Reading Research Quarterly
Vol. 34, No. 3
Janet W. Bloodgood
Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA
What’s in a name? Children’s name
writing and literacy acquisition
N
ames are complex entities that serve a variety
of functions. They connect us with family and
sociocultural histories; they are part of our so-
cio-psychological identity, signifying who and
what we are. Further, personal names provide a way for
children to make sense of the print world as they first
recognize and then learn to produce their own name.
Names allow us access to and flexibility with lan-
guage, as we identify items, find alternative terms for
them (e.g., antonyms, class relationships), and incorpo-
rate them into the syntactic plans of speech and writing.
Names of common objects and significant people pre-
dominate in toddlers’ beginning vocabulary, accounting
for 65% of their first 50 words (Nelson, reported in Dale,
1976). Vygotsky asserted that 2-year-olds’ awareness of
object names signifies the juncture of thought and
speech where “speech begins to serve intellect and
thoughts begin to be spoken” (1962, p. 44).
As youngsters begin to explore written language,
their name becomes a natural focus. Since the word
young children encounter most meaningfully in print is
their name, this is often the word they first attempt to
write (Clay, 1975; Temple, Nathan, Burris, & Temple,
1988). Ashton-Warner (1963), Cunningham (1988, 1991),
Johnson (1987), and Soderbergh (1977) noted the in-
structional importance of names and other emotionally
charged words. “First words must have an intense mean-
ing. First words must be already part of the dynamic life.
First books must be made of the stuff of the child him-
self, whatever and wherever the child” (Ashton-Warner,
1963, p. 35).
Purpose
Name-writing ability serves as a mirror reflecting
not only a child’s level of motor and graphic control
342
July/August/September 1999
©1999 International Reading Association
(pp. 342–367)
(i.e., mastery of form), but also literacy sophistication
(i.e., awareness of function) and cognitive development
(i.e., perception of literacy). Form includes the ability to
produce recognizable letters; function involves under-
standing basic concepts and uses of print; perception re-
lates to metacognitive and metalinguistic knowledge.
Beyond providing an indicator of children’s literacy de-
velopment, the written name may serve as a tool to con-
struct literacy. Villaume and Wilson (1989) contended
that children’s experience with name allows understand-
ing of how literacy works:
The frequent exposure to name, theoretically, provides
greater possibilities for hypothesis creating and testing
than less common print. Although the hypotheses con-
structed for identification and writing of name may not be
immediately applied to other print, the analysis of name
events does provide a window into early literacy strate-
gies. (p. 284)
Researchers have accepted name as an important
first step toward literacy (Clay, 1975) and have traced
writing development through the levels of its refinement
(Hildreth, 1936; Lieberman, 1985), but few have actually
examined the literacy understandings children entertain
as they become more proficient in producing their signa-
tures. Studies in this area (e.g., Ferreiro, 1984, 1990;
Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Freeman & Whitesell, 1985)
end at the point when respondents begin to make
sound-symbol connections.
Name writing is a social accomplishment that es-
tablishes our literate identity. Older children and adults,
who model reading and writing processes, act as social-
izing agents for children learning written language
(Anderson, 1995; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984;
Senechal, LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998; Vygotsky,
1962). As a result, children’s literacy awarenesses reflect
ABSTRACTS
What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy acquisition
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT among a group of preschool and kinder-
garten children was examined through changes in the form, function,
and perception of their written names. Sixty-seven 3-, 4-, and 5-
year-olds, their teachers, instructional aides, and six case-study par-
ents participated in a yearlong qualitative and quantitative study.
Literacy skills were assessed in the fall and spring; instructional meth-
ods, classroom interactions, and student writing efforts were ob-
served. Preschool and kindergarten teachers and instructional aides
as well as the parents of six case-study children responded to inter-
views and participated in informal discussions of children’s early lit-
eracy growth.
¿Qué importancia tiene el nombre? La escritura del nombre y la adquisición de la lectoescritura
EL DESARROLLO de la lectoescritura en un grupo de niños de nivel
inicial y jardín fue examinado a través de los cambios en la forma,
función y percepción de sus nombres escritos. Sesenta y siete niños
de 3, 4 y 5 años, sus docentes, asistentes y 6 padres (estudio de ca-
sos) participaron en un estudio cualitativo y cuantitativo de un año
de duración. Las habilidades de lectoescritura se evaluaron en otoño
y primavera; se observaron los métodos de enseñanza, las interac-
ciones en el aula y los esfuerzos de los niños por escribir. Los do-
centes de nivel inicial y jardín y los asistentes, así como los padres de
seis niños respondieron a entrevistas y participaron en discusiones
informales acerca de la alfabetización temprana de los niños.
Los análisis de las evaluaciones y las muestras de escritura indi-
can el rol sustancial del nombre en la alfabetización temprana. El
Was ist ein Name? Namenschreiben von Kindern und Erlernen von Schreiben und Lesen
DIE ENTWICKLUNG des Schreibens und Lesens innerhalb einer
Gruppe von Vorschülern und Kindern im Kindergarten wurde mit-
tels Veränderungen in der Form, Funktion, und Auffassung ihrer
geschriebenen Namen untersucht. Siebenundsechzig 3-, 4- und 5-
jährige Kinder, ihre Lehrer, Lehrhilfskräfte und sechs in der Fallstudie
einbezogenen Eltern nahmen an der einjährigen qualitativen und
quantitativen Studie teil. Schreib- und Lesefertigkeiten wurden im
Herbst und Frühjahr ausgewertet; Unterrichtsmethodik, Klassenraum-
beteiligungen und schriftliche Bemühungen der Schüler wurden
beobachtet. Vorschul- und Kindergartenlehrer und Lehrhilfskräfte
sowie die Eltern von 6 in der Fallstudie einbezogenen Kindern gingen
auf Interviews ein und nahmen an ungezwungenen Diskussionen der
frühen Verbesserung von Lese- und Schreibfertigkeiten teil.
Die Analyse von Begutachtungen und Schriftproben weist dem
Namen eine erhebliche Rolle bei den frühen Schreib- und Lesefertig-
343
Analysis of assessments and writing samples indicates a sub-
stantial role for name in early literacy. Name recognition correlates
with age (.86) for 3-year-olds, while name production correlates with
alphabet knowledge (.55 to .77), word recognition (.49 to .62), and
concept of word (.39 to .66) for 4- and 5-year-olds. Name letters
represent approximately 40 percent of children’s random-letter writ-
ten characters. Reciprocal relationships among the children’s litera-
cy skills were evident. Automaticity in name writing paralleled con-
trol of the alphabet, recognition of several sight words, and emerging
tracking ability. Name has the instructional potential to help chil-
dren connect literacy strands in a meaningful way.
reconocimiento del nombre correlaciona con la edad (.86) en los
niños de 3 años, mientras que la producción del nombre correla-
ciona con el conocimiento alfabético (.55 a .77), el reconocimiento
de palabras (.49 a .62) y el concepto de palabra (.39 a .66) en los
niños de 4 y 5 años. Los nombres de las letras representan aproxi-
madamente un 40% de los caracteres escritos por los niños en es-
critura de letras al azar. Se hallaron relaciones recíprocas evidentes
entre las habilidades de lectoescritura de los niños. La automatici-
dad en la escritura del nombre fue paralela al control del alfabeto,
al reconocimiento de varias palabras visuales y a la habilidad emer-
gente de detectar marcas. El nombre tiene el potencial didáctico para
ayudar a los niños a conectar los componentes de la alfabetización
de una forma significativa.
keiten zu. Erkennen des Namens steht in einer Wechselbeziehung
zum Alter (.86) bei 3-jährigen, während bei 4- und 5-jährigen Kindern
das Produzieren des Namens von der Kenntnis des Alphabets (.55 bis
.77), der Worterkennung (.49 bis .62) und dem Wortkonzept (.39 bis
.66) abhängt. Die Buchstaben des Namens umfassen ungefähr 40
Prozent aller wahllos niedergeschriebenen Buchstaben der Kinder.
Die auf Wechselwirkung beruhenden Beziehungen zwischen den
Schreib-/Lesefertigkeiten der Kinder waren offensichtlich. Das
Automatisieren beim Niederschreiben des Namens verlief parallel
mit der Kontrolle über das Alphabet, dem Erkennen verschiedener
auffallender Worte und dem Entstehen der Fähigkeit zum Verfolgen
solcher Worte. Der Name hat das unterrichtende Potential, den
Kindern bei den Verbindungen von Schreib- und Lesebrücken in
sinnvoller Weise zu helfen.
ABSTRACTS
Qu’y a-t-il dans un nom? Ecriture du nom par les enfants et entrée dans l’écrit
ON A examiné le développement de la littéracie dans un groupe
d’enfants d’âge préscolaire et de jardin d’enfants à travers les change-
ments de forme, de fonction, et de perception de leur nom écrit.
Soixante sept enfants âgés de 3, 4, et 5 ans, leurs enseignants, aides-
éducateurs, et six parents pour études de cas ont participé pendant
un an à une étude qualitative et quantitative. On a évalué les com-
pétences en littéracie à l’automne et au printemps; on a observé les
méthodes pédagogiques, les interactions en classe, et les efforts pour
écrire. Les enseignants préscolaires et de jardin d’enfants et les aides-
éducateurs aussi bien que les parents des six études de cas ont répon-
du à des entretiens et participé à des discussions informelles rela-
tives au développement de l’entrée dans l’écrit des enfants.
344
L’analyse des évaluations et des échantillons d’écriture indiquent
un rôle substantiel du nom pour l’entrée dans l’écrit. La reconnais-
sance du nom est corrélée avec l’âge (.86) chez les enfants de 3 ans,
tandis que la production du nom corrèle avec la connaissance de l’al-
phabet (.55 à .77), la reconnaissance de mot (.49 à .62), et le concept
de mot (.39 à .66) pour les 4 et 5 ans. Les lettres du nom représen-
tent approximativement 40% des caractères écrits pris au hasard. Des
relations réciproques sont évidentes entre les compétences en littéra-
cie des enfants. L’automatisation de l’écriture du nom va de pair avec
le contrôle de l’alphabet, la reconnaissance visuelle de plusieurs mots,
et les premières traces écrites. Le nom a le pouvoir éducatif d’aider
les enfants à lier les fils de la littéracie de manière significative.
WhatÕs in a name?
not only what has made sense to them about name writ-
ing and literacy, but also the specific features that these
models have chosen to emphasize. For example, some
parents may feel that it is important to teach children the
alphabet song and letter recognition but spend little time
teaching letter forms. Others may emphasize how the
name is formed but not identify individual letters or
sounds. Consistency of support from knowledgeable
others at home and in school helps children explore and
perfect name-writing skills and connect to other literacy
understandings. More limited instruction (e.g., name pat-
tern without letter identification) or inconsistency in
terms and methods may lead to confusion (Dyson, 1984;
McGee & Purcell-Gates, 1997; Purcell-Gates, 1995;
Purcell-Gates, McIntyre, & Freppon, 1995).
The purpose of this study is to investigate the role
of name in written form as it functions in children’s liter-
acy acquisition. A first objective is to determine if, in-
deed, there are consistent patterns of development
evident across the areas of literacy growth. As children
gain greater control of their signature, is there an accom-
panying growth in alphabet knowledge, letter-sound
connections, and understanding of the nature and pur-
poses of literacy? A second objective is to discover what
use, if any, children make of literacy knowledge gar-
nered from their names. Do children generalize from as-
pects of their own signatures to the formation and
interpretation of other alphabet letters, words, and sen-
tences? Does name serve as a dynamic force to promote
exploration and revision of a child’s literacy hypotheses?
Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to
gain an understanding of the role of name in literacy ac-
quisition. Aspects of children’s literacy knowledge were
assessed, and samples of their written work were collect-
ed. Statistical analysis of children’s literacy competencies
measured over time provided information about devel-
opment and interrelationships among these skills.
Children were observed as they engaged in literacy acts,
both self-initiated and adult guided; they were asked
about their written language understandings; and their
literacy progress was discussed with parents and teach-
ers to gain adult viewpoints about name’s role in literacy
learning. Qualitative descriptions of children’s approach-
es to literacy further clarify information derived from
analysis of assessment data and written products.
Background
Oral and written language relationships
Research on oral and written language develop-
ment provides a basis for understanding the role of
name in literacy acquisition. Written language acquisition
345
closely mirrors oral language development in many re-
spects. Scribbling parallels early babbling; play with writ-
ing instruments allows children to refine their control
and produce identifiable objects and linear writing,
much as they refine spoken utterances from single
words to phrases to complete sentences. Children gradu-
ally discriminate between drawing and writing, not only
in form but also in function—the picture represents the
object while the writing names it (Ferreiro & Teberosky,
1982). Using letters and words they know, children im-
mersed in alphabetic languages explore a variety of hy-
potheses about how speech maps to written forms,
finally discovering the alphabetic principle and the con-
ventions of words in print (e.g., linearity, directionality,
spaces, punctuation) (Clay, 1975). Greater control of
form allows children to focus attention on expression
and sophistication of ideas in both oral and written
modes. Children work through these steps in a generally
forward progression of development, but individuals
may vary in proficiency as their needs and interests shift
(Christie, Enz, & Vukelich, 1997; Sulzby, 1992; Sulzby,
Teale, & Kamberelis, 1989).
Although there are surface parallels between oral
and written language, and many researchers believe that
written language is as natural as oracy (e.g., Goodman &
Goodman, 1979; Schickedanz, 1993), written language
has unique properties that complicate its acquisition
(Campbell, 1990; Senechal et al., 1998; Snow & Tabors,
1993). Literacy learners must comprehend and gain con-
trol of a second level of abstraction as they come to un-
derstand that written symbols stand for the spoken word
that represents the concrete item or action. The system is
obscured at the levels of alphabet, phoneme, and word.
Beginning readers and writers must determine how to
parse the spoken text and decide what units align with
the written form.
Components of literacy
The alphabetic system, designed to maximize ver-
satility with a limited number of letter symbols, does not
permit easy access to its code. The English alphabet is a
less than precise match for the sounds it represents;
there are two or more forms for each letter, and several
letters vary from one another only in directionality (e.g.,
b, d; M, W) (McGee & Richgels, 1989). Because the
phoneme is an abstract unit further hidden from disclo-
sure by coarticulation (i.e., individual phonemes are in-
tertwined with and influenced by those immediately
before and after them), children must sift through several
hypotheses and layers of language complexity to uncov-
er the sound-to-symbol match (Ferreiro, 1990). “The real
problem [in learning to read] is figuring out that one
must try to relate letters not to pronounceable sounds
346 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3
but to abstract segments that no one can pronounce”
(Snow & Tabors, 1993, p. 7). Phonological awareness—
consciousness of the levels of sound as they map to al-
phabetic language (e.g., word, syllable, onset and rime,
phoneme)—appears to develop along a continuum of
greater precision and manipulation as children mature,
gain abilities of abstraction and decentration (Tunmer,
1991; Vandervelden & Siegel, 1995), develop labels for
objects under consideration (e.g., word, letter), and be-
gin to experiment with the connections between oral
and written language.
Knowledge of alphabet letters and some sound-to-
symbol matches provide important tools for children’s
development of phoneme awareness, as do their stock
of known words (Liberman & Shankweiler, 1991;
McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995; Share,
Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984). By examining known
pairings (e.g., /m/ in Mark, McDonald’s, mommy) and
verifying results with new evidence (e.g., mat, monster),
children reinvent the alphabetic principle for themselves
(Henderson, 1990; Read, 1975). Results from training
studies (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-
Barnsley, 1991; Fox & Routh, 1984), longitudinal studies
(e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Juel, 1988), investigations
of beginning readers (e.g., Ehri & Wilce, 1985; Mason,
1980), poor readers (e.g., Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & Hughes,
1987; Stanovich, 1986), and adults (e.g., Morais, Cary,
Alegria, & Bertelson, 1979; Read, Zhang, Nie, & Ding,
1986) concur that phonological awareness reciprocally
supports literacy growth. Classroom activities such as
word play songs and games, Elkonin boxes, letter-nam-
ing, and sound segmentation call attention to sound-let-
ter relationships and improve children’s decoding skills
and invented spelling (Griffith & Olson, 1992; Richgels,
Poremba, & McGee, 1996; Tangel & Blachman, 1992).
To understand written language, children must be
able to isolate and hold stable word units. Only then can
they track across the letters of a word and make firm as-
sociations between the letters included, the letter names
they know, and the sounds that match those letters. This
metacognitive attainment has been termed concept of
word (Morris, 1981, 1993; Spencer, 1989) and fingerpoint
reading (Ehri & Sweet, 1991). It is a threshold event in
literacy. Children’s concept of word correlates at a statis-
tically significant level with their phoneme awareness
and is reflected in their spelling progress (Morris, 1981,
1983, 1992). The convention of using spaces to indicate
word separation challenges children’s understanding of
written language; to parallel speech, writing should flow
on the page, and spaces disrupt that flow. Some children
adopt a list format to override this problem in their own
writing; others use dots or slashes to hold these empty
spaces that have negative psychological reality until chil-
dren have achieved a concept of wordness (Clay, 1975;
Martens, 1996; Rowe & Harste, 1986; Sulzby, 1986).
When children finally integrate these three strands
of literacy awareness—alphabet, phonology, and sense
of word in print—they have within their grasp the tools
to read effectively messages written by others or by
themselves on previous occasions. Understanding that
alphabet letters can be used to roughly represent spoken
sounds and that groups of letters set off by white space
represent spoken words allows children to accurately
decode and encode language. Names and other known
words (e.g., dog, love) provide entry to these under-
standings and serve as first words in a growing sight vo-
cabulary. Writing allows children to explore their current
hypotheses about print and thus change or solidify their
understanding.
Writing development
Writing and reading cannot be separated easily
from one another, nor are they exactly inverse functions
(Chomsky, 1971, 1979; Read, 1981). Children read their
names before they can write them in recognizable form.
Motor control, coordination, and the physical effort in-
volved in letter production are several of the factors con-
tributing to this discrepancy. Another consideration is the
depth to which young children actually read printed
words. The print that 2- and 3-year-olds are credited
with reading is perceived through surface cues at a logo-
graphic level (Ehri, 1991; Ehri & Wilce, 1985; Harste et
al., 1984); the word is what they expect to appear in that
environment under given conditions (e.g., golden arches
of McDonald’s; theme song accompanying the Sesame
Street logo; Tonka on the side of yellow toy trucks).
Writing development is particularly insidious be-
cause it occurs whenever children find the materials nec-
essary to make their mark, be that paper and pencil or
marker or wall and mom’s favorite lipstick. For young
children, writing is a means of gestural play on paper,
and these early written products are often thrown out
without parents’ attention (Barclay, 1992; Himley, 1984;
Taylor, 1983). Social environments where multiple uses
of writing are modeled and where children are encour-
aged to explore writing materials facilitate theory refine-
ment and new learning (Dyson, 1993). At some point in
their experimentation, children differentiate between
purely illustrative designs or drawings and communica-
tive scribbles. As fine motor control improves, scribbles
become more linear and culture specific in imitation of
adult models; drawings are made to which identifications
are attached; and, ultimately, drawings are planned
(Clay, 1975; Dyson, 1982; Harste et al., 1984). Children
distinguish between drawing and writing at about 212 to
3 years of age. They will scribble or draw their picture
WhatÕs in a name?
and say that it is daddy, while lines or letter-like forms
separate from the picture will say daddy (Barclay, 1992;
Ferreiro, 1984). As Clay (1975) and Ferreiro and
Teberosky (1982) described, children manipulate a num-
ber of literacy theories before coming to a sound-to-let-
ter hypothesis (e.g., daddy’s name should be longer than
mine because he’s bigger; three kittens should be repre-
sented by something like cat written three times).
Between the ages of 3 and 4, children’s concepts
of writing become more sophisticated (Springate, 1983;
Sulzby, 1985). They have greater awareness of the multi-
ple functions of writing and the elements of its form
(e.g., variable units, linearity, orthography). They recog-
nize the communicative role of written language, realiz-
ing that print, not the picture, carries the message. As
children experiment with representation of their names
and other known words (e.g., mom, cat, love), environ-
mental print, and labels for drawings, they begin to
grasp the relationship between oral language and the
written code (Dyson, 1989; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982).
Exploration continues through repetition of forms for
some children (e.g., I like...lists), while others have an
aha response and match sounds to alphabet letter
names with abandon (Bissex, 1980; Chomsky, 1979;
Read, 1971).
Name, the first word that most children know they
can read, adds a new dimension to discussions of read-
ing and writing. Children may view name as a static enti-
ty that, because of its personal importance, has little
connection to other written forms. Others may interpret
their name as part of the literacy realm, capable of being
written and read, but treat it as an independent unit with
little information applicable to other written forms. Some
children may actively explore their name as a tool to de-
velop greater understanding of other literacy concepts,
including alphabet, sound-letter matches, and concept of
word. Through a focus on name, this study examines
these issues in depth. Other research has explored name
for different purposes.
Name and development
Hildreth (1936) and Stanley and Pershin (1978)
used the form of children’s signatures as an indicator of
physical and cognitive development. In Hildreth’s sam-
ple of 3- to 7-year-olds, the younger children managed
only a scribble in the center of the page when asked to
produce their name. Children’s increasing age and men-
tal sophistication resulted in a progression from scribbles
to linear forms to mock letters to letters in random order
to accurate representations. Comparing children’s draw-
ings and signatures, Stanley and Pershin found a “signifi-
cant correlation between writing, drawing-a-person and
age [that] supports the notion that preschool name-writ-
347
ing levels are indicators of developmental maturity” (p.
189). Ferguson (1975) found children’s name-writing
ability at the beginning of kindergarten a reliable predic-
tor of reading ability and a valuable method for evaluat-
ing written language acquisition.
Name and functional awareness
Clay (1975, 1991) examined children’s name-writ-
ing competence, focusing on the form and function of
print evidenced by the way children produced their
names. New understandings emerged as children experi-
mented with concepts of direction, recursion, and flexi-
bility. First signatures were perceived by the children as
signs, where only initial letters have distinct meaning;
later, name became a logogram produced exactly as
learned (Clay, 1977; Villaume & Wilson, 1989). Springate
(1983) investigated preschool children’s functional un-
derstanding of print and found a generalized progression
of name-writing proficiency and literacy abilities with
age. For young children, written names and particularly
first letters are personal possessions and in turn function
to represent ownership (Ferreiro, 1986; McGee &
Richgels, 1989). Name letters may be rearranged by
slightly more sophisticated children to represent other
written words (Clay, 1975; Sulzby, 1985).
Saracho (1990; Fox & Saracho, 1990) outlined five
levels of writing development: scribbling, horizontal
scribbling, discrete units, letters, and correct spelling of
the children’s names. These phases roughly parallel the
writing progression developed by Sulzby (1985). Those
children making the fastest progress in name production
showed the most interest and actively explored literacy
activities. Fox and Saracho found evidence of phonemic
awareness in children who had the most complete and
sophisticated signatures; when asked to spell four words,
they could represent initial and final consonants as well
as medial vowels.
Name and perceptual development
Children’s perceptions of how their name is repre-
sented in print and how it can be read served as an im-
portant window for viewing their understanding of
written language (Ferreiro, 1984, 1985a, 1985b; Ferreiro
& Teberosky, 1982; Hardy, 1982; Villaume & Wilson,
1989). As stable, known forms, children’s names may
present a dissonance in their current working hypothesis
(e.g., small creatures have names with few letters) and,
thus, promote conceptual change. According to Villaume
and Wilson, who noted that some children produced
written patterns of their names while others had letter
names attached to the individual letter forms:
348 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3
Apparently, the evolution of the signature is a long, in-
volved process.... Although much exploration of the sig-
nature can take place with little knowledge of letter
names as evidenced in Group 2 responses, most of Group
3 responses indicated that letter names and the spelling of
name were explored and conventionalized prior to the fi-
nal refinement of name writing. (1989, p. 297)
Name and sociocultural factors
Social and cultural factors strongly influence chil-
dren as they develop their knowledge of written lan-
guage. Davies (1987) addressed the role of children’s
names in literacy acquisition within a preschool environ-
ment. She concluded that 3- to 5-year-olds’ name-writing
skill developed as a result of teacher modeling and in-
struction rather than as part of a self-initiated, psy-
chogenic process. The children were learning to do
school (Dyson, 1984), to function within the bounds of
the literate community. Some environments are more
conducive to this development than others (Dyson,
1989; Purcell-Gates, 1995; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988;
Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Results from longitudinal studies
of language learners (e.g., Baghban, 1984; Bissex, 1980;
Martens, 1996; Purcell-Gates, 1995; Schickedanz, 1990;
Taylor, 1983) indicate the importance of a supportive so-
cial environment where literacy materials are available,
exploration is encouraged, and functional purposes for
written communication are examined.
Method
Experimental and naturalistic strategies were used
in this study to explore name’s role in literacy acquisi-
tion. Quantitative measures provided a database that was
analyzed for evidence of growth across the year and re-
lationships among literacy tasks. Qualitative information
from observations and interviews supplied the why and
how behind the data through prolonged engagement,
thick description, and analysis of emerging themes
(Lancy, 1993; Patton, 1990).
Participants
Sixty-seven children, ages 3 to 612 years, living in a
small city in central Virginia participated in this study.
Consent to participate was obtained for 71 children
(from a total population of 78). Several children did not
take part in the assessment tasks but provided writing
samples and were observed. Six children enrolled in the
preschool across the year, three of whom took part in
the study. Two children left the kindergarten class, and
three students entered. Several 3-year-old preschoolers
were too shy to take part in the fall assessments, but
they volunteered in the spring. Pre- and post-Literacy
Assessment results were available for 56 children.
The preschoolers were 3- to 5-year-olds instructed
in three alternating-schedule (2-, 3-, and 5-day) classes at
a half-day, private Christian preschool. Seventeen partici-
pants were in the 3-year-old group (fall mean age 40.9
months). The 4-year-old group was split between two
classes at the preschool and consisted of 27 children (fall
mean age 54.2 months). The 23 kindergartners (5-year-
old group, fall mean age 65.9 months) attended the
same class (one of three in the school) in a full-day, K–4
public elementary school.
Six children, three from each school, who repre-
sented a range of the literacy spectrum were selected as
case study participants. Their literacy abilities and per-
ceptions were explored in depth, and personal inter-
views were conducted with their mothers. In response to
open-ended questions, the parents commented regarding
their child’s interest in literacy activities and the types of
reading and writing interactions that occurred in the
home. Case study information augmented classroom
findings through extensive description of each child and
multiple views of the child’s literacy development. In ad-
dition, case studies provided a means to triangulate and
verify conclusions drawn from classroom data.
Classroom teachers and aides were queried con-
cerning their instructional beliefs and procedures for be-
ginning reading and writing, specifically as they
pertained to children’s names. Informal discussions with
the teachers took place throughout the study. Near the
end of the school year, teachers from the three kinder-
garten classes in the elementary school participated in a
group interview. They commented about their literacy
instruction practices and views of name’s role in literacy
acquisition. All interviews were audiotaped, and tran-
scripts were provided to participants for member check-
ing and revision as needed.
School settings
The schools were in the same neighborhood, and
some overlap existed. For example, one kindergarten
girl had attended the preschool, and several preschool-
ers had siblings in the elementary school. However, the
two populations were essentially dissimilar. The
preschool children were homogeneous in background,
coming from educated, professional, mostly Caucasian,
middle-class homes. Asian children (6% of the students),
whose parents were attending graduate school, com-
posed the only minority population. This was a relatively
privileged group whose parents or other caretakers had
the freedom to help with occasional school field trips,
volunteer for special activities in the classroom, and pick
up children after half-day sessions.
WhatÕs in a name?
While many of the kindergarten parents were very
active and involved in their children’s education, this
group was ethnically, economically, and educationally
more diverse (McGill-Franzen, 1992). Over 70% of the
kindergarten children were African American, the re-
mainder Caucasian. About 90% of the children received
free or reduced-price lunch. Their parents’ educational
and employment backgrounds covered a wide range
from high school dropout to college graduates and from
unemployed to nurses and an insurance agent.
Interviews conducted with three preschool and
three kindergarten mothers provide examples of typical
home experiences for the children. All three preschool
parents had attended college, two had completed their
degrees, and all were working part-time so that they
could be home with their young children. The
preschoolers’ fathers worked in a variety of professional
fields—chef, telephone company manager, minister—
and both parents spent time with their children reading
books and playing at the computer. One of the three
kindergarten mothers had completed college but was a
stay-at-home mom while her husband worked for an in-
surance company. The second mother, a single parent
with two children, had attended 2 years of secretarial
school and worked as a legal secretary. The third kinder-
garten mother had completed high school, but her hus-
band had not. She was working as a licensed practical
nurse while her husband worked on the housekeeping
staff of the hospital.
Literacy experiences were more varied for the
three kindergarten children. The first two mothers read
to their children frequently in addition to discussing and
modeling reading and writing experiences. The third
mother commented that her teenage daughter read to
her kindergarten-age twins occasionally. The mother
used flashcards to teach the alphabet, but the boys
showed limited interest.
Educational programs
The educational thrust of the preschool and
kindergarten programs differed greatly (McGill-Franzen
& Lanford, 1994). The preschool children received little
formal academic instruction; emphasis was placed on
learning to interact with peers and adults, experiencing
the world outside the home, and becoming familiar with
the organization of school. Experiential units (e.g., occu-
pations, farm animals), art projects, extended free play in
a variety of learning centers, and a daily Bible story were
common aspects of all three classrooms. A picture book
was read daily in each class, and children were allowed
to look at books during a 15-minute rest time. The initial
circle time each day was the most focused academic ac-
tivity. Calendar and weather charts were updated, and
349
daily helpers were named. The children reviewed the
days of the week and counted the numbers on the cal-
endar, often followed by participating in an interactive
song (e.g., “Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes”).
Teachers in the two 4-year-old rooms introduced a
new alphabet letter each week and asked children to
bring in items beginning with that letter to share with
the class. However, there was limited instruction in-
volved with this activity. Children shared an object dur-
ing Show and Tell, and the teacher commented on its
relationship to the letter. A card with upper- and lower-
case representation of the letter was present, but the
children did not write the letter, and there was little at-
tention drawn to letter-sound relationships. The chil-
dren’s names were present in each room as part of a
birthday display and were written on cards used to se-
lect daily helpers. Preschool teachers and aides provided
support for writing tasks when children initiated the ac-
tivity, but in general, little writing occurred in these
classrooms. Often the faculty wrote the children’s names
on their artwork and other projects.
The kindergarten classroom offered more focused,
directed interactions with literacy. Writing, listening to
stories, and visiting the library to get books to take home
were daily fare. The teacher and her aide modeled and
encouraged experimentation with letter formation, writ-
ing, and reading strategies. Children participated in
small-group, structured language arts lessons each day;
one or more picture books were read and discussed,
tracking was modeled, and often a writing activity was
included. Centers tended to be thematically related. For
example, when the kindergarten classes were preparing
for their annual Family Soup Supper, the housekeeping
center became a grocery store using the canned goods
the children brought in. Names were prominent in the
classroom on the children’s cubbies, crayon boxes, and
activity center charts. In addition, they were incorporated
into instruction (e.g., making name letters from clay) and
life experiences (e.g., discussing the address label on a
book order, reading the attendance list).
The kindergarten children produced a weekly jour-
nal entry about events of their weekend. The processes
of planning, drawing, and writing the entry were careful-
ly modeled by the teacher, and their texts were later
written in book writing as the teacher and her aide point-
ed out sound-letter matches children had included.
During the second half of the year, the children learned
to use computers for their journal stories. From April
through June, children kept reading folders containing a
list of books read (generally Rigby and Wright Group),
the book they were rereading, and their own version of
the text.
350 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3

Assessment tasks Acquisition (ALA; Invernizzi & Bloodgood, 1991).

An extensive Literacy Assessment (LA, Table 1) was
used to evaluate children’s literacy knowledge, including
tasks that assessed name, color, alphabet, spelling, word,
word concept, and phonological awareness. Activities
were administered to individuals in a quiet setting during
three to five 15- to 20-minute sessions. Tasks were given
in a relatively consistent order, with name tasks first, fol-
lowed by color, alphabet, and the syllable tapping task.
In the next sitting, spelling, reading ability, and the
rhyme task were evaluated. The initial consonant picture
sort and writing sample were the last activities for each
assessment. Children participated on a voluntary basis
and were eager to take part. The battery was adminis-
tered twice—during October/November and again in
May/June—for most children.
The Literacy Assessment is a modification of
McGuffey Reading Center’s Assessment of Literacy
Alterations of the ALA necessary for this study allowed a
more thorough investigation of children’s knowledge of
name and an assessment of their known words. Since
the focus of this study was children’s name-writing abili-
ty, story comprehension and book reading tasks did not
seem appropriate or necessary. Alphabet, concept of
word, word recognition, and phonological tasks were in-
cluded to examine name knowledge relationships to
these important areas of literacy acquisition. Table 1
summarizes features of the Literacy Assessment.
Name ability. Three tasks were used to evaluate
name recognition and production. Once rapport was es-
tablished, children were given a sheet of paper and
asked to write their name. Hildreth’s (1936) 7-point scale
(no representation, scribble, linear scribble, separate
units, mock letters, name generally correct, consistent
first name, fluent first and last name) was used to evalu-

Table 1 Name study literacy assessment summary

Name _________________________________ Teacher ______________________

Age _______________ DOB ______________ Grade ________________________
Examiner ______________________________ Date ________________________

I. Name-writing ability
A. Name production: _____ (0-none 1-scribble 2-linear scribble 3-separate units 4-mock letters 5-name generally correct 6-consistent first
name 7-fluent first and last name)
B. Name recognition: _____ (0-none 1-words vs. letters 2-own, confused by distractor 3-own name 4-other names 5-fluent)
C. Name dictation: _____ (0-7 as IA above) Comment: ______________________________________________________________________________

II. Color knowledge (0-8)

A. Color naming: _____ B. Color recognition: _____

III. Alphabet knowledge

A. Alphabet recitation: _____ (0-none 1-few [A to D] 2-some [A to H] 3-most 4-all 5-fluent)
B. Letter production: _____ (0-26) Comment: ______________________________________________________________________________________
C. Letter naming: Uppercase _____ (0-26) Lowercase _____ (0-26)
D. Letter recognition: _____ (0-26)

IV. Spelling
A. Spelling accuracy: _____ (0-7)
B. Features present: _____ (0-scribble/mock letter 1-random letter 2-initial consonant 3-initial and final consonant 4-letter-name vowel
5-long-vowel marker)

V. Reading ability
A. Word recognition: _____ (0-15) Comment: ______________________________________________________________________________________
B. Known words: _____ (Number) Comment (Type): ______________________________________________________________________________
C. Concept of word: _____ (0-no direction 1-linear movement 2-stress w/out unit match 3-stress-to-letter 4-syllable-to-word unit
5-off track by 2-syllable words 6-self-corrects 7-firm match)

VI. Phonological awareness

A. Syllable tapping: _____ (0-10)
B. Initial-consonant sort: _____ (0-12)
C. Rhyme odd-one-out task: _____ (0-10)

VII. Writing sample

A. Type of product: _____ (1-scribble 2-drawing 3-drawing & text mixed 4-drawing & label 5-text 6-elaboration)
B. Process comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WhatÕs in a name?
ate name productions. Then a set of six cards containing
names of the child and several classmates was intro-
duced, and the child was asked to identify the names. A
distractor name beginning with the same initial letter was
included whenever possible. To determine if names had
been learned through rote copied patterns or through
orally spelled patterns (Villaume & Wilson, 1989), chil-
dren also wrote their name as the letters were dictated to
them. They were asked to read the word they had writ-
ten in response to the dictation, and their replies were
recorded. To guard against practice effects of this task
from the fall administration, a distractor word (e.g.,
Indian for Ian; carpet for Carter) was dictated prior and
in addition to the children’s names in the spring.
Reliability for name measures was .95, and fall-spring
stability was .84.
Color tasks. Color naming and color recognition
were two tasks added to the literacy battery to provide
activities where even the youngest children could expe-
rience success. Children were given credit for identifying
the color of each of eight classic-color markers. If they
were unable to supply color names, they were then
asked to point to the colored marker named by the
tester. Many children reached ceiling on the color tasks.
Reliability for color tasks was .86, with fall-spring stabili-
ty at .88.
Alphabet tasks. Five measures were used to evalu-
ate alphabet knowledge, an essential element in literacy
development (Ehri, 1983; Hiebert, 1981; Walsh, Price, &
Gillingham, 1988; Worden & Boettcher, 1990). The chil-
dren were asked to recite the alphabet, using the jingle if
it was helpful. Letter production was the second alpha-
bet measure, and the children were encouraged to write
all the letters they knew; any letters they omitted were
dictated for them to write. In addition, the children were
shown displays of randomly ordered letters and request-
ed to identify first upper- and then lowercase forms. If a
letter was not identified, the tester provided the letter
name and asked the children to point to it. Letter recog-
nition scores were obtained from the letters correctly
identified in this manner added to the letters previously
named. Reliability for letter measures was .97, and fall-
spring stability was .72.
Spelling. The spelling of the word mat was mod-
eled for each of the children. Then they were asked to
spell seven other words (bed, slide, tack, fell, drip, wish,
brave). The number of words spelled correctly was tal-
lied, but few children were able to achieve a power
score on this measure. A scale ranging from 0 (scrib-
ble/mock letter) to 5 (long-vowel marker, Table 1) was
used to indicate spelling representations. The most ad-
vanced feature present was credited, provided it ap-
peared in a majority of the seven words.
351
Reading ability. Two measures of word knowledge
and one evaluation of concept of word (fingerpoint
reading) were used. Children were asked to identify 15
words taken from preprimers and environmental print
(e.g., cat, and, see, PEPSI™, STOP). The words were
presented on individual cards and appeared in either up-
per- or lowercase form. Scores ranged from 0 to 15. In
addition, children were encouraged to write down all
the words they knew. Support was given to help them
recall possibilities when they failed to think of others on
their own (Clay, 1985). Each word spelled correctly was
credited. Finally, children were asked to point to words
in a short poem as they said them, and their tracking
ability was evaluated (Ehri & Sweet, 1991; Morris, 1981,
1983). Four lines of “The Little Turtle” by Vachel Lindsay
(Chall & Popp, 1986) were memorized. Tracking was
modeled before children attempted it. Scores for this
measure ranged along a scale from 0 to 7 (0-no direc-
tion, 1-linear movement, 2-stress without unit match, 3-
stress matched to letter, 4-syllable matched to word unit,
5-thrown off track by two-syllable words, 6-self-corrects,
7-firm match). Reliability for reading ability measures
was .83, with a fall-spring stability of .82.
Phonological awareness activities. Many studies
have reported the predictive power of phonological
awareness to beginning reading (Bradley & Bryant, 1983;
Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991; Goswami & Bryant;
1990; Juel, 1988; Liberman & Shankweiler, 1991; Share,
Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984). Three game-like ac-
tivities measured children’s phonological understandings.
The tasks were undertaken following training examples
and were spread throughout the assessment to avoid
possible confusion. The syllable-tapping task consisted
of tapping for each syllable in 10 words (e.g., house, hot-
dog, pocketbook, child’s name). Rhyme sensitivity was
evaluated through an Odd-One-Out task. Ten sets of
four pictures each (e.g., hen, ten, bed, pen) were pre-
sented, and children were asked to identify the picture
that did not fit the rhyme. Initial-sound awareness was
measured with a picture sorting game consisting of three
sounds (/b/, /m/, /s/). Three cards were used as models,
and children sorted the remaining 12 pictures by the be-
ginning sound. Phonological tasks had a reliability of .69
and stability of .65.
Writing sample. Children were asked to draw a
picture and write a story on a topic of their choice. An
upcoming holiday was suggested as a prompt if they
had difficulty devising a topic. Qualitative comments
about children’s writing processes were recorded (e.g.,
degree of motor control; handedness; use of letter, mock
letter, or scribble; sophistication of dictation), and prod-
ucts were evaluated for sophistication of content, degree
of writing development, and name-letter content. The
352 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3
writing task had an alpha of .40 with a fall-spring stabili-
ty of .36. Other writing samples were collected from the
children throughout the year. Preschool children provid-
ed 340 written products (mean of 8 per child), and 520
samples (mean of 24 per child) came from the kinder-
garten. All writing samples were examined qualitatively
for evidence of development over time.
Informal interactions
I observed classroom interactions twice weekly
throughout the school year in each school setting for a
total of 200 observation hours at each site. Writing sam-
ples, supplemented by field notes and occasional audio-
tape transcriptions, provided an ongoing record of
literacy experiences. The children were asked to write
their name on each of their productions, copies were
made, and the originals were returned to them.
Observation journals of field notes were kept for each
school setting. I recorded details of daily schedules,
lessons, and children’s and teachers’ comments and in-
teractions. Descriptions of the classroom setting, the ac-
tivities occurring, and particular literacy interactions
between teacher and children or among children were
recorded in field notes.
As a participant observer, I established an informal
writing center at the preschool, where children came to
write and draw in pairs or small groups. My role was
that of sounding board, dictation scribe, and word elon-
gator as children sounded out and wrote their own mes-
sages. In the kindergarten class, I had more of an
observer role as the teacher and her aide carried out lit-
eracy instruction. During journal writing, I assisted stu-
dents in much the same way that I worked with the
preschoolers. In the spring, the kindergarten children
learned to use The Writing Center program for Macintosh
computers to record their weekend stories. The teacher
and I assisted children in sounding out words and pro-
vided guidance for spacing, capitalization, and punctua-
tion as they transcribed their messages from the journal
page to the computer. Once children had finished their
message, we wrote their story in conventional writing at
the bottom of the page, calling attention to features that
the children had captured.
To keep the investigative process honest and to
provide a trail of the study’s evolution, I maintained a
methodological log, recording comments related to ob-
served events, working hypotheses, and emerging theo-
ries. This journal provided an ongoing narrative of the
process by which the study evolved and of the various
hypotheses explored. In addition, two peer debriefers re-
viewed study processes and products, offering advice
and independent viewpoints throughout the duration of
the study.
Methods of analysis
To explore indications of a developmental progres-
sion in name-writing ability and parallels to other literacy
areas (Objective 1), descriptive statistics and correlations
were obtained from the fall and spring Literacy
Assessments. Results were compared both within age
groups across time and across age groups. Writing sam-
ples, classroom observations, and interactions revealed
patterns that supplemented these findings.
To examine the contribution name knowledge
makes to early writing (Objective 2), a content analysis
of letters contained in a subset of writing samples was
conducted. If name knowledge contributes substantially
to other literacy domains, name letters should appear in
higher proportion in children’s random-letter written
products. All of the writing samples from 30 children (8
from the 4-year-old-group, 22 from the 5-year-old group)
who had produced samples that contained letters were
analyzed. Many children from the preschool were using
drawing and scribble or mock letters in their writing at-
tempts; the 30 children selected were using random-let-
ter spelling, in that they had not connected letters to
sounds with any consistency. The writing samples (a to-
tal of 349 containing 4,818 letters) were examined to de-
termine the relative frequency of name letters and the
prevalence of specific letter patterns. Four letters (N, S, L,
R), the only consonants appearing in nine or more of the
children’s first names, were used to establish groups
(i.e., name-letter group and nonname-letter group) for
each letter. The target letter count, compared to all other
letters, was tallied for each group. Chi-square and inde-
pendent t tests were used to determine levels of signifi-
cance. Qualitative analysis of letter content from writing
samples revealed patterns specific to individual children.
Qualitative procedures were particularly applicable
to this study of name’s role in literacy acquisition since
early literacy accomplishments are so intertwined and
change so quickly. Emerging themes were grounded in
my classroom observations; interactions with children,
teachers, and parents; and information gleaned from in-
terviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lancy, 1993). A con-
stant comparative process across all sources of information
supported and refined the important themes. Multiple re-
spondents (e.g., class groups, individual students, teach-
ers, parents, aides), information sources (e.g., literacy
assessments, observations, interviews, written products),
and methods (e.g., quantitative analysis, case study, in-
terview, observation analysis, member checks) provided
triangulation of the data and assured trustworthiness of
the project. Two peer debriefers, one of whom also
served as auditor, reviewed and frequently discussed the
study’s evolving design with me.
WhatÕs in a name? 353

Table 2 Fall and spring means (standard deviations) for literacy variables for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds

Fall Spring
________________________________________ ________________________________________
3-year-olds 4-year-olds 5-year-olds 3-year-olds 4-year-olds 5-year-olds
Variable (N = 10) (N = 19) (N = 20) (N = 15) (N = 19) (N = 21)

Name 2.2 4.74 4.75 3.33 5.58 6.05

production (7)* (1.03) (0.87) (1.12) (1.45) (0.96) (0.97)

Name 2.2 3.47 3.9 2.87 4.11 4.29

recognition (5) (1.62) (0.61) (0.31) (1.60) (0.81) (0.56)

Name 0.7 4.32 4.25 3.0 5.42 5.67

dictation (7) (1.49) (0.82) (1.07) (1.51) (0.90) (1.02)

Letter 0.3 8.58 7.85 2.87 19.26 22.33

production (26) (0.95) (6.59) (6.68) (3.46) (7.42) (4.33)

Spelling (5) 0.1 1.37 1.15 0.27 2.05 2.0

(0.32) (1.12) (0.88) (0.59) (1.08) (0.89)

Color 6.0 7.89 7.75 7.53 8.0 7.90

naming (8) (2.62) (0.46) (0.91) (1.55) (0.00) (0.44)

Word 0.0 0.16 0.5 0.87 2.58 3.43

recognition (15) (0.00) (0.37) (1.10) (3.09) (3.49) (3.92)

Concept 0.2 1.11 1.3 0.8 1.79 2.67

of word (7) (0.42) (0.99) (1.53) (1.52) (1.87) (2.39)

Syllable 5.1 5.79 7.95 4.53 7.37 7.38

tapping (10) (2.73) (2.30) (1.76) (3.56) (1.67) (2.09)

Initial 0.8 8.26 8.55 4.0 10.11 9.81

consonant (12) (2.53) (4.01) (3.89) (3.74) (3.75) (2.62)

Rhyme odd- 0.3 4.63 4.4 2.27 6.89 4.95

one-out (10) (0.68) (2.89) (3.12) (1.67) (2.56) (2.46)

Age 40.9 54.16 65.85 46.79 62.16 73.67

(months) (3.78) (3.56) (4.34) (3.72) (3.92) (4.23)

Note. *Total possible score for each measure.

A peer familiar with qualitative research procedures
conducted an audit. The Halpern algorithm (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985) was followed closely to examine method-
ological rigor and verify findings. Three specific points
(e.g., length of name and ease of representation) were
traced backward from conclusions through independent
examination of testing results, writing samples, and field
notes on small-group classroom contexts to the raw data;
the conclusions were found to be supported by the evi-
dence. The auditor examined information from the six
case studies and found that the emergent categories ade-
quately and accurately represented the data.
Results
Table 2, which contains means and standard devia-
tions of selected variables from the fall and spring
Literacy Assessments, reveals that the three age groups
made gains in literacy understanding across the time of
the study. The 3-year-old group differed considerably in
the amount of literacy knowledge they could command
compared to the 4- and 5-year-old groups.
Literacy awareness of 3-year-olds
Although the 3-year-olds’ name knowledge had im-
proved only to a mock letter/letter approximation level
by May in most cases, name represented the most ad-
vanced area of their written literacy awareness. A few
with short first names (e.g., Ben, Abby) made recogniz-
able signatures, while others (e.g., Corey and Robert,
Figure 1 top) wrote the first letter and sometimes the
last. The improvement in spring name dictation scores
suggests that name letters and letter names of those
forms were becoming integrated. However, the 3-year-
354 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3

Figure 1 Corey’s and Robert’s literacy development shown through writing samples over a year’s time (spring of 3-
year-old preschool experience to spring of 4-year-old class)
WhatÕs in a name?
olds’ letter and word knowledge was sparse. In May,
two girls recognized most of the alphabet, while most 3-
year-olds knew only one or two letters; letter production
was minimal. The letters these children recognized and
attempted to produce derived from their own names or
names of family and friends. For example, Augie identi-
fied A for Augie, C for his cousin Curt, and N for
Norman, his father’s name. Robert produced a back-
wards R, o, and t, but they were not in linear form or
conventional order (Figure 1, top right). Few children
could identify any words; frequent responses were let-
ters, classmates’ names, or concrete objects. Syllable tap-
ping was the only phonological task where any
3-year-olds were successful. This may have reflected
metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness as much as
literacy skills; although the tasks were carefully ex-
plained and modeled, many children had difficulty un-
derstanding the nature of the task.
Literacy growth of 4- and 5-year-olds
The 4- and 5-year-old groups were comparable in
literacy skills despite almost one full year age difference.
Many children in both groups recognized their own
names easily and were close to having a recognizable
first-name signature at the beginning of the year. By
May, their name production and writing of their name
from dictation had improved to the level of a consistent-
ly produced first name. Name, letter, color, and phono-
logical scores from October suggest similarities in literacy
knowledge evident for the 4- and 5-year-old groups
(Table 2). Eleven of 19 children came to their 4-year-old
class knowing how to write their first names in recogniz-
able form and were able to recognize some of the alpha-
bet. Roughly the same proportion of 5-year-olds (12 of
21) came to kindergarten with those skills.
In some areas, such as letter production and rhyme
awareness, the preschool children appear more ad-
vanced than their older, kindergarten counterparts in the
fall. While classroom instruction would have had little
impact at that point in the school year, differences in
home literacy interactions—playing with language, writ-
ing, and reading stories—and preschool experiences
may be important factors in these results. Most of the 4-
year-olds were entering their second year of preschool;
several of the kindergarten children had received little or
no preschool experience. Lawrence, the kindergarten
child whose mother was a practical nurse, had attended
half a year of 2-day preschool with his twin brother
when his mother learned that there was an inexpensive
program available at the local vocational school.
Comparison of October and May mean scores for
the 4- and 5-year-old groups indicated that the kinder-
gartners made greater strides in letter and word knowl-
355
edge with a decrease in variability for letter production.
Kindergarten children, who received direct instruction in
alphabet knowledge and were encouraged to write dai-
ly, seemed to have benefited from these experiences.
Variability increased for 4- and 5-year-olds in word
recognition and concept of word. Other than their
names, both groups had almost no known words in the
fall and were unable to track speech in print. Twelve 4-
and 5-year-olds (4 preschoolers, 8 kindergartners) were
developing stores of sight words in May and were more
successful in fingerpointing to words in running text as
they said them. The increased variability in these mea-
sures can be accounted for by the advances these chil-
dren had made in developing sight words and tracking
abilities while their classmates were consolidating name
and letter knowledge.
The 4-year-olds showed greater growth in phono-
logical awareness when compared to the 5-year-olds;
kindergartners made notable gains in initial-consonant
knowledge only. Instructional emphases appear to be re-
flected in these results. Teachers at the preschool used
songs and rhyming games frequently in their classrooms;
the kindergarten teacher spent more time discussing and
demonstrating sound-letter matches. Differences in back-
ground experience and opportunities to actively engage
in literacy tasks played a role in the two groups’ similari-
ties despite a year’s difference in age. The 4-year-olds
were relatively privileged in their experiences, as their
teachers and all three preschool parents related. The
kindergarten teachers reported that several of their stu-
dents lived in homes where few books were available
and “[T]here were four or five who had no idea how to
begin—that you begin at the left and go to the right—no
idea what the letters looked like” (Kindergarten teacher
interview, 4-18-94).
Correlational information
Considerable consistency was evident between
name production and name dictation scores across the
three groups for both fall and spring (r = .69, p > .05 to
.92, p > .01), as seen in Tables 3 through 5. Children
could produce their names from the dictated letters with
skill almost equal to that used in writing their names in-
dependently, indicating that identification and formation
of these letters were part of the literacy repertoire for
most of the children.
High correlations were evident among several clus-
ters of literacy measures, but age was related to literacy
tasks at a statistically significant level in only a few in-
stances: name recognition for 3-year-olds in the fall and
name tasks for 5-year-olds in the spring. Many name and
letter tasks were correlated among the three groups, and
the relationships became increasingly strong with the old-
356 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3

Table 3 Fall and spring correlations for key variables, 3-year-old group

NP NR ND LP SP CN WR CW ST IC ROM Age

NP .52 .85* .71* .55 .27 .33 .39 .38 .01 .49 .33
NR .11 .44 .64* .49 .49 .40 .40 .04 .38 .34 .43
ND .69 .40 .76* .64 .18 .38 .50 .64 .33 .28 .43
LP .61 .17 .78* .78* .25 .73* .77* .37 .60 .33 .46
SP .61 .17 .78* 1 .15 .84* .85* .27 .48 -.01 .28
CN .29 .31 .40 .27 .27 .09 .17 .16 .31 .44 .19
WR — — — — — — .95* .20 .59 -.05 .14
CW .15 .42 .46 .67 .67 .40 — .36 .63 .08 .27
ST .15 .47 .17 .12 .12 .37 — .08 .48 .36 .41
IC .61 .17 .78* 1 1 .27 — .67* .12 -.18 .40
ROM .54 -.06 .65 .89* .89* -.06 — .55 -.08 .89* .43
Age .35 .86* .70 .47 .47 .57 — .64 .39 .47 .27

Fall correlations N = 10, df = 8 *p .01 > .765 Spring correlations N = 15, df = 13 *p .01 > .641
Note. NP-name production; NR-name recognition; ND-name dictation; LP-letter production; SP-spelling; CN-color naming; WR-word recognition; CW-concept of word; ST-
syllable tapping; IC-initial-consonant sort; ROM-rhyme odd-one-out.

Table 4 Fall and spring correlations for key variables, 4-year-old group

NP NR ND LP SP CN WR CW ST IC ROM Age

NP .56 .92* .55 .45 — .19 .20 .21 .21 -.27 .28
NR -.17 .62* .70* .63* — .49 .49 .18 .44 -.34 .26
ND .82* .58* .52 .55 — .17 .12 .26 .23 .28 .39
LP .60* .12 .70* .66* — .55 .40 .02 .24 -.42 .25
SP .11 .14 .23 .57 — .49 .53 .36 .30 -.14 .06
CN -.07 .58* -.20 .21 .30 — — — — — —
WR .65* .14 .73* .70* .12 .10 .65* .19 .33 -.06 .11
CW .42 -.18 .50 .66* .56 .03 .55 -.01 .22 -.10 -.09
ST .55 -.16 .45 .34 .01 -.13 .17 .11 .17 -.32 .06
IC .40 .04 .43 .37 .31 .02 .27 .36 .37 -.18 .01
ROM .40 -.18 .33 .05 .22 .05 .11 .36 .37 .45 -.10
Age .48 .07 .46 .28 -.02 -.13 .19 -.02 .32 -.10 .16

Fall correlations N = 19, df = 17 *p .01 > .575 Spring correlations N = 19, df = 17 *p .01 > .575
Note. NP-name production; NR-name recognition; ND-name dictation; LP-letter production; SP-spelling; CN-color naming; WR-word recognition; CW-concept of word; ST-
syllable tapping; IC-initial-consonant sort; ROM-rhyme odd-one-out.

Table 5 Fall and spring correlations for key variables, 5-year-old group

NP NR ND LP SP CN WR CW ST IC ROM Age

NP .43 .88* .77* .17 .48 .49 .39 .04 .53 .04 .50
NR .08 .61* .66* .20 .53 .51 .07 -.18 .45 -.28 .57*
ND .85* .08 .88* .33 .60* .57* .38 .16 .63* -.21 .66*
LP .77* .04 .76* .38 .71* .43 .26 .19 .73* -.16 .51
SP .69* -.14 .63* .71* 0 .51 .40 .62* .30 .11 .13
CN .40 .09 .28 .24 .31 .20 .16 .04 .68* -.19 .31
WR .62* .16 .74* .59* .74* .13 .68* .33 .40 .23 .16
CW .66* .07 .69* .80* .83* .21 .75* .53 .50 .47 -.12
ST -.09 -.20 -.02 -.08 -.06 -.30 -.26 .03 .37 .41 -.26
IC .36 -.08 .28 .33 .50 -.02 .27 .36 .20 .12 .27
ROM .45 .04 .43 .28 .42 .13 .25 .42 .08 .46 -.51
Age .27 .38 -.03 .23 .16 .34 -.08 .13 -.06 -.03 .03

Fall correlations N = 21, df = 19 *p .01 > .549 Spring correlations N = 21, df = 19 *p .01 > .549
Note. NP-name production; NR-name recognition; ND-name dictation; LP-letter production; SP-spelling; CN-color naming; WR-word recognition; CW-concept of word; ST-
syllable tapping; IC-initial-consonant sort; ROM-rhyme odd-one-out.
WhatÕs in a name?
er children. While several statistically significant correla-
tions were apparent in the fall 3-year-old group, these are
affected by the performance of one child who could rec-
ognize most of the alphabet and found the phonological
tasks easy. Although 3-year-old Abby could recite the let-
ters in her name, she had difficulty forming them.
Correlations among name production, name dicta-
tion, and letter production were consistently high for the
4- and 5-year-old groups and for the 3-year-old group in
the spring. These factors were strongly related to word
recognition, concept of word, spelling, and the initial-
consonant sorting task. Rhyme and syllable tapping did
not appear to have a consistent or strong relationship to
the other literacy measures except for the fall 3-year-old
group. Color naming was a task most children mastered
by the end of the study. One child in the 5-year-old
spring group who could not identify all of the colors
also had difficulty with name, letter, and initial-conso-
nant tasks.
Name production for the kindergartners in May
was less robustly correlated with spelling, word recogni-
tion, and concept of word than in the fall (r = .62 to .69
fall; .17 to .49 spring). This can be attributed to the num-
ber of children in the 5-year-old group who had automa-
tized writing their names and thus reached ceiling on
that measure but had continued to grow in other areas
of literacy. Letter production and identification tasks re-
mained highly correlated with name production and dic-
tation (r = .75 to .84 fall; .56 to .88 spring). A similar
pattern of weaker correlations between letter measures
and spelling, word knowledge, and concept of word
tasks was apparent for the kindergarten children in the
spring (r = .53 to .82 fall; .22 to .47 spring).
Table 6 Comparison of selected letter proportions and chi-square values in name and nonname
writing samples from 4- and 5-year-old children
Letter Proportion
R in Name (N = 19) 139/2,673
R Not in Name (N = 9) 36/1,314
L in Name (N = 9) 121/1,324
L Not in Name (N = 21) 137/3,236
N in Name (N = 15) 169/1,893
N Not in Name (N = 15) 104/2,652
S in Name (N = 9) 152/1,736
S Not in Name (N = 21) 73/2,857
Note. Total characters in all writing samples equals 4,818. Two students’ work was not included in the R analysis because they had R in other
parts of their name.
**p < .001, chi-square for 1 df = 10.83.
357
Writing sample content analysis
Close examination of the particular letters and pat-
terns used by 30 4- and 5-year-old children who consis-
tently used random letters (i.e., without attempts to
match letters to sounds) in their writing samples over the
span of the year indicated that name letters comprised
41% of the total 4,818 characters present. Name letters
accounted for as little as 16% and as much as 86%, with
most children devoting 30 to 50% of their random-letter
writing to letters from their own names.
Qualitative examination of individual patterns of
name-letter use provided some insights to children’s
thinking. Derek, the child with the lowest name-letter
percentage (30 of 187 total letters), experimented with
lowercase r and e but otherwise used a wide variety of
letters. Of all the kindergarten children, he seemed to
make the least connection between name and other liter-
acy skills in the fall assessment. He could produce 3 let-
ters and identify 6—none from his own name. When the
letters of his name were dictated, he wrote ASPSA.
However, he had learned to write his first name quite
clearly and accurately with a combination of upper- and
lowercase letters. Clearly, Derek’s name was a rote lo-
gogram for him, and his production of it was not at-
tached in any way to alphabet letter names in the fall.
Four-year-old Cameron, the child with the highest
proportion of name letters in her writing (31 of 36 let-
ters), also wrote her name logographically. In October,
she could identify only one letter, X, and when asked to
write a C for the name dictation task asked, “C ? What
does it look like?” In May, the only letter from her name
that Cameron could identify was C. Her writing samples
were limited to name letters because those were the let-
Percent Chi-square
5.2
2.7 11.71**
9.1
4.2 37.11**
8.9
3.9 43.16**
8.8
2.6 79.71**
358 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3
ters she knew how to form, and she realized that they
played some role in the mysterious business of literacy.
Table 6 shows the proportion of selected letters (R,
L, N, S) present in writing samples grouped by children
who did and did not have those letters in their first
name. Replications of this analysis with four letters re-
sulted in chi-square values that were statistically signifi-
cant beyond the .001 level. The high chi-square value for
S versus non-S suggests the effects of letter form on the
characters children choose to represent. The inverted
curves and question of directionality for S make it a diffi-
cult letter for children to master; those who had practice
writing it through multiple productions of their own
name used it freely, while others tended to avoid it.
The 30 children produced a range of between 11
and 480 letters in their writing. When group proportions
were obtained for the chi-square test, contributions of
children who wrote few letters could have been under-
valued. To correct for this problem, independent t tests
were used to determine statistical significance when
mean differences for individual proportions of name and
nonname R, L, N, and S were examined. For three letters
(L, N, S), mean differences were statistically significant at
or beyond the .01 level.
Further examination of children’s written work re-
vealed other individual patterns that did not lend them-
selves to quantitative analysis because determining
appropriate units of measure was difficult. Many children
appeared to use the beginning or ending letters of their
names extensively. For instance, Deanta included 18 Ds
and 3 repetitions of nta in the total of 78 characters he
produced; Shannon wrote SHAA six times and noon four
times in a total of 290 letters. Others focused on the mid-
dle letters. Christopher used an ris pattern four times in
124 letters; Bridget included dge eight times in her al-
most 500 character total. Children with double letters in
their names (e.g., Brittany, Jarnelle) tended to include
more doublets in their writing; Brittany included 11 dou-
blets, and Shannon had 16. A number of children experi-
mented with the formation and orientation of name
letters in their pictures and weekend journals. Susie
worked on s, Kennan and Andrew played with N, and
Lawrence and Marquis struggled with r.
In this random-letter period, there appears to be a
reflexive relationship between name and writing efforts.
Most children use the literacy tools they can command—
the letters of their names—to convey their messages in
print and their intent to participate in the literate com-
munity. Likewise, opportunities to write provide the fo-
rum to practice and perfect name-letter formation,
orientation, and sequence, which may in turn be used in
the service of writing for other purposes.
Progression of literacy development
Data from the spring Literacy Assessment were re-
organized according to children’s age and level of name-
writing development. Hildreth (1936) outlined seven
levels of name writing development: scribble, linear
scribble, separate units, mock letters, name generally
correct, consistent first name, fluent first and last name.
Descriptive statistics, computed by age group within
each of these levels, are reported in Table 7. Although
there is overlap across the levels of name writing for the
groups of children, there seems to be a consistent pro-
gression across ages. In addition, children who demon-
strated greater control of name production were more
knowledgeable in other literacy realms as well.
The literacy accomplishments that were generally
evident for children achieving Levels 3 through 7 of
Hildreth’s (1936) name-writing development are summa-
rized in Table 8. Children producing separate symbols
for their first name (Level 3) in the fall ranged in age
from 3 years, 1 month to 5 years, 1 month; those with
generally correct first names (Level 5) were 4 years, 1
month to 5 years, 11 months. Children with consistent
first name production (Level 6) were between 4 years, 1
month and 5 years, 10 months. No one achieved fluent
name production (Level 7) in the fall. The spring
Assessment revealed that all of the children had moved
forward in their ability to write their name and in other
literacy accomplishments as well. Twelve children could
produce a fluent signature and could identify all of the
alphabet as well as identify a few words in isolation.
Data from Literacy Assessments and writing samples sup-
port a progression in literacy skills that begins with
name recognition for most children.
Patterns of literacy development
The ability of children to write their name seemed
closely related to, and indicative of, other literacy com-
petencies. During the first assessment, a majority of 3-
year-olds in this study had greater adeptness in
recognizing and writing their own names than in any of
the other literacy tasks asked of them. Many of the 4-
and 5-year-olds had greater facility forming their own
names, both independently or from dictation, than in
identifying or producing letters of the alphabet in the
fall. Their repertoire of known words, concept of word,
and awareness of sound-letter matches, as seen in their
spelling attempts, was even more severely limited than
their alphabet knowledge.
The progress of the 3-year-old children most clear-
ly indicated the importance of name knowledge to litera-
cy growth. Several children who had used linear
scribbles or mock letters to indicate their names in the
fall used recognizable letter forms in the spring (e.g.,
WhatÕs in a name? 359

Table 7 Spring literacy assessment variables mean and (standard deviations) grouped by Hildreth name-writing scale
and age

Hildreth level Age LR* SP WR WK CW IC

3 separate 3 (N = 6) 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 .33 3.5

units (2.14) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (.52) (3.89)

4 mock 3 (N = 3) 10.0 .33 .33 0.0 .67 5.0

letter (13.0) (.58) (.58) (0.0) (.58) (0.0)

4 (N = 2) 15.5 1.0 1.5 .5 1.0 11.5

(14.8) (1.41) (2.12) (.71) (0.0) (.71)

5 (N = 2) 19.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 5.5

(8.48) (0.0) (0.0) (2.12) (0.0) (4.95)

5 name correct 3 (N = 2) 13.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 3.0 6.0

in general (18.38) (1.41) (8.49) (0.0) (4.24) (8.49)

4 (N = 8) 21.63 2.0 2.13 1.75 1.63 9.86

(4.57) (1.07) (4.85) (3.49) (1.77) (4.49)

5 (N = 3) 20.00 2.0 1.67 2.33 2.67 10.33

(6.56) (1.0) (1.53) (2.52) (2.89) (2.89)

6 first name 3 (N = 1) 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0

consistent (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

4 (N = 7) 15.5 1.5 2.14 1.83 1.83 10.4

(9.8) (.76) (2.73) (2.73) (2.04) (1.67)

5 (N = 8) 24.0 1.63 2.63 3.13 1.63 9.5

(2.56) (.74) (1.69) (2.64) (1.41) (1.93)

7 fluent first 4 (N = 4) 26.0 3.0 3.5 4.75 2.25 12.0

and (0.0) (.82) (1.73) (3.10) (2.50) (0.0)
last name
5 (N = 8) 26.0 2.38 5.88 9.0 4.13 11.13
(0.0) (1.06) (5.36) (8.75) (2.75) (1.13)

*Note. LR-letter recognition (0-26); SP-spelling (0-5); WR- word recognition (0-15); WK-words known (total spelled correct); CW-concept of word (0-7); IC-initial-consonant
picture sort (0-12)

Robert, Figure 1). The letters they could identify were
from their own names or from the names of family
members or classmates. The 3-year-olds could read
classmates’ names as a result of their experiences at cir-
cle time, but many had difficulty if there were two
names beginning with the same letter. Brittany and Ben,
Kevin and Kristina were often confused by classmates,
and Corey had to check several times to distinguish his
own name from Catherine’s.
Growing awareness of literacy functions was evi-
dent in the children’s writing samples. The children
could distinguish between drawing and writing; they fre-
quently used linear scribbles to indicate text but includ-
ed the best representation of their own name to identify
themselves. Names remained the most meaningful as-
pects of print for some of the 3-year-olds. When en-
gaged in a chalkboard writing game, the children were
excited about having their names written on the board
but lost interest when other words were mentioned.
Most of the 3-year-old children could provide the first
letter of their names orally, although they had difficulty
producing them or identifying them in isolation. Two
girls in this class found it difficult to put their literacy
knowledge into print. They could identify a number of
letters and had some understanding of letter-sound
matches, but lack of either fine-motor control or experi-
ence in forming letters kept them from using their
knowledge on paper.
Qualitative observations
Several themes evolving from observations, inter-
views, and writing samples highlight children’s interac-
tions with and growing development of name
knowledge and the roles that adults fill in this process.
Linguistic understanding, motor control, personality, and
360 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3

Table 8 Children’s literacy competencies in relation to name-writing ability

Levels of name-writing proficiency (Hildreth, 1936)

3 separate 4 mock 5 name correct 6 consistent 7 fluent

Skill units letter in general first name first and last name

Name recognize recognize recognize recognize recognize

own without own despite own and own quickly; own and
distractor distractor others; can fluent others; aware
scribble to mock-letter produce to production of dictation
dictation dictation dictation to dictation distractor

Letter none to one third to one half one half or more; most to all all known;
few, first uppercase uppercase both uppercase uppercase and
from names letters stronger and lowercase lowercase
well formed

Spell linear mock letter random letter initial consonant initial & final
scribble perhaps perhaps perhaps final consonant,
may draw initial initial or salient vowel or filler;
words consonant consonant sound sight words
correct

Word none none; real none; items 1 to 6/15* 3 to 15/15

items named or phrases words rapid gains in
named (cat, no) sight words

Concept random to linear linear linear to self-correcting

of word linear pointing to to stable
stress

Color some to most to all all all

perhaps all all

Note. *Word recognition from a word list containing 15 items.

instructional stances play important roles in children’s
ability to use and learn from their written names.
Name recognition. Children’s recognition of their
own names appears to be a consistent and tangible sign
of environment-independent print awareness. Few of the
younger children could recognize any isolated words in
print, and those who were developing this skill could
identify their own name long before they could consis-
tently recognize any other word. A preschool mother
commented that her daughter had begun writing her
name during her year in the 4-year-old class, but “She
has recognized her name longer than that. You know, if
she saw it written down somewhere, she’d say, ‘That’s
my name,’ or she’d recognize an S, ‘My name starts with
that’” (Parent interview, 2-17-94).
Once their names became stable written units, chil-
dren identified them regardless of environment or print
form. For example, Kennan wrote his name in capital
letters throughout kindergarten, but he never had diffi-
culty recognizing it in upper- and lowercase form as it
was used in the classroom. Four-year-old Robert started
to write his name in mirror letters from the right side of
the page, then shifted to the left and wrote it correctly.
The first attempt was not his name, not because it was
backwards but because, “It doesn’t have the cross thing
(t) at the end” (Preschool field notes, 3-15-94). Although
Lawrence entered kindergarten with limited literacy
knowledge compared to his classmates, he never con-
fused his name with others beginning with the same let-
ter. Once classroom communities have solidified,
children become adept at recognizing classmates’ names
in addition to their own. Using initial letters, several 3-
year-olds called out the names of classroom helpers
when the cards were placed in the chart in the spring.
When the kindergarten teacher used name cards to iden-
tify alphabet letters in October, other children called out
the name almost as quickly as the name’s owner re-
sponded (Kindergarten field notes, 10-25-93).
Name production. Mastering formation of all the
letters in their names proved challenging for several chil-
dren but for different reasons. Several of the 3- and 4-
year-olds found the task of putting their literacy
knowledge into print very arduous. They could identify
a number of letters and had some understanding of let-
ter-sound matches, but lack of either fine-motor control
or experience in forming letters prevented them from
WhatÕs in a name?
demonstrating what they knew. For example, 4-year-old
Carter recognized 25 letters in the fall and dictated
spellings that included correct initial and final conso-
nants, but he produced his name with huge, wobbly let-
ters and wrote only 7 alphabet letters on his own. His
mother noted that because he was interested in letters
and words, she tried to help him write his name by
holding his hand as he formed the letters (Parent inter-
view, 3-25-94). Carter lacked the motor control to pro-
duce letters equal to his level of alphabet knowledge.
Five-year-old Lawrence lacked sufficient name and al-
phabet knowledge as well as letter formation experi-
ence. The general balance of Lawrence’s development
was more typical of the children I observed. Lawrence’s
increasing competence moved across the production of
his name from left to right; although all letters were pre-
sent in May, formation and orientation of n, c, and e re-
mained erratic.
Four-year-old Charlotte appeared to attack the
name problem from both ends. She produced a legible
signature at the beginning of the school year: “My mom
wrote it to me a hundred times, and then I learned to
write my name” (Literacy Assessment [LA] note, 10-12-
93). When the individual letters of her name were dictat-
ed to her, Charlotte produced a C, several mock letters,
and then otte. The letters she used in her writing sample
repeated this end pattern.
Children with the fewest letters to produce ap-
peared to have a distinct advantage in learning to write
their names quickly. For example, Ben, Hannah, and
Lem mastered their signatures earlier than other 3-year-
olds with equivalent alphabet knowledge and fine-motor
skill. Christopher, a kindergarten student, commented
that he used Chris on his papers “’cause I can write it”
(LA note, 10-4-93). The question remains whether, be-
cause of the added struggle in mastering their signatures,
children with longer names have greater advantages in
alphabet or letter-sound knowledge when they finally
gain written control of their names.
Name and metalinguistic awareness. Several chil-
dren exhibited a significant discrepancy between their
alphabet knowledge and the ability to produce their
names, but understanding rather than motor skill ap-
peared to be the cause. Three-year-old Abby learned to
recognize and name the alphabet letters, but she was
unable to reproduce this knowledge on paper. When
she was asked to write her name, she shrugged, smiled,
and remarked, “I can draw a happy face!” (LA note, 12-
13-93). Abby’s lack of writing ability appeared to be
more a lapse in her thinking and writing experience than
a motor inability—she seemed not to have given thought
to producing what she knew. Although she could not
write her name, she was able to draw recognizable fig-
361
ures and had no difficulty controlling her pencil. The
May Literacy Assessment supported this hypothesis.
Abby wrote her name in consistent, recognizable form
and produced 12 letters of the alphabet.
Conversely, Linnea and Cameron (4-year-olds) and
Derek and Setera (5-year-olds) wrote their names in
clear, consistent form but had attached letter names to,
at most, only the first character. In describing how to
write her name, Linnea said, “It’s a L, and a line with a
dot, then two humps” (Preschool field notes, 2-25-94).
These children identified between 1 and 12 letters, but
few of them occurred in their names. They appeared to
have learned a rote pattern, a logogram, that was their
name but had yet to associate labels to the separate
forms. They seemed to lack the metalinguistic perception
that allowed them to break apart the pattern and investi-
gate its parts. These children represent the disparate lit-
eracy scripts Villaume and Wilson (1989) noted, where
some children appeared to gain control of their name
through the letters that comprise it while others learn a
logogram of the shape of the word. In this respect, they
may reflect the social influences discussed by Davies
(1987) in her preschool population, in that children
learned to write their names as a function of and re-
sponse to what adults taught.
Name and personality. Children’s personalities and
attitudes toward school and literacy played important
roles in their literacy development. Robert and Corey,
who were inseparable in the 3-year-old classroom and
during after-school hours, provide an interesting literacy
contrast (Figure 1). Corey was a gifted artist and focused
much of his attention in that direction. Robert showed
more curiosity about how writing worked, and he talked
his way through each picture to make his illustrations
recognizable to an observer. He wanted his writing ef-
forts to be correct and often crossed out his attempts to
write name letters but continued to persevere. In May,
Robert could form four of the letters in his name, al-
though the R was often reversed; Corey could manage a
lopsided C. When I visited the preschool the following
fall and spring, both boys were in the 4-year-old class.
Corey’s artwork continued to be his center of focus,
while Robert devoted more time and attention to print
and traced stencils to create pictures. He could produce
many letters and had a good grasp of consonant letter-
sound relationships by the end of his second year in
preschool. Corey added detail to his illustrations, and
Robert included more print.
Rachel, a kindergartner who refused to speak until
age 3, saw writing as a tool to relate stories about her
experiences with her family; she included initials when
she could not write their names and insisted that their
names be spelled correctly or not at all (Kindergarten
362 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3
field notes, 11-15-93). Rachel’s desire for correctness lim-
ited her exploration of letter-sound matches; she would
attempt invented spellings for words only when she had
the support of an adult. Her drawings were done with
painstaking detail and often resembled comic strips or
plot storyboards. She came into kindergarten with a fair
grasp of the alphabet and its general purpose and
gained knowledge throughout the year; she went into
first grade with a command of letters, some letter-sound
knowledge, and a burgeoning concept of word. Rachel’s
lack of confidence and reticence to explore literacy on
paper hindered her literacy growth, not only because
she could not try out new understandings but also be-
cause her teachers and peers could not determine the
type of support she needed. In addition, Rachel’s artistic
ability provided an alternative form of communication
that she found sufficient to meet her needs and that, in
effect, stood in the way of literacy experimentation.
Name and reading. There appeared to be a lack of
synchrony between what some children could write and
read during these early periods of literacy development
(Chomsky, 1979; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982). Several 4-
and 5-year-olds could write their first and last names
with relative ease, but they had not learned to accurately
read what they had produced. Preschooler Logan and
kindergartners Marquis and Lawrence wrote out their
first and last names, but when reading them back insist-
ed that first, middle, and last names had been recorded
(Preschool field notes, 3-18-94; Kindergarten field notes,
2-8-94). Children attained automaticity in reading and
writing their first and last names before they demonstrat-
ed a firm concept of word.
Parents and preschool teachers focused their read-
ing instruction in the areas of exposing children to a va-
riety of stories, encouraging them to enjoy this activity,
and drawing attention to features of books such as pic-
tures, print, author, and title. The kindergarten teacher
reaffirmed these print concepts with all of the children in
her class. She added concepts of where to begin the sto-
ry, where to start reading on the page, and terminology
for book and word components. The children made
many books and read them repeatedly with great pride.
One of the first projects was a book of kindergarten
friends that contained the pictures and names of the
classroom children.
In a lesson introducing new reading material, the
kindergarten teacher first reviewed Cat on the Mat
(Wildsmith, 1982) and asked the children to read the
words as she pointed to them: “I’m going to point to the
words because I want you to point” (Kindergarten field
notes, 1-26-94). She also modeled two cueing systems in
this lesson. First, she explicitly commented on the value
of illustrations as a guide to reading text and used the
picture of a sheep from another book to demonstrate
her point. Unfortunately, the students decided that the
picture was a lamb. This miscue called into play the use
of names and a second cueing system—initial letter
sound. The teacher said, “Lamb begins like Lawrence
and Laquandra, so this word can’t be lamb. What else
could it be?” The children quickly provided the correct
word. Reference to initial letters of names they knew
forged connections that helped students make sense of
new concepts.
Name and instruction. Parents tended to follow the
lead of children in literacy instruction, guiding their de-
velopment as interest in name production, writing, and
reading appeared. When Ian asked his mother for help
in writing his name at age 2, she provided him with an
example and then held his hand as he attempted to trace
it (Parent interview, 3-15-94). Frequently, older siblings
and peers were instrumental in children’s literacy
growth. Lawrence and his twin learned about stories and
the alphabet from their older sister (Parent interview, 6-
9-94). Laquandra sought out Susie in the kindergarten
class when trying to find the owner of a crayon box
marked with a name beginning with S (Kindergarten
field notes, 1-5-94). Susie was the in-residence expert
when Lawrence wanted help in making an S on his pa-
per (Kindergarten field notes, 2-23-94).
The preschool teachers focused on social adjust-
ment and enjoyment of school. Although names were
prominently displayed in the classroom and were used
for daily helper assignments and identifying children’s
work, little effort was made to directly instruct the chil-
dren in literacy. Instruction was incidental, and guidance
was provided as children demonstrated curiosity about
particular literacy features.
Name-writing instruction in the kindergarten class-
room focused on engagement and making connections.
Names were prominent from the first day of school
when the kindergarten teacher encouraged children to
identify and copy their names from their crayon boxes.
After reading and discussing the book Owl Babies
(Waddell, 1992), she modeled writing the owl babies’
names on chart paper and talked about the beginning
letters and left-to-right direction of print. The teacher
then told the story of how she was named by her grand-
mother and the special importance of names. This book
reading and discussion led to a writing project where the
children drew pictures of themselves and wrote “My
name is _____.” All of the children worked with enthusi-
asm and revealed what they knew about name writing in
the process (Kindergarten field notes, 9-27-93). During
several center times, the children used clay to form their
name letters. Those with weaker motor and letter skill
were encouraged to work with clay to form their names
WhatÕs in a name?
occasionally throughout the year. Children’s names were
grouped by initial letters to note letter and sound similar-
ity. The teacher made letter formation charts, highlight-
ing the lines needed to write letters and using students’
names as examples.
Matching sounds and letters was difficult for chil-
dren, and using initial letters from names helped them
make that connection. The kindergarten teacher support-
ed students’ efforts to understand how sound related to
print through a variety of games and through pointing
out connections with information they knew. Clapping
out the syllables in names was incorporated into a math
graphing activity (Kindergarten field notes, 12-6-93); ini-
tial sounds in names were highlighted in an activity com-
paring names and other words that began the same or
differently (Kindergarten field notes, 5-11-93). Songs
(e.g., “The Name Song,” “Willabee Wallabee Woo”) were
often used to manipulate sounds.
Discussion
It could be hypothesized that name knowledge op-
erates in a manner similar to the transitory role of alpha-
bet knowledge in literacy development (Walsh, Price, &
Gillingham, 1988). Name, like alphabet and letter names,
appears to help children grasp and manipulate written
language concepts; it provides several known letter units
that can be used in varied order to represent the inten-
tion to communicate in print (Clay, 1975; Ferreiro &
Teberosky, 1982). Name may be useful to children as
they begin to connect known letters to sounds as well.
Certainly, the kindergarten teachers used children’s
names to help them make those connections.
I’ve found that when my children are trying to write a
word, like stop, I’ll say, “Whose name begins the same
way?” and they’ll say, “Setera.” “How does her name be-
gin?” “S,” because my kids, for the most part, have
learned the names of the other children in the classroom.
So they can transfer that Setera’s name begins with an S
and stop begins with an s. (Kindergarten teacher inter-
view, 4-18-94)
Children may use their names to understand letter-
sound relationships (Martens, 1996). For example, one 5-
year-old child laboriously figured out the sound-to-letter
matches for his name (KOLIN), looked at it quizzically,
shook his head, and then wrote the conventional, over-
learned signature (Collin; M.A. Invernizzi, personal com-
munication, September 26, 1993). As known words are
examined through theories of how the written system
works, new hypotheses are born (Ferreiro & Teberosky,
1982). However, once name writing becomes automatic
363
and letter names and sounds are internalized, they may
become less effective learning tools.
The many parallel results for the 4- and 5-year-old
groups in the October literacy measures suggest the role
that social factors have on literacy development (Dyson,
1989; Purcell-Gates, 1995; Taylor, 1983). As noted, con-
siderable economic, educational, and cultural disparity
existed between the backgrounds of the kindergarten
and preschool children in this study. While many 4-year-
olds began the year with some idea of how to write their
name, several kindergarten children were unable to do
so and continued to have difficulty throughout the year.
Lawrence and Laquandra (5-year-olds) continued to
struggle with middle letters of their names in June.
Parent and teacher interview comments and assess-
ment results for the two older groups further support the
hypothesis that, for many children, literacy progresses
from name knowledge outward to growing associations
with alphabet, words, and sounds (Clay, 1975; Hildreth,
1936; Villaume & Wilson, 1989). In relation to other com-
petencies tested, name knowledge was more advanced
than other literacy skills measured. By May, both groups
recognized a majority of the alphabet, although the 4-
year-olds still had difficulty with lowercase forms (M =
14.9, SD = 7.7). In addition, awareness of consonant
sounds and letter matches was evident in the children’s
spelling attempts. Children with fluent signatures re-
vealed a consistent pattern of abilities: (a) firm control of
the alphabet, (b) spelling that included initial and final
consonants as well as some letter-name vowels, (c) de-
veloping word recognition (3 or more of 15 words), (d)
almost stable concept of word, and (e) ease in manipu-
lating initial-consonant sounds (Table 7). Slightly reduced
levels of statistical significance for spring correlations on
these measures resulted from children reaching ceiling
on name and letter tasks while still advancing in word
knowledge, spelling, and concept of word.
Limitations
The longitudinal study described here focused on
the name-writing and literacy development of a relatively
small group of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children. Preschool
and kindergarten students developed their literacy
knowledge in different home and academic environ-
ments that had a profound influence on what they expe-
rienced and understood about the reading and writing
process. In addition, the correlational data presented in-
dicate relationships among literacy skills but do not sug-
gest causation. Study findings should be interpreted with
these factors in mind. The kindergarten name-related ac-
tivities described were part of a balanced instructional
program and were not intended as a specific literacy
skills program.
364 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3
Conclusion
Recognition of one’s own name is a first consistent
sign of literacy awareness that is independent of its envi-
ronmental surroundings. Name production ability and al-
phabet knowledge appear to develop in concert for
most children. However, other patterns are apparent, as
noted with Abby, Carter, Linnea, and Cameron. Some
children gain greater control of alphabet and name than
they are able to produce, while others may have the
written pattern in place but lack names for the separate
letters. Several scripts (Villaume & Wilson, 1989) are pre-
sent for this evolution, which appears to be dependent
on the particular features emphasized by literacy sup-
porters (e.g., parent, sibling, teacher). Children may
learn the visual and formational pattern for their name
with or without accompanying letter names, or they may
learn to recite the letters but have difficulty producing a
written signature. Letter and name knowledge tend to
grow in a reiterative pattern, reinforcing one another and
leading to new understandings and growing automatici-
ty. With continued experiences in storybook reading, op-
portunities to experiment with writing, and support to
put the pieces together, children add a beginning sense
of letter-sound relationships and attain a few common
sight words. Finally, all of the pieces come together with
a stable voice-to-print match that facilitates a burgeoning
sight word vocabulary and even more sophisticated
spelling attempts. For many children, names serve as im-
portant touchstones to controlling new understandings
about letters, sound matches, and words.
Children’s knowledge of their names plays a signif-
icant role in their early writing development prior to
their awareness of letter-sound connections. Opportuni-
ties to write allow children to exercise what they under-
stand about literacy, perfect letter formation, and move
toward making associations between letters and sounds,
particularly when guidance is available from knowledge-
able others. This engagement helps children expand
their alphabet knowledge and apply it to a wider range
of literacy skills.
Parents provide their children with knowledge of
their name in written form, and most children take great
pride in ownership of their name and their letter. Name
provides a rich data source for experimentation with let-
ter formation, concepts of directionality and orientation,
and ultimately discovery of the alphabetic principle of
how sound relates to letters and speech matches to
print. Children who have experienced reading books
with parents, receiving cards from grandparents, playing
school with siblings, drawing maps, and writing holiday
wish lists, are well primed to show interest in and make
sense of reading and writing. With adult guidance, they
gain control of letter forms and develop increasingly so-
phisticated theories of how literacy works. However,
when these experiences are absent or when adult sup-
port fails to meet the child’s understanding, disinterest or
frustration can occur.
The results of this study suggest that name pro-
vides a solid connection for children as they learn about
the many aspects of literacy. Name games and songs that
manipulate syllables, rhymes, and phonemes free chil-
dren to play with language and alert them to covert
sound and word elements. Opportunities to recite and
copy name letters provide meaningful access to the al-
phabet and authentic reasons to exercise graphophone-
mic knowledge. As the names of family members and
friends are added to a growing repertoire of known let-
ters and word forms, letter formation becomes standard
and letter-sound connections develop.
In situations such as the preschool observed here,
where literate experiences are common occurrences at
home and in the classroom, children thrive and gain
new literacy understandings with incidental guidance
and support. However, modeling, immersion, and direct
instruction in literacy skills are necessary in situations
where reading and writing opportunities have been
more limited (McGill-Franzen, 1992). As instruction in
the kindergarten class exemplifies, teachers need not fo-
cus on isolated skills and rote drill of letter formation or
name-writing work sheets. The kindergarten teacher
viewed literacy as a pervasive element integrated into ac-
tivities throughout the day. Although the kindergarten
teacher was aware of her students’ limited literacy un-
derstandings, she continued to expose them to an array
of concepts and terms within the context of enjoyable
stories, dramatizations, and writing experiences. Children
ready to grasp specific points could take them from the
rich array; children with literacy knowledge in place
could benefit from reinforcement; and children just com-
ing to awareness could use the experience to build a
more solid background. Literacy does not happen
overnight but requires multiple opportunities to examine
a complex array of interrelated skills and concepts.
Names served an ongoing role, helping children make
connections to letters, words, sounds, and reading and
writing concepts.
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, J. (1995). How parents’ perceptions of literacy acqui-
sition relate to their children’s emerging literacy knowledge. Reading
Horizons, 35, 209–228.
ASHTON-WARNER, S. (1963). Teacher. New York: Simon & Schuster.
BAGHBAN, M. (1984). Our daughter learns to read and write: A case
study from birth to three. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
BALL, E.W., & BLACHMAN, B.A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness
training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition
and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66.
WhatÕs in a name?
BARCLAY, K. (1992). Beginning writing: Where does it really be-
gin? Journal of Language Experience, 23, 34–42.
BISSEX, G.L. (1980). GNYS AT WRK: A child learns to write and
read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
BRADLEY, L., & BRYANT, P.E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and
learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–421.
BYRNE, B., & FIELDING-BARNSLEY, R. (1991). Evaluation of a
program to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83, 451–455.
CAMPBELL, K.S. (1990). The oral language acquisition analogy in
early literacy research. Educational Research Quarterly, 14, 45–50.
CHALL, J.S., & POPP, H.M. (1986). Fireflies: The Chall-Popp read-
ing books (pp. 6–7). Elizabethtown, PA: Continental Press.
CHOMSKY, C. (1971). Write first, read later. Childhood Education,
47, 296–299.
CHOMSKY, C. (1979). Approaching reading through invented
spelling. In L.B. Resnick & P.A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of
early reading: Volume 2 (pp. 43–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
CHRISTIE, J., ENZ, B., & VUKELICH, C. (1997). Teaching language
and literacy: Preschool through the elementary grades. New York:
Longman.
CLAY, M.M. (1975). What did I write? Auckland, New Zealand:
Heinemann.
CLAY, M.M. (1977). Exploring with a pencil. Theory Into Practice,
16, 334–341.
CLAY, M.M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd
ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
CLAY, M.M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner
control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
CUNNINGHAM, P. (1988). Names—A natural for early reading and
writing. Reading Horizons, 28, 114–122.
CUNNINGHAM, P.M. (1991). Phonics they use: Words for reading
and writing. New York: HarperCollins.
DALE, P.S. (1976). Language development: Structure and function
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
DAVIES, A. (1987). Children’s names: Landmarks for literacy?
(Report No. CS 211 047). Victoria, BC, Canada: University of Victoria.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 290 171)
DYSON, A.H. (1982). Reading, writing, and language: Young chil-
dren solving the written language puzzle. Language Arts, 59, 829–839.
DYSON, A.H. (1984). Learning to write/Learning to do school:
Emergent writers’ interpretations of school literacy tasks. Research in
the Teaching of English, 18, 233–264.
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.
EHRI, L.C. (1983). A critique of five studies related to letter-name
knowledge and learning to read. In L.M. Gentile, M.L. Kamil, & J.
Blanchard (Eds.), Reading research revisited (pp. 143–153). Columbus,
OH: Merrill.
EHRI, L.C. (1991). Learning to read and spell words. In L. Rieben &
C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implica-
tions (pp. 57–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
EHRI, L.C., & SWEET, J. (1991). Fingerpoint-reading of memorized
text: What enables beginners to process print? Reading Research
Quarterly, 26, 442–462.
EHRI, L.C., & WILCE, L.S. (1985). Movement into reading: Is the
first stage of printed word learning visual or phonetic? Reading
Research Quarterly, 20, 163–179.
FERGUSON, N. (1975). Pictographs and prereading skills. Child
Development, 46, 786–789.
FERREIRO, E. (1984). The underlying logic of literacy develop-
365
ment. In H. Goelman, A.A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), New directions in
the study of reading (pp. 154–173). Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
FERREIRO, E. (1985a). Literacy development: A psycholinguistic
perspective. In D.R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.),
Literacy, language, and learning (pp. 217–228). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
FERREIRO, E. (1985b). The relationship between oral and written
language: The children’s viewpoints. In M.M. Clark (Ed.), New direc-
tions in the study of reading (pp. 83–94). London: Falmer Press.
FERREIRO, E. (1986). The interplay between information and assimi-
lation in beginning literacy. In W.H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent
literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 15–49). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
FERREIRO, E. (1990). Literacy development: Psychogenesis. In
Y.M. Goodman (Ed.), How children construct literacy: Piagetian per-
spectives (pp. 12–25). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
FERREIRO, E., & TEBEROSKY, A. (1982). Literacy before school.
Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
FOX, B., & ROUTH, D.K. (1984). Phonemic analysis and synthesis
as word attack skills: Revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,
1059–1064.
FOX, B.J., & SARACHO, O.N. (1990). Emergent writing: Young
children solving the written language puzzle. Early Child Development
and Care, 56, 81–90.
FREEMAN, Y.S., & WHITESELL, L.R. (1985). What preschoolers al-
ready know about print. Educational Horizons, 64, 22–24.
GLASER, B.G., & STRAUSS, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory. New York: Aldine.
GOODMAN, K.S., & GOODMAN, Y.M. (1979). Learning to read is
natural. In L.B. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of
early reading (pp. 137–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
GOSWAMI, U., & BRYANT, P. (1990). Phonological skills and
learning to read. Hove, East Sussex, England: Erlbaum.
GRIFFITH, P.L., & OLSON, M.W. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps
beginning readers break the code. The Reading Teacher, 45, 516–523.
HARDY, P.S. (1982). Process, product and concepts about writing:
A study of sixteen children ages three through six (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX, 1981). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 42/08, 3504A.
HARSTE, J.C., WOODWARD, V.A., & BURKE, C.L. (1984). Language
stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
HENDERSON, E.H. (1990). Teaching spelling (2nd ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
HIEBERT, E.H. (1981). Developmental patterns and interrelationships
of preschool children’s print awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 16,
236–260.
HILDRETH, G. (1936). Developmental sequences in name writing.
Child Development, 7, 291–303.
HIMLEY, M. (1984). First encounters of a written kind: Points of en-
try and paths of development for three beginning writers (Doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 44/11, 3373A.
INVERNIZZI, M.A., & BLOODGOOD, J.W. (1991). Assessment of lit-
eracy acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville.
JOHNSON, K. (1987). Doing words. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
JUEL, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of
54 children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 437–447.
LANCY, D.W. (1993). Qualitative research in education: An intro-
duction to major traditions. New York: Longman.
LIBERMAN, I.Y., & SHANKWEILER, D. (1991). Phonology and be-
ginning to read: A tutorial. In L. Rieben & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning
to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ:
366 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3
Erlbaum.
LIEBERMAN, E. (1985). Name writing and the preschool child
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1985).
Dissertations Abstracts International, 46/12, 3593A.
LINCOLN, Y.S., & GUBA, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
MARTENS, P. (1996). i already know how to read: A child’s view of
literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
MASON, J.M. (1980). When do children begin to read: An explo-
ration of four year old children’s letter and word reading competen-
cies. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 203–227.
MCGEE, L.M., & PURCELL-GATES, V. (1997). “So what’s going on
in research in emergent literacy?” Reading Research Quarterly, 32,
310–318.
MCGEE, L.M., & RICHGELS, D.J. (1989). “K is Kristen’s”: Learning
the alphabet from a child’s perspective. The Reading Teacher, 43,
216–225.
MCGILL-FRANZEN, A. (1992). Early literacy: What does “develop-
mentally appropriate” mean? The Reading Teacher, 46, 56–58.
MCGILL-FRANZEN, A., & LANFORD, C. (1994). Exposing the edge
of the preschool curriculum: Teachers’ talk about text and children’s
literacy understandings. Language Arts, 71, 264–273.
MCGUINNESS, D., MCGUINNESS, C., & DONOHUE, J. (1995).
Phonological training and the alphabet principle: Evidence for recipro-
cal causality. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 830–852.
MORAIS, J., CARY, L., ALEGRIA, J., & BERTELSON, P. (1979). Does
awareness of speech as sequence of phonemes arise spontaneously?
Cognition, 7, 323–331.
MORRIS, D. (1981). Concept of word: A developmental phenome-
non in the beginning reading and writing processes. Language Arts,
58, 659–668.
MORRIS, D. (1983). Concept of word and phoneme awareness in
the beginning reader. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 359–373.
MORRIS, D. (1992). Concept of word: A pivotal understanding in
the learning-to-read process. In S. Templeton & D.R. Bear (Eds.),
Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundation of literacy
(pp. 53–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MORRIS, D. (1993). The relationship between concept of word in
text and phoneme awareness in learning to read: A longitudinal study.
Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 133–154.
PATTON, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research meth-
ods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
PERFETTI, C.A., BECK, I., BELL, L., & HUGHES, C. (1987).
Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal
study of first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283–320.
PURCELL-GATES, V. (1995). Other people’s words: The cycle of low
literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
PURCELL-GATES, V., MCINTYRE, E., & FREPPON, P.A. (1995).
Learning written storybook language in school: A comparison of low-
SES children in skills-based and whole language classrooms. American
Educational Research Journal, 32, 659–685.
READ, C. (1971). Pre-school children’s knowledge of English
phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 1–34.
READ, C. (1975). Children’s categorization of speech sounds in
English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
READ, C. (1981). Writing is not the inverse of reading for young
children. In C.H. Frederiksen & J.F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The na-
ture, development, and teaching of written communication: Vol. 2 (pp.
105–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
READ, C., ZHANG, Y., NIE, H., & DING, B. (1986). The ability to
manipulate speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic reading.
Cognition, 24, 31–44.
RICHGELS, D.J., POREMBA, K.J., & MCGEE, L.M. (1996). Kinder-
garteners talk about print: Phonemic awareness in meaningful con-
texts. The Reading Teacher, 49, 632–642.
ROWE, D.W., & HARSTE, J.C. (1986). Metalinguistic awareness in
writing and reading: The young child as curricular informant. In D.B.
Yaden & S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and begin-
ning literacy (pp. 235–256). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
SARACHO, O.N. (1990). Developmental sequences in three-year-
old children’s writing. Early Child Development and Care, 56, 1–10.
SCHICKEDANZ, J.A. (1990). Adam’s righting revolution: One child’s
literacy development from infancy through grade one. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
SCHICKEDANZ, J.A. (1993). Designing the early childhood class-
room environment to facilitate literacy development. In B. Spodek &
O.N. Saracho (Eds.), Language and literacy in early childhood educa-
tion (pp. 141–155). New York: Teachers College Press.
SENECHAL, M., LEFEVRE, J., THOMAS, E.M, & DALEY, K.E.
(1998). Differential effects of home literacy experiences on the devel-
opment of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33,
96–116.
SHARE, D.L., JORM, A.F., MACLEAN, R., & MATTHEWS, R. (1984).
Sources of individual differences in reading achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 1309–1324.
SNOW, C.E., & TABORS, P.O. (1993). Language skills that relate to
literacy development. In B. Spodek & O.N. Saracho (Eds.), Language
and literacy in early childhood education (pp. 1–20). New York:
Teachers College Press.
SODERBERGH, R. (1977). Reading in early childhood: A linguistic
study of a preschool child’s gradual acquisition of reading ability.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
SPENCER, B.R. (1989). The development of the young child’s con-
cept of word: A longitudinal study (Outstanding Dissertation
Monograph). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
SPRINGATE, K.W. (1983). Developmental trends and interrelation-
ships among preprimary children’s knowledge of writing and reading
readiness skills (Report No. CS 208 870). Doctoral dissertation, Eastern
Kentucky University, Richmond, KY. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 258 178)
STANLEY, G., & PERSHIN, P. (1978). Rating preschool develop-
ment of name-writing and draw-a-person. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
47, 187–190.
STANOVICH, K.E. (1986). Matthew Effects in reading: Some conse-
quences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading
Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.
SULZBY, E. (1985). Kindergartners as writers and readers. In M.
Farr (Ed.), Advances in writing research: Vol 1. Children’s early writ-
ing development (pp. 127–199). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
SULZBY, E. (1986). Writing and reading organization. In W.H.
Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp.
50–89). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
SULZBY, E. (1992). Research directions: Transitions from emergent
to conventional writing. Language Arts, 69, 290–297.
SULZBY, E., TEALE, W.H., & KAMBERELIS, G. (1989). Emergent writ-
ing in the classroom: Home and school connections. In D.S. Strickland &
L.M. Morrow (Eds.), Emerging literacy: Young children learn to read and
write (pp. 63–79). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
TANGEL, D.M., & BLACHMAN, B.A. (1992). Effect of phoneme
awareness instruction on kindergarten children’s invented spelling.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 233–261.
TAYLOR, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to
read and write. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
TAYLOR, D., & DORSEY-GAINES, C. (1988). Growing up literate:
Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
TEALE, W.H., & SULZBY, E. (Eds.). (1986). Emergent literacy:
WhatÕs in a name? 367

Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. WADDELL, M. (1992). Owl babies. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick
TEMPLE, C., NATHAN, R., BURRIS, N., & TEMPLE, F. (1988). The Press.
beginnings of writing (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. WALSH, D.J., PRICE, G.G., & GILLINGHAM, M.G. (1988). The criti-
TUNMER, W.E. (1991). Phonological awareness and literacy acqui- cal but transitory importance of letter naming. Reading Research
sition. In L. Rieben & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic re- Quarterly, 23, 108–122.
search and its implications (pp. 105–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. WILDSMITH, B. (1982). Cat on the mat. Oxford, England: Oxford
VANDERVELDEN, M.C., & SIEGEL, L.S. (1995). Phonological re- University Press.
coding and phoneme awareness in early literacy: A developmental ap- WORDEN, P.W., & BOETTCHER, W. (1990). Young children’s ac-
proach. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 854–875. quisition of alphabet knowledge. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22,
VILLAUME, S.K., & WILSON, L.C. (1989). Preschool children’s ex- 277–295.
plorations of letters in their own names. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10,
283–300. Received March 6, 1998
VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Final revision received July 29, 1998
MIT Press. Accepted July 30, 1998