrova & Leong,
1998), actually contributes to writing development and to what degree is problem-
atic. Determining contributing social and cultural factors in children’s written
language acquisition is challenging. Alternatively, researchers may look for
patterns in children’s written language development through examination of their
writing products. Identifying patterns in the figurative aspects of children’s writing
highlights similarities and differences in children’s writing decisions and strategies
in an attempt to reveal children’s underlying cognitive processes.
Figurative Aspects of Children’s Unconventional
Writing Products
Children’s Writing Products
Marie Clay (1975) studied children’s patterns of development in early
writing without focusing on the social influences contributing to children’s written
language development. Clay studied the process of children’s writing by examining
their written products. According to Clay (1975), children’s writing samples can be
16
observed by teachers, researchers, and parents to determine the cognitive thought
processes that children utilize when approaching the task of writing. Careful
examination of children’s writing samples reveals the complex thought processes
and strategies that children employ to manipulate written language according to
their assumptions and hypotheses about how written language works. Clay investi-
gated what children attend to when they are writing and what they deem to be
important as reflected in their writing choices.
Clay (1975) accessed this information through a qualitative analysis of
hundreds of writing samples of children ages 5 to 7 years. These samples consisted
of children’s spontaneous writing efforts in the classroom and at home. No explicit
directions were given to the children with regard to what to write or how to write.
The samples were collected during the first 2 months of the school year from
mostly suburban, English-only-speaking children; however, samples of writing by
Chinese and Polynesian students were examined and used as a contrast to the other
samples. Clay organized these writing samples not into stages (Ferreiro &
Teberosky, 1982), but into descriptive patterns and informative categories that are
characteristic of children’s written language development.
Patterns of Writing Development
According to Clay (1975), children first learn that written language is made
up of signs and that these signs carry a message. This is known as the Sign Con-
cept. Children then learn the Message Concept, which means that a child knows
that speech can be written down, although he has not yet made a sound/symbol
connection. Later, children learn the Space Concept, which is the understanding
that spaces exist between words and that the paper that is being written on has
17
boundaries, which requires an understanding of how to organize one’s writing
within the limitations of the writing surface.
Principles of Writing
Children demonstrate their understanding and explorations of written
language in a variety of ways. Clay (1975) referred to these writing behaviors as
principles. These included the copying principle, the flexibility principle, the
recurring principle, the directional principle, the generating principle, the inventory
principle, the contrastive principle, and the abbreviation principle. For example,
children’s writing examples reflected the children’s interest in copying words from
a model, identified as the copying principle. Children’s writing also reflected the
children’s interest in experimenting with the direction of letters in what is known as
the flexibility principle. Clay used the term recurring principle to describe child-
ren’s writing and drawing in repetitive patterns. She explained that children may do
this to feel a sense of accomplishment or to practice their limited repertoire of
known letters or words. This repetition increases children’s writing and drawing
ability through continued practice and lays the foundation for their understanding
of the alphabetic principle by which letters recur in variable forms to create
innovative and distinct words and messages.
Clay (1975) also observed children’s exploration of directionality, noting
that children may or may not know to begin writing in the upper left-hand corner of
the page and that the writing proceeds from left to right with a return sweep back to
the left-hand side of the page. Children must also understand that writing moves
from the top of the page to the bottom. Some children whom she observed were
aware of the directional principle even when their written marks were not legible.
18
Others reversed letters but maintained left-to-right direction. Some wrote words
and messages in mirror image, beginning in the right corner and moving right to
left.
Children generate messages and words by using what they know to create
new words and messages, even if the messages are invented by rearranging a mere
three known letter-like forms. This generative principle leads children to the under-
standing that limitless numbers of words and messages can be constructed from a
finite number of letters. Children then inventory what they know, first with the
letters that they know and later with the words that they know. The inventory
principle describes children’s work as containing a listing or an account of what
they know in writing (Clay, 1975).
Children contrasted letters, shapes, and word patterns by writing what they
knew and then writing the inverse form beside it. This is the contrastive principle,
and only more advanced children exhibited this behavior. Another advanced
behavior occurs when children use abbreviations to represent words, even though
they understand that the word could be written out completely. The writing samples
also revealed that some children understand the concept of spaces between words
and others do not. Lack of spaces between words indicates a lack of understanding
of the function of spaces and of word boundaries. The writing samples also indi-
cated that children struggle with page boundaries, not understanding what to do
when they run out of room on the page. Children write in all available space on the
page or change the direction of the page in order to continue writing (Clay, 1975).
All of these principles reflect Clay’s (1975) analysis of the figurative or
graphic features of children’s writing samples. Clay looked at children’s writing
samples or products to uncover their cognitive processes; however, she cautioned
19
that looking at the product is not enough, claiming that examination of the product
does not necessarily reveal the processes that the child used to arrive there (Clay,
1982). Nevertheless, studies of children’s written language learning processes pro-
vide understandings of and insights into children’s literacy development. Micro-
developmental theory studies these processes and identifies patterns in young
children’s writing attempts.
Microdevelopmental Theory
in Children’s Writing
Children’s writing performance and decisions vary according to their
perceived difficulty of the writing task. Differences in writing competence exist
from task to task, as well as from child to child. These differences are identified as
flexible patterns or categories of behaviors that children exhibit when writing and
are not considered hierarchical stages through which all children pass (Sulzby,
1986). Sulzby (1985), for instance, investigated the reading and writing behaviors
of young children in a study of 24 middle- to upper-middle-class kindergarteners in
the suburbs of Chicago. The purpose of her study was to identify what children
know how to write and to investigate what children know about writing prior to
formal instruction.
Writing Behaviors
Sulzby (1985) interviewed each child individually and audiotaped the
sessions. The children were engaged in conversation with the interviewer, who
asked the children to write what they could in their own way. The children were
also asked to write a story about how they learned to ride a big wheel or bike. They
were asked to write again but to change the story to represent a prince or princess
20
learning to ride a bike. The writing data were rated by three researchers individu-
ally and a discussion followed if discrepancies were noted. The children’s
responses were coded according to “use of page space, word boundaries, direction-
ality, graphic representation (scribble, joined letter-like forms, elements of actual
cursive script, drawing, printed letters), composition representation (conventional,
invented spelling, other), production style (speed, vocalization, pauses), editing
(voluntary, general, elicited), and re-reading” (p. 148).
Writing Sequences
Sulzby (1985) also classified the children’s written stories into seven
categories, which she referred to as “sequences,” rather than developmental stages:
writing via drawing, writing via scribbling, writing via letter-like forms, writing via
letter-like units, writing via well-learned units, writing via invented spelling, and
writing conventionally (cf. Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening
[PALS]-Pre-K; Invernizzi, Sullivan, & Meier, 2001). For example, the writing
samples indicated that the children did not confuse writing and drawing (Ferreiro &
Teberosky, 1982; Harste et al., 1984) but viewed writing and drawing interchange-
ably because both represented meaning (Sulzby, 1985; Vygotsky, 1931/1997).
Writing may also resemble adult writing in directionality and speed when
children scribble quickly from left to right on the page, making several lines of
scribbles starting at the top and moving downward. Children may opt to represent
writing by attending to print features in the shape of letter-like forms. Once
children learn to write a word, such as their name, conventionally, they rearrange
the order to create new words. Children may write via invented spelling, either
demonstrating knowledge of the syllabic hypothesis as described by Ferreiro and
21
Teberosky (1982) or correctly representing a sound in the spoken utterance to its
corresponding grapheme. As mentioned previously, these categories are not stages
or levels, but rather flexible strategies that children employ at different times
according to the writing task.
The Task Environment
Sulzby (1985) discovered that children do not exhibit behaviors from only
one of the categories. As the difficulty of the task increases, the children may
choose to use writing behaviors that are less taxing, a feature of microdevelop-
mental theory (see also Sulzby, 1986). For example, if children are asked to write a
story, they may opt to use an easier form, such as writing via drawing or writing via
well-learned forms, whereas when asked to write a short word, they may use writ-
ing via invented spelling. Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) also noted that, although
the stages that they developed are hierarchical, children demonstrate higher levels
of conceptualization on name writing than on general writing tasks. This would be
consistent with Sulzby’s (1985) theory that children demonstrate writing behaviors
across categories according to the difficulty of the task.
For instance, when a child is asked to write everything he/she can, the child
often makes a list of all known words, using more conventional forms of writing
such as conventional writing, invented spelling or copying words conventionally
from the environment (Sulzby, 1986). In contrast, when the same child is asked to
write a story, the child may revert to lower levels of writing such as stringing letters
together, scribble writing or drawing. In sum, children select from a wide range of
writing repertoires according to the difficulty of the writing task. These writing
strategies identify what behaviors children employ when approaching the task of
22
writing, however the developmental trajectory of children’s written language
acquisition from its earliest stages as a symbolic representational system can be
seen from a sociohistorical perspective.
Sociohistorical Perspectives in Early
Written Language Development
From a developmental perspective, children’s conceptualizations of writing
change over time. Vygotsky (1931/1997) vividly explained that “moving along this
path, the child comes to writing as to a natural moment in his development and not
to external training” (p. 146). Vygotsky also emphasized the importance of
examining what he referred to as the “prehistory” of children’s writing in order to
understand how children come to know and use written language, which he deemed
“the most complex device of cultural behavior” (p. 140). With regard to the
development of written language in the child, Vygotsky (1931/1997) described this
“homeorhetic”
2
process
as in the history of the cultural development of the child, we frequently
encounter characteristics of spasmodic changes and disruptions or breaks in
the line of development. The line of development of written language in the
child sometimes stops almost completely, then suddenly, as if completely
out of nowhere, from outside, a new line begins and at first glance it seems
that between the broken-off past and the beginning new, there is absolutely
no continuous connection. But only a naïve representation of development
as a purely evolutionary process accomplished exclusively by gradual
accumulation of separate small changes, an unnoticeable transition of one
form into another, can conceal from our eyes the true essence of the pro-
cesses that are occurring. Only someone who is inclined to imagine all pro-
cesses of development as processes of germination will deny that the history
of written language in the child is fully entitled to be represented by a single
2
A term defined by C. H. Waddington in 1940 as “a concept encompassing
dynamical systems which return to a trajectory, as opposed to systems which return
to a particular state, which is termed homeostasis.” (www.free-definition.com,
2005)
23
line of development regardless of the breaks, dying off, and metamorpho-
ses. (p.132)
Vygotsky (1931/1997) viewed the development of written language as a
complex interaction between biological maturation of the child in relation to his/her
cultural environment, which can be observed as stages of growth and, when
learned, signifies a critical point in the cultural development of the child.
Knowledge of these stages of development, although not always visible, is essential
in understanding how a child learns about written language, what motivates the
child to learn about writing, and how adults can guide and nurture children through
the process. Vygotsky (1931/1997) was not referring to the learning of the
mechanics of writing, which include conventions, neatness, and fine motor skills,
but rather the learning of written language as it pertains to the child’s
understanding that written language is not just used as a method of recording first
order symbols, such as signifying action or identifying an object, but more
complexly as an intricate system of sign symbols that directly represent oral
language; in other words, speech can be drawn.
Gesture: A Precursor
Just as an infant first learns to communicate through gestures, which leads
to the development of speech, Vygotsky’s (1931/1997) theory of how children
learn written language begins with the gesture. He claimed that gesture was the first
initial visual sign of written language and that the genetic or developmental
connection between gesture and written language can be seen in children’s drawing
and play. These are the beginning stages of the written language learning process.
Vygotsky (1931/1997) claimed that, initially, in drawing, a child does not
draw but rather uses gesture as he indicates an action. He may draw lines and
24
indicate that the lines represent a bomb exploding. These initial drawings from
gesture lead to the child’s use of drawing to stand for an object. The child
demonstrates the knowledge that the drawing names or designates the object, which
leads to the understanding of the symbolic nature of drawing. Drawing is a graphic
story, which can also be viewed as unique graphic speech. This stage represents the
first degree of symbolism, that is, that the drawing can represent objects. Later, the
child uses speech to name what he is going to draw before he draws it. This is
significant because the child is aware that speech can be drawn. Although drawing
is not writing, it is a preliminary stage of writing.
Vygotsky (1931/1997) also explained that, through play, a child may also
use gesture to give meaning to an object, designating that one object can represent
something else. For example, in play a child may designate a hairbrush to be a
phone. The symbolic function of play is important because it is the gesture of the
child that assigns a function to an object, thus giving it meaning. This is similar to
how children first assign meaning to drawing through gestures and only thereafter
does the drawing become an independent sign. An object acquires meaning and
function of a sign because gesture gives it meaning. The next stage of development
in written language occurs when objects retain meaning without the use of gestures.
The symbolic representation in play is a unique form of speech that leads directly
to written language (cf., Daiute, 1989; DeVries, 2002).
Writing to Mean
A critical moment in written language acquisition by the child occurs when
the child moves from making simple marks on the paper to using marks to repre-
sent or mean something (Vygotsky, 1931/1997). Initially, children do not realize
25
that writing is a means of communication or that it is a representation of speech.
Therefore, writing is not used as a means to recall ideas. A precursor to written
language understanding occurs when a child uses the marks as a sign to aid in the
recall of ideas (Luria, 1929/1998). The child has now made a distinction between
nondifferentiating marks and signs. Vygotsky (1931/1997) explained that, in order
for children to truly master written language, they must discover that speech, like
drawing, can be represented symbolically and that written language consists of
written signs that represent oral sounds.
According to Vygotsky (1931/1997), children move through the different
stages or moments of written language development in play, drawing, and writing.
Therefore, he identified a need for research of the “prehistory” of written language.
Alexander Luria, a colleague of Vygotsky at the Institute of Psychology in Moscow
(Rocco, 1998), attempted to answer this need with a study of young children’s
writing prior to their formal learning at school. Vygotsky (1931/1997)
acknowledged and agreed with aspects of Luria’s (1929/1998) research; however,
he also claimed that the research did not address the issues of how children move
from drawing pictures to drawing speech.
Luria’s Five Stages of Writing Development
Luria’s research was the first systematic attempt to uncover how children’s
understanding of the symbolic nature of written language begins and how it
develops over time before formal schooling begins. According to Luria (1929/
1998), children progress through five stages of development on the path to under-
standing writing as a representational system. These stages begin with prewriting or
undifferentiated signs, move to using writing as a memory device, and proceed to a
26
stage known as “rhythmic” representation. This third stage of representation means
that a child reflects the length of a mark drawn with the length of the spoken
utterance. Short lines represent words; long lines represent sentences. In the fourth
stage the child uses pictographs to represent what is spoken; however, only part of
what is said may be written and is used to represent the whole, or synecdoche. The
last stage occurs when a second-order symbol is used, as opposed to the previous
stage, in which a first-order symbol was used. Stages one through four reflect this
syncretistic relationship of writing to drawing, whereas in level five the object is
represented by a symbol and not by a picture.
As is evident in Luria’s (1929/1998) theory, children move through stages
in which there is no relation between speech and what is written to a symbolic
representation. This symbolic representation reflects the child’s hypothesis that
what is said can be written down but it does not indicate how this is done. The child
uses a symbol to reflect the message but there is no phonetic correspondence
between what is said and what is written. Therefore, although both Vygotsky
(1931/1997) and Luria (1929/1998) identified the role of gesture, play, and drawing
in the development of young children’s writing, their theories did not specifically
identify how children move from first-degree symbolism to a higher level of
second-degree symbolism that is characteristic of a phonetically based language
system. Almost 50 years later, researchers began investigating how children move
from this global understanding of writing to an understanding that speech can be
written down phonetically. These studies investigated the psychogenetic thought
processes of children’s written language conceptualizations.
27
Psychogenetic Theory of Young
Children’s Writing Processes
Where the research of Vygotsky (1931/1997) and Luria (1929/1998) left
off, that of researchers such as Ferreiro and Teberosky continued. Like Vygotsky
(1931/1997) and Luria (1929/1998), Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) attempted to
view writing through the minds of children, acknowledging that children do not
think or conceptualize the world in the same way as adults. The work of Vygotsky,
Luria, and Ferreiro and Teberosky paints a picture of just how much a child knows
about writing before school begins and how a complex system of symbolic
representation is learned.
Piagetian Theory in Written Language Development
Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) supported Jean Piaget’s (1969) theory of
learning and applied it to written language development, with written language
being the object of knowledge and the learner being responsible for the learning
through his own interactions with this object, regardless of any method of teaching.
Ferreiro and Teberosky’s study, as well as others that followed (e.g., Sulzby,
Barnhart, & Hieshima, 1989; Tolchinsky & Levin, 1985), focused upon the period
of development of writing that occurs prior to conventional writing. Ferreiro and
Teberosky investigated how objective knowledge, in this case writing, is learned.
Although Piaget (1969) did not study children’s writing, Ferreiro and Teberosky
applied Piaget’s theory of learning to their study on writing and explained that
learning written language is neither linear nor an accumulation of bits of informa-
tion, but rather several significant global reconstructions in which error provides an
insider perspective into the thought processes of the learner. By studying these
errors and by questioning the learner regarding the learner’s conceptualizations of
28
the object of knowledge, it is possible to document a path of development that
occurs in the acquisition of written language knowledge and compare that path to
those of others to look for similarities and differences.
In other words, Piaget’s (1969) theory of cognitive development, as applied
to written language learning in young children by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982),
explains that the learner assimilates, or incorporates, new information into existing
cognitive structures, which may cause the child to change these existing cognitive
structures in a process called accommodation. The child reconstructs his conceptu-
alization of what it is that he is interacting with until a new cognitive structure is
created. With regard to writing, Ferreiro and Teberosky documented that the learn-
ing of writing is not a cumulative process of learning letters, sounds, and their use
and function but rather a complex series of conceptualizations that change as the
child interacts with written language. Through constructive errors, which errors
cause the child to rethink his/her conceptualizations, the child creates new ideas
about the written language system—ideas that are not at all conventional but are
necessary for the child to reach a conventional understanding of the writing
process.
Psychogenesis of Written Language Development
Under the assumption that all learning involves psychogenesis, the belief
that the hypotheses that children make regarding written language are original
constructions or that ideas are influenced by or originating from the child’s own
mind (Goodman, 1990), Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) developed a study to
“discover the initial forms of written language knowledge and the accompanying
conceptualization processes” (p. 263). Children were asked to write their names,
29
the names of friends or family members, a variety of words (some of which are
used in beginning instruction and others that are not initially taught), and a
sentence. Drawing and writing situations were also examined. From these tasks,
Ferreiro and Teberosky categorized children’s interpretations of their writing into
five successive levels of written language development.
Briefly, levels one and two are characterized by children who conceptualize
writing from a global perspective, not yet comprehending that writing represents
speech. In level one children either scribble or write letter-like forms. In level two
children conceptualize writing as containing a minimum quantity of characters,
usually three, and that the order of the letters must vary from word to word in order
to indicate a change in meaning. A sound/symbol correspondence is not achieved
until level three, in which children begin to assign a sound value to written signs.
Known as the syllabic hypothesis, children assign one grapheme to each spoken
syllable of the word or sentences that they are trying to write, even if the grapheme
does not correspond phonetically to the word that they are trying to write. The
written grapheme does not match the phoneme until level four. In level four child-
ren move beyond the syllable, assigning a correct grapheme to its corresponding
phoneme. However, every phoneme in a word may not be represented. Level five is
described as the alphabetic principle; children are able to represent each sound with
the corresponding grapheme. Children may make errors in spelling but they are
now able to map speech phonetically with written symbols (Ferreiro & Teberosky,
1982).
According to Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982), these levels describe the
writing behaviors and thought patterns, often erroneous, of children as they pro-
gress from limited understandings of how written language works to more complex
30
understanding. Children pass through these stages as quickly or as slowly as is
necessary for them to reconceptualize their understandings from one level to the
next. The constructive errors that children demonstrate allow them to rethink what
they know of writing and change their respective thought patterns, which is visible
in their writing behaviors and oral responses to the task of interpreting their
writing.
Consistency and Logic
Through this study, Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) identified that children
exhibit two remarkable characteristics in the development of learning to write:
consistency and logic. The first is that children’s behaviors are very consistent with
regard to what they believe in terms of their conceptualizations of the writing pro-
cess. For example, if children determine that writing can be read only if it has a
certain number of characters and that these characters must be varied, they will
exhaust the number of combinations that can be made with even a limited number
of known letters, usually those from their name. The second characteristic consists
of the notion that children’s developmental progression toward a conventional
understanding of written language is logical. That is, although children do not have
conventional understandings of the writing process, the ideas that they themselves
construct, although inaccurate, are logical and necessary for advancement to con-
ventional understandings of written language.
According to Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982), this logical progression is a
problem-solving sequence wherein children construct their knowledge by begin-
ning to differentiate
iconic graphics from noniconic graphics before attempting to make distinc-
tions within the latter. Once these two kinds of graphics have been fairly
31
well differentiated and their respective functions more or less established,
children begin to make distinctions within the universe of noniconic
graphics in terms of letter-graphics and nonletter-graphics. Only when there
is a beginning stability in certain graphic configurations . . . can children
consider whole-part relationships. Only when they understand the reasons
behind abandoning the syllabic hypothesis can they advance to phonetic
analysis. Only when they comprehend the production rules of the alphabetic
writing system can they begin to deal with problems of orthography. (pp.
271-272)
As noted, Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) were concerned with the child-
ren’s conceptualizations of the writing process before writing in a conventional
sense had developed. Similar studies in other languages, such as Chinese (Chan &
Nunes, 2001), German (Bauer, 2004), and Hebrew (Tolchinsky Landsmann, 1990),
“offer an invaluable opportunity to verify the generality of the developmental
phenomena traced in children exposed to Roman systems of writing” (Ferreiro &
Teberosky, p. 27).
Whereas Ferreiro and Teberosky’s study (1982) was conducted in Spanish,
implications of this study transfer to the writing development of English-only-
speaking (Fox & Saracho, 1990; Kamaii, Long, Manning, & Manning, 1991) as
well as French-only-speaking children (Besse, 1996). Once children identify the
sound-symbol correspondence between a phoneme and a grapheme, they are
challenged to change their conceptualization of a strictly phonetic system to a com-
plex system of orthography. At the level of alphabetic analysis, a deep orthography,
such as that which exists in English, is taken into consideration (Ferreiro, 1990;
Snow et al., 1998). Studies of invented spelling address the challenges that children
face after they conceptualize writing as a sound-symbol relationship but have not
yet mastered conventional spelling patterns (Bissex, 1980; Chomsky, 1971; Read,
1971/1991; Templeton, 2003).
32
The Social Environment
A psychogenetic perspective (Ferreiro, 1985) on children’s written language
development does not mean that learning occurs without the influence of the
child’s environment, his culture, and the adults and children who surround him in
his particular setting (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982). According to Ferreiro and
Teberosky,
Children’s knowledge can either be socially transmitted or spontaneously
constructed. Knowledge coming from the environment develops through
interactions between the individual and the environment, but the individual
imposes definite constraints through the assimilation process. The presence
of the environment is, no doubt, essential: we are dealing with an object
essentially cultural and social in nature . . . individuals cannot discover on
their own certain conventions of the written language system. This kind of
knowledge is transmitted socially by those who value it. (pp. 268-269)
To nurture this phenomenon, parents and preschool teachers are encouraged
to provide children with developmentally appropriate reading and writing experi-
ences. As Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) and others (e.g., Clay, 1975; Harste et al.,
1984; Teale & Sulzby, 1989) have shown, children learn about written language
long before formal schooling begins. Theories of how children learn to write and
how to support young children’s written language development are reflected in how
writing is taught (e.g., Bromley, 2000) and what children are expected to know
with regard to writing in early childhood settings (McGee & Richgels, 2004; Teale
& Yokota, 2000). Many dramatic changes are perceived to have been made in how
children learn literacy, from a readiness perspective to an emergent literacy one
(Crawford, 1995), with a growing body of research focused on emergent writing
(Clay, 1975; Dyson, 1985, 1987, 2003; Ferreiro & Teberosky; Harste et al.; Sulzby,
Barnhart, & Hieshima, 1989).
33
Early Literacy Interventions and the Psychogenesis
of Children’s Writing
Yaden and Tardibuono (2004) examined the emergent writing productions
of 56 urban Spanish-speaking preschoolers who participated in an early literacy
intervention that included writing centers, classroom libraries, shared reading, a
home reading component, and a professional development component designed to
educate the preschool teachers in emergent literacy theory (see Yaden & Brassell,
2002; Yaden, Madrigal, & Tam, 2003; Yaden et al., 2000, for more detailed
information). The results of this Piagetian-inspired clinical analysis of young
children’s written language productions attempted to uncover the sociocognitive
processes that underlie young children’s written language development. Yaden and
Tardibuono found that many of the same written language acquisition patterns that
Ferreiro and Teberosky had identified in Spanish-speaking Latino children from
Argentina were similar to those of their population, which also consisted of child-
ren from predominately Spanish-speaking, urban, low socioeconomic backgrounds.
Implications from that study cautioned parents, researchers, and teachers
not to underestimate a child’s level of literate knowledge based solely on the
child’s ability to imitate conventional understandings of written language.
Although children may not appear advanced on certain measures of literacy
aptitude, such as identifying letters, writing words, or writing conventional-appear-
ing letters, it is possible that their level of conceptualization of the writing system
as a complex system of symbolization is at an advanced level of understanding.
Yaden and Tardibuono (2004) indicated that developmentally appropriate and
culturally sensitive literacy environments support young children in developing
these necessary advanced conceptualizations of the written language system. That
study, along with other studies analyzing the psychogenesis of children’s writing
34
hypotheses, facilitates a greater depth of understanding of children’s underlying
cognitive thought processes when approaching the task of writing. These and other
studies in written language acquisition represent important pieces of the literacy
puzzle. A comparison of these theories sheds light on this integral progress and
illuminates the similarities and differences of each perspective.
Similarities in Emergent Writing Theory
There are similarities among the works of writing researchers (Clay, 1975;
Dyson, 2003; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982); Harste et al.; Sulzby, 1985). Even
though the studies in this review approached the task of writing from different
perspectives, the primary focus of each one was to address the question of what
children know before formal education in writing begins. Also, the studies
examined how children think, organize, and make sense of written language.
Through these studies it is possible to see similarities in the theories of Vygotsky
(1931/1997) and Piaget (1969). These theories need not be seen as mutually
exclusive or conflicting (Yaden & Tardibuono, 2004). In fact, Rocco (1998)
claimed,
This tendency to establish an opposition and even force a choice between
one theory or the other, between one author or the other, as though they
were a topic of dispute . . . , leads to a reductionist vision of the work of
both, thus depriving the body of research of their essential theoretical
contributions. (p. 59)
Joseph Glick (1997) cautioned in the prologue to the fourth volume of the
Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky,
The main outlines of Vygotsky’s theory are well known . . . . However, I
believe the major task confronting us now is not to further identify and
reinforce central Vygotskian constructs; our task is rather to reconstruct the
contexts within which they were framed, to sort out the concerns of
Vygotsky as an inspirational but historical figure, and to distinguish those
constructs from the modern uses to which they have been put. . . . We
35
should no longer be dealing with the Vygotsky introduced as an answer to
Piaget, whose main points and law-like statements about developmental
change serve as a clear contrast to the limitations of Piagetian theory. . . .
The more systematic contrasts of Vygotsky and Piaget at the level of
developmental process, are a more modern construct. (pp. xii-xiii)
Therefore, Vygotsky’s (1931/1997) theory of written language acquisition,
which does not mention the main principles most commonly associated with
Vygotsky’s (1934/1987) sociohistorical theory of learning, including the zone of
proximal development, the concept of mediation, and the importance of the social
origins of development, reflected his view that written language acquisition is
developmental, genetic, and psychological. It is not to say that the role of mediation
and the social origins of development in the mastery of written language should not
be highlighted; rather, from a historical viewpoint, Vygotsky’s (1931/1997) and
Piaget’s (1969) theories applied to written language have much in common.
Writing researchers (Clay, 1975; Dyson, 1989, 1993, 2003; Ferreiro &
Teberosky, 1982; Harste et al., 1984) developed methodologies for studying written
language acquisition according to the specific aspect of the process that they
believed would increase their understanding of children’s learning. They looked for
patterns, stages, sequences, and outside influences in children’s writing and
developed theories on how children learn. These researchers used different
categories or ways of analyzing what this behavior means, which allowed them to
interpret the same behavior in different ways. Examining similar behavior patterns
in different ways provides a clearer picture of this complex process. From this
knowledge, researchers, teachers, and parents can better understand how to support
children’s written language development.
Studying children’s written language acquisition from a sociohistorical,
psychogenetic, sociocultural, figurative, sociopsycholinguistic, and microdevelop-
36
mental paradigm has shed light on the complex nature of learning to write. No
single theory or perspective can explain the process completely; however, when all
of the pieces are examined together, the written language puzzle seems to portray
that children’s capacity for learning written language is quite impressive. Teachers,
researchers, and parents should be conscious of this and support it in schools and
homes. Exposing children to written representations of their names is one of the
most powerful ways to introduce them to the complex system of written language.
Whether the focus is to introduce the figural or symbolic nature of the written
language system, the child’s own name provides a meaningful and logical place to
start.
Research in Name Writing
Studies in name writing have looked at the figural aspects of children’s
name writing, classifying children’s attempts according to their visual or graphic
features (Hildreth, 1936; Lieberman, 1985). Others have examined children’s letter
knowledge using the letters in their names (Villaume & Wilson, 1989) and the
relationship of children’s name writing to their literacy development (Bloodgood,
1999).
Figurative Aspects of Name Writing
Prior to the 1930s, preschool children’s drawings were given attention,
whereas studies in writing were reserved for school-age children receiving formal
instruction in reading and writing (Hildreth, 1936). In the first systematic explora-
tion of preschool children’s name writing as a developmental process, Hildreth
examined the name writing samples of 170 children of above-average intelligence,
ages 3 to 6.5 years. These writing samples were grouped into age ranges at 6-month
37
increments, beginning at age 3 years. For example, Level I consisted of children
ages 3.0-3.5, Level II ages 3.6-3.11, Level III ages 4.0-4.5, and so on for a total of
seven levels (see Figure 1).
Level I (ages 3 years to 3 years, 6 months)
Systematic, horizontal, up-and-down script, not aimless scribbling
Level II (ages 3 years, 6 months to 3 years, 11 months)
More horizontal representations with a tendency toward vertical strokes;
addition of discrete symbols not recognizable as letters;
imitative of adult cursive writing
Level III (ages 4 years to 4 years, 6 months)
Individual or separate letter-like formations, with an occasional simple letter
formed correctly; less use of space on the page
Level IV (ages 4 years, 6 months to 4 years, 11 months)
Mixture of conventionally and unconventionally formed letters;
words or names are not complete or even close to a correct
spelling and the letters may be out of order or reversed
Level V (ages 5 years to 5 years, 6 months)
First name or nickname written correctly,
with reversals and/or incorrectly formed letters;
better alignment and control
Level VI (ages 5 years, 6 months to 5 years, 11 months)
Formations are conventional, with an occasional reversal;
visual aspects of the name appear similar to writing
of other children’s of the same age
Level VII (ages 6 years to 6 years, 6 months)
Children write their names with greater speed;
many children write their last names as well.
Figure 1. Hildreth’s name writing levels. From “Developmental Sequences in
Name Writing,” by G. Hildreth, 1936, Child Development, 1, 291-302.
38
Within each age range the writing samples were ranked by the following
criteria: letter formation, spacing, spelling, evenness, and alignment (cf. PALS-
PreK; Invernizzi, Sullivan, & Meier, 2001; Sulzby, 1985). Several representative
samples from the median range of each age level were selected. These samples
were used to show a developmental progression of children’s graphic representa-
tions of their names from age 3 years to age 6.5 years. Even though the median
sample was used for each age level, Hildreth (1936) acknowledged that the range of
ability varies greatly within each age group. However, the median name writing
sample for each age group was progressively more developed as the children’s ages
increased.
This study highlighted children’s name writing representations prior to
instruction in writing. It was discovered that children learn to write their names
before formal instruction occurs and that the writing progresses from scribbles to
letter-like forms to conventional representations. Although the children’s handwrit-
ing and penmanship were used to classify the samples, the study traced the
children’s ability to write their names from an unconventional to conventional
representation. Hildreth (1936) claimed that the children were not formally taught
to write their names, yet they showed interest in writing and learning to write.
There is no way to know whether the children learned to write their names from a
model by copying or whether a parent was demonstrating how to form the letters.
Therefore, these age-related norms of above-average children do not necessarily
account for children’s differences in writing ability. Also, the name writing samples
of the children in each age group varied greatly. Rather than categorize the samples
by age, similar writing samples could have been grouped together to describe a
writing behavior or understanding based on the criteria and not primarily by age.
39
Hildreth (1936) attributed the differences in written representations to
maturity levels, claiming that motor control, neatness, spacing, and correct letter
formation are developmental, or age related (cf. Stanley & Pershin, 1978).
However, these factors do not represent children’s understanding of the thought
processes that are involved in learning about a representational system such as
writing. Other than penmanship and small motor skills, it is impossible to
determine the differences in children’s understanding of written language.
Lieberman (1985) expanded Hildreth’s (1936) name writing levels,
classifying 454 name writing samples from 47 children collected over a 2-year
period into 16 categories that she referred to as transitions, as opposed to levels
(see Figure 2).
Bloodgood (1999) also used Hildreth’s name writing levels to classify the
name writing samples of 67 children ages 3 years to 6.5 years in order to
investigate the role of name writing development in literacy learning as evidenced
in alphabet and letter knowledge, as well as the functions and purposes of literacy
in general. The preschoolers were predominately White middle-class children and
the kindergarteners were mostly economically disadvantaged, with 70% of African
American descent. Pre- and post-literacy assessments were administered to 56 of
the children in October/November and May/June, respectively, to evaluate the
children’s name writing, color, alphabet, spelling, word, word concept, and
phonological awareness. Hildreth’s (1936) 7-point scale was used to evaluate the
children’s name writing samples. The children were also asked to read their own
name and that of 5 other children, one of which began with the same letter as the
child being tested. These names were written on index cards and arranged in
random order. The children were also asked to write their names as the tester
40
Hildreth’s Name –
Writing Levels
Lieberman’s Name-Writing Transitions
Level I
Disorderly or aimless
scribbling
Graphic actions (scribbling); no differentiation between writing and
drawing; no recognizable figures or graphemes.
Graphic actions (scribbling); no differentiation between writing and
drawing; random graphemes dispersed within drawing.
Spatial differentiation between drawing and name writing. Autograph
is linear while drawing is global and circular.
Level II
Zigzag lines
Autograph is a continuous, horizontal, zigzag line.
Level III
Zigzag lines and
symbols
Autograph is a continuous, horizontal zigzag line and separate
grapheme(s).
Level IV
Correct and incorrect
written symbols
Autograph is a string of linear, discrete, letter-like graphemes.
Reduction in number of graphemes. Autograph is a single pertinent
grapheme, first few graphemes, or first and last letters of actual name.
Autograph is a string of 4 or more pertinent letters and/or place
holders.
Autograph is a string of unordered pertinent letters, some missing or
added.
Autograph is a string of ordered pertinent letters, some missing or
added.
Autograph is written string in which pertinent letters plus place holders
or graphemes equal number of letters in actual name.
Level V-VII
Correct spellings and
letter formations
Autograph is complete name written using recognizable but not yet
conventional letters in conventional order and conventional number.
Autograph is complete name written using conventional letters and
conventional number of letters but not conventional order.
Autograph is complete (first) name written using conventional letters,
conventional number of letters, and conventional order.
Autograph has been written conventionally but now contains reversed
letter(s), order reversal, and/or other adaptive placement.
Autograph contains first and last name.
Figure 2. Hildreth’s (1936) name writing levels as adapted and expanded by
Lieberman into name writing transitions. Adapted from Name Writing and the
Preschool Child, by E. Lieberman, 1985, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Arizona.
41
dictated each letter to them and then to read what they had written. Writing samples
were collected and interviews with the children, teachers, and parents were con-
ducted. Six children of various literacy acquisition levels were selected as case
study participants.
According to Bloodgood (1999), the child’s level of name writing ability as
categorized into levels developed by Hildreth (1936) is closely linked to children’s
alphabet and print knowledge awareness. Bloodgood (1999) indicated that name
writing plays a significant role in children’s literacy learning and should be an
integral component in preschool curricula. Name writing was analyzed on the basis
of letter formation, appearance, correctness, whether the children could recognize
their own names, and their ability to write their name letter by letter as a dictation.
Due to the fact that the name writing representations were analyzed according to
visual or graphic features, it is difficult to determine the role of the child’s name in
literacy development and acquisition within the context of the children’s varied
learning environments, experiences, and opportunities.
For instance, children may learn to write their name as an ideogram and not
truly understand the nature of the writing system as a representational system. In
contrast, if a child is exposed to literacy-rich experiences, it is possible that the
child is learning about literacy-related knowledge from other sources not directly
related to the child’s name. If this is the case, it may appear that the child’s name
plays a role in literacy acquisition when, in fact, the environment and the individual
child’s experiences may simultaneously be playing a role in name writing learning
as well as literacy development. In summary, a child’s advancement in literacy
development does correlate with name writing ability; however, it is difficult to
determine whether this literacy learning is directly transferable from name writing
42
learning or is related to the child’s exposure to alphabet and print knowledge in
other contexts. Children who know how to write their name may have had rich
literacy environments that also promoted their levels of literacy-related knowledge,
and vice versa, for children at lower levels of name writing ability.
These studies categorized the children’s samples based on the figurative
features of the name writing attempts. This limits understanding of the role of name
writing as a driving force behind literacy development and understanding because it
is difficult to determine whether children’s name writing and literacy knowledge
are interdependent and influential on one another or whether the learning of name
writing and other literacy learning are independent of one another and thus resultant
of environmental influences and exposure to experiences. Ferreiro and Teberosky
(1982), on the contrary, focused their attention on preschool children’s writing
processes rather than classifying the samples according to visual or graphic
features. This information provides insight into children’s literary thought pro-
cesses when writing their names and therefore may be more useful in determining
what role advanced conceptualizations in name writing might provide to other areas
of literacy development.
Psychogenetic Theory of Name Writing
According to Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982), learning to write one’s own
name serves a significant function in children’s written language acquisition. A
child’s name is the first stable string of letters that the child learns that carries
meaning. Children were asked to write their names and, if they were unable to write
any of the graphic characters, they were given plastic letters to use to construct
their names. If the children could not use the plastic letters to create their name, the
43
researcher wrote their name to see whether they could recognize them. The children
were then asked to interpret their names when parts of the names were hidden with
a card. The researcher covered part of the name and asked the children to interpret
the remaining visible part. The researcher also changed the order of the letters in
the name and asked the children to interpret the remaining part. If the children
responded that what was visible was not their name, they were asked what it said.
Ferreiro and Teberosky categorized the children’s interpretations of their names
into five successive name writing levels.
Name Writing Level One
At level one children are not able to write their names or they do so uncon-
ventionally, using an indefinite number of variable graphic forms. The child reads
his own version of his name the same as an adult’s version, not distinguishing
between the two. The child’s first name can be read as the first name or as the first
and last names interchangeably. Children have a global understanding of their
name and interpret it the same even when parts of it are covered or rearranged.
Name Writing Level Two
At level two children attempt to assign a correspondence between the letters
and what can be read. The children know that the written string indicates the name
but do not understand the sound/symbol correspondence. They still attempt to
assign a whole word to an individual letter. For example, the letter “R” would be
read as “Roberto” and the letter “o” as Alfredo and the letter “b” as “Alcala”
(Yaden & Tardibuono, 2004). However, the children acknowledge that, when parts
of the names are covered, what remains no longer represents their name.
44
Name Writing Level Three
At level three children begin to assign a syllabic value to each letter in their
name, known as the syllabic hypothesis. Children at levels two and three may be
able to write their names conventionally, but what differentiates the children’s
conceptualizations from the previous level is their ability to assign a syllabic value,
which is a word part, to an individual letter, whereas in level two each letter is
assigned a whole word, such as the first or last name. Children are subdivided into
two categories: level 3a for children who use the syllabic hypothesis when the last
part of the name is covered and level 3b for children who are able to apply the
syllabic hypothesis to the name if the first or last part is covered.
Name Writing Level Four
Level four is characterized by children who discover that their understand-
ing of the syllabic hypothesis conflicts with their emerging understanding of the
alphabetic principle. Children at this level attempt to assign the correct phonetic
value to what is visible, although their interpretations may not be completely
accurate. For example, a child may interpret “Gerar” as /gera/ (Ferreiro &
Teberosky, 1982).
Name Writing Level Five
At level five children understand the alphabetic principle, which means that
each grapheme corresponds to a specific phoneme or that each unit of speech can
be represented graphically. Children at level five on the general and name writing
tasks now face the complexities of orthography, where certain letters must be
represented even though they may not correspond to any unit of speech. The
complexities of orthography are not discussed in this study but have been well
45
documented in the literature, with much emphasis on invented spelling (Bissex,
1980; Chomsky, 1971; Henderson, 1986; Kamaii, Long, Manning, & Manning,
1991; Read, 1971; Richgels, 2001).
Developmental Nature of Name
Writing Levels
Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) noted that children do not progress through
the levels of writing and name writing concurrently. It is possible for children to be
at the syllabic hypothesis level in name writing but not in general writing. Since
most children learn to write their name first and it is the first meaningful stable
string, it is possible for children to advance more rapidly in name writing than on
general writing tasks. Ferreiro and Teberosky discovered that children’s more
advanced conceptualizations in name writing have the potential of moving child-
ren’s conceptualizations in writing to more advanced levels. These developmental
levels are hierarchical in the aspect that children move through them successively;
however, it is possible for children to be at different levels or to regress, depending
on the nature of the writing task and its particular context.
Piagetian, Clinical Methodology
Whether investigating general writing or name writing, Ferreiro and
Teberosky (1982) sought to understand how children come to know written
language. In order to do this, they designed their study based on the Piagetian
tradition of clinical interviewing. The present study also followed in this tradition.
Therefore, an overview of the Piagetian clinical methodology used by Ferreiro and
Teberosky and consequently by the present study is provided.
46
When approaching the task of studying young children’s writing, it is
important to determine which methodology best addresses the research problem
and what methods and techniques of analysis most accurately answer the research
questions. In fact, Silverman (1993) pointed out that “there are no principled
grounds to be either qualitative or quantitative in approach. [The approach] depends
upon what you are trying to do. Indeed, often one will want to combine both
approaches” (p. 22). Writing researchers have studied children’s writing using
qualitative (Clay, 1975; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984) and/or quantitative
methodologies (Vernon & Ferreiro, 1999). Sofia Vernon and Emilia Ferreiro
(1999) used quantitative methodology to support their hypothesis that children’s
phonological awareness is strongly correlated with their levels of conceptualiza-
tions of the writing system. However, the children’s levels of conceptualizations
were derived through the use of qualitative methodology (Ferreiro & Teberosky,
1982).
Qualitative methods such as observing children in their natural settings,
whether at home or at school, interviewing them and asking questions while they
are writing, and videotaping or audio recording their interactions with others while
writing are tools to gather data in this interpretive paradigm (Emerson, Fretz, &
Shaw, 1995; Silverman, 1993). According to Silverman, when approaching a
research problem within an interpretive paradigm, hypotheses are generated
through observation and description, not tested as in quantitative studies.
Innovative and novel research designs have resulted in theories of written language
learning that have led to major changes in how young writers are perceived and
how they are taught (e.g., McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas, 2000; McGee & Richgels,
2000). Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) posited that “the Piagetian method for
47
exploring children’s thinking through dialogue allows the experimenter to create
testable hypotheses about the reasoning behind the child’s words and gestures”
(p. v). The present study, which also analyzes the psychogenesis of children's
writing through the use of in-depth questioning, facilitates a greater depth of
understanding of children's underlying cognitive thought processes when
approaching the task of writing.
Conclusion
As outlined in this review of the literature, researchers identify strategies,
behaviors, patterns, and thought processes associated with young children’s written
language acquisition. The research by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) pioneered the
use of Piagetian methods to “show that children have ideas, and indeed, hypotheses
and theories, which they continually test against the many examples of written text
they encounter in their environment and against the information they receive from
others” (p. v). Yaden and Tardibuono (2004) set out to confirm their findings in the
United States with predominantly Spanish-speaking children who were in the
process of learning English. Like Ferreiro and Teberosky, they used Piagetian
methodology to examine children’s emergent writing productions; their study
found many of the same written language acquisition patterns that Ferreiro and
Teberosky identified in Spanish-speaking Latino children from Argentina.
Conducted at the same preschool site as the aforementioned study, as part of
the same early literacy intervention, the present study furthered the work of Yaden
and Tardibuono (2004) by examining the written language conceptualizations of
the newly enrolled preschool children during the year subsequent to Yaden and
Tardibuono’s study. Consequently, this similarly designed study, patterned after
48
Ferreiro and Teberosky’s Piagetian-inspired approach to studying written language
within a “psychogenetic” theoretical frame, was designed to answer the following
three questions:
1. What do children’s interpretations of their own writing indicate about the
nature of their written language development when they are exposed to a literacy-
rich environment?
2. What is the nature of their name writing development?
3. What is the relationship between children’s name writing conceptualiza-
tions and their written language development?
49
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
A multiple, microgenetic case study design was used to answer the research
questions regarding the children’s interpretations of their written language develop-
ment when they are exposed to a literacy-rich environment. This study tested the
written language conceptualizations of 55 children from two classrooms of 4-year-
old preschool students over an 8-month period. The children’s written language
conceptualizations were investigated through a Piagetian-inspired clinical analysis
in which the children were interviewed and asked to interpret their own writing on
a number of (a) general writing tasks and (b) name writing tasks through in-depth
questioning (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982).
1. General writing tasks. The general tasks were administered twice: once
during the month of February and the first week in March 2001 (designated
February/March) and again during the last week of June and the first week of July
2001 (June/July). Of the total 55 children tested, 44 were administered the general
writing tasks in February/March and again in June/July.
2. Name writing tasks. The name writing tasks were administered once a
month to all children enrolled in the two preschool classrooms from November
2000 until June 2001.
Population and Research Setting
The data were collected at a nonprofit family service agency known as Para
Los Niños (PLN). The agency provided or coordinated educational opportunities,
50
child care, after-school programs, and social services such as counseling, health
services, and substance abuse prevention to more than 3,500 families and 1,300
children ranging in ages from 6 weeks to 18 years at 15 sites throughout the Los
Angeles area. The agency’s mission statement reflected a commitment to “raising
children out of poverty into a brighter future.” In fact, 98.7% of the families served
by the agency reported incomes below the federal poverty level.
The research was conducted at one of the child care sites located in an area
of downtown Los Angeles referred to as “Skid Row” (Rivera, 1999). Many of the
parents worked in the garment district of downtown Los Angeles. Gang activity
existed in the area and large numbers of homeless individuals lived on the
surrounding streets. The Child Development Center provided full-day child care for
126 predominately Hispanic infants, toddlers and preschool-age children. This site
consisted of a large warehouse-style building, with high ceilings and one large wall
separating the center into two main rooms. Each of the two main rooms was further
divided by chest-high walls into five individual classrooms, with two classrooms
for 3-year-olds on one side of the center and two classrooms for 4-year-olds and
one class for 2-year-olds on the other side. One class for 4-year-olds consisted of
32 children, the other of 24 children. Due to the physical layout of the center, class-
room activities were easily observable by PLN administration, supervisors, site
visitors, parents, researchers, and other teachers. The primary language used at
home and in the classroom was Spanish, although teachers also spoke to the
children in English.
51
The USC/CIERA Emergent Literacy
Intervention
Researchers from the University of Southern California (USC) in collabora-
tion with the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA)
implemented an Emergent Literacy Project at PLN Child Development Center from
1997-2001. In-class support, such as demonstration lessons, collaborative lesson
planning, observation, and feedback, was provided for the teachers and teachers’
assistants. Two graduate researchers worked in the classrooms with the teachers on
a weekly basis. One researcher focused on reading, such as big book reading,
reading aloud, and concepts about print. This researcher visited the center in the
morning twice a week, 1 day in one of the two classrooms for 4-year-olds and one
day in the other. Reading assessments such as Clay’s (1975) Concepts About Print
Test and Ferreiro and Teberosky’s (1982) reading tasks were administered.
The other researcher, and author of this dissertation, focused on writing,
including establishing and maintaining a writing center, modeling writing for
students, recording students’ dictations, encouraging journal writing, and creating
class books and class stories. Name writing activities were also an integral part of
the writing curriculum. The children were also asked to draw a picture of their
choice and write about it once a month. The children read their stories to the
researcher or a teacher in the classroom and their words were recorded on a
separate piece of paper. In addition, each child was given one journal per month
and was encouraged to write in it.
Creating a print-rich environment was an important component of the
Emergent Literacy Project. An alphabet was displayed, with the children’s pictures
displayed under the letter that corresponded to the first letter in their first name.
ABC charts were displayed in the classroom, along with song and poem charts. The
52
children’s names were used to introduce children to letter names and sounds. The
materials in the classroom were labeled in English and Spanish. The extensive
writing displayed in the classrooms was print. There were no examples or modeling
of cursive writing. Cursive writing was not taught or purposely demonstrated at this
preschool. The teachers asked the children to write using the print model. The print
was a mixture of all capital, all lower case, and both capital and lower case letters.
Numerous books in Spanish and English were purchased for the classrooms and the
teachers taught the children book handling skills and story sense.
The children took part in these activities primarily in the morning during
Circle Time, when all of the children were gathered in a large group to participate
in teacher-led activities. After Circle Time the children worked in small groups,
each led by a teacher, an aide, or the researcher. The children had time to look at
books every day and the teachers read to them regularly. The writing center pro-
vided the children with the opportunity to write and experiment with the tools of
writing. The writing center contained papers of various sizes, as well as pencils and
markers of various types. The children wrote on self-selected topics and sometimes
practiced writing their names, letters, and stories.
Teachers received inservice training in emergent literacy theory and
developmentally appropriate reading and writing practices and activities. The focus
was to assist the teachers and teachers’ aides in observing, guiding, and supporting
the children’s literacy knowledge and behaviors. The topics that were covered
include environmental print awareness/functions of print, concepts of book print/
connected discourse, story sense, phonemic awareness, speech-print match, and the
control of reading and writing.
53
As part of this intervention, a book lending library was established to
promote family literacy in the home by providing easy access to a wide variety of
culturally and linguistically diverse books. Graduate student researchers set up the
Book Loan Program approximately twice weekly in the afternoon when parents
were picking up their children. All children enrolled at the center were invited to
participate in this voluntary program. The wide selection of Spanish, English, and
bilingual books was displayed on a 15-foot counter in a centrally located hallway.
Children were allowed to self-select and check out one book each time the Book
Loan Program was open. Participation in the program was free and no fee was
charged for lost or damaged books. When a child had checked out 20 books, the
child was celebrated by displaying his/her picture on a “Showcase” bulletin board.
The child was awarded a book of choice and a short biography of the child’s read-
ing interests was displayed. Records were kept of the children’s participation in
their program and their book check-out frequency.
Parent workshops were conducted twice a year to assist parents in acquiring
literacy-related knowledge, strategies, and techniques that they could use with their
children at home. The workshops were held in the early evening to accommodate
parents’ work schedules. The researchers conducted the workshops in Spanish. The
topics included strategies that parents could use while reading with their children
and story telling. Children were invited to attend and were included in the work-
shops. For example, the parents were encouraged to share family stories, rhymes,
chants, and songs with their children during the workshop. The parents and their
children wrote these down on a sheet of unlined, blank paper and accompanied it
with a picture or drawing. The stories were then copied and bound into several
copies and made available for check-out at the Book Loan Program. This type of
54
parental involvement was an integral component of the early literacy intervention.
Educating parents and empowering them to be involved in their children’s learning
was viewed by the research team as a vital part of the program’s implementation
and long term effects.
Procedures and Materials
A total of 55 children participated in the study. They were interviewed
individually in Spanish in a familiar setting within the center by the researcher,
who was well known by the children. The children were asked to write and inter-
pret their name once a month for 8 months, from early November 2000 until June
2001. After the child wrote his/her name, the researcher then asked the child to read
what he/she had just written. The researcher then covered the second half of the
written string with a 3 x 5 card and asked the child to read what was visible. After
this, the researcher covered the first part of the child’s name and asked the child to
read what was written.
The children were interviewed on a number of general writing tasks, as
described below, on two occasions, once in February/March and again in July/July.
The interviews averaged 20 minutes per child. The researcher asked each child to
(a) write his/her name on a blank piece of 8½ x 11 white paper, using one of eight
colored markers. The child was asked to interpret his/her name as written and then
with the first and last part of it covered. The child was then given a different-
colored marker and asked to (b) write his/her mother’s name. When the child was
finished, the child was asked to read what he/she had just written. The child was
then asked to (c) write and then read his/her father’s name; (d) other family mem-
bers’ names; (e) four commonly used words (mamá, papá, oso [bear], nene [baby]);
55
(f) three less-frequently taught words (sapo [toad], mapa [map], pato [duck]); and
(g) a sentence (Mi nena toma sol [My baby sits in the sun]). Each word and the
sentence were written in different-colored markers to distinguish between each
written string. The child was encouraged to write in his/her own way, especially if
he/she claimed not to know how to write. Any attempt that the child made at writ-
ing or reading his/her writing was accepted by the researcher.
Data Analysis
The children’s interpretations of their writing were evaluated and classified
into one of the five hierarchical writing general writing (Figure 3) and name writing
levels (Figure 4), based on the classification system used by Ferreiro and
Teberosky (1982).
Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) examined how children construct knowledge
of written language by identifying their cognitive processes with respect to written
language, understanding the hypotheses that children use when reading and writing,
and exposing what children know before formal instruction in reading and writing
begins at school. Although the study included aspects of reading and writing, only
the writing aspect of their study is discussed.
For the purpose of this study the children’s writing and name writing
abilities were compared using the method used by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982).
Also, the developmental progression of each child’s name writing growth over time
was compared to the child’s general writing samples to determine whether the
child’s name writing levels developed rapidly and whether this growth might play a
role in children’s advancement in general writing.
56
Level One
Children either scribble or write letter-like forms.
Children conceptualize writing from a global perspective,
not yet comprehending that writing represents speech.
Level Two
Children conceptualize writing as containing
a minimum quantity of characters, usually three, and that
the order of the letters must vary from word to word
in order to indicate a change in meaning.
A sound/symbol correspondence is not achieved.
Level Three
Known as the syllabic hypothesis, children assign one grapheme
to each spoken syllable of the word or sentences they are trying to write,
even if the grapheme does not correspond phonetically
to the word they are trying to write.
Level Four
Children write one grapheme per phoneme;
however, not all phonemes within the word are represented.
Level Five
This level represents the alphabetic principle where children are able
to represent each sound in a word with the corresponding grapheme.
Children may make errors in spelling; however, they are able to
map speech phonetically with written symbols.
Figure 3. Ferreiro and Teberosky’s levels of writing conceptualizations.
57
Level One
Children are unable to write their names conventionally.
They interpret their name globally, reading the markings
as the first and/or last name.
All or part of the name represents the whole.
Level Two
Children may be able to write their names correctly
or unconventionally using mock or letter-like forms.
When asked to interpret their name, they may attempt
to designate a relationship to what is written and
what is read by assigning a whole word or name
to each letter or graphic form.
Also, when part of the name is covered,
they indicate that it no longer says their name.
Level Three
Known as the syllabic hypothesis, children assign
one grapheme to each spoken syllable of their name,
even if the grapheme does not correspond phonetically.
Children may write their names correctly but may include reversals.
Level 3a
Children assign one grapheme per syllable to the first half
of their name when the second half of their name is covered.
Level 3b
Children assign one grapheme per syllable
when the first or last part of the name is covered.
Level Four
Children write their names conventionally, but may include reversals.
When they read parts of their names, there is a correct,
although incomplete correspondence between the visible graphemes
and the phonetic value they assign to those graphemes.
Level Five
This level represents the alphabetic principle where children are able
to identify each sound in their name with the corresponding grapheme.
Figure 4. Ferreiro and Teberosky’s levels of name writing conceptualizations.
58
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS/FINDINGS
The findings are presented in two sections. The first section presents
descriptive statistics of the study. The children’s writing conceptualizations are
categorized according to Ferreiro and Teberosky’s (1982) general and name writing
levels, and a comparison and distribution of these writing levels are presented. In
the second section qualitative descriptions of the children’s general writing and
name writing development highlight the characteristics and variations of their
writing conceptualizations. To clarify the findings, writing samples from the
present study that most closely represent the characteristics being discussed
accompany many of the descriptions.
Descriptive Statistics
The findings of the present study, focusing on an analysis of the written
language conceptualizations of 55 preschool children participating in an early
literacy intervention during the 2000/2001 school year, are presented in this
section. The children’s general and name writing conceptualizations were classified
into one of five hierarchical levels developed by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982).
Levels one and two represent children’s interpretations of their own writing from a
global perspective. At levels three, four and five children overcome their global
interpretations of their writing and identify a correspondence between spoken and
written language. The children’s writing and name writing conceptualizations that
were classified as levels one and two on the general and name writing tasks are
referred to as Global correspondences or interpretations; those that were classified
as levels three, four, and five are referred to as Syllabic/Alphabetic correspondences
59
or interpretations. This section describes and compares the changes in children’s
writing and name writing conceptualizations over time.
The purpose of this section is to summarize and highlight trends in the data
of the group as a whole. A total of 490 writing samples were analyzed (see Table 1)
and organized into three subsections: (a) General Writing Results, (b) Name Writ-
ing Results, and (c) Comparison of General Writing Progressions to Name Writing
Progressions.
Table 1
Number of General Writing and Name Writing Samples Analyzed
Number of
Type of sample Dates of analysis artifacts
General writing samples February/March and June/July 2001 99
Name writing samples November-June 2001 391
Total 490
General Writing Results
Fifty-five children were administered the general writing tasks. A total of
99 general writing samples were collected and analyzed. As shown in Table 2, 44
of the 55 participating children were given the general writing tasks once in
February/March and again in June/July 2001. Ten children were given the general
writing tasks in February/March but not in June/July. One child was given the
general writing tasks in June/July only.
60
Table 2
Number of General Writing Samples
Number of Number of
Test dates children tested samples collected
February/March and June/July 2001 44 88
February/March 2001 only 10 10
June/July 2001 only 1 1
Total 55 99
Each of these general writing samples was classified into one of the first
four of the five hierarchical levels (Figure 5) described by Ferreiro and Teberosky
(1982). See Figures 3 and 4 for a description of the levels.
Figure 5. General writing conceptualizations.
61
Seventy-seven of the 99 writing samples (78%) were categorized at levels
one or two. At these levels children have global understanding of written language.
Twenty-two of the 99 writing samples (22%) were categorized at levels three or
four. At these levels children have identified a print/speech connection. Although
no children were categorized at level five, the children’s written conceptualizations
categorized at levels three and four represented a monumental change in children’s
understanding of writing as a representational system.
Name Writing Results
Fifty-five children were administered the name writing tasks. A total of 391
name writing samples were collected and analyzed. Table 3 presents the total
number of children who were tested each month. Thirty-two children participated
in the name writing tasks each month for 8 months. Due to absences, some children
missed one or two administrations of the name writing tasks throughout the 8-
month period. For example, 11 children were given the name writing tasks seven
times over the 8-month period, 7 children missed the name writing administration
twice, and due to late enrollment or early termination, 5 children missed more than
two administrations of the name writing tasks.
Each of these name writing samples was classified into one of five hier-
archical levels (Figure 6) described by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982). See Figures
3 and 4 for a description of the levels.
Two hundred twenty-eight of the 391 name writing samples (58%) were
categorized at levels one or two. At these levels the children interpret their names
globally. One hundred sixty-three of the 391 writing samples (42%) were
categorized at levels three or four. At these levels children move beyond a global
62
Table 3
Number of Name Writing Samples
Number of Number of
Test dates children tested samples collected
November 2000 47 47
December 2000 49 49
January 2001 52 52
February 2001 51 51
March 2001 51 51
April 2001 49 49
May 2001 46 46
June 2001 46 46
Total 55 391
Figure 6. Name writing conceptualizations.
63
interpretation of their name and identify a print/speech match between what is
spoken and what is written. No children were classified at name writing level five.
Only 3 of the 55 children wrote their names conventionally at the beginning
of the study. By June 2001, 44 of the 55 children (80%) wrote their names conven-
tionally at least once. The figurative aspects of children’s name writing are dis-
cussed later in this chapter.
Relationship of General Writing to Name Writing
As described in the previous sections, the children’s general writing con-
ceptualizations were categorized according to Ferreiro and Teberosky’s (1982)
writing levels. The progression of children’s general writing and name writing
conceptualizations over time are highlighted in this section, followed by an
examination of their relationship.
Although 55 children participated in the study and were given the general
writing tasks at least once, 44 children were administered the general writing tasks
on two occasions: (a) once in February/March 2001, and (b) a second time in June/
July 2001. Although the general scores of the children who were not tested on both
occasions reflect the larger group’s trends and demonstrate similar patterns of
conceptual development as described by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982), for the
purpose of comparing the growth children made on the general writing tasks in
relation to the growth on the name writing tasks, only the 44 children who were
tested on both occasions were included in the comparisons.
64
Progression of General Writing
Conceptualizations
Figure 7 demonstrates the change in these 44 children’s conceptualizations
in general writing from February/March 2001 to June/July 2001.
Figure 7. Progression of general writing conceptualizations.
Eighty-four percent of the children were categorized at levels one or two in
February/March, interpreting their writing globally. Sixteen percent interpreted
their writing at levels three or four in February/March, interpreting their writing
syllabically or alphabetically. In June/July, 66% interpreted their writing globally
and 34 % interpreted their writing syllabically or alphabetically.
Progression of Name Writing
Conceptualizations
In addition, these 44 children wrote and interpreted their names over an 8-
month period. Thirty-one of the 44 children were tested eight times, once a month
65
for a total of 8 months. Due to absences, 9 children were tested seven times and 4
children were tested six times during the 8-month period. Figure 8 demonstrates the
change in these 44 children’s name writing from February/March to June/July
2001.
Figure 8. Progression of name writing conceptualizations.
In November, 95% of the 44 children interpreted their names globally. In
February (3 months later), 55% of the children interpreted their names globally,
increasing the percentage of children interpreting their names syllabically or alpha-
betically from 5% to 45%. In April, the percentage increased to 74%. By June,
however, the percentage of children interpreting their names syllabically or alpha-
betically had decreased from 74% to 61%.
66
Progression of Children’s Name
Writing Ability
The children’s name writing ability, as determined by the figurative charac-
teristics of their writing, is highlighted in this section. Of the 55 children originally
tested and the 44 delimited in this section, only 3 could write their names conven-
tionally at the beginning of the study; 44 of the total 55 children, 37 of whom
belonged to the delimited group of 44 children, wrote their names conventionally at
least one time by June 2001. Children’s names that were written correctly with one
letter reversed or inverted were considered conventional representations and were
included in this group. Eleven of the total 55 children, 7 of whom belong to the
delimited group of 44 children, wrote their names unconventionally all year long.
This number includes children who ordered letters from their name incorrectly or
omitted letters.
Comparison of General Writing to
Name Writing
In February/March, 84% of the children interpreted their writing globally;
however; only 55% interpreted their names globally in February. In other words,
16% interpreted their general writing syllabically or alphabetically, whereas 45%
interpreted their names syllabically or alphabetically. There is a 29% difference in
syllabic/alphabetic interpretations in name writing as compared to general writing,
with the greater percentage of children interpreting their names at these higher
levels of conceptualizations.
In June/July, 66% of the children interpreted their writing globally but only
39% interpreted their names globally in June. In other words, 34% interpreted their
general writing syllabically or alphabetically, whereas 61% interpreted their names
syllabically or alphabetically. There is a 27% difference in syllabic/alphabetic
67
interpretations in name writing as compared to general writing, with the greater
percentage of children interpreting their names at these higher levels of
conceptualizations.
In both February/March and June/July, more children’s name writing
conceptualizations than general writing conceptualizations were categorized as
syllabic/alphabetic. This difference was close to 30% at both points in time. As
Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) indicated, progression to higher levels of name
writing conceptualizations may precede progression to higher levels of general
writing conceptualizations. This was evident in the present study.
Presentation of Data
In the previous section the children’s general and name writing
conceptualizations were analyzed as a group. In this section the individual writing
samples are used to describe the characteristics of each of the five general and five
name writing levels and to illuminate the similarities and differences between the
Argentine and Los Angeles samples. Qualitative descriptions of the children’s
general and name writing conceptualizations, as classified into one of the five
hierarchical levels developed by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982), are presented.
Writing samples from the present study that most closely represent each level or
characteristic accompany the qualitative descriptions.
The children used different-colored markers to write each word. A color
code is presented in Table 4 to assist in understanding which marks represented
which word or sentence that the child was asked to write. There is one color code
for the February/March general writing tasks and another color code for the
June/July general writing tasks.
68
Table 4
Color Codes for Interpreting Children’s Writing on the General Writing Tasks
Color code for February/March 2001 Color code for June/July 2001
Name (black) Name (black)
Mom’s name (pink) Mom’s name (red)
Dad’s name (green) Dad’s name (green)
mamá (red) mamá (gray)
papá (gray) papá (blue)
nene (orange) nene (orange)
oso (brown) oso (brown)
sapo (purple) sapo (green)
pato (black) mapa (purple)
mapa (pink) pato (black)
Mi nena toma sol. (green) Mi nena toma sol. (red)
This section summarizes and describes the characteristics of Ferreiro and
Teberosky’s (1982) five general and name writing levels, using individual
examples of children’s writing from the present study. In addition to demonstrating
the similarities between the Argentine and Los Angeles samples, examples from
the present study expand, clarify, and contribute to understanding each of these
levels. Variations in the children’s general and name writing conceptualizations
within each level and from level to level are highlighted. As children’s levels of
general and name writing conceptualizations may not progress concomitantly, the
relationship of the children’s general writing conceptualizations to their name
69
writing conceptualizations is explored. The children’s writing conceptualizations
are analyzed and organized into the following three subsections: (a) Characteristics
of General Writing Conceptualizations, (b) Characteristics of Name Writing
Conceptualizations, and (c) Comparison of General Writing Conceptualizations to
Name Writing Conceptualizations.
Characteristics of Children’s General
Writing Conceptualizations
As described in the descriptive statistics section of this chapter, the
children’s general writing conceptualizations were classified using Ferreiro and
Teberosky’s (1982) five hierarchical name writing levels. The distribution of the
children’s general writing conceptualizations as a group was presented (see Figures
5 and 7). In this section qualitative descriptions of the children’s general writing
conceptualizations, with examples, are used to define and highlight the characteris-
tics of each level. Pseudonyms for the children are used throughout the report.
General Writing Level One
Level one is described by the following characteristics: (a) subjective intent
of writers, (b) part-to-whole relationship, (c) relationship of drawing to writing,
(d) attributes of object reflected in writing, (e) linear versus nonlinear writing, and
(f) print versus cursive writing.
Subjective intent of writers. Writers’ intent, not objective differences in
print, determines what one’s own writing says. As in Ferreiro and Teberosky’s
(1982) landmark study, when children in the Los Angeles study were asked to
interpret their own writing, many did so from a global perspective, not yet under-
standing the sound-symbol relationship of written language. The function of writ-
70
ing is not to transmit information or to communicate with others. The children’s
intent, and not the graphics produced, allows the children to interpret their own
writing. In Figure 9, for example, Andrew used similar-looking capital letter A’s to
write each word and the sentence. Although the words were written similarly, his
intention was to write different words. As a result, he read each of the similar-
looking strings of capital letter A’s as different words. This example also demon-
strates Andrew’s global interpretation of what he had written, not demonstrating
any sound symbol correspondence between the graphic characters and the spoken
utterance.
Part-to-whole relationship. Due to their global interpretation of writing,
children may interpret each part of their writing as the whole. Each individual
graphic character of the written string represents the whole word. When asked to
write his name, Andrew (Figure 9) wrote several capital letter A’s. When asked to
read what he had written, he read each capital letter A as Andrew, indicating a
syncretistic, part-to-whole relationship between each letter and his name. There-
fore, at this level children may believe that each grapheme corresponds to each
word, as opposed to each phoneme.
Relationship of drawing to writing. When asked to write words, children
may opt to draw pictures to accompany their writing or they may choose to use
drawings to replace writing altogether. One reason may be that drawing is a first-
order representation of what is meant to be depicted and therefore it guarantees the
meaning intended by the author. Children may not be confident with writing as a
second-order symbol system that serves as a substitute for the object to be repre-
sented. Only one child in the present study, Javier, used pictures instead of writing
71
Figure 9. Andrew, general writing level one, February 8, 2001.
to represent most of the words and the sentence (Figure 10). Javier drew a color-
filled circle for the word mapa and stick figures with happy faces for the remaining
words and the sentence. However, he wrote his name and the word sapo with a
string of letter-like forms.
72
Figure 10. Javier, general writing level one, March 9, 2001.
The drawings ensure that the meaning of what is written is communicated
and aids in its recollection. If writing is interpretable only by those who write it,
then to transmit messages or communicate, the writing must be an iconic repre-
sentation of that which was intended to be written.
Attributes of object reflected in writing. These attributes are presented in
two dimensions: physical attributes and psychological attributes.
First, the physical attributes of objects may be reflected in writing. When
approaching the task of writing, children may assign a physical attribute of the
object to be represented in the written string of graphic characters. Ferreiro and
Teberosky (1982) found that children may write bigger or longer strings of
graphics if the object to be represented is bigger. Children in the present study
73
wrote longer strings for bigger objects; this phenomenon is discussed in more detail
in a later section. The following unique examples highlight additional ways in
which children may represent physical attributes of the objects in their writing.
For example, when Alfred was asked to write mapa, he wrote from the
bottom left-hand side of the page vertically upward to the top, writing one graphic
character on top of the other (Figure 11). He read the word as jirafa (giraffe). The
appearance of the word did resemble a giraffe’s neck: long, narrow, and vertical.
Alfred most likely forgot what word he was writing and used the word’s physical
appearance to “remember” what he had written. Donald, on the other hand, wrote
nene using scribbles instead of the mock letter strings that he used to represent the
other words, stating that a baby’s writing is feo, or not very attractive (Figure 12).
He imitated a physical characteristic of the object and depicted it in his writing.
There may also be a psychological connection with the object reflected in
the writing. Children at this level may be confused about what can actually be
written. As opposed to portraying a physical characteristic of the object in their
writing, children may refuse to write a word or become confused if the object is
emotionally charged or lacking personal relevance. For example, Marina
acknowledged that she had a father, but when asked to write his name, she said,
“No lo quiero escribir” (I don’t want to write it) and she refused to write her
father’s name or the word papá. Dora also refused to write her father’s name,
stating, “Yo no tengo papá” (I don’t have a dad). When Alberto was asked to write
the word nene (baby), he responded, “Pero yo no tengo nene” (But I don’t have a
baby). Mamá and papá could be written because Alberto had both a mom and a
dad, but when asked to write nene, he questioned whether he could write nene
74
Figure 11. Alfred, general writing level one, February 9, 2001. The blocked writing
on the left side was read by Alfred as jirafa (giraffe).
75
Figure 12. Donald, general writing level one, March 23, 2001. The blocked writing
at the bottom was meant by Donald to represent nene (baby).
76
because he did not have a baby. These examples demonstrate a psychological
connection between the object and whether it can or should be written.
Jameson also demonstrated confusion when he was asked to write the word
papá after he had been asked to write his father’s name. He responded, “Yo no
tengo dos papás” (I don’t have two dads). Therefore, Jameson refused to write the
word papá because he believed that he had already produced a written string that
represented his father. He did not distinguish between the word papá and the name
of his father, Ronaldo. This is similar to iconic representations of objects with
pictures as opposed to a symbolic representation with letters. Jameson “drew” his
father with symbols and therefore he did not need to do it again.
Sidnia, too, wrote her mother’s name and when she was asked to write the
word, mamá, she asked, “¿otra vez?” (Again?). Sidnia asked why she should write
her mother’s name again, demonstrating her belief that the word mamá and her
mother’s name, Sidnia, were the same. She eventually wrote the word mamá;
however, she wrote it exactly the same as she had written her mother’s name
(Figure 13). To Sidnia, as there was only one individual to be represented, then the
two written strings must also be the same. There was no recognition of distinction
between the two words and therefore no need to represent them differently.
Linear versus nonlinear writing. All but one child in the Argentina sample
wrote linearly, or horizontally, on an imaginary line. Aaron, like the child in
Ferreiro and Teberosky’s (1982) study, placed marks randomly on the page (Figure
14). He often overlapped letters from previously written words. Although the
majority of the Los Angeles sample wrote linearly, the present study found the
following exceptions.
77
Figure 13. Sidnia, general writing level one, March 8, 2001.
Experimentation with directionality. Although several children wrote
linearly on an imaginary horizontal line in the standard left-to-right direction, there
were also instances in which the children wrote linearly from the right-hand side of
the page to the left, or vertically from the bottom or top of the page.
78
Figure 14. Aaron, general writing level one, March 9, 2001.
Jonathan experimented with directionality, writing from left to right, right
to left, and vertically from top to bottom (Figure 15). He wrote his name, his
mother’s name, and his father’s name linearly from left to right, listing each word
under the previous word. He wrote mamá, papá , and nene from left to right on the
same line, with no spaces. He wrote the word oso from left to right above his name.
79
Figure 15. Jonathon, general writing level one, February 23, 2001.
However, when asked to write sapo, he began to write before the first letter of the
word oso and progressed from right to left, adding a slight curve to the word. He
continued writing the words pato, mapa, and the sentence “Mi nena toma sol”
vertically in a downward direction. Jonathan experimented with directionality,
80
alternating directions from left to right, right to left, and top to bottom. Jameson
also experimented with directionality, writing from right to left, including many
recognizable letters that were written in reverse.
Page constraints and directionality. Some children filled most of the center
of their papers by writing their words in the form of a list. They took advantage of
available blank space on the sides of the page by experimenting with directionality
and writing vertically from the bottom of the page toward the top.
For example, Alfred (Figure 11) listed his words in the middle of the page.
There was a margin of approximately 1 to 2 inches on each side of the page.
Although additional paper was available, he chose to write the next word, pato,
from the bottom of the page upward, filling all available space on the right-hand
side. When asked to write mapa, he wrote from the bottom left-hand side of the
page to the top, filling all available space on the left side. When there was a lack of
space on the page, children such as Alfred wrote nonlinearly.
As Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) indicated in their study, reversals and
experimentation in directionality are common as children experiment with writing,
and they should be viewed as a normal occurrence.
Print versus cursive writing. According to Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982),
level one is characterized by children’s writing that resembles either print or
cursive, depending on which the child has observed in his environment. In their
study in Argentina, many children imitated cursive writing and used it as a model
for their writing. This type of writing was linear and consisted of continuous
circular and wavy lines. Although the children in the Argentina sample imitated
both cursive and print models, the children in the Los Angeles study produced
81
writing that imitated a print model almost exclusively. The letter-like forms or
mock letters resembled the disconnected circles and sticks that are characteristic of
print (e.g., see Figure 12). Nancy also imitated the print model on most of the
writing tasks. However, when asked to write her mother’s name, she began to write
the first letter with print and then continued writing imitating the cursive model.
She wrote two continuous wavy lines: one for her mother’s first name and one for
her mother’s last name (Figure 16). As she was writing, she stated, “Así mi mami
escribe su nombre” (My mom writes her name like this).
Figure 16. Nancy, general writing level one, June 18, 2001.
Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) indicated that the children in their study who
imitated the cursive model produced similar marks for each word, such as a
continuous wavy line. However, the children who imitated a print model used
graphic characters in the form of discontinuous sticks and circles that were varied,
and their number was constant. That is, the children who imitated the print model
82
followed two hypotheses: (a) the children used a variety of different graphic forms,
and (b) the number of varied graphic characters was constant from word to word.
For example, each word was written with a similar number of dissimilar
graphic characters that varied not only within the word but also from word to word.
They indicated that these graphics were unconventional in appearance and not
clearly identifiable as conventional letters. Yolanda (Figure 17) and Alfred (Figure
18) imitated a print model. They both varied the graphic characters within each
word and from word to word, while the number of characters remained fairly
constant or similar.
General Writing Level Two
Level two is described by the following characteristics: (a) handwriting
development: graphic characters resemble conventional print; (b) conceptual
development: objective differences of print; (c) fixed minimum number of varied
characters; and (d) acquisition of fixed forms.
Handwriting development: Graphic characters resemble conventional print.
One significant figurative difference in the appearance of children’s writing
between level one and level two is the progression of the children’s ability to
produce a greater number of letter-like forms. For instance, children at level one
use sticks and circles, pictures, mock letters, and wavy lines to write, whereas at
level two the appearance of children’s writing is more refined, more closely
resembling conventional letters. Sidnia demonstrated this progression from using
mock letters in February (Figure 13) toward the use of more conventional looking
letters in June (Figure 19).
83
Figure 17. Yolanda, general writing level one, March 9, 2001.
Conceptual development: Objective differences of print. At level two
children advance conceptually by no longer distinguishing their writing by their
intent but rather by the differences in the appearance of the text. Children
experiment with the hypothesis that different words must look different in order to
84
Figure 18. Alfred, general writing level one, June 1, 2001.
be different. At level one children varied the graphic characters they produced;
however, at the level of interpretation the child’s intent and not the visual differ-
ences of the print determines what is written. One written string may represent two
different words at the discretion of the child. Children understand that writing
contains varied characters but there is confusion as to why. However, at level two
children acknowledge a new understanding that variation results in change of
85
Figure 19. Sidnia, general writing level two, June/July 2001.
meaning. Children at level two also interpret their writing globally, not identifying
the sound symbol relationship between speech and writing.
Fixed minimum number of varied characters. Children operate with the
following two hypotheses: (a) each written text must have a minimum number of
characters, at least three; and (b) these characters must be varied. Children write
86
using a fixed minimum number of characters because they believe that, in order for
something to be readable, it must contain at least three graphic characters. Anything
with less than three characters is not readable to them. Children also believe that
the order of these graphic characters must vary within each word and from word to
word to change the meaning of the word. Jameson (Figure 20) used a fixed mini-
mum number of five or six letters to write each new word. Ferreiro and Teberosky
(1982) explained that the children in their study used a fixed number of graphic
characters, usually four or five, to write each new word. The present study found
that most children at this level used a minimum of three graphic characters but the
number was not fixed.
For example, Eden (Figure 21) used a minimum of three letters for each
word but varied the number of graphic characters per word from three to six. Kayla
(Figure 22) used 15 letters to write pato and seven to nine letters to write the other
words and the sentence. The written strings were visually similar in length but not
in number. The use of a greater number of graphics may be due to the extensive
opportunities and exposure to writing that the children in the present study had. As
was apparent in the Argentina study, they varied those letters within each word and
from word to word and arranged them in different combinations to create new
words. As Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) pointed out, this combinatory strategy
reveals children’s ongoing cognitive development and growth.
According to Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982), children at this level believe
that words that are different are written differently. As demonstrated in the previous
examples, the present study also found this to be true. However, the present study
found a variation to this hypothesis. Karla (Figure 23), for example, determined
that, although her mother’s name and the word mamá are technically different
87
Figure 20. Jameson, general writing level two, June 29, 2001.
88
Figure 21. Eden, general writing level two, July 5, 2001.
89
Figure 22. Kayla, general writing level two, June 19, 2001.
90
Figure 23. Karla, general writing level two, February 8, 2001.
91
words, they should be written the same because they represent the same object. She
also wrote her father’s name the same as the word papá. In order to write the other
words and the sentence, Karla used a minimum number of three graphic characters
in varied combinations. Different words or objects are represented differently; how-
ever, different words that stand for the same object must be represented the same.
This illustrates the children’s continued yet more advanced global correspondence
with what is written and what is read.
Acquisition of fixed forms. Children at this level may begin to learn how to
write a variety of words conventionally, especially their own name. As children
learn these fixed forms, they may begin to realize that words are distinct from one
another, yet stable and unchanging. This may challenge a child’s perception of
writing resulting in the creation of (a) blockage or (b) generative strategies.
Regarding blockage, as children learn to write their names and improve
their letter formation, they also learn to write a variety of words conventionally.
Learning such fixed forms or stable strings may cause confusion as children
struggle to break the complicated written language code. Not identifying a phonetic
code, children may become dependent on memorizing what a word looks like in
order to write it. Using this hypothesis for writing becomes problematic when
children become dependent on their memory, the use of a model, or the assistance
of others to access the writing system. These children know that they do not know
the writing code and either refuse to write, insisting that they do not know how, or
they solicit assistance.
For example, Jody wrote her name conventionally and commented, “Antes
cuando estaba más chiquita, escribía mal mi nombre” (When I was younger, I
92
wrote my name wrong). She acknowledged that she had not known how to write
her name correctly in the past and that now she did know how. She refused to write
her mother’s or her father’s name, insisting that she could not do so because she did
not know how. Even when the researcher encouraged her to write it her way, she
refused to write their names.
When asked to write the word mamá, Jody stated la eme (the letter M). She
then asked the researcher for confirmation, “¿La letra eme?” (The letter M?). She
wrote one letter: the letter M. When asked to write papá, she solicited assistance
from the researcher, asking, “¿Papá empieza con la eme?” (Does papá begin with
an M?). The same conversation ensued with the word nene, and she wrote an M.
However, when asked to write oso, she asked, “¿Con la O?” (With an O?), which
she wrote. When asked to write sapo, she asked the researcher what letter to use
and asked whether the letter was an M: “¿Con qué letra? ¿Con la eme?” When
asked to write the word pato, she asked what letter to use, “¿Con qué letra?” When
the researcher did not acquiesce, she pointed to each of the letters in the word
Crayola
®
on the marker she was using to write with and asked, “¿Con esta?” (With
this one?). Jody continued soliciting assistance for the remainder of the task.
This example represents Jody’s blockage. She was very confused about the
writing system and knew that she did not know how to write conventionally.
Therefore, she repeatedly asked for assistance. Children who are experiencing
blockage lack confidence in their own abilities and question the validity of previ-
ously held notions of the written language system, such as writing strings of
random letters. They are unsure of their knowledge and become dependent on
others or a model.
93
Regarding generative strategies, as children learn to write words conven-
tionally, they also learn to use the letters from the words they know and vary their
order in order to create new and distinct words. For example, Osvaldo (Figure 24)
wrote his name and the word oso (bear) conventionally. When asked to write the
other words, he used the known letters from his name, as well as those from the
word he knew, to create new words. He generated several new words using what he
knows about the word oso. Several words resemble the word oso in length, with
one or two letters varied or substituted to create new words with different
meanings.
Often, the first letters that the child learns to write are in his/her name, and
with these letters the child experiments in creating new and different words. Marina
(Figure 25) wrote her name conventionally and, when asked to write different
words, she used the few letters from her name in a varied order to represent each
new word. As Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) pointed out, even children with a
limited stock of graphic characters can rearrange them in various combinations to
create new words. Alonso (Figure 26) also used the letters from his name to write
different words. Jameson (Figure 20) used letters from his name, along with a
variety of other known letters, to write each new word. However, Jameson began
each word with the same letter, the first letter of his name. It is no doubt that
children’s names are very influential in their written language acquisition,
conceptually as well as in letter formation development, choice, and usage.
94
Figure 24. Osvaldo, general writing level two, June 21, 2001.
95
Figure 25. Marina, general writing level two, July 5, 2001.
96
Figure 26. Alonso, general writing level two, March 9, 2001.
General Writing Level Three
Level three is described by the following characteristics: (a) conceptual
development: writing represents speech; and (b) a fledgling phonetic system: the
syllabic hypothesis.
97
Conceptual development: Writing represents speech. As Ferreiro and
Teberosky (1982) explained, children at levels one and two interpret their writing
globally, attributing each written string with each oral utterance, whereas children
at level three surmount this global interpretation of their writing and begin to work
from the hypothesis that speech is made of sound segments that are recordable with
written symbols. Children at this level begin to demonstrate knowledge that writing
represents speech. This knowledge is not yet conventional from a competent
writer’s standpoint; however, this new conceptualization is a significant develop-
ment toward conventional written language acquisition. At this level, children
experiment with writing as a tool for recording ideas and thoughts, using phonetic
rather than iconic or ideographic representations.
A fledgling phonetic system: The syllabic hypothesis. At level three children
attempt to overcome the global interpretation of a text by representing spoken
language in their writing. Children do not yet understand that each phoneme of
spoken language has a corresponding grapheme; however, they demonstrate for the
first time that parts of what is spoken, such as the syllable, correspond to parts of
what is written: each individual letter. For example, each syllable of a word is
represented by one written letter or graphic character.
In the present study Deirdre wrote one letter per syllable for all the words,
with the exception of her own name and the name of her mother. When asked to
read what she had written, she read without pointing. When prompted to point,
however, she re-read the word syllabically, matching each letter with each syllable.
Adolfo wrote one letter for each syllable of each word (Figure 27). He
used two letters to write each two-syllable word, except oso, which he wrote
98
Figure 27. Adolfo, general writing level three, June 29, 2001.
99
conventionally. When asked to read the word papá, he pointed to the first letter, A,
and read it as pa. He then pointed to the second letter that he had written, O, and
read it as pa. He read each of the following words in the same way, assigning one
syllable to each letter. He wrote two letters for “Mi nena toma sol”: one for “Mi
nena” and one for “toma sol.” Each letter represented a part, in this case a smaller
part of the sentence (subject/predicate), as opposed to a syllable, which was a
smaller part of a word. As Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) found, children may also
write the sentence using one letter per syllable. For instance, Jenny wrote the
sentence with six letters, one for each syllable.
Use of unconventional letters. Although children at level two have
progressed toward producing more conventional appearing letters, this is not a
requirement of level three. Some children at level three produce conventional
letters, such as Adolfo (Figure 27), while others, such as Robert (Figure 28), do not.
At level three the most important characteristic is the children’s hypothesis that
spoken language can be written using a sound/symbol system. Each graphic mark
represents a sound segment of speech.
Stable and unstable sound values. The letters that Adolfo (Figure 27) used
corresponded phonetically with a sound in the syllable he was writing and others
did not. At level three the letters or graphic characters do not necessarily match a
sound in the syllable. For example, Adolfo wrote i F for the word nene and pointed
to each letter as he said each syllable. However, for the word sapo he wrote S P,
each letter correctly corresponding to a sound in each syllable. When writing the
words papá and pato, he wrote AO and AE, respectively. The first letter correctly
corresponded to a sound in the first syllable but the second did not. Adolfo
100
Figure 28. Robert, general writing level three, March 9, 2001.
101
understood that there is a connection between what is written and the oral utterance,
with occasional use of stable sound values.
Loss of variation and abandonment of the minimum quantity of graphic
characters requirement. As previously discussed, children at levels one and two
typically write with a minimum of three varied graphic characters in order to render
a text readable. However, at level three children may abandon these previously held
notions. As children experiment with this new hypothesis, the syllabic hypothesis,
they may not be able to comply with the minimum number of varied characters
requirement and the syllabic hypothesis at the same time. The result is that they
may temporarily abandon their previously held hypothesis that a text must contain
a minimum number, at least three, of varied graphic characters.
In Ferreiro and Teberosky’s (1982) study, for instance, children writing
letters with stable sound values may abandon the variation of graphic characters, as
well as the minimum number of graphic characters. For example, a child writing
mamá with stable vowel sound values may write AA, observing neither variation
nor minimum quantity of characters. This type of writing was not observed in the
present study. Although children in the present study did not abandon both hypo-
theses at the same time, there was evidence of writing with little or no variation
(refer to Figure 28) and others with less than the minimum number of graphic
characters (refer to Figure 27).
Adolfo (Figure 27) used two letters for each two syllable word, abandoning
the minimum number of graphic characters requirement. However, the graphic
characters were varied within each word and from word to word. Robert (Figure
28) complied with the minimum number requirement; however, the variation of
characters was minimized. Robert (Figure 28) wrote many similar-looking graphic
102
characters for each word. As he wrote, he said one syllable for each symbol. For
example, when asked to write mamá, he said ma as he wrote each graphic mark. He
wrote nine graphic characters for the word papá and read each one as pa while he
was writing. When he was done writing, he read the written string as papá without
pointing. He wrote many graphic characters for the word nene; however, each
graphic did not represent each syllable. This time, each stroke of the pen repre-
sented each syllable. For example, when Robert wrote the word nene, he made a
graphic character with two pen strokes, saying each syllable as he wrote each mark.
He then wrote nene several more times, using the same strategy of one syllable per
pen stroke.
The previous examples demonstrate Robert’s strategies on two-syllable
words that have the same syllable for the first and second syllables. When asked to
write two-syllable words that had different first and last syllables, he used a
different strategy. For example, when writing the word mapa, he wrote it with two
graphic characters, reading syllabically and pointing to each letter as he read. He
then continued to add graphic characters silently. After these letters that he did not
read, he wrote one graphic character with two pen strokes, saying each syllable as
he wrote: “ma pa.” He added more letters silently and then wrote another graphic
character saying “ma” and another saying “pa.” When he was done writing the
entire string, he read it, syllabicating orally without pointing: “ma pa.” This
strategy allowed Robert to meet the minimum number of graphic characters
requirement while also utilizing the syllabic hypothesis.
Edith’s writing (Figure 29) also lacked variation; however, her strategy for
writing was different from that used by Robert. When asked to write oso, she said,
“Oso, la O” and she wrote a string of the letter O, saying “O” each time she wrote.
103
Figure 29. Edith, general writing level three, June 19, 2001.
When asked to write nene, she asked the researcher what letter to write.
When she did not receive help, she pronounced the word to herself and said, “/n/, la
en, ¿cuál es la en?” (Which one is the letter N?”) She wrote a string of letters
resembling the letter P and then read the string as nene. She repeated this process
for the words sapo and pato, asking “¿Cuál es la ‘sa’? ¿Cuál es la ‘pa’?” (Which
one is the “sa”?, Which one is the “pa”?) and then writing the same graphic
character several times.
Edith demonstrated her understanding that writing represents speech and
she was searching for a correspondence between what is said and what is written.
She complied with the minimum quantity of characters but abandoned the variation
requirement. She searched for a correspondence between the first syllable of the
104
word and the written symbol; she then reproduced that symbol several times. As
children experiment with the syllabic hypothesis, they may not be able to comply
with the variation requirement and the syllabic hypothesis at the same time. The
result is that children may temporarily abandon their previously held hypothesis
that a text must be varied.
Use of minimum quantity of graphic characters and the syllabic hypothesis.
Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) found that children who had experience with the
syllabic hypothesis, using stable sound values for each syllable, added what the
authors called “dummy letters”—extra letters with no sound value—to meet the
minimum number of characters requirement. Robert (Figure 28) did not use stable
sound values; however, he wrote sapo and pato with many graphic characters.
When asked to read what he had written, he read the words syllabically, pointing
one time to each of the first two characters and ignoring the remaining characters.
Conflict between minimum quantity of characters and the syllabic
hypothesis. At level three conflicts in conceptualizations may occur. These conflicts
are of significant importance in the developmental growth of the child. At levels
one and two children have global interpretations of their writing; now, they are
looking at a sound-speech correspondence. Whereas children previously conceptu-
alized writing as consisting of a minimum quantity of characters that must be
varied, at level three their writings correspond with one character representing one
syllable. In the case of one- or two-syllable words, the graphic representation does
not meet the requirement of minimum quantity of characters. This, in combination
with the child’s array of stable strings of conventionally written words (the child’s
own name in particular), causes tremendous confusion and conflict. These conflicts
105
are necessary for the child to reconceptualize knowledge of the writing system,
which in turn furthers growth and development toward more conventional
understandings.
General Writing Level Four
Level four is described by the characteristic of conceptual development of
the alphabetic hypothesis. Level four marks the transition from a syllabic hypo-
thesis to an alphabetic hypothesis. This transition is the result of two types of
conflicts: (a) the conflict between the syllabic hypothesis and the minimum number
of graphic character requirement, and (b) the conflict between the syllabic hypo-
thesis and stable strings learned in the environment. Children begin to write and
analyze their writing beyond the level of the syllable. Cynthia sounded out the
word pato, writing a P for the first syllable pa and a T for the sound /t/ and an O for
the sound /o/. As is characteristic of the syllabic hypothesis, she used one letter for
one syllable for the first part of the word. When writing the second syllable,
however, she went beyond the level of the syllable and wrote one letter for each
phoneme of the syllable. This writing of the word pato (PTO) represents the transi-
tion from the syllabic hypothesis to the alphabetic hypothesis.
Analyzing the word pato beyond the level of the syllable allowed Cynthia
to meet the minimum number of characters requirement, writing this two syllable
word with three letters instead of two letters. Children move beyond the syllable
but may not record one grapheme for each unit of sound. For example, Cynthia
wrote mano, mono, and rosa using the same strategy that she used to write pato,
using the syllabic hypothesis for the first syllable and the alphabetic hypothesis for
the second syllable. In writing flor (flower), a one-syllable word, Cynthia again
106
used three letters with stable sound values (FLO). She recorded three of the four
phonemes correctly.
General Writing Level Five
Level five is described by the characteristic of conceptual development of
alphabetic writing. Level five is characterized by alphabetic writing in which
children have broken the phonetic code, understanding that each phoneme is repre-
sented by a distinct and corresponding grapheme. Although no children in the
present study were classified at level five, Katie recorded one correct grapheme for
each phoneme to write the uncommon word MAPA, which is characteristic of this
level. Although Katie used this strategy on only one word, she was beginning to
experiment with phonetic writing, matching each sound segment of speech (in this
case, the phoneme) with its corresponding letter. When Cynthia wrote the word
lava, she also used one letter for each phoneme, writing LAFA. She wrote the word
correctly with the exception of one letter, an issue of orthography that is character-
istic of children at this level. Children understand the phonetic system of recording
speech and now begin to learn the unique characteristics of orthography specific to
the language that they are learning to write.
Characteristics of Children’s Name Writing
Conceptualizations
As described in the descriptive statistics section of this chapter, the child-
ren’s name writing conceptualizations were classified by Ferreiro and Teberosky’s
(1982) five hierarchical name writing levels. The distribution of the children’s
name writing conceptualizations as a group were also discussed (see Figure 6). In
this section qualitative descriptions of the children’s name writing conceptuali-
107
zations, with examples from the present study, are used to define and highlight the
characteristics of each level.
Name Writing Level One
Level one is described by the following characteristics: (a) conceptual
understanding: global correspondence; and (b) figurative aspects of children’s
written representations of their name.
Conceptual understanding: Global correspondence. Children at level one
interpret their names globally, as an iconic rather than a phonetic representation of
their name. Each part of the written string, as well as the whole, represents the
child’s name. The written string representing the child’s name is read in the same
way, even when parts of it are covered or rearranged. For example, Marina inter-
preted her name as “Marina” even when parts of her name were covered. Ferreiro
and Teberosky (1982) noted an exception: When only one letter is visible, the writ-
ing cannot be read due to the minimum number of characters requirement. But in
the present study Randy and Alberto used one letter—the first letter of the name—
to write and interpret their names. Also, Children in the present study did not
always vary the graphic characters that they used to write their name (Figure 30).
Also, the same written string can represent the different names. For
example, Anne wrote her first name conventionally twice in a row. She interpreted
her first name correctly as “Anne.” The second Anne, however, she read as her last
name, “Cervantes.” Robert wrote a string of letter-like forms to represent his name.
He read it as “Joanie.” When asked whether he had written his name, he said “yes”
and pointed to the same string and read it as “Robert.” Also, the same written string
can be interpreted as the child’s first name or first and last name interchangeably.
108
Figure 30. Edith, name writing level one, December 8, 2000.
Abraham wrote his name conventionally and read it as “Abraham
Fernandez” and as “Abraham.” The written string can also represent the child’s
name as well as a sentence. Marla was asked to write her name and, when asked to
interpret it, she read it as a sentence: “Mi mami tiene un dulce” (My mom has
candy). When asked whether she had written her name, she replied that she had
done so and she read the same written string as “Marla."
Children may use the physical characteristics of the written string to inter-
pret their writing. For example, Aaron used round, letter-like forms to write his
name and he read them as “balloon.” Children also pay attention to the physical
features of the letters that comprise their names. When writing the letter “i” in her
name, Edith described it as “el palo con puntito” (the stick with a dot).
Figurative aspects of children’s written representations of their name.
Children’s own names are influential in the acquisition of written language. The
child’s own name serves as one of the child’s first meaningful models of conven-
tional writing and is often one of the child’s first learned words, or stable written
strings. According to Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982), children at level one are not
109
able to write their names conventionally. If they do make an attempt to write their
names, they use varied letter-like forms or mock letters, adhering to the minimum
number of graphic characters requirement.
Some children in the present study wrote their names conventionally and
others used unconventional letter-like forms or mock letters. Children in the present
study were classified at level one if the interpretation of their name was global,
regardless of the figurative characteristics of the written string. For example, each
time Marina wrote her name during the 8-month period, she interpreted what she
had written globally, reading any visible part of her name as “Marina.” Therefore,
her conceptualization of writing remained global, with no attempt at correspon-
dence between what was written and what was read. The figurative characteristics
of the written representation of her name progressed during the 8 months from
mock letters to a conventional representation.
Although some children in the Argentina study refused to write their names
and were given plastic letters to manipulate, no children in the present study
refused to make an attempt to write their name. Most children made attempts to
write their name in their own way, without soliciting help from the tester or the
environment. However, Jamaica copied the date that was stamped on her paper and
read it as her name (Figure 31). Children may request assistance or copy fixed
forms observed in the environment as a model for their writing.
In summary, children at level one in the present study wrote using scribbles,
mock letters, letter-like forms, pictures, and conventional letters. The children
wrote linearly, with a few exceptions (see Figure 32). Most children consistently
wrote with varied graphic characters; however, occasionally they did not vary their
graphic characters. Also, most of the children in the present study worked from the
110
Figure 31. Jamaica, name writing level one, February 23, 2001.
Figure 32. Edgar, name writing level one, November 2, 2000.
minimum number of characters hypothesis, but some wrote with one character
only: the first letter of their name.
All of the children at this level interpreted their name globally, whether or
not their name was written conventionally. No attempt was made to establish a
111
correspondence between written parts and spoken parts. Children at this level
varied greatly in the figurative representations of their names but they interpreted
their writing in a similar way. It is this interpretation that is of significant import-
ance. Children differ in their ability to represent their names conventionally but
their underlying assumptions or conceptualizations are still global and lack an
understanding of the phonetic nature of the written language system.
Name Writing Level Two
Level two is described by the characteristic of conceptual development of a
search for a correspondence. Children at level two may or may not be able to write
their name conventionally. They begin to search for a correspondence between
what is written and what can be read due to the minimum number of characters
hypothesis. They question why a name must contain this minimum number of
graphic characters and they begin to search for a correspondence. However, this
correspondence is not yet at the level of the syllable or the sound segments of
speech. Although there is no recognition of a sound/symbol correspondence,
children attempt a correspondence between the written string and what is read by
assigning a whole name (such as the first, middle, or last name) to each individual
letter or graphic character. For example, when only two letters of his name were
left uncovered, Ricky read the first letter as his first name and the second letter as
his last name, matching one name per letter.
The children know that the written string represents their name in some
way, and they match a part of the written string with a part of the full name. For
example, Juan Miguel read the written string that he wrote for his name as “Juan
Miguel.” However, when the last part of his name was covered, he read the visible
112
part as “Juan.” When the first part of his name was covered, he read the remaining
visible part as “Miguel.”
Also, when a part of the name is covered, children may claim that it no
longer represents their name. For example, when part of his name was covered,
Alberto told the tester that the remaining visible part did not say his name because
“Lo andas tapando” (You are covering it up.)
Name Writing Level Three
Level three is described by the characteristic of conceptual development of
the syllabic hypothesis. Children at level three may or may not write their names
correctly. The progression from level two to level three is not based on children
writing their names correctly. At this level they begin to search for a correspon-
dence between what is written and what can be read at the level of the syllable,
known as the syllabic hypothesis. Although there is no recognition of a sound/
symbol correspondence, children attempt a correspondence between the written
string and what is read by assigning a syllable to each individual letter or graphic
character.
Children in level three are subdivided into two subcategories: level 3a and
level 3b. Level 3a represents children who use the syllabic hypothesis when only
the first part of the name is visible. When the first part of the name is covered,
leaving the last part visible, the children do not apply the syllabic hypothesis. When
the last part of his name is covered (JO///////), leaving only two letters visible, Jose
pointed to each letter and read each one as a syllable, “Jo . . . sé.” When the first
part of his name was covered (////ose), leaving three letters visible, he read the
written string as “José.” Similarly, when the last part of Rico’s name was covered
113
(Ri/////), he read what was visible as “Ri . . . co,” assigning one syllable to each
visible letter. When the first part of his name was covered (////co), he stated that he
did not know what it said.
Level 3b represents children who are able to apply the syllabic hypothesis
to their name if the first or last part is covered. Maria provided a good example of
level 3b. When the last part of Maria’s name was covered, leaving only three letters
visible, she pointed to each letter and read each one as a syllable, “Ma . .. ri . . . a.”
When the first part of her name was covered, leaving only two letters visible, she
pointed to each letter and read each one as a syllable, “Ma . . . ri.” When the last
part of Ronaldo’s name was covered (Rona////), he pointed to each of the first three
letters and read each one as a syllable, “Ro . . . nal . . . do” There was one letter left
over that he pointed to but he remained silent. When the first part of his name was
covered (/////aldo), he read the last part as one syllable: “Ro.” Children like
Ronaldo know that the written string represents their name in some way and they
match a part of the written string with a part of the name, such as a syllable.
Name Writing Level Four
Level four is described by the characteristic of conceptual development of
the alphabetic hypothesis. Level four is characterized by children who combine
their understanding of the syllabic hypothesis with their emerging understanding of
the alphabetic principle. Children at this level attempt to interpret their name using
correct phonetic values with each corresponding grapheme. When Ernesto was
asked to read his name when the last part was covered (Ern/////), he pointed to the
first two letters and read syllabically, “Er . . . nes.” When he pointed to the N,
however, he read it by its sound /n/. This example demonstrates how children make
114
the transition from a syllabic hypothesis to an alphabetic one. Ernesto applied his
knowledge of sound/symbol relationships.
Name Writing Level Five
Level five is described by the characteristic of conceptual development of
the alphabetic principle. At level five children understand that each phoneme
corresponds to a specific grapheme, or that each unit of speech can be represented
graphically, known as the alphabetic principle. Now that they have broken the
phonetic code, they begin to deal with the orthographic features of written
language. No children in the present study were classified at this level.
Comparison of General Writing Conceptualizations to
Name Writing Conceptualizations: Qualitative
Descriptions
In the descriptive statistics section of this chapter the progression of
children’s general writing (see Figure 7) and name writing (see Figure 8)
conceptualizations over time was highlighted and followed by an examination of
their relationship as a group.
To compare the children’s writing and name writing conceptualizations, the
children were grouped into one of three categories based on their interpretations of
their writing on the general writing tasks and name writing tasks given throughout
the year: (a) global correspondence, (b) syllabic/alphabetic correspondence, and
(c) combination of global and syllabic/alphabetic correspondence. Each is
discussed below.
Global correspondence. Seven children interpreted their writing and their
name writing globally. For example, Marina was classified as level one on the
115
general writing tasks in February/March. She wrote the same written string for each
word but read each one as a different word. Intent determined what could be read as
a characteristic of level one. She was classified at level two on the same tasks given
in June/July. She varied her limited stock of known graphic characters, most from
her name, to create new words. Words must look different to be read differently.
Although Marina’s conceptualizations changed from level one in February/March
to level two in June/July, she still interpreted her writing globally.
Marina’s name writing interpretations were classified at level one through-
out the year. Each part of the name, as well as the whole, represented her name.
Although the figurative aspects of her written representations of her name pro-
gressed from mock letters to conventional representations, her conceptualizations
of her name writing remained global. Like Marina, four other children interpreted
their names globally throughout the year while learning to write their names con-
ventionally. However, two of the children in that group were not able to write their
names conventionally by the end of the preschool year.
Syllabic/alphabetic correspondence. One child interpreted his writing and
his name writing throughout the year beyond the level of global interpretations. He
interpreted his writing and name writing either syllabically or alphabetically. For
example, Rico was classified as level three on general writing tasks in February/
March and in June/July. He interpreted his writing syllabically, establishing a
correspondence between written and spoken words. Rico’s name writing interpreta-
tions were also classified at level three throughout the year. However, in June he
interpreted his name alphabetically, and this interpretation was classified at level
four. Rico wrote his name conventionally throughout the year.
116
Combination of global and syllabic/alphabetic correspondences. Ferreiro
and Teberosky (1982) reported that children may move beyond global correspon-
dences when interpreting their name writing while maintaining global understand-
ing of their writing in general. Like the children in their study, many children in the
present study moved conceptually toward a speech/print match in name writing
prior to general writing, although there were exceptions. The present study identi-
fied the following patterns of change in the children’s conceptualizations of their
writing and name writing throughout the study: (a) progression to syllabic/alpha-
betic correspondences in name writing only, (b) progression to or maintenance of
syllabic/alphabetic correspondences in general writing and name writing,
(c) regression from syllabic/alphabetic correspondences to global ones.
Regarding progression to syllabic/alphabetic correspondences in name
writing only, 20 children advanced to a syllabic/alphabetic correspondence in name
writing while maintaining global interpretations in general writing. For example,
Maria was classified at level two on the general writing tasks given in February/
March and in June/July because of her global interpretations of her writing. How-
ever, on the name writing tasks she interpreted her name globally in November and
December and syllabically from January through June. Eleven of the children in
this group followed this pattern: global correspondences on both general writing
sessions as well as on the first few months of the name writing tasks with a transi-
tion to syllabic/alphabetic correspondences for the remainder of the year.
Nine children demonstrated more fluctuations in their name writing inter-
pretations from month to month, changing from global interpretations to syllabic/
alphabetic hypotheses and back to global ones. For example, Jameson interpreted
his name globally in November and syllabically in December. He returned to a
117
global correspondence for 3 months, returning to a syllabic correspondence in
April. However, in May and June he returned to a global interpretation. Along with
two other children, he was able to write his name correctly with only one letter
reversed. Fifteen other children wrote their names conventionally. Two children
were unable to write their names correctly.
Regarding progression to or maintenance of syllabic/alphabetic corre-
spondences in general writing and name writing, some children advanced to or
maintained a syllabic/alphabetic correspondence in name writing as well as in
general writing. A total of 14 children were grouped in this category. Four children
interpreted their writing syllabically/alphabetically on the general writing tasks in
both February/March and June/July. Their name writing conceptualizations pro-
gressed from a global correspondence to a syllabic/alphabetic one at the time of or
prior to the general writing tasks given in February/March.
Ten children progressed from global correspondences on the general writing
tasks given in February/March to syllabic/alphabetic correspondences on those
given in June/July. Nine of these 10 children also progressed to syllabic/alphabetic
correspondences from global ones on the name writing tasks, while one child
interpreted her name syllabically on all name writing tasks. These 10 children all
began interpreting their names syllabically/alphabetically prior to interpreting their
general writing syllabically/alphabetically. They interpreted their names
syllabically from 2 to 7 months prior to interpreting their general writing
syllabically/ alphabetically.
Like Jameson in the previous section, 4 children regressed to global
correspondences and then reverted to syllabic/alphabetic ones in subsequent
months. Although children in this group interpreted their names at a higher level
118
conceptually than those at a global level, not all of them were able to write their
names conventionally by the end of their preschool year. Eleven children wrote
their names correctly by June, 3 of whom reversed one letter in their names. Three
children in this group were unable to write their names conventionally.
Regarding regression from syllabic/alphabetic correspondences to global
ones, 2 children regressed from a syllabic/alphabetic correspondence on the
February/March general writing tasks to a global correspondence on the June/July
general writing tasks. Both Anne and Deirdre were classified at level three on the
February/March general writing tasks and then at level two on the June/July
general writing tasks. Anne demonstrated a global correspondence on all name
writing tasks. Deirdre, in contrast, interpreted her name globally until the time of
the general writing tasks given in February/March, when she began to interpret her
name syllabically. She regressed in name writing as well, interpreting her name
globally in May. By June, both girls were writing their names conventionally.
Summary
The present study of predominantly Spanish-speaking children who partici-
pated in an early literacy intervention and were in the process of learning English
confirms and expands the work of Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982). In both studies
a Piagetian methodology was used to examine children’s emergent writing pro-
ductions. Many of the developmental conceptualizations that Ferreiro and
Teberosky identified in Spanish-speaking Latino children from Argentina were
found in United States sample.
119
In summary, the present study found the following:
1. Children’s written language development as a representational system is
characterized by varying levels of conceptual development.
2. Children’s written language development involves movement between
levels and may occur first in name writing.
3. Figurative aspects of children’s writing are not good indicators of
children’s conceptual development of writing as a representational system.
4. Considerable variation occurs in children’s written conceptualizations
from one level to the next, as well as within each level, with more variation
observed at lower levels of conceptualization.
120
CHAPTER 5
COMPARISONS, INSIGHTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The specific purpose of this study was to explore, through the use of
Piagetian-inspired clinical interviews, the developmental writing progressions of
Spanish-speaking Latino preschoolers who participated in an early literacy inter-
vention. In this chapter, young children’s written language conceptualizations from
the present study are discussed in comparison with those from Ferreiro and
Teberosky’s (1982) classic study. Subsequently, interpretations of the findings
from the present study identify theoretical implications, methodological considera-
tions, and recommendations for instruction that contribute to the understanding of
young children’s written language development.
A Psychogenetic Theory of Written Language:
Young Children’s Written Language
Conceptualizations
To elaborate understanding of psychogenetic theory as it pertains to written
language, the present study, like the Argentine study conducted by Ferreiro and
Teberosky (1982), “attempted to discover the initial forms of written language
knowledge and the accompanying conceptualization processes” (p. 263). Conse-
quently, three research questions were generated to examine (a) the nature of
Spanish-speaking preschoolers’ written language conceptualizations when exposed
to a literacy-rich environment, (b) the nature of their name writing development,
and (c) the relationship between this name writing development and the children’s
writing as a representational system. The first two questions are addressed first,
comparing the general and name writing results in the present study with those
from the Argentine study. This is followed by a discussion of the third research
121
question, which addresses the relationship of children’s writing to their name
writing.
Comparison of the Patterns of Distribution Between the
Argentine and Los Angeles Samples
In Chapter 4 the children’s interpretations of their own writing and name
writing were categorized into one of five hierarchical levels identified by Ferreiro
and Teberosky (1982). The pattern of distribution of the children’s writing levels
was presented. Subsequently, the characteristics of each level were described using
qualitative descriptions and writing samples from the present study, highlighting
similarities and differences between the Argentine and Los Angeles samples. In
contrast to the Argentine sample, all of the children in this study attended preschool
and participated in an emergent literacy program. Therefore, in addressing the first
two research questions, this section compares the patterns of distribution of the
Argentine children’s writing and name writing conceptualizations with those from
the Los Angeles sample.
Question 1 asked, What do children’s interpretations of their own writing
reveal about the nature of their written language development when they are
exposed to a literacy rich environment?
With regard to the general writing tasks, the lower-class 4-year-olds in the
Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) study were mostly classified at level one. More than
half of the middle-class 4-year-olds and the majority of the middle-class 5-year-
olds were classified at level two. Also, more than half of the lower-class 5-year-
olds in the Ferreiro and Teberosky study were classified at level two. The only
children to be classified at levels four and five were from the middle class. Ferreiro
and Teberosky attributed differences to the lower-class children’s lack of access to
122
preschool programs, while the middle-class parents had the ability to provide their
children with high-quality early childhood education. In the present study, the 4-
year-old children were immersed in a variety of reading and writing activities as
part of early literacy intervention.
In the following sections the general writing conceptualizations of the 4-
and 5-year-old lower- and middle-class Argentine children are compared to those
of the 4-year-old children from the Los Angeles study. First, the Los Angeles
children’s writing conceptualizations from the February/March general writing
tasks are compared to the writing of the Argentine lower- and middle-class 4-year-
olds. Then, the Los Angeles children’s writing conceptualizations are compared to
those of the Argentine lower- and middle-class 5-year-olds.
Figure 33 compares the distribution of the children from Los Angeles with
that of the lower- and middle-class 4-year-olds from Argentina. As shown in Figure
33, the children in the present study were classified at levels similar to the lower-
and middle-class 4-year-olds on the February/March 2001 general writing tasks.
Approximately half of the children in the present study were at level one, one third
at level two, and one sixth at level three.
Figure 34 compares the distribution of the children from Los Angeles with
that of the lower- and middle-class 5-year-olds from Argentina. On the June/July
2001 general writing tasks the children in the present study were classified at levels
similar to those of the lower- and middle-class 5-year-olds. More than half of the
children in the present study were at level two, one third at level three, and the rest
divided between levels one and four. No 5-year-olds in the Argentine sample were
classified at level four. Although 5-year-olds in the Argentina study were classified
at level five, no children in the present study were classified at level five.
123
48%
36%
16%
0% 0%
56%
31%
6% 6%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Levels of General Writing
Percentage of Children
LA Feb/Mar 2001
Argentina MC/LC 4s
Figure 33. Comparison of general writing levels of middle- and lower-class 4-year-
olds in the Argentina study with general writing levels of 4-year-olds in the Los
Angeles study.
Approximately 16% more children in the present study moved beyond global inter-
pretations of their writing and were classified at the higher levels of conceptualiza-
tions associated with levels three, four, and five than were the Argentine 5-year-
olds.
On the general writing tasks given in February/March the patterns of distri-
bution were similar to the distribution of 4-year-old children in the Argentine
sample. By the end of their preschool year, however, after having participated in an
early literacy intervention, the patterns of distribution from the June/July general
writing tasks more closely resembled those of the 5-year-old children in the
Argentine sample.
124
57%
27%
7%
0%
18%
64%
9%
0%
9% 9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Levels of General Writing
Percentage of Children
LA Jun/Jul 2001
Argentina MC/LC 5s
Figure 34. Comparison of general writing levels of middle- and lower-class 5-year-
olds in the Argentina study with general writing levels of 4-year-olds in the Los
Angeles study.
The similarities between the two samples confirm and the differences
clarify and expand the psychogenesis of written language as a developmental
process, while emphasizing the influence and importance of early childhood
literacy programs.
Question 2 asked, What do children’s interpretations of their name writing
reveal about the nature of their written language development when participating
in an emergent literacy program?
Similar to the previous section, the purpose of this section is to identify and
compare the patterns of distribution between the Argentine children’s name writing
conceptualizations and those from the Los Angeles sample.
125
By June 2001, 44 of the 55 children in the present study (80%) wrote their
names conventionally on at least one of the name writing tasks. Almost half (43%),
of the lower- and middle-class 4- and 5-year-olds in the Argentine study wrote their
names conventionally. Ten percent of the Argentine 4-year-olds and 69% of the
Argentine 5-year-olds wrote their names conventionally. Children in the present
study had numbers of children who wrote their names conventionally more similar
to those of the Argentine 5-year-olds than the Argentine 4-year-olds.
The name writing interpretations of the Los Angeles 4-year-old children on
the June 2001 name writing tasks were compared to those of the Argentine middle-
and lower-class 4- and 5-year-olds. Sixty-one percent of the 4-year-old children in
the Los Angeles sample moved beyond global interpretations, compared to 24% of
the Argentine 4-year-olds and 69% of the Argentine 5-year-olds. The children in
the Los Angeles sample interpreted their names at similar levels of conceptualiza-
tion as the Argentine 5-year-olds, while at higher levels of conceptualization than
their same-age counterparts (Figure 35).
Question 3 asked, What is the relationship between children’s name writing
conceptualizations and their written language development?
This section identifies and compares the relationship of children’s general
and name writing conceptualizations. In the present study, as shown in Figures 34
and 35, 34% of the children interpreted their writing on the June general writing
tasks beyond a global interpretation, as did 61% on the June name writing tasks.
This indicates that 27% more children interpreted their writing beyond a global
correspondence on the name writing tasks than on the general writing tasks. As
noted in the Argentine study by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) and as shown in the
126
Figure 35. Comparison of name writing levels of children in the Argentine and Los
Angeles studies.
present study, many children attain higher levels of conceptualizations in name
writing prior to applying this knowledge to their writing in general.
The Psychogenesis of Written Language:
Theoretical Implications
Evidence found in the present study supports the hypothesis that written
language acquisition as a psychogenetic process is observable as children’s con-
ceptualizations develop over time through a complex process of constructing and
reconstructing their own hypotheses about written language prior to understanding
it in a conventional sense. From the evidence found in this study, the following
insights and understandings about written language development can be inferred
from the conceptual changes in young children’s writing interpretations over time.
127
1. The psychogenesis of written language as a developmental process
follows an observable path that is influenced by children’s social environments.
2. Considerable variations in children’s written language interpretations
occur at each level of conceptualization, with more variation occurring at lower
levels of conceptualization.
3. The psychogenesis of written language follows a developmental
trajectory toward phoneme awareness that is neither linear nor accretive.
4. Observation alone of the figurative characteristics of young children’s
graphic markings does not uncover their written language conceptualizations.
These insights are discussed in detail in the following sections.
The Sociopsychogenesis of Written Language
as a Developmental Process
The findings of the present study confirm and clarify the psychogenetic
patterns of development in young children’s written language conceptualizations
identified by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) in their landmark study of young
children’s writing in Argentina. The distribution of the Los Angeles children’s
writing conceptualizations on the February/March general writing tasks was similar
to that of the Argentine 4-year-olds, whereas the distribution on the June/July
general and June name writing tasks was similar to that of the Argentine 5-year-
olds.
Although the developmental processes of the Los Angeles children’s
written language conceptualizations followed a similar path of development as the
Argentine sample over time, the progression of their development was accelerated
by their immersion in an early literacy program. As “knowledge is constructed
through interaction between the knowing subject and the object to be known,”
128
(Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982, p. 24), exposure to a wide variety of opportunities
and experiences with this object of knowledge (in this case writing) is vital to
young children’s written language development (Harste, Woodward, & Burke,
1984).
Although separated by thousands of miles and several decades, the two
samples revealed similar developmental patterns and written language conceptual-
izations in young children’s written language acquisition over time and underscore
the importance of their learning environments. As shown in this study, the develop-
mental path of the written language acquisition of children in the present study
followed patterns similar to the development in the Argentine sample. With regard
to the psychological evolution of the writing system, similar patterns of develop-
ment in children’s written language conceptualizations are verified in other studies
(Yaden & Tardibuono, 2004), including those of other languages, such as Chinese
(Chan & Nunes, 2001), German (Bauer, 2004), Hebrew (Tolchinsky Landsmann,
1990), and French (Besse, 1996).
Although the psychological evolution of the writing system follows similar
paths of development, variations in children’s interpretations of their writing exist.
These variations clarify and expand understanding of children’s written language
conceptualizations at each level. These variations may result from participation in
early literacy programs, such as the one described in this study. The children in this
study had increased opportunities and multiple experiences with the writing system.
The following section highlights an example of the variations between the
Argentine and Los Angeles samples.
129
Variations in Children’s Written Language
Interpretations
From a sociopsychogenetic perspective, children construct their own hypo-
theses about written language, and these hypotheses develop and change over time
as the result of the children’s own intellectual activity and cultural and social trans-
missions from adults, peers, and their environment (Goodman, 1990). As in the
Argentine study, the present study found that all of the children conceptualized
written language in some way. Many did so unconventionally. Children whose con-
ceptualizations were closer to conventional understandings tended to demonstrate
less variation in their understandings of written language, whereas children whose
conceptualizations were less conventional tended to show a wider range of varia-
tion. Therefore, as children’s understandings of written language moved to higher
levels of conceptualizations, the variation in their response types tended to
decrease.
The children’s interpretations of their writing in the present study, whether
at a higher or lower level of conceptualization, resembled those of the Argentine
sample, even though there were differences. For example, although a great deal of
similar variations in response types was evident at level one in both the Argentine
and Los Angeles samples, different response types between the samples were also
apparent. Focusing on level one, the following section highlights similarities and
differences in the quantity and arrangement of graphic characters between the two
samples.
Comparisons Between the Argentine
and Los Angeles Samples
According to Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982), “Children at this level [level
one] seem to work from the hypothesis that a certain number of characters—and
130
always the same number—are needed to write something” (p. 188). They provided
an example of a child who always used three graphic characters in a varied order to
represent each distinct word and another example of a child who always used four
varied graphic characters. One child alternated between four and five characters.
The authors claimed that “these three or four graphic characters vary among
themselves [with] at most two similar characters appear[ing] in the same string”
(p. 188). They indicated that they found a couple of exceptions to the following two
hypotheses: variation and constant number of characters. These exceptions are
discussed following examples from the present study that highlight similarities in
the findings of their study. Subsequently, a summary of findings from the present
study that differ from those in the Argentina study is presented.
Similarities Between the Argentina
and Los Angeles Studies
Constant and varied. Graphic forms imitating the print model were varied
and the number was constant. Yolanda (Figure 17) and Alfred (Figure 11), like the
children classified by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) as level one, imitated a print
model. They both varied the graphic characters within each word and from word to
word, while the number of characters remained fairly constant or similar.
Exceptions to constant number and variation. Ferreiro and Teberosky
(1982) observed exceptions to the children’s hypotheses that different words are
written with a constant number and that those graphic characters must be varied.
These exceptions with examples from the present study are as follows:
1. Variation in the number of graphic characters. As writing does not serve
as a vehicle of communication and is dependent on the intention of the writer, it
131
may reflect a figurative correspondence with the object to be represented. There-
fore, the writing reflects a physical attribute of the object, which may result in a
variation in the constant number of graphic characters. For example, Cynthia wrote
pato and stated that it is “largo, porque un pato es largo” (long because a duck is
long). Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) found that children may write bigger objects
with bigger or longer strings of graphic characters. Like children in the Argentine
study at this level, Jameson wrote the name of his mother and the name of his
father much longer than the other words. Daisy, too, wrote mamá and papá longer
than all of the other words.
2. Loss of variation due to fatigue. Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) stated
that the variation of graphic characters within words and from word to word may
disappear if the child is experiencing fatigue toward the end of the writing tasks.
Aaron began the writing task using varied graphic characters. Later, the variation
within the word disappeared but remained from word to word. The variation from
word to word also disappeared, as did the more conventional-looking letters and
letter-like forms. Jameson simply refused to write after the fifth word, claiming that
he did not know how to write the dictated word, and he requested to return to class.
Differences Between the Argentina
and Los Angeles Studies
Although many children demonstrated the characteristics of the hypotheses
that words consist of a constant number and variation of graphic forms, as
described in Ferreiro and Teberosky’s (1982) study and discussed in the previous
section, the present study found that many participating children approached the
task of writing working from the following hypotheses: Words consist of graphic
132
characters that are (a) varied but not constant, (b) constant but not varied, or (c)
varied from word to word but not varied within each word.
1. Varied, but not constant: Graphic forms imitating the print model were
varied, but the number was not constant. As mentioned earlier, the children in
Ferreiro and Teberosky’s (1982) study at this level used a constant number of
characters from word to word. One child used only three characters, another used
only four, and another used four to five characters to represent each word. How-
ever, the children in the present study used a varied number of graphic characters,
as well as a variety of these characters, from word to word. For example, Cynthia
used three graphic characters for two words and the sentence, four for two words,
five for three words, six for one word, and seven for one word. Cynthia was able to
write her name, and it consisted of seven letters. The graphic characters consisted
of many conventional letters and many mock letters. There were no more than two
letter-like forms per word, although many of those forms were used from word to
word. This degree of variation was similar to that described by Ferreiro and
Teberosky, although the number was not constant.
Lizette used more conventional letters but many were not fully developed,
or recognizable as conventional. The number of graphic characters from word to
word varied from four to nine. There was no correlation between size of object and
length of string. Also, the length of the utterance was not reflected in the length of
the string. The sentence consisted of eight graphics but the short word mapa had
the most letters: nine. There was variation but the number was not constant.
Victoria began writing two words with nine graphic forms each, then
decreased the number to six on the next word, then five, followed by two words
133
consisting of four graphic forms each. Each string included a mark that resembled a
period. She asked for a second sheet of paper and wrote the first word with five
characters. The following word was written on two lines and consisted of seven
graphic characters. The last two words and the sentence were written with approxi-
mately three mock letters each. There was no consistent number of characters from
word to word.
Page boundaries. Dora also worked from the hypothesis that writing con-
sists of linear strings of dissimilar appearing graphic forms that not only vary with
each word/sentence but also from word to word. Each word was visually similar in
length, although the number of graphic characters from word to word ranged from
5 to 16. The physical limit of space on the page provided the boundary for her
writing.
Sidnia, too, used the boundary of the page as the indicator of where writing
should begin and end. The size of the word was dependent on the size, or width, of
the paper, with a listing of each word beginning on one side and continuing
horizontally on an imaginary line until the writing reached the other side of the
page and there was no more room to write. Therefore, the children operated from
the hypotheses that words/sentences consist of varied graphic characters but the
number of characters used may be determined by such factors as page size, as was
evident in this study.
Both Dora and Sidnia used a variety of graphic characters within each word
and from word to word. However, they used the same graphic characters more than
twice in each word, which differs from Ferreiro and Teberosky’s (1982) finding
that the children use varied graphic characters and that there were no more than two
134
of the same graphic form in a written string. Dora used the same graphic character
up to five or six times in a written string. Sidnia’s writing also included many
similar-looking graphic forms that she repeated many times within each word.
2. Constant, but not varied: Graphic forms imitating the print model were
not varied but the number was constant. The number of graphic forms that the
children produced from word to word was constant but the graphic forms were not
varied. Edgar wrote his name conventionally. When asked to write the other words
and the sentence, he wrote Edgar each time. He used the same number of letters in
the same order. His intent to write different words is what makes them say some-
thing different, even if the visual aspects of the word are the same. In Ferreiro and
Teberosky’s (1982) study, children who learn to write following the cursive model
produced written strings that looked visually similar yet represented distinct words.
Although we had no examples of children’s writing that was modeled after the
cursive model, Edgar’s writing sample most closely resembled the hypothesis that
similar written strings may represent different things if that is the intent of the
writer.
Jamaica also wrote using the same number of distinct graphic characters to
represent different words. Jamaica wrote her name using many of the letters that are
in her name but she did not write them in the correct order. She wrote each
additional word and the sentence in exactly the same way. The letters in each word
were varied but they were not varied from word to word. These two examples
illustrate children using the letters that they know, namely those from their name, to
write new words. However, the children did not use their known letters in a varied
order to create new words. They used their known letters in the same order to write
135
new words, indicating their understanding that it is the intent of the writer and not
the visual differences of the print that dictates the word’s meaning.
Marina wrote her name correctly. She wrote the first three letters of
Anastasia, her mother’s name. She then wrote all of the other words and the
sentence with the same letters that she used for her mother’s name in the exact
same order. Every word was written as Ana, but when she was asked to read them,
she read them as the different words that she had been asked to write. Marina
indicated that her understanding of writing was that her name is written differently
from the other words but all of the other words may look alike if the intent when
writing was different and therefore, interpretable differently.
3. Not varied within the word, but varied from word to word: Graphic forms
imitating the print model were varied and the number was constant. Aaron varied
the letters in his name and produced similarly-looking, yet varied graphic forms to
represent his mother’s name. When writing his father’s name and the words mamá
and papá, the variation within the word disappeared but remained from word to
word. When writing the remaining five words and the sentence, the variation from
word to word disappeared, as did the more conventional-looking letters and letter-
like forms. The lack of variation toward the end of the tasks may have been due to
fatigue, as mentioned earlier. At the beginning of the tasks, Aaron seemed to work
from the hypothesis that the graphic characters are varied from word to word in
order to create new words but that the graphic forms within each word need not be
varied.
Considerable variation occurred in the children’s interpretations of their
writing, even at a particular level, such as the one demonstrated in this section.
136
Variation also occurred from one level of conceptualization to the next, including
children whose developmental path toward the phonetization of speech included
regressions, progressions, multilevel hypotheses, and/or precursory hypotheses. In
the next section the complexity of the psychological evolution of the writing
system is discussed.
The Developmental Trajectory of Children’s
Written Language Conceptualizations
The present study, like the Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) and Yaden and
Tardibuono (2004) studies,
has been able to identify different types of conceptualizations that children
reveal in learning to write, adjacent conceptualizations overlap and exist
simultaneously, have their own pace of development, and incorporate a
wide range of inputs on the way to a conventional view of the written
language system. (Yaden & Tardibuono, 2004, p. 55)
For example, although many children in the present study conceptualized their
writing and name writing according to one of the five successive hierarchical levels
identified by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) and progressed conceptually to higher
levels, others did not do so. These children maintained similar conceptualizations,
regressed to lower levels, or worked with hypotheses consistent with more than one
level simultaneously.
Similar to Yaden and Tardibuono (2004), the present study verifies that
“literacy growth does not proceed in a systematic manner, nor does it move for-
ward uniformly upon all fronts” (p. 55). This path of written language develop-
ment, as shown in the present study, corroborates Vygotsky’s (1931/1997)
contention that
as in the history of the cultural development of the child, we frequently
encounter characteristics of spasmodic changes and disruptions or breaks in
the line of development. The line of development of written language in the
137
child sometimes stops almost completely, then suddenly, as if completely
out of nowhere, from outside, a new line begins and at first glance it seems
that between the broken-off past and the beginning new, there is absolutely
no continuous connection. But only a naïve representation of development
as a purely evolutionary process accomplished exclusively by gradual
accumulation of separate small changes, an unnoticeable transition of one
form into another, can conceal from our eyes the true essence of the pro-
cesses that are occurring. Only someone who is inclined to imagine all
processes of development as processes of germination will deny that the
history of written language in the child is fully entitled to be represented by
a single line of development regardless of the breaks, dying off, and meta-
morphoses. (p. 132)
When writing, children often exhibit different behaviors and hypotheses
representative of more than one conceptualization due to factors such as perceived
task difficulty (Sulzby, 1985), what they believe is expected of them (Hayes, 1996),
or fatigue (Ferreiro and Teberosky, 1982). Learning occurs gradually, although
sometimes abruptly, over time. As children’s conceptualizations of written
language move forward on a developmental trajectory toward adult-like under-
standing and conventional representations, the progressions ebb and flow along a
nonlinear path that is similar but not identical. Consequently, the following section
identifies several transitional writing levels, focusing on multilevel and precursory
hypotheses that clarify and expand understandings of the developmental trajectory
of young children’s written language conceptualizations.
Transitional Writing Conceptualizations
Children in the present study were classified at one of the five general
writing levels according to how they responded on the majority of the writing tasks.
Children who predominantly interpreted their writing globally were classified at
levels one and two, and those who primarily used the syllabic and alphabetic hypo-
theses were classified at levels three and four. From a psychogenetic perspective,
each category of response on the general and name writing tasks was considered
138
interpretable. For example, when approaching the task of writing, some children
demonstrated multilevel hypotheses, or hypotheses consistent with written
language conceptualizations representative of more than one level. Some children
displayed written language conceptualizations consistent with one particular level
while simultaneously demonstrating behaviors that may represent newly forming
hypotheses of higher levels of conceptualization. These precursory hypotheses may
indicate that change in conceptualizations is occurring. The most representative
examples from the present study that identified children’s multilevel hypotheses are
highlighted, followed by a presentation of children’s precursory hypotheses.
Transitional Writing Conceptual-
izations: Multilevel Hypotheses
The focus of this section is children’s multilevel hypotheses. For example,
Aaron was classified as level one because he interpreted the majority of his writing
globally. When asked to write the word oso, he wrote two capital letter A’s, one for
each of the two syllables. He syllabicated orally as he wrote, “o . . . so.” When
asked to interpret his written representation of the word oso, he pointed once to
each letter, reading one syllable per letter, as is consistent with the syllabic
hypothesis. Although Aaron used the syllabic hypothesis on one word, he inter-
preted his writing globally on all other general writing and name writing tasks.
On the February/March general writing task Nancy also interpreted her
written representation of the word oso, working from the syllabic hypothesis, while
interpreting the rest of her writing globally. On the June general writing tasks and
several name writing tasks she was classified at level three as she searched for a
correspondence between her writing and the syllables of the words. Children may
be experimenting with new hypotheses of the written language system while work-
139
ing with earlier developed conceptualizations. The use of the syllabic hypothesis on
one word while all other words are interpreted globally may serve as an indicator of
children’s development of more advanced understandings.
Some children may have more advanced conceptualizations of writing
while still working from previously used hypotheses, such as the minimum number
of varied graphic characters or the syllabic hypothesis. Katie demonstrated writing
behaviors consistent with levels two, three, four and five on the general writing
tasks given in June. She wrote her name and the words mamá, papá, and oso con-
ventionally. These are commonly taught words in beginning writing and may have
been learned by memory as stable strings. When asked to write her father’s name,
the sentence, and the words nene and sapo, she wrote strings of varied conventional
letters, characteristic of level two.
It is interesting that Katie wrote the word mapa conventionally, recording
each phoneme with its corresponding grapheme. This word is not commonly taught
in beginning writing, and Katie recorded the graphemes phonetically using her
knowledge of alphabetic principles. When she was asked to write pato, she wrote
two letters: P O. She interpreted it globally, not pointing to either letter or orally
syllabicating. She may have used the syllabic hypothesis of one letter per syllable
but she did not demonstrate this knowledge when writing or reading what she had
written. The researcher asked her to write the word pato again. She correctly
recorded each phoneme with its corresponding grapheme but she added an extra
letter to the end of her written string: PATOL.
To clarify Katie’s conceptualizations, the researcher asked Katie to write
several additional words: sol (sun), conejo (rabbit), pescado (fish), silla (chair). She
used stable sound values consistent with the syllabic hypothesis to write the words
140
conejo (KEO) and silla (sa). She wrote one letter per syllable and each letter
corresponded correctly with a sound from that syllable. Recording stable sound
values, one correct representation of a sound present in the syllable, is characteristic
of level three and the syllabic hypothesis. However, when asked to write sol, she
correctly recorded one grapheme for each phoneme present in the word, consistent
with the alphabetic principles of levels four and five.
Another example of Katie moving beyond the syllabic hypothesis occurred
when she wrote the word pescado. Katie initially wrote PKDO, one letter per
syllable for the first two syllables of the word. However, for the third syllable she
moved beyond the syllabic hypothesis and recorded one grapheme for each of the
two phonemes present in the third syllable. When she read back her written repre-
sentation of the word pescado, she determined that something was missing and she
began to sound out the word again. She added kao, analyzing the second syllable of
the word ca beyond the level of the syllable, recording one grapheme for each
phoneme. She added an O for the third syllable of the word, do.
Katie was moving from the syllabic hypothesis to an alphabetic one as she
began to search for a correspondence beyond the level of the syllable to the level of
the phoneme. Katie represents how children may demonstrate different written
language conceptualizations on different writing tasks. In summary, children may
use a variety of hypotheses when approaching the task of writing, depending on
their understanding of the task, its perceived difficulty, or what they believe is
expected of them.
141
Transitional Writing Conceptual-
izations: Precursory Hypotheses
The children’s general writing interpretations were categorized at one of
five hierarchical general writing levels. The behaviors that the children exhibited at
each of these levels were described in detail. As noted in the previous section, some
children exhibited written language conceptualizations from more than one of these
levels. However, some children interpreted their writing working with hypotheses
indicative of one particular level but exhibited behaviors that may represent newly
forming hypotheses that are similar to but not quite representative of the hypo-
theses of other levels. These precursory hypotheses may indicate that change in
conceptualizations is occurring. This section elucidates children’s precursory
hypotheses.
Precursor to general writing level two. Children at both levels one and two
interpret their writing globally. Children at both of these levels write using a variety
of graphic characters; however, children at level two use more conventional-
looking letters, whereas children at level one scribble, draw pictures, or write mock
letters. Cynthia wrote with a combination of mock letters and conventional forms.
Cynthia’s writing represents children who are at level one yet are demonstrating
developing hypotheses representative of level two.
Precursors to general writing level three. Children at level two work with
the hypothesis that different words must be represented by a minimum number of
varied characters. Children at this level represent words with a minimum of three
letters to render a word readable. When children make the transition to level three,
they may write using less than this minimum number of three letters when writing
one letter per syllable on two syllable words. In the present study, some children
142
wrote using less than this minimum number of varied characters, yet when inter-
preting their writing, they did so globally. For example, Erin wrote the words and
sentences with a combination of mock and conventional letters. Most of the words
were written with only two graphic forms, yet Erin interpreted her writing globally.
Erin interpreted her writing working with the syllabic hypothesis on the
June/July general writing tasks. This may indicate that Erin worked with a pre-
cursory syllabic hypothesis on the February/March general writing tasks that were
internalized. Children like Erin may not verbalize their use of the syllabic hypo-
thesis when they are writing, although they may be working from it. Then when
reading or interpreting their writing, they do so globally, having abandoned the
need for the syllabic hypothesis or not being able to use it in reading as they did in
writing.
Some children syllabicate orally when interpreting their writing but they
interpret their writing globally with no phonetic correspondence. Jonathan, for
example, wrote strings of mock letters to represent each word and he read them by
syllabicating orally. For example, he wrote a string of letter-like forms for the word
nene and read it back as ne . . . ne, pointing to the whole word when he read, not
establishing any type of correspondence between parts of the writing and parts of
the spoken word. Jonathan’s conceptualizations, like Erin’s, moved beyond a
global interpretation on the June/July general writing tasks, where he worked with
the syllabic hypothesis and therefore more advanced levels of conceptualizations.
Precursors to general writing levels four and five. Children making the
transition from a syllabic hypothesis to an alphabetic one begin to analyze their
writing beyond the level of the syllable. They search for a correspondence between
143
smaller units of sound, namely the phoneme, and their writing. When making this
transition, some children may experience difficulties.
For example, on the June/July general writing tasks Edith was categorized
at level three because she worked with the syllabic hypothesis. She recorded stable
and unstable sound values for the syllables. For instance, when asked to write papá,
she wrote her father’s name the same as she had when asked to write her father’s
name. She read it as her father’s name and not as the word papá. She was asked to
write the word papá again. She wrote a couple of random letters and then said, “¡la
pa! ¿Cuál es la pa? /p/, /p/, /p/…¡La P!” (English pronunciation of the letter P)
[Which letter is the /pa/? /p/, /p/, /p/, . . . the letter P!] and she wrote several letters
P’s. When writing the word sapo she stated, “¡la sa!” but instead of writing a stable
sound value for the syllable, she recorded the letter P. She then added several more
P’s to meet the minimum number of characters requirement described in level two.
When writing the word nene, she responded, “¿Cuál letra?, /n/, la N (English
pronunciation of the letter N), ¿Cuál es la /en/?” (Which letter? /n/, The letter n.
Which one is the n?). She wrote a string of the letter P. She isolated the individual
phoneme but was unable to identify which grapheme corresponded with that
phoneme.
When writing papá and sapo, Edith attempted to match stable sound values
to the sounds that she heard in each syllable, a characteristic of level three. How-
ever, for the word nene she moved beyond the syllable and searched for a corre-
spondence between the phoneme that she had isolated and its corresponding
grapheme, a characteristic of level four.
Before moving on to the alphabetic hypothesis and the alphabetic principle,
children learn graphemes and their corresponding phonemes. Children may be at
144
higher levels of conceptualizations, such as Edith or Katie (see general writing
level five) but not be able to record the individual phonemes graphically that they
are able to isolate orally. Children at this level are beginning to understand the
phonetic code of written language but have not yet learned the necessary informa-
tion to access it. Children at this level may benefit from instruction in sound/
symbol correspondence.
In summary, these newly forming, or precursory, hypotheses may indicate
forthcoming changes in children’s conceptualizations of writing from a lower level
of conceptualization to a higher level. These behaviors may be indicative of
transitional movement, or stages, between levels.
A Systemic View of Written Language
Development
According to Sulzby (1985), children’s writing behaviors are not classified
as sequential, hierarchical levels but rather as sequences or categories of behaviors
that may vary from task to task. For example, children may use less taxing writing
behaviors as the difficulty of the writing task increases - a feature of
microdevelopmental theory. In the transitional levels described in this section,
children vary their writing behaviors. This indicates their use of hypotheses
representative of more than one level of conceptualization. As children progress
from one level to the next, they may maintain previously formed hypotheses while
experimenting with new ones.
As shown in the present study, children employ flexible writing strategies
that may include regressions, or backward transitions, to lower levels of conceptu-
alizations as well as progressions, or precursory hypotheses, that may indicate
transitions to higher levels of conceptualizations. These overlapping multilevel and
145
precursory hypotheses represent the complexity of the writing system as a develop-
mental trajectory of written language conceptualizations that moves nonlinearly
toward conventional understanding of writing as a representational system.
Graphic Representations Versus Written
Language Conceptualizations
The findings in the present study substantiate previous conclusions drawn
by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) regarding the psychogenetic progressions in the
written language development of young children and emphasize the necessity of
alternative assessments in measuring children’s knowledge and understandings of
the writing system that do not rely primarily on the figurative aspects or graphic
features of children’s writing attempts. For instance, many children who interpreted
their writing globally wrote conventional letters, some high frequency words, and
even their names correctly. These children were more advanced in the area of letter
production, handwriting skills, copying and producing memorized words. In con-
trast, some children in the present study interpreted their writing syllabically but
did not necessarily use conventional-appearing letters. These children demonstrated
a clearer understanding of writing as a representational system and were therefore
more advanced conceptually. This was also seen in name writing.
For example, more than three quarters of the children in the present study
wrote their names conventionally on at least one of the name writing tasks
throughout the 8-month study. However, many children interpreted their names
syllabically/alphabetically prior to writing their names correctly. Also, many
children who did write their names correctly analyzed their names at lower levels
of conceptualizations. Although children moved toward conventional representa-
tions as well as conventional understandings of their names throughout the year,
146
one was not a prerequisite for the other. Children’s conceptualizations fluctuated
between more and less conventional understandings, as did their graphic repre-
sentations, although not necessarily concurrently. Therefore, in assessing children’s
early writing ability, it is essential to examine both their written language conceptu-
alizations and their ability to produce conventional-looking letters.
Methodological Considerations
When attempting to uncover the psychological evolution of the writing
system, it is important to understand the thought processes from the point of view
of the learner. As is characteristic of the clinical method, the learner is questioned
and the learner’s conceptualizations are viewed as indicators of progression on the
developmental path toward conventional understanding. In order to find answers to
complex questions about young children, researchers, teachers, and parents can
view the children as rich sources of invaluable information. However, asking
questions of young children may present certain problems that the adult learner
must take into consideration. In the present study, for example, children were
confused by some of the tasks. Most of this confusion was related to language
issues.
Language Differences Between the Los Angeles
and the Argentina Studies
The vocabulary words that were chosen for the writing tasks were selected
by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) for their study with children in Argentina. They
indicated that they selected several words that children first learn to write in school
as stable strings, such as children in the United States learn to write cat and dog.
These words were mamá, papá, nene, and oso. The children in the present study
147
were Latino and predominantly Spanish-speaking; however, many of the children
had difficulty with the word nene. Many asked for clarification as to what it meant.
A more commonly used word by the children in this study for the word is bebé or
baby, an English word used by many of the children interchangeably with the word
bebé.
Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982) chose three other words and one sentence
that are not commonly taught in beginning reading and writing lessons in
Argentina. These words were sapo, mapa, and pato. The children in the present
study were not taught to spell any particular words either, including the ones in the
writing tasks. However, the words sapo and mapa, as well as the sentence Mi nena
toma sol presented a different and unique problem. Many children expressed lack
of understanding of the exact meanings of the words nene, sapo, and mapa, and the
sentence “Mi nena toma sol.” Language differences between the Argentina and Los
Angeles sample may have accounted for this confusion.
When Erin was asked to write nene, she asked for clarification, “¿Letras?”
(Letters?). The researcher told her yes. According to Ferreiro and Teberosky
(1982), many children do not distinguish between drawing and writing, and Erin
may have been confused as to whether I wanted her to draw nene as an iconic
representation for the word or to use letters as a substitute object for nene. Also, she
may not have been familiar with the word nene and was asking whether she was
supposed to write letters to represent that unfamiliar word. When asked to write
sapo (toad), she asked, “¿Cuál es sapo? (Which one is sapo?) The researcher
repeated the request without clarification: “Escribe sapo” (Write toad). Erin refused
to write the word. She may not have known what it was and therefore she decided
that it could not be written. Another interpretation would be that Erin was asking
148
which word, letter, or object represented sapo. Erin was confused and solicited
assistance. One of Erin’s hypotheses of writing may indicate that, in order for
something to be written, it must be meaningful to the author.
Cynthia was asked to write sapo and read it back as apo. The researcher
asked her what she had said and she repeated herself: apo. The researcher asked
what that was and she responded “manzana” (apple). Apple sounds very similar to
the word sapo and Cynthia heard and wrote the English word apple. Cynthia did
not recognize the word sapo and made a meaningful connection between what she
heard and what she believed she had been asked to write. Marina also operated
from the hypothesis that what can be written must be meaningful. When asked to
write nene” she asked for clarification, “¿Cómo bebé? (Like baby?); Mi hermanita
se llama Kari” (My little sister’s name is Kari). She read her writing as Kari and
not as nene or bebé. When Yolanda was asked to write Mi nena toma sol, she
stated, “Yo no tengo nena” (I don’t have a baby!) and read what she had written as,
“El baby toma sol” (The baby sits in the sun).
Katie was asked to write several additional words to clarify her general
writing level. When she was asked to write the word pescado (fish), she wrote a
letter F. The tester asked her whether the word pescado started with a F. She
started writing on the next line and recorded several correct letters from the word
pescado. When she was done, she read her written string as “pescado.” She pointed
to the letter F that she had written and said to the tester, “También, la efe” (Also, an
F). Katie clearly had observed the English word fish in her environment and knew
that the letter F was somehow connected to the object pescado but she was unsure
of the connection.
149
Differences between the Argentine and Los Angeles samples clearly
existed. Differences in the vernacular between the two regions produced interesting
results in the Los Angeles sample. Also, the influence of the English language
produced differences between the samples. When approaching children with this
type of questioning, it is important to be in tune to what the child is actually asking
or referring to.
Recommendations for Instruction
As shown in the previous section, variances in children’s language and
cultural backgrounds exist and must be taken into consideration in research as well
as in educational settings. Approaching the issue of diversity in educational settings
from a social constructivist perspective, Kathryn Au (2000) reiterated the following
recommendations for improving children’s literacy learning from her research on
students of diverse backgrounds:
1. Establish ownership of literacy as the overarching goal of the language
arts curriculum.
2. Recognize the importance of students’ home languages and promote
biliteracy.
3. Increase the use of multicultural literature in classrooms.
4. Promote cultural responsiveness in classroom management and teachers’
interactions with students.
5. Make stronger links to the community.
6. Provide students with authentic literacy activities and instruction in
specific skills.
7. Use forms of assessment that reduce bias and more accurately reflect
students’ literacy achievement. (p. 839)
Culturally responsive educational settings acknowledge the importance of
validating children’s home language and culture (Au, 2000). Recognizing the
150
importance of taking into consideration the children’s language and cultural differ-
ences, the emergent literacy program that was implemented at the preschool where
this study was conducted emphasized many of the aforementioned recommenda-
tions. For instance, all children were viewed as writers, no matter what their level
of written language conceptualization or in what language they chose to write. The
materials available in the writing center were labeled in both English and Spanish,
as were other items in the classroom. The classroom environments were print rich,
displaying large amounts of print in both languages. The children were encouraged
and expected to create and interpret their own texts, and their writing approxima-
tions were accepted and validated as a necessary part of the writing process.
The use of both English and Spanish was encouraged not only in writing but
also in reading. Extensive classroom libraries were accessible to the children and
teachers, and a book lending library was available to parents. Both featured multi-
cultural literature and bilingual texts. Parents’ participation in their children’s
literacy learning was facilitated by increasing their access to books and by offering
parent workshops.
Early literacy programs, such as the intervention described in this study,
may accelerate the progress that children make toward conventional understanding.
Immersion in early literacy environments that understand and accept children’s
experimentations with written language as a normal part of the process and expose
them to a wide variety of reading and writing activities encourage written language
development. This occurs by allowing the learners to interact with the object of
knowledge, such as writing, and to construct and reconstruct their own hypotheses
about written language as they move toward more conventional understanding.
151
As children move toward this goal of conventionality, they make errors.
Understanding that these errors are constructive and necessary provides children
with the latitude they need to make progress toward this goal. This knowledge
of the psychological evolution of the writing system as described in this study
corroborates the following pedagogical implications identified by Piagetian psy-
chologist Emilia Ferreiro (1990):
Knowledge of the psychological evolution of the writing system by
teachers, psychologists, and diagnosticians is invaluable in order to evaluate
children’s progress and, even more important, to “see” otherwise unnoticed
signs of literacy development.
Knowing the psychological evolution of the writing system does not solve
any of the problems teachers have in organizing classroom activities.
Knowing the psychogenesis of literacy does not imply, therefore, remaining
static, waiting for the next level to appear.
There are no neutral pedagogical practices. (pp. 23-24)
In other words, from a psychogenetic perspective “the child is recognized as
an epistemic agent—a producer of knowledge. This has to be the main feature of
any pedagogical proposal focused on literacy” (Tolchinsky Landsmann, 1990,
p. 44). The necessity of high-quality, comprehensive early childhood education
programs for young children, especially those considered “at risk,” is widespread
and well known (Decker & Decker, 2001; Goffin & Wilson, 2001; Roopnarine &
Johnson, 2000; Snow et al., 1998).
Optimal learning environments for young children, equipped with
knowledgeable, highly trained teachers and staff, where home languages are taken
into consideration (Gutierrez, 1993) and support of cognitive, language, and social
development is provided (Hohmann & Weikart, 2002), are imperative to sustaining
positive short- and long-term effects of any early childhood program (Saracho &
Spodek, 1993; Snow et al., 1998). Positive learning environments that are develop-
152
mentally appropriate (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) have the potential to improve
later academic achievement, especially in literacy (Parks, 2000; Snow et al.; Stahl
& Yaden, 2004; Yaden et al., 2000; Yaden, Salazar, & Brassell, 2002). Promoting
school readiness by providing children access to high-quality learning
environments that foster growth and development of the child as a whole, with
attention given to the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive needs of each child,
should be the goal of every childhood education program (Goffin & Wilson;
Hohmann & Weikart, 2002).
Summary and Conclusion
This study explored the written language conceptualizations of young
children who were exposed to a rich literacy environment. In this summary import-
ant characteristics and implications of the psychological evolution of the writing
system, as identified and discussed in this study, are presented.
1. The psychogenesis of written language is characterized by varying levels
of conceptual development. From a psychogenetic perspective, children are viewed
as writers who display various writing behaviors and strategies based on their level
of writing conceptualizations, thought processes, or understandings of writing as a
system of language representation. Children move from lower levels of conceptu-
alizations characterized by global interpretations of their writing to higher levels,
which are characterized by phonetic interpretations.
2. The psychological evolution of the writing system is characterized by
considerable variation in children’s written language interpretations from one level
to the next, as well as within each level, with more variation observed at lower
levels of conceptualization, especially when children have increased access to
153
writing experiences such as those provided by early literacy programs. As
children’s understandings of the writing system move toward conventional
understandings, the variability of their writing interpretations decreases.
3. The psychogenesis of written language follows a nonlinear,
developmental trajectory toward conventional understandings that is characterized
by children’s flexible writing strategies and behaviors that may include regressions,
backward transitions, progressions, and/or precursory hypotheses that may indicate
transitions to higher or lower levels of conceptualizations. Some children may
sustain conceptualizations of one particular level for a period of time, while others
may demonstrate conceptualizations consistent with more than one level
simultaneously.
4. With regard to precursory and multilevel hypotheses, children may retain
their familiar yet lower levels of conceptualization because they are not completely
confident with their new levels of conceptualization. This experimentation may
result in solidification or rejection of previously held hypotheses, indicating
possible changes in children’s written language conceptualizations.
5. Children’s names play an important role in children’s written language
development, often representing their first experiences with print. Therefore, it is
not surprising that children may progress to higher levels of conceptualization in
name writing prior to general writing. This advancement in name writing conceptu-
alizations may lead to changes in children’s general writing conceptualizations as
well.
6. The psychological evolution of the writing system is influenced by child-
ren’s social environments. Early childhood literacy programs increase access and
opportunities to extensive literacy experiences. As children interact with writing,
154
their hypotheses and conceptualizations change. Educational settings foster this
development by promoting print-rich environments that support children’s risk-
taking behaviors in their first and second languages, encourage their experimenta-
tion with print, accept their approximations, provide demonstrations of the writing
system, and increase their access to a wide variety of writing materials.
7. Emphasis in early writing assessment should be placed on uncovering
children’s understandings of writing as a system of language representation rather
than their ability to reproduce the topological features of print. Figurative aspects of
children’s writing are not a good indicator of children’s conceptual development of
writing as a representational system. Observation of the figurative characteristics of
young children’s graphic markings alone does not uncover their understanding of
the writing system. Understanding how children come to know literacy from a
conceptual perspective provides invaluable information that educators, researchers,
and parents can use to create environments, activities, and opportunities that
support optimum levels of written language acquisition.
As children learn about written language by interacting with it in their
social environments, how children are perceived to learn directly impacts how they
are taught. The best way for policy makers, teachers, researchers, and parents to
make informed decisions regarding children’s written language acquisition is to
understand how children learn to write and to provide opportunities and experi-
ences that foster this understanding. Understanding the psychological evolution of
the writing system empowers interested stakeholders to reject a behaviorist as well
as a deficit model of literacy instruction and to make decisions regarding pedagogi-
cal practices, classroom environments, and assessments that acknowledge the
155
importance of children’s active participation, as well as their social interactions, in
their written language development (Ferreiro, 1990).
156
REFERENCES
Au, K. (2000). A multicultural perspective on policies for improving literacy
achievement: Equity and excellence. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal,
P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3,
pp. 835-851). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bauer, E. B. (2004). Parallel development of writing in English and German. In
F. B. Boyd, C. H. Brock, & M. S. Rozendal (Eds.), Multicultural and multi-
lingual literacy and language (pp. 207-217). New York: Guilford.
Besse, J. (1996). An approach to writing in kindergarten. In C. Pontecorvo, M.
Orsolini, B. Burge, & L. Resnick (Eds.), Children’s early text construction
(pp. 127-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bissex, G. L. (1980). Gnys at wrk: A child learns to write and read. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bloodgood, J. (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy
acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 342-367.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (1998). Scaffolding emergent writing in the zone of
proximal development. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3, 1-19.
Box, J. A. (2002). Guided writing in the early childhood classroom. Reading
Improvement, 39(3), 111-112.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice
for early childhood programs (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bromley, K. (2000). Teaching young children to be writers. In D. S. Strickland &
L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Beginning reading and writing (pp. 111-120). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Chan, L., & Nunes, T. (2001). Explicit teaching and implicit learning of Chinese
characters. In L. Tolchinsky (Ed.), Developmental aspects in learning to
write (pp. 33-54). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chomsky, C. (1971). Write first, read later. Childhood Education, 47, 296-299.
Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1982). Research update: Learning and teaching writing, a develop-
mental perspective. Language Arts, 59(1), 65-70.
Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse.
157
Crawford, C. (1995). Early literacy: Emerging perspectives. Journal of Research
on Early Childhood Education, 10, 71-86.
Daiute, C. (1989). Research currents: Play and learning to write. Language Arts,
66, 656-664.
Decker, C. A., & Decker, J. R. (2001). Planning and administering early childhood
programs (7th ed.). Upper saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
DeVries, R. (2002). Play in the early education curriculum: Four interpretations. In
R. DeVries, B. Zan, C. Hildebrandt, R. Edmaiston, & C. Sales (Eds.),
Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum (pp. 13-33). New
York: Teacher’s College Press.
Dyson, A. H. (1985). Individual differences in emerging writing. In M. Farr (Ed.),
Advances in writing research (Vol. 1, pp. 59-125). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dyson, A. H. (1987). Individual differences in beginning composing. Written
Communication, 4, 411-442.
Dyson, A. H. (1989). Multiple worlds of child writers: Friends learning to write.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban
primary school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dyson. A. H. (1999). Writing (Dallas) Cowboys: A dialogic perspective on the
“what did I write?” question. In J. Gaffney & B. Askew (Eds.), Stirring the
water: The influence of Marie Clay (pp. 127-148). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Dyson, A. H. (2001). Writing and children’s symbolic repertoires: Development
unhinged. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
research (pp. 126-141). New York: Guilford.
Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in
childhood and school cultures. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dyson, A. H., & Freedman, S. W. (2003). Writing. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R.
Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the
English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 967-992). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic field-
notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Evans, J. (Ed.). (2001). Writing in the elementary classroom: A reconsideration.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
158
Ferreiro, E. (1985). Literacy development: A psychogenetic perspective. In D. R.
Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning:
The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 217-228).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ferreiro, E. (1990). Literacy development: Psychogenesis. In D. Keller-Cohen,
(Ed.), Literacy: Interdisciplinary conversations (pp. 12-25). Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton.
Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Fox, B. J., & Saracho, O. N. (1990). Emergent writing: Young children solving the
written language puzzle. Early Child Development and Care, 56, 81-90.
Gambrell, L. B., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1999). Emergent literacy: What research
reveals about learning to read. In C. Seefeldt (Ed.), The early childhood
curriculum: Current findings in theory and practice (3rd ed., pp. 80-108).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Gee, J. P. (2001). A sociocultural perspective on early literacy. In S. B. Neuman &
D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 30-42).
New York: Guilford.
Glick, J. (1997). Prologue. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L. S.
Vygotsky (Vol. 4, pp. v-xvi). New York: Plenum Press.
Goffin, S. G., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). Curriculum models and early childhood
education: Appraising the relationship (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Goodman, Y. (1990). Discovering children’s inventions of written language. In Y.
Goodman (Ed.), How children construct literacy (pp. 1-11). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Gundlach, R., McLane, J. B., Stott, F. M., & McNamee, G. D. (1985). The social
foundations of children’s early writing development. In M. Farr, (Ed.),
Advances in writing research (Vol. 1, pp. 1-58). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gutierrez, K. D. (1993). Biliteracy and the language-minority child. In B. Spodek
& O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Language and literacy in early childhood
education. (Vol. 4, pp. 82-101). New York: Teachers College Press.
Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A., & Burke, C. L. (1984). Language stories and liter-
acy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in
writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 6-
44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
159
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing
processes. In L. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in
writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Henderson, E. (1986). Understanding children’s knowledge of written language. In
D. Yaden, Jr., & S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and begin-
ning literacy (pp. 65-78). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hildreth, G. (1936). Developmental sequences in name writing. Child Develop-
ment, 1, 291-302.
Hohmann, M., & Weikart, D. P. (2002). Educating young children (2nd ed.).
Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.
Invernizzi, M., Sullivan, A., & Meier, J. (2001). Phonological awareness literacy
screening: Preschool. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Kamii, C., Long, R., Manning, M., & Manning, G. (1991). Spelling in kindergar-
ten: A constructivist analysis comparing Spanish-speaking and English-
speaking children. In C. Kamii, M. Manning, & G. Manning (Eds.), Early
literacy: A constructivist foundation for whole language. (pp. 69-82).
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Kohl de Oliveira, M., & Valsiner, J. (1998). To be or not to be literate. In M. Kohl
de Oliveira & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Literacy in human development (pp. 1-14).
Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Lacasa, P., Martin del Campo, B., & Reina, A. (2001). Talking and writing: How
do children develop shared meanings in the school setting? In L. Tolchinsky
(Ed.), Developmental aspects in learning to write (pp. 133-162). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Langer, J. A., & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive
tasks. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing:
Research, theory and practice (pp. 112-139). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Lieberman, E. (1985). Name writing and the preschool child. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Arizona.
Lindberg, C. A. (Chief Ed.). (2002). The Oxford American college dictionary. New
York: Putnam’s.
Luria, A. (1929/1998). The development of writing in the child. In M. K. de
Oliveira & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Literacy in human development (pp. 15-56).
Stamford, CT: Ablex.
160
MacGillivray, L. (1994). Tacit shared understandings of a first-grade writing com-
munity. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 245-266.
McCarrier, A., Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (2000). Interactive writing: How
language and literacy come together, K-2. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (2004). Literacy’s beginnings: Supporting young
readers and writers (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Moll, L. C., Saez, R., & Dworin, J. (2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two student case
examples of writing as a social practice. Elementary School Journal, 101,
435-451.
Newkirk, T. (1989). More than stories: The range of children’s writing. Ports-
mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Para Los Niños. (n.d.). Building a brighter future one child at a time. Retrieved
February 10, 2005, from http://www.paralosninos.org
Parks, G. (2000). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project (NCJ 181725).
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic
Books.
Read, C. (1971/1991). Pre-School children’s knowledge of English phonology. In
M. Minami & B. Kennedy (Eds.), Language issues in literacy and bilin-
gual/multicultural education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational
Review.
Richgels, D. J. (2001). Invented spelling, phonemic awareness, and reading and
writing instruction. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook on
research in early literacy (pp. 142-155). New York: Guilford.
Rivera, C. (1999, May 26). Zoning chief vows action on skid row “crime magnets.”
Los Angeles Times, pp. B1, B3.
Rocco, M. T. F. (1998). Parallels between the perspectives of Alexander Luria and
Emilia Ferreiro. In M. K. de Oliveira & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Literacy in
human development (pp. 57-78). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Roopnarine, J. L., & Johnson, J. E. (2000). Approaches to early childhood
education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Rowe, D. W. (1994). Preschoolers as authors: Literacy learning in the social
world of the classroom. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
161
Rueda, R. (1990). Assisted performance in writing instruction with learning-
disabled students. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instruc-
tional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 403-
426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1993). Introduction: Language and literacy in early
childhood education. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Language and
literacy in early childhood education: Yearbook in early childhood
education (Vol. 4, pp. vii-xiii). New York: Teachers College Press.
Scardamalia, M. (1981). How children cope with the cognitive demands of writing.
In C. H. Frederiksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, develop-
ment, and teaching of written communication (pp. 81-104). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk,
text and interaction. London: Sage.
Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Stahl, S., & Yaden, D. B., Jr. (2004). The development of literacy in preschool and
primary grades: Work by the Center of Improvement of Early Reading
Achievement. Elementary School Journal, 105(2), 141-166.
Stanley, G., & Pershin, P. (1978). Rating preschool development of name-writing
and draw-a-person. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 187-190.
Strickland, D. S., & Morrow, L. M. (Eds.). (2000). Beginning reading and writing.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Sulzby, E. (1985). Kindergartners as writers and readers. In M. Farr (Ed.),
Advances in writing research (pp. 127-199). New Jersey: Ablex.
Sulzby, E. (1986). Children’s elicitation and use of metalinguistic knowledge about
words during literacy interactions. In D. B. Yaden, Jr. & S. Templeton
(Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy (pp. 219-233).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sulzby, E. (1996). Roles of oral and written language as children approach conven-
tional literacy. In C. Pontecorvo, M. Orsolini, B. Burge, & L. Resnick
(Eds.), Children’s early text construction (pp. 25-46). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Sulzby, E., Barnhart, J., & Hieshima, J. (1989). Forms of writing and rereading
from writing: A preliminary report (Technical Report No. 20). Retrieved
October 25,2004, from http://www.ncre/.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/
cntareas/reading/1:100.htm
162
Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1989). Emergent literacy: New perspectives. In D. S.
Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Emerging literacy: Young children
learn to read and write (pp. 1-15). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Teale, W. H., & Yokota, J. (2000). Beginning reading and writing: Perspectives on
instruction. In D. S. Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Beginning reading
and writing (pp. 3-21). New York: Teachers College Press.
Templeton, S. (2003). Spelling. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd
ed., pp. 738-751). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tolchinsky, L. (2001). Developmental perspectives on writing. In L. Tolchinsky
(Ed.), Developmental aspects in learning to write (pp.1-12). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Tolchinsky, L., & Levin, I. (1985). Writing in preschoolers: An age-related
analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 319-339.
Tolchinsky Landsmann, L. (1990). Literacy development and pedagogical implica-
tions: Evidence from the Hebrew system of writing. In Y. Goodman (Ed.),
How children construct literacy (pp. 26-44). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Vernon, S., & Ferreiro, E. (1999). Writing development: A neglected variable in
the consideration of phonological awareness. Harvard Educational Review,
69, 395-414.
Villaume, S. K., & Wilson, L. C. (1989, March). Preschool children’s explorations
of letters in their own names. Paper presented at the 14
th
Annual Boston
University Conference on Language Development, Boston.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1931/1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 4. The
history of the development of higher mental functions. R. W. Rieber (Ed.) &
M. J. Hall (Trans). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published
1931.)
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1.
Problems of general psychology. R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.). New
York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934.)
Welsch, J. G., Sullivan, A., & Justice, L. M. (2003). That’s my letter! What pre-
schoolers’ name writing representations tell us about emergent literacy
knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 757-776.
Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1996). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary develop-
mental psychology. In H. Daniels (Ed.), An introduction to Vygotsky (pp.
53-74). London: Routledge.
163
Yaden, D. B., Jr., & Brassell, D. (2002). Enhancing emergent literacy with
Spanish-speaking preschoolers in the inner city: Overcoming the odds. In C.
M. Roller (Ed.), Comprehensive reading instruction across the grade
levels: A collection of papers from the Reading Research 2001 Conference
(pp. 20-39). Wilmington, DE: International Reading Association.
Yaden, D. B., Jr., & Latta, D. (1994). Inner speech, composing, and the reading-
writing connection. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 2, 655-661.
Yaden, D. B., Jr., Madrigal, P., & Tam, A. (2003). Access to books and beyond:
Creating and learning from a book lending program for Latino families in
the inner city. In G. G. García (Ed.), English learners (pp. 357-386).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Yaden, D. B., Jr., Salazar, J., & Brassell, D. (2002, December). The impact of
Spanish language emergent literacy activities during preschool on first- and
second-grade achievement in English reading and language. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference,
Miami.
Yaden, D. B., Jr., Tam, A., Madrigal, P., Brassell, D., Massa, J., & Altamirano, S.
(2000). Early literacy for inner-city children: The effects of reading and
writing interventions in English and Spanish during the preschool years.
The Reading Teacher, 54, 186-189.
Yaden, D. B., Jr., & Tardibuono, J. M. (2004). The emergent writing development
of urban Latino preschoolers: Developmental perspectives and instructional
environments for second-language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
20, 29-61.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Writing development of Korean heritage children
PDF
Play and play styles of preschool children
PDF
The Spanish continuum in Peruvian bilingual speakers: A study of verbal clitics
PDF
The effects of family environment variables on young children's school behavior and peer interactions
PDF
The motivation to read of middle-school 'ESL' Latina(o) poor readers and good readers
PDF
The concreteness effects of bilingual memory in free association tasks
PDF
The impact of access to books: Developing partnerships with Latino immigrant families through a preschool literacy program in an urban community
PDF
Developmental and defensive foreclosure: A validation of identity status subcategories
PDF
The significance of naming speed in reading development
PDF
The relationship of cultural diversity to Jesuit secondary education in the United States: A theoretical and case study analysis
PDF
Factors contributing to the academic excellence of English language learners: An analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual programs
PDF
Literacy as a gendered social practice in two bilingual classrooms.
PDF
A comparison of student performance in two-way immersion versus traditional kindergarten programs
PDF
Parenting styles in the Armenian family
PDF
On improving college English students' reading proficiency at Fujian Normal University
PDF
Developmental task achievement among student leaders at a small private liberal arts college
PDF
A comparative study of the realm of meaning of four child prostitutes in Taiwan: A hermeneutic approach
PDF
Motivation to learn and to succeed: A path analysis of the CANE model of cognitive motivation
PDF
Stress-coping of recently arrived Chinese high school students
PDF
Going home: Perceptions of international students on the efficacy of a reentry workshop
Asset Metadata
Creator
Tardibuono, Joan M
(author)
Core Title
A psychogenetic analysis of spanish-speaking preschoolers’ emergent writing: a developmental trajectory toward the phonetization of speech
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education, bilingual and multicultural,education, early childhood,education, reading,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, developmental
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-135063
Unique identifier
UC11351158
Identifier
3238342.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-135063 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3238342.pdf
Dmrecord
135063
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Tardibuono, Joan M.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
education, bilingual and multicultural
education, early childhood
education, reading
psychology, developmental