AND WRITING CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES by
Sandra Ellen Johnson Shook B.Sc., University of Victoria, 1979 M.A., University of Victoria, 1983
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR O F PHILOSOPHY in the Faculty of Education
We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard
Dr. L. O a. Supervisor (Department of Communication and Social Foundations)
Dr. M. D. SÀl^ri, I^e^rtm entdlJulem ber (Department of Communication and Social FoundatimisJ
Dr. J. O. Anderson, Outside Member (Departm ent of Psychological Foundations in Educfitkm)
. W. A. R. Boyer, jOutside M ^ b e r
Dr. W. A. R. Boyer, P utside Member (D epartm ent of Psychological Foundations in
Ur. w. A. K. bpyer, juutside Mamh(
Education)
Dr. W. M. Zi\k, Outside Member (D epartm ent of Arts in Education)
■ ---Dr. J. Ei Shapiro, E>Oj^nal Examiner (Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia)
© Sandra Ellen Johnson Shook, 1996 University of Victoria
All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopying or other means, without the permission of the author.
Supervisor: Dr. Lloyd O. Ollila
ABSTRACT
As members of a literate society young children construct their own literacy (Suizby & Teale, 1991) and participate in literacy events from birth (Baghban, 1984; Taylor, 1983; Wells, 1986). They do so through social interaction, a reciprocal activity vital for the development of their thinking processes and literacy (Vygotsky, 1978). Children have specialized knowledge of their own literacy. Yet researchers have considered what children do in their literacy more often than what they say about their own literacy. This research was designed to consult children—to find out what they would say about the part that reading and writing plays in their lives. This literacy—reading and writing—is defined as the interpretation and construction o f both illustration and text. The purpose of the study was to give children an opportunity to speak freely about their reading and writing to increase researchers’ understanding of their literacy and children’s understanding of their own literacy.
Individual interviews were conducted with 107 middle class children, ages 3 to 6 years at school, usually within the child’s classroom. In order to record the child’s reaction to text each interview was prefaced by a book sharing activity that incorporated an adapted version of the Concepts About Print Test: Sand (Clay, 1972). The children were then asked open-ended questions designed to explore their understanding of reading and writing in terms of the children’s literacy concepts and practices. Children’s responses were handwritten and audiotaped by the researcher. These questions uncovered the definitions, descriptions, preferences, family involvement, and self-concept children have for both reading and writing. Age and gender differences in the children’s responses were analyzed.
Each child’s response to each question was coded and subsequent Chi-square analysis of these categorical data revealed differences significant by age but not gender. A major finding of this study was that definite response patterns were evident for many questions. At different ages children gave different responses. The
m ore global responses of the younger children became more specific as children got older. Transitions were evident between the ages, such that one age group might simultaneously offer responses typical of their own age and of children a year younger or a year older. It was clear from many of the children’s responses that family literacy plays a vital role to the development of children’s emerging literacy.
Children made individual statements during the interviews that invited further inquiry beyond- the statistical analysis. These were considered in conjunction with journal entries made during the interviews and at the time of transcription. Resulting
reflections on the patterns found were presented.
Children responded to the open-ended questions, willingly explaining their literacy concepts and practices. The wealth of information that children offered attests to the parental role in children’s literacy development. Teachers are encouraged to question children individually and listen carefully to their replies knowing that to do so will benefit both child and teacher in their reciprocal relationship as literacy learners.
Dr. L. Q.OllîlafSupervTsor (Departm ent of Communication and Social Foundations)
Dr. M. D. Sakari, Departmental Member (Department of Communication and Social Foundations)
Dr. J. O. Anderson, Outside M ember (Department of Psychological Foundations in Education)
Dr. W. A. R. Boyer, Outsider Menroer (Department of Psychological Foundations in Education)
Dr. W. M. Zuk, Outside M ember (Department of Arts in Education)
Dr. JJhL Shapiro(^]^ternal Examiner (Faculty of Education, University of British Columma)
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables Acknowledgements Dedications CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Hypotheses
Definitions Limitations Assumptions Summary
CHAPTER II - LITERATURE REVIEW History of Emergent Literacy
The Child's Emerging Literacy Experience Oral Language
Looking at Print Drawing
Reading with Writing
11 iv xi xiii XV 1 4 5 8 8 12 15 16 18 18 24 24 25 27 29
Literacy in Action 34
Literacy in Context 39
The Child’s Family Literacy Experience 40
Social Interaction 40
Scaffolding 44
Role of Parents 50
Literacy in Context 51
Effects of Family Income on Literacy 53
Parental Involvement 56
Age and Gender Differences in Children’s Literacy
Reports 57
Consulting Children 58
Literacy Choices 59
Studying Children’s Emerging Literacy 61
Types of Assessment 61
Summary 65
CHAPTER III - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 67
Introduction 67
Description of the Study 67
Design of the Study 69
Background to the Consultation 72
Subjects 73
Instruments 74
Concepts About Print Test: Sand 74
The Consultation 75
D ata Collection 76
Analysis of D ata 77
Introduction 77
The Coding System 78
Consistency in Categorization 79
Statistical Analysis 81
Organization of Data 81
Observational Analysis 85
Summary 86
C H A PTER IV - DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 88
Hypotheses 88
Research Questions 94
Analysis of Responses to the Research Questions 95
Reading 96
Definitions 98
Descriptions 102
Family 113
Self-Concept as a Reader 117
Summary: Reading 124
Concepts About Print Test: Sand 124
Definitions 124 Descriptions 125 Preferences 126 Family 127 Self-Concept as a Reader 128 Writing 130 Definitions 133 Descriptions 137 Preferences 141 Family 148 Self-Concept as a Writer 152
Reading and Writing 156
Summary: Writing 160 Definitions 160 Descriptions 161 Preferences 162 Family 164 Self-Concept as a Writer 165
Reading and Writing 166
Discussion 168
Concepts About Print Test: Sand 168
Definitions 168 Descriptions 169 Preferences 172 Family 173 Self-Concept as a Reader 174 Writing 176 Definitions 177 Descriptions 178 Preferences 180 Family 182 Self-Concept as a Writer 183
Reading and Writing 184
Summary 186
CHAPTER V - REFLECTIONS 189
Classroom Settings 191
The Consultation 197
Introduction 197
Concepts About Print Test: Sand 198
Drawing 200
Writing 202
Purpose for Literacy 204
Reading in Context 206 The Children 208 Speech 208 Social Interaction 210 Learning 211 Thinking 212 Feeling 216
The Researcher's Experience 217
Summary 221
CHAPTER VI - SUMMARY 224
Purpose of the Study 224
Summary of Procedures 225
Pilot Studies 225
Measures Used 225
Summary of Major Findings 227
Reading 227
Writing 232
Tests of Hypotheses 238
Quantitative 241
Reflections 242
Overall Findings 244
Recommendations for Further Research 245
Consultation Strategies 248
Implications for Teachers 250
Implications for Parents 253
Conclusions 254
REFEREN CES 255
APPENDIX A 263
LIST O F TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Summary of the Analysis of Variance of the Adapted Version of the Concepts About Print
Test: Sand (Clay, 1972) by Age 91
2 Reading Questions with Response Patterns of Statistical Significance by Age according to
Chi-square Analysis 92
3 Writing Questions with Response Patterns of Statistical Significance by Age according to
Chi-square Analysis 93
4 Question about Sand 97
5 Reading Definitions 100
6 Reading Descriptions 105
7 Reading Preferences 111
8 Family Reading 115
9 Self-Concept as a Reader 120
10 Questions about Child’s Drawing and Writing 132
11 Writing Definitions 135
12 Writing Descriptions 139
TABLE PAGE
14 Family Writing 150
15 Self-Concept as a W riter 154
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express her thanks to the members of her supervisory committee. Dr. L. O. Ollila, Dr. M. D. Sakari, Dr. J. O. Anderson, Dr. W. A. R. Boyer, and Dr. W. M. Zuk for their help and encouragement.
To my supervisor. Dr. Lloyd Ollila, I am indebted for his sure guidance, patience, and continual support. His confidence in my efforts, his wisdom, and his friendship are so very much appreciated. He has devoted countless hours to this research endeavour.
I am thankful to Dr. Mary Dayton Sakari for her wisdom, friendship, and patience as an editor.
I thank Dr. W. M. Zuk for his leadership in the area of drawing, his valuable advice for revisions, and his constant encouragement.
I am grateful to Dr. W. A. R. Boyer for her invaluable insights, her support, and the care and precision she contributed to the writing process.
Sincere thanks are offered to Dr. J. O. Anderson who was always available to offer assistance with statistical matters.
Special appreciation is extended to Mrs. Ollila and Mrs. Riehl of Ruth King Elementary, for making the pilot study possible. I am indebted to 107 children, ages 3 to 6 years, who permitted me to draw upon their personal experiences for this
research. I thank their teachers for their efforts in making this possible. Special thanks to a gifted editor and friend, Colin Chasteauneuf.
To friends Barbara Lambert, Patricia Bentham, Pearl Kingsfield, Adisra Katib, and Hua Tang I am grateful for their help and encouragement and so many discussions both theoretical and practical.
DEDICATIONS
To the memory of my parents, John and Pat Johnson, with love.
With deepest gratitude to my family. For our three sons, John, Chris, and Haydn who so willingly learned to cook. For my husband, Ed, whose patience, encouragement, and wisdom sustained this work. Thank you.
Introduction
The discovery that children can participate in literacy events from birth (Baghban, 1984; Taylor, 1983; Wells, 1986) is in sharp contrast to the assumption commonly held prior to the 1920s that only through formal school instruction could children's literacy be developed (Teale & Suizby, 1986). The research into the study of emergent literacy—the literacy of young children—has taken decades to initiate. Evidence that children could read at a very young age without the benefit of school instruction (Durkin, 1966) helped to define emergent literacy (Clay, 1972), thus facilitating its research.
Oral language acquisition research of the 1960s and 1970s showed children to be problem solvers who generate and test hypotheses to actively construct language (James, 1990). Marie Clay (1972; 1975), who sought to find out what children do when they read and write, found more individual variation than strict developmental sequence. Ferreiro (1984; 1986; 1990) explored children’s experimentation with written language and confirmed the problem solving approach children use.
Social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978) has been recognized as vital for the development of children’s thinking processes and literacy. Both an appreciation of the active contribution children make to the development of their own literacy and the significance of social interaction to their achievement has fram ed the methodology of this study: to question children directly and individually about their literacy understanding and accomplishments. Because children can participate in
literacy events from birth and do seek to construct their own language they have specialized knowledge or expertise about their own literacy. The purpose of this study is simply to ask children to share that knowledge and to give them ample opportunity to do so. The approach is unique in that children do not have to demonstrate their expertise. Their expertise is assumed and this assumption is shared directly with children at the outset of the consultation. Tuckman (1988) declares that interviews provide access to what is "inside a person’s head... [and] make it possible to measure what a person knows (knowledge or information), what a person likes o r dislikes (values and preferences), and what a person thinks (attitudes and beliefs)", (p. 213) Testing children to provide objective evidence about their literacy is a common practice. Consulting is an effective alternative.
More direct approaches to understanding children’s emergent literacy have caused researchers to adopt such methodology as "asking children to read and write and accepting their performances and explanations as legitimate data concerning children’s development" (Suizby, 1989, p.3). Developmental differences in what children believe specifically about the structure and function o f written language have been meticulously documented (Ferreiro, 1984; 1986; 1990; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982). Wells (1986) found boys and girls of preschool age to be equal in their language learning capacity, his research revealing that the specific differences in parents’ behaviours directed toward their children seemed to be based on the gender of the parent.
Children’s understandings demonstrate that they relate features of oral and written language and that they talk about and question their own performances as a valid part of literacy (Suizby, 1986). Children bring functional knowledge of the world to literacy endeavours. Their age and socioeconomic class are insufficient to predict the nature or extent of their responses (Harste, Woodward & Burke, 1984). With such complex variables these researchers consider observation of the individual vital to the understanding of emerging literacy. It is this researcher’s belief that listening is an effective method of observation.
What children understand and expect from reading and writing is developmental in nature and changes over time (Holdaway, 1979; Teale, 1984). As Holdaway ( 1979) explains:
Developmental learning is highly individual and non-competitive; it is short on teaching and long on learning; it is self-regulated rather than adult- regulated; it goes hand in hand with the fulfilment of real life purposes; it emulates the behaviour of people who model the skill in natural use. (p. 14) This statement has been given credence in recent years with the exploration of children’s emergent literacy (Ferreiro, 1990; Teale & Suizby, 1986).
About all learning and specifically literacy learning Suizby (1986) stresses that the child "learns content in a social context and the affective part of learning is just as important as the content" (p. 53). It is in social interaction that learning begins, with thinking processes being determined by the internalization of that interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). As social interaction is the foundation of thought itself, and
children already have mental processes for reading and writing, it’s time, as Goodman ( 1993/94) indicates, to ask them what they think.
Children actively construct their own literacy and react to those experiences. They will thus have definitions of literacy, descriptions of literacy, and preferences for literacy. The literature provides some evidence of the use of the technique of consultation (Hill, 1991; Shook, Marrion & Ollila, 1989). Speaking to children extensively is an attem pt to answer the foregoing questions in a different way. This researcher assumes that children have knowledge of literacy before asking them questions and this study seeks children’s literacy reports to examine their definitions, descriptions, and preferences and to consider differences according to children’s age and gender.
Statem ent of the Problem
Young children are able to teil us about their reading and writing experiences and their literacy concepts during individual consultations (Anderson, 1993; Edwards, 1994; Manning, Manning & Long, 1992; Rasinski & DeFord, 1988; Shook, M arrion & Ollila, 1989; Stewart, 1992). Potential differences according to their ages and gender will become evident in their reports. This research seeks to gather information based on the literacy reports of young children to answer the following questions:
1. What do emergent readers report about their reading (including illustration and text)?
1.1 What do em ergent readers communicate about their reading through the adapted version of the Concepts About Print Test: Sand (Clay, 1972)?
1.2 What reading definitions, descriptions, and preferences do emergent readers offer during the consultations?
1.3 How are the young readers’ families involved in their reading? 1.4 What concept of self-as-readers do these young children have?
2. What do emergent writers report about their writing (including illustration and text)?
2.1 What do emergent writers communicate about their writing through their drawing and writing?
2.2 What writing definitions, descriptions, and preferences do emergent writers offer during the consultations?
2.3 How are the young writers’ families involved in their writing? 2.4 What concept of self-as-writers do these young children have?
3. How are age and gender related to young children’s reading and writing? Purpose of the Study
The study of emergent literacy has received much attention (Suizby & Teale, 1991). The focus of this attention has been more on how children perform in reading and writing than on what they think about reading and writing. Although researchers have sought to understand how younger and younger children participate in literacy events, the emphasis has been on what they do to demonstrate literacy rather than what they have to say about literacy (Suizby & Teale, 1991). The observation of
children engaged in literacy experiences now needs to be expanded by consulting children directly. The need to ask questions to allow them to explain their literacy understandings is addressed in this study.
The need for this approach was realized personally when, for a new researcher observing children in a variety of literacy tasks at the end of their first and second grade years, the questions arose: What do they think about what they are doing?; W hat can they do?; and W hat have they learned about literacy? Pursuing these questions revealed that children were eager to talk seriously about their literacy experiences. They seemed grateful to be consulted regarding their literacy practices. It is important to ask children how they view literacy generally and in their particular situation. A collection of reports from children ages 3 to 6 about their literacy definitions, descriptions, and preferences can provide insights into their concepts about literacy and reveal patterns of age and gender differences about children’s literacy.
The purpose of this study is reflected in a statem ent made by Goodm an (1993/1994) who maintains: "It is important for any institution interested in literacy to understand how a range of people within our society participate in literacy events, how they define themselves as literate, and what counts as literacy" (p. 35).
Educators need to understand how children in our society view literacy events, define literacy, and define themselves as literate. It is imperative for educators to understand children’s perspectives on their literacy to facilitate pedagogical practice. T o further this field of knowledge researchers must give children opportunities to
decide and explain what counts as literacy through direct questioning in order to gain insight into their specialized knowledge about literacy.
This study grew out of a need to hear young children speak freely about their literacy in a way not contingent upon their performance. Evidence that many children are exposed to literacy events from birth (Baghban, 1984; Taylor, 1983; Wells, 1986) makes it imperative to expand the field of emergent literacy with children's reports by allowing them to define and describe their own literacy. The study enlists middle class children with the assumption that they have consistently experienced literacy events. The study uses open-ended questions, accepts children’s responses as valuable, and gives each child the necessary time to respond.
Suizby ( 1992) offers researchers an approach to literacy research with young children; "If you want children to write, simply ask them to write. If you want them to read, ask them to read. Then allow a child to set interpretive limits such as declaring that he/she was ’not really writing,’ I was just pretending,’ or ’This is not writing, but this is’" (p. 292). To this may be added, if you want children to explain what they think, ask them (Shook, Marrion & Ollila, 1989). Responses may not be a perfect reflection of the children’s thinking, but will represent their attempt to explain their thinking, enhanced by children’s tendency to speak honestly without weighing the impact of their statements.
To further this field of knowledge researchers must give children opportunity to decide and explain what counts as literacy through direct questioning. There are several studies (Anderson, 1993; Edwards, 1994; Hill, 1991; Manning, Manning &
Long, 1992; Rasinski & DeFord, 1988; Shook, Marrion & Ollila, 1989; Stewart, 1992) that have asked children questions about their reading an d /o r writing. However, only the study done by Anderson (1993) included 3- and 4-year-old children. The researcher has found no study that used such a comprehensive set of questions to consult children across these four age levels—3- to 6-year-olds.
This present study will enrich the existing literature by contributing research that includes consultations with children containing open-ended questions to encourage them to speak freely about their literacy, without the restrictions entailed in evaluation procedures. The collection of children’s reports has the potential to reveal age and gender differences and developmental patterns. This research also offers information about the consultation process itself.
Hypotheses
Three null hypotheses will be put forward to compare differences in the children’s reports according to age and gender. There will be no significant difference between 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-old children and between boys and girls in: (a) their understanding of reading, as measured by the adapted version of the Concepts About Print Test: Sand, (b) their reports about their reading, as specified during the consultations, and (c) their reports about their writing, as specified during the consultations.
Definitions
Terms of importance are introduced and defined within the context of this study.
Consult: This term refers to seeking the opinion of another. When consulting children the researcher invites the children, through questioning, to supply information or instruction regarding literacy. Adult and child discuss and consider literacy together with an attitude of mutual respect.
Early Writing: This term replaces "scribbling" to describe those marks made by children as they begin to write. It relates to the assumption that intent to make meaning accompanies a child’s first writings. The term, early writing, more easily encompasses both illustration and text, and preserves the child’s meaning making intent. According to Clay’s (1991) observation task summary, this early writing designation corresponds to her description of the child drawing, or representing ideas, and first producing writing, or generating written messages.
Emergent Literacy: All those reading and writing behaviours and concepts that young children have preceding the development of conventional literacy that are defined by Sulzby (1990b) in this way: "The child needs to be able to produce text that another person can read without too much effort, and the child must also be able to read from that text using the conventional reading strategies" (p. 16). Whereas conventional literacy implies an independence and mastery of the abilities to read and write focussing only on text, emergent literacy implies an approximation of that state, including both illustration and/or text as the focus of the child’s attention. Emergent literacy, also named emerging literacy, may be defined as the gradual and natural development of young children’s listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities (Ollila & Mayfield, 1992). Such discovery and exploration allows
children to understand both the value and function of listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
Illustration: Includes marks and images such as scribbles, drawings, or diagrams used as text or to make clear the meaning of ideas and text.
Language: The systematic means of communicating ideas, thoughts, and feelings to others, or for clarifying meaning to oneself. Language is used for spoken or written communication through conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks that possess understood meanings: "language in any form represents an external, conventionalized system of communication that exists prior to the individual’s entry into the society" (Bruner, 1984, p. 193).
Literacy: The term refers to "the mastery of our native language, in all its aspects, as a means of communication" (Southgate, 1972, cited in Taylor, 1983, p. 87). For the purpose of this study, this broader definition is narrowed to include the ability to gain and express meaning through reading and writing (illustration and text). Frank Smith (1984) states that he would "interpret literacy as the ability to make full sense and productive use of the opportunities of written language in the particular culture in which one lives" (p. 143). Those opportunities include both reading and writing.
Literacy Definitions: To explain or make clear o r distinct the meaning of reading and writing illustration and/or text specifically. Young children’s literacy definitions may have elements stemming both from their experience with reading and writing at home and in other settings in response to what parents, other adults, and peers have
told and shown them and from their own thinking (e.g., imagination). A child’s definition about literacy is interpretive, characterizing literacy generally.
Literacy Descriptions: The words chosen by each child to tell about or depict reading and writing, both generally and personally; the details used by each child to express or illustrate literacy a n d /o r his or her emergent literacy.
Literacy Preferences: The comprehension of the value and function of reading and writing (Ollila & Mayfield, 1992) expressed in an attitude of partiality to certain literacy choices. Children’s preferences in literacy are specific and may be in relation to self as a reader and writer. Typical preferences or choices are the when, where, what, and with whom to engage in literacy events.
Reading: CIay(1991) defines reading as "a message-getting, problem-solving activity which increases in power and flexibility the more it is practised... within the directional constraints of the printer’s code, language and visual perception responses are purposefully directed by the reader in some integrated way to the problem of extracting meaning from cues in a text, in sequence, so that the reader brings a maximum of understanding to the author’s message" (p. 6). Clay presents this process as a continuum that permits individual differences. The experience of emerging readers precedes that of conventional readers, focussing on both illustration and text. Clay, in describing reading as "a sequential activity in which a message is extracted from a continuous text" (p. 29), excludes the reading of illustrations or pictures. Pictures may be read more selectively and less sequentially than text (e.g., sampled only in part, or also as a whole). Pictures may also vary in the degree they
measure reality (e.g., from the highly symbolic to the accuracy of a photograph). The reader’s response may vary as well (e.g., the extraction of information or an emotional reaction).
Reflection: Contemplation of the contents or qualities of one’s remembered experiences or one’s own thoughts about reading and writing and from that careful thinking an idea or remark resulting, about an aspect of literacy; consideration of some aspect of reading and writing in order to better understand, accept, or see it in its right relations.
T ext: This term refers to written language. It is all of the words of a text, whether printed or handwritten, as distinct from illustrations.
Writing: The visual representation of personal meaning, negotiated and expressed through the construction of a printed text. While Jacob (1984) describes writing as "the production of printed materials" (p. 75), Sulzby (1992) states that writing is "composing connected written discourse" (p. 290). These two definitions suggest the variety of forms writing can assume, with Jacob’s description more closely fitting the writing of emerging writers, that features both illustrative and textual elements, or picture and print.
Limitations
Limitations to the study are identified and attempts to resolve potential difficulties are explained.
The children participating in the study do so with the consent of the school district, and their principals, teachers, and parents. Children also gave their consent.
It was therefore not possible to choose randomly from all middle class children in the city. However, the large sample size (107 children) includes equal numbers of 4-, 5-, and 6-year-old children (30 at each age level). O f the 30 children at a given age level equal numbers of boys and girls were able to take part (15 each). All available 3-year-olds (17 in total) participated. It was not possible to match children’s ages (according to months) within each of the four age groups.
According to school schedules there was an overall time limit on the length of the study. Daily time constraints also affected the consultations. The day and time of consultation, and the child’s current emotional state, may impose their own limitations on the research endeavour, in a way, and to an extent, that may never be revealed to the researcher (e.g., children in kindergarten or grade one for the first time may be tired in the afternoon; or recent significant events within the family may present such a priority for the child as to interfere with the consultation). Teacher choices for the order of children’s participation may introduce possible bias.
Children’s experiences were observed and recorded in one particular way using a specific set of questions. Other questions could yield different information about this aspect of children’s literacy. W ith children’s sensitivity to specific questions, as revealed by the pilot studies and previous research (Shook, Marrion & Ollila, 1989), children’s responses may differ with even slight changes in emphasis in the questions and slight changes in the questions could potentially change the appearance of the consultation. Evidence of children’s experiences will be restricted to their oral responses to the adapted version of the Concepts About Print Test:
Sand (Clay, 1972) and survey questions, and their drawing and writing demonstrations.
W hat a child says and does will not automatically indicate why and how certain words and actions were chosen (Clay, 1991). The interpretation of children’s speech and actions is potentially as tentative for the researcher as for the children. The thorough nature of the consultation, partially fulfilled by the repeat factors designed into the questions, attempts to deal with this potential difficulty.
The open-ended nature of each question is clarified as needed with probing questions used to insure the child’s understanding of the question and allow for a complete response. The researcher’s ability to listen to each child and make effective use of these probing questions is crucial to the data collection.
The use of the tape recorder to record the consultations may limit the naturalness of some children’s responses. Although children may listen to their voices at the end of the consultation, the use of the tape recorder may cause anxiety for some children. Nonverbal behaviours may provide clues relevant to the consultation (e.g., about children’s thoughtfulness, anxiety level, strong feelings related to a certain aspect of literacy). Some, but not all nonverbal behaviours may be noted in journal form. With some children speech posed a limitation in communication that was aided by the simultaneous use of the tape recorder and handwritten record.
This study involves middle class children and therefore generalizations are appropriate to other middle class children in this city, but may not apply to children from other socioeconomic backgrounds.
Measuring how children’s thinking develops over time and how adult influence shapes that thinking is beyond the scope of this cross sectional study and requires a longitudinal approach.
Assumptions The following assumptions apply to this study.
Preschool children who read and write are using forms of emergent literacy that precede conventional literacy (Sulzby, 1992; Clay, 1991; Harste, Woodward & Burke, 1984). These children react purposefully to experiences with print, experiences involving literacy, and to desires and challenges to read and write. These children demonstrate understanding of literacy (Ferreiro, 1984, 1986, 1990; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Harste, Woodward & Burke, 1984; Purcell-Gates, 1994; Wells,
1986).
Children’s literacy definitions, descriptions, and preferences subsequently form a framework for the child for each encounter with reading and writing (Sulzby, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978). Children’s ages will influence their literacy definitions, descriptions, and preferences (Ferreiro, 1984). Children’s gender will influence their literacy definitions, descriptions, and preferences (Wells, 1986).
It is possible that adults may fail to discern the extent of the problem solving capabilities children possess (Harste, Woodward & Burke, 1984), as well as their
capacity as learners (Baghban, 1984). The child’s understanding of literacy is valid, although different from the adult’s (Sulzby, 1986). The middle class background and values of the children and the researcher can provide a basis for the researcher to understand the child’s literacy report (Purcell-Gates, 1993).
Data collection over a relatively short time period (two months) permits only a cross-section of the literacy experience of 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-old children to be sampled.
The fall, the time of year for the data collection, is unique in that children are excited about the beginning o f a new school year. This applies also to 3- and 4-year- olds, as they anticipate both their own preschool experiences and vicariously the school experience o f older siblings.
Summary
Careful observation and documentation about what children acquire in terms of literacy have been made (Ferreiro, 1984,1986; Harste, Burke, & Woodward, 1982; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984; Sulzby, 1985, 1986). This needs to be expanded by encouraging children to tell about their literacy experiences. In this study children are asked direct questions to elicit their experiences with illustration and text in order to examine how children view literacy generally and in particular, considering what differences age and gender make in children’s views. A collection of children’s statements offers the potential of revealing developmental patterns and trends making it possible to characterize differences among 3 to 6 year old children according to their literacy definitions, descriptions, and preferences.
It is the goal of this research to explore children's literacy definitions, descriptions, and preferences by directly questioning children on their reading and writing practices using a semi-structured individual consultation. During these consultations, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-old children will be invited to explain their own personal literacy accomplishments—to define and describe reading and writing, to explain their personal preferences in reading and writing, to tell how they see themselves as readers and writers, capable of accepting guidance from more mature readers and writers. This study is prefaced on the belief that children can tell about these experiences and are able to talk about literacy and its meaning to them. Thus, through the children’s statements during consultation, family literacy will also be explored and children’s literacy definitions, descriptions, and preferences will be compiled from their reports and the age and gender differences among the children’s statements will be compared.
The next chapter. Chapter II, is a review of a selection of literature from the field of emergent literacy. Chapter III presents the research methodology for the study. Chapter IV is a representation and summarization of the quantitative data and a discussion of the results. Chapter V offers a reflection on the study based on individual statements the children have made and journal entries recorded by the researcher while conducting and transcribing the consultations. In Chapter VI a summary is provided of the purpose of the study, research methodology, and major findings of the study. The study’s limitations and implications are included, as well as suggestions for further research.
C H A P T E R II Literature Review
The literature pertinent to this study is divided into the following sections: 1) history of emergent literacy, 2) the child’s emerging literacy experience, 3) the child’s family literacy experience, 4) age and gender differences in children’s literacy reports, and 5) studying children’s emerging literacy.
Historv of Emergent Literacy
The issue of pre-first-grade reading and writing did not merit examination, or research, prior to the 1920s because it was believed that literacy development was secured through formal school instruction (Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Prior to the 1970s emergent literacy was neither recognized conceptually nor defined operationally for research purposes.
Until the 1960s educators believed that "neural ripening" or physiological maturation made readiness to read possible. Gesell, a physician at the forefront of the maturationalists, presented this view of child development that became dominant during the 1920s and 1930s. Behaviours automatically follow the prerequisite neural ripening. This study’s findings applied to beginning reading as well as motor development. Morphett and W ashburne (1931) demonstrated that 6 1/2 years was the mental age the beginning reader should be to ensure maximum reading success. Their findings gained international acceptance and served, along with the belief in neural ripening, to promote delayed instruction for four decades (Durkin, 1966). This study's momentum would not be stopped despite opposition by researchers such
as Gates (1937). Good educational environments must not tam per with what had to be spontaneous development (Durkin, 1966).
In one study that countered the arguments of prior decades that children must have time to mature in order to read, Durkin (1966) reported upon 49 early readers who learned to read at home. She found them to be curious, persistent, precocious, perfectionist, and above all, successful in securing from parents and siblings answers to their questions.
A teacher-as-researcher, Ashton-W am er (1963) reported her use of key vocabulary to motivate rural Maori children to read and write and demonstrated that younger children experienced emerging literacy. To teach reading and writing she made use of powerful first words, that were remembered because they had intense personal meaning for a child: T h e pictures are already there in the child’s mind, individual, and emotionally equipped" (p. 176). Those very personal or organic words, captions to the mind’s pictures, provided the child with a means to write autobiographically. According to Ashton-W arner, "a child’s writing is his own affair.... The more It means to him the more value it is to him. And it means everything to him.... It is the unbroken line of thought that we cultivate so carefully in our own writing and conversation" (p. 54).
Important research supporting the cultivation of literacy was discussed by Downing and Thackray (1971) who summarized Vygotsky’s (1962) findings, that children do not see the usefulness of writing or the need to pursue it. They described a parallel to this work in Reid’s (1966) conclusions and Downing’s (1970a,
1970b, 1971) replication of R eid’s work that 5-year-old beginners (Scottish and English) had vague expectations for reading. Cognitive confusion about reading (Vernon, 1957) was the beginner’s true state. Cognitive clarity (Downing, 1971) came as the "fog cleared" and children understood: a) written language’s communicative purpose; b) the functions of symbols; c) concepts of "word", "sound", etc., similarly to the teacher’s; d) language’s abstract technical terminology; and e) decoding (translation of letter to sound) and encoding (the reverse). According to these studies, attaining literacy m eant, in part, developing the concepts and reasoning abilities specific to the skills and tasks of reading and writing.
Bruner (1960) was interpreted as identifying the need to teach subjects "downward" in the grades. This heralded the interventionist approach. Using intervention, even preschool children could be prepared to read by developing prerequisite skills with programs, workbooks, and tests (Downing & Thackray, 1971). Despite controversy over what skills were prerequisite and how programs were effective, these efforts persisted into the 1980s (Teale & Sulzby, 1986). This reading readiness, logically followed by reading and then writing, was best transferred through the systematic and sequential teaching of a predeterm ined set of skills and knowledge. It placed the teacher in the role of the dispenser of knowledge and the child as the consumer. However, this approach failed to recognize the children’s cognitive development, their prior knowledge, their existing language facility, and their attitudes. In the past beginning reading instruction has cast children in a passive role.
Oral language acquisition research of the 1960s and 1970s, in exploring children’s strategies in learning language, found that children actively generate and test hypotheses (James, 1990). As problem solvers they not only imitate but construct language. Children may respond to written language as they do oral language. There is a normal course of development for children learning to read and write, potentially with a typical developmental sequence, conventions, and time frames.
Marie Clay (1972, 1975) changed the research focus from typical developmental sequences to an analysis of what children do when they read and write. Clay sought to describe and understand early reading behaviours of 5-year- olds in order to help those with reading difficulties and she is credited for giving the name emergent literacy to the dynamic development she observed in children. The concept of reading readiness as the prerequisite to conventional literacy had been displaced. Emergent literacy, characterized by children’s active participation and exploration of written language, came to be recognized.
There has been much subsequent exploration of children’s literacy development (Goelman, Oberg & Smith, 1984; T eale & Sulzby, 1986). Methods evolved from the ethnographic (Heath, 1983) to the case study (Baghban, 1984; Bissex, 1980) to structured interview (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Harste, Burke & Woodward, 1982; Sulzby, 1985). The ethnic and social background of children studied has varied (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; H eath, 1983) and both home and school settings have also been taken into account (Wells, 1986). Listening, speaking.
reading, and writing develop concurrently and are interrelated, with more variation amongst individuals than a strict sequence (Harste, Burke & Woodward, 1982). Many of the motives and purposes children have, as young readers and writers in the process of becoming literate, as well as the psycholinguistic processes they use in reading and writing are identical to those of adults although within a different time frame (Harste, Woodward & Burke, 1984; Heath, 1983; Teale & Sulzby, 1986).
As young children become literate they extend their language facility from listening and speaking to reading and writing (Taylor, 1983). Literacy, often thought to encompass all aspects of one’s native language, in this study refers specifically to reading and writing of illustration and text. Young children attem pt to understand how written language works. For them written language is an object and its permanence permits both inspection and experimentation (Ferreiro, 1984; 1986; 1990; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982). This experimentation leads them to construct ideas that are neither taught to them nor modelled for them (Sulzby, 1986). As Taylor (1983) described in her study of family literacy: "Growing in an environment where literacy is the only option, they learned of reading as one way of listening, and of writing as one way of talking" (p. 87). Whereas speech fits words to the context of the real world, written language uses words to construct the context as necessary to achieve meaning (Wells, 1986).
Reading and writing are two powerful tools of communication that children can acquire and use (Ferreiro, 1984; Harste, Burke & Woodward, 1982) as they reflect upon their literacy experiences. The process of becoming literate involves
thinking about reading and writing concomitantly during its practice. Clay (1975) provides insight into the complexity of ± e learning process children go through in the realization that an idea can be written down:
At the earliest stage of awareness the child hopes that he has written down a message, and that the squiggles he has made do correspond in some way with what he is saying, although he has no basis for establishing this
correspondence. At this level his message is a fantasy expressed in print, (p. 51)
Reading and writing are reflective processes that connect present with past experiences, thoughts, and feelings. Reflection allows children, as well as adults, to sense change—based upon what they already know, what they perceive, and what they understand—and to assign significance to what has been learned. Schon’s (1983) description of the adult reflective practitioner may be equally applied to the child’s experimentation with written language (Ferreiro, 1984):
In each instance, the practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomena before him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomena and a change in the situation, (p. 68)
Implied in Schon’s statem ent is recognition of episodic memory (Tulving, 1985), that includes both a remembered event and the awareness of having
experienced it. Perner (1992; F em er & Rufifman, 1995) indicates that for children between the ages of 3 and 6 experienced events gain a coherent identity because children recognize having experienced them. Children are then free to recall events repeatedly and with accuracy. As much as any others this applies to literacy events.
The Child’s Emerging Literacv Experience
This section begins with a consideration of the child's oral language, out of which their written language emerges. It is followed by an introduction to the work of Marie Clay, who has been credited with applying the term em ergent literacy to the development in reading and writing she observed in children. Drawing is then discussed, as it is an important p art of children’s writing developing in conjunction with it. Reading with writing refers to the way children use reading and writing together to support each other. Cognition in literacy summarizes a close examination of the work of Emilia Ferreiro and her application of Piagetian principles to children’s emergent literacy. Two case studies of children’s em ergent literacy, one with a girl and one with a boy are explored as literacy in action. The final section gives examples of the importance of the context within which children place their literacy.
Oral Language
Harste, Burke and Woodward (1982) assume that w ritten language grows and develops like oral language-in that both are social and meaningful. Moving from an understanding of what language can d o -its semantic and pragm atic aspects, they can consider how it is form ed-the syntactic and graphophonemic aspects. Its meaning.
both for oneself and others, gives impetus for the search to discover how it is formed. Because language is a socioiinguistic process it has a linguistic component (who produces the language and for whom?), a situational component (where is the language found?), and a cultural component (from which culture does the language originate?). The context of language helps children to discover regularities in language and establish generalizations about its use.
Reading and writing are but a natural extension of oral language learning, in that children negotiate, test hypotheses, and fine tune their language by its further use (James, 1990). They conduct experiments. In appreciating its complexity children coordinate pragmatics (suitability), semantics (meaning), syntax (cohesive aspects), and graphics (placeholders).
Looking at Print
Marie Clay, in her extensive work with young children, has often been credited with originating the concept of emergent literacy, capturing the continual transitions that children experience in their attempts to understand the processes and purposes of reading and writing. Clay (1975) points out that children tend to operate on visual patterns in unique ways so that how they look at words, syllables, blends, and letters, to distinguish their features, varies widely. Children come to reading with substantial and significant individual differences.
Clay ( 1975) considered the contribution writing makes to reading through the visual analysis of letters and words. Children notice first and last letters in words most frequently, learn left to right differentiation, consider common words, and their
construction, features etc., in order to permit reproduction. As children write messages and sentences, punctuation and spelling conventions are gleaned and developed. Acquisition sequences followed no discernable or consistent order. Instead, letters, words, and word groups, are intermingled with illustration.
Clay found that several concepts and principles did emerge to describe the way children orient to reading and writing. Children begin with signs they know (sign concept) and follow up by copying other signs (copying principle). They repeat letters or words to make long statements (recurring principle or flexibility principle). According to the flexibility principle children also invert an d /o r decorate letters. Children recognize the directional principle (the left to right convention of our written language). They come to understand the generating principle, that 26 letters will generate virtually limitless words and sentences. When young children write, following these conventions, they trust that adults can decipher the message (Clay, 1975). Five-year-olds systematically take stock of their expanding vocabularies—the inventory principle. The contrastive principle works at different levels namely, letter- -upper versus lower case, semantic-boy versus girl. The message concept refers to the ability to write down spoken messages; the space concept signifies the ability to hear words separately.
Clay noticed that 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children take pleasure in early writing, followed by linear mock writing, and then mock letters. Gradually early writing comes to approximate the writing of adults. Later, children are more likely to put spaces between words first in stories they copy and then in their own creative stories.
indicating that their attention tends toward either the visual/spatial or language aspects of the work. Clay suggested that writing can support reading when the two are learned together. Children, in approaching a new task, often proceed tentatively at first and later become more systematic using hand, finger, eye, and body. Visual exploration is used increasingly and eventually used alone. So many factors work together in a child’s emerging literacy that definitive sequencing is impossible (Clay, 1975).
Drawing
Children’s art, an im portant part of their emerging literacy, can be viewed as illustrating children's developm ent as a fixed set of stages completely dependent on chronological m aturation (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987). In the stage theory, children’s first scribbles are random markings that gradually become controlled as children’s motor control increases (scribbling stage; 2-4 years). Kellogg (1969), in her comprehensive analysis o f children’s drawings, identified 20 basic scribbles, beginning with dots, loops, and imperfect circles. Finally, children name their scribbles and as Lowenfeld and Brittain (1987) explain; "The line becomes more than just the result of a motion; it becomes the edge o f a form" (p. 193). Children’s development may, on the other hand, be seen as a process determined by the quality and quantity of environmental experiences. As Atkinson (1991) queries, "How do we know that during the Scribble Stage young children are not attempting to represent the human figure (as Lowenfeld maintains) or other aspects of their experiences?" (p. 62).
distinct in order to communicate effectively pictorially. Children’s representations have referents from their experience-they have meaning (Harris, 1963; Golomb, 1988). Children’s drawings do not map image onto paper directly. They are graphic representations, an invention of form structurally or dynamically equivalent to the object. These interpretations stand for an aspect of reality framed within a cultural context (Golomb, 1994).
Motor control and developing visual perception combine to reflect development and aid children in their developing literacy. The 4-year-old can represent a person with a typical head-feet symbol and the 5-year-old draws both people and objects somewhat randomly in placement and size. The 6-year-old, establishing a baseline, is able to orient people and objects in an orderly fashion (preschematic stage; 4-7 years).
Kellogg (1969) claims that children’s scribbling not only promotes the eye- hand coordination so necessary for writing but is also a pleasurable precursor to it. Spontaneous scribbling affords children the opportunity to perceive lines they have made in preparation for reading. As well, their appreciation of letters is usually aesthetic before linguistic. Not only can drawing be preparatory for writing, but as Danielson ( 1992) states that "drawing and writing go hand-in-hand for young children, with drawing serving as a supportive scaffold that holds the piece of writing together" (p. 275). Emergent writing, as it approaches conventional writing, goes through five common forms: "scribble", drawing, nonphonetic letter strings, phonetic or invented spelling, and conventional orthography. As children add forms to their
ever-increasing repertoire, they mix these forms, and develop more complex uses for them (Sulzby, 1989).
Reading with Writing
Just as they mix forms of writing children make use of reading and writing in various ways to understand their culture’s writing system. "Some children seem to depend more upon a transfer of knowledge from writing to reading and others transfer more knowledge from reading to writing." (Sulzby, 1990a, p. 19) Reading and writing do not develop in parallel namely, a child who first uses invented spelling that is encoded phonetically, does not immediately reread that same form by decoding phonetically (Kamberelis & Sulzby, 1988). "Comparing forms of writing and rereading can reveal some intriguing results, such as a child reading by reciting a written language-like story while tracking scribble with a finger or a child reading an oral monologue, looking off at the wall, from readable invented spelling!" (Sulzby,
1989, p. 22)
Reading and writing at different levels can provide connections to further children’s literacy. Before forming letters children do early writing. While retaining lower level forms of writing, children can perform higher level rereading tasks by selecting writing forms freely, in support of their rereading attempts. The same child may do early writing, and then repeat verbally the story from that early writing, precisely, over days, with pointing synchronized to match the story events. Although children develop variety in forms of writing and rereading, that they can use comfortably, they will not necessarily at any time display the level representing the
full extent of their development. Children are able to speak with oral and written language patterns or registers before they can read and write conventionally. Reading from favourite storybooks, children may use conversational language, storytelling structure, or written language registers (Sulzby, 1985). Children have and make many choices in their literacy. The next section explores children’s use of Piagetian principles to construct and facilitate their emerging literacy.
Cognition in Literacv
Piaget (1959), a biologist interested in the creation of new knowledge or invention, examined children’s thinking and proposed a theory of cognitive development. His theory, with its principles of equilibration, assimilation, and accommodation, has been illustrated extensively for young children’s written language (Ferreiro, 1984, 1986, 1990; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982).
According to Piagetian theory (1959) children attem pt to assimilate new information they encounter in the environment, in this case about the writing system. W hen new information is contradictory and resists assimilation children try, through experimentation, to make sense of the new information. As a result of their interpretation they develop assimilation schemes. Incorporation of new information that invalidates a scheme provides a need for change or accommodation. The need for internal consistency, or equilibration, compels children to reorganize assimilation schemes that are contradictory, thereby building new systems or assimilation schemes.
Emilia Ferreiro first worked with Spanish-speaking children in Mexico and Argentina with the aim of understanding the evolution of children’s systems of ideas
concerning the construction and interpretation of writing (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982). Children’s performance was examined for their competence, while respecting development as the reconstruction necessary for the child to take ownership of the literacy system (Ferreiro, 1984). Ferreiro identified three levels of development while giving the child credit for the entire process of construction, for example, the intentions, comments, modifications, and interpretations of the child writer who is beginning to read.
At the f7rst level, children seek distinguishing criteria to separate drawing from writing. They discover the difference in the organization of lines. In drawing, lines follow the contours of objects, but for writing, the important characteristics of form are linearity and arbitrariness. Children come to recognize also that grouping letters can represent objects. They then search for the qualities that ensure that writing represents the object well, or can actually convey meaning. They choose two principles-one quantitative and one qualitative. According to the principle of minimum quantity, three letters, by the children’s perspective, are necessary to represent words. From a qualitative standpoint, these letters must differ from each other.
At the second level, children look for objective differences in the letter strings to bring about different interpretations. Children do not consider that the sound patterns of words determine the written representation and so explore other possibilities. For example, a larger num ber of letters may signify a bigger object, a group of objects, or an older person. They experiment in writing words by changing
all the letters, rearranging the existing letters, or changing only one or two letters. At this level, children add an interrelational comparison of the letters they know to their previous intrarelational principles (Ferreiro, 1990), requiring graphic differentiation between words while looking for internal consistencies within words. Children accomplish this differentiation without knowing that sound patterns of words relate to their written construction.
At the third, or phonetization level, children finally take control of the variations in the quantity of letters needed to write any given word, through use of the sound patterns inherent in these words. The child’s own name is an important piece of information at this point. At the syllabic, or first sublevel of this category, English speaking children prefer to let consonants demarcate the syllables in words. English and Spanish children alike choose one letter for part of a word corresponding to more than one phoneme. They attem pted to discern the relationship between the whole written string and its constituent letters. The coexistence of two requirements namely, one letter per syllable, and no less than three letters per word, presented a new conflict for the child, especially in relation to monosyllabic words (Ferreiro, 1985). Children also venture into an unstable syllabic-alphabetic hypothesis, in allowing some letters to represent entire syllables and others single phonemes. Arriving at the alphabetic hypothesis finally, children understand that similarity of letters implies similarity of sound, and, it follows that different letters also represent different sounds. They are then challenged to overcome irregularities they encounter in the orthography.
Ferreiro’s findings (Ferreiro, 1990) support Fiagetian principles. That is to say, as children learn and acquire new behaviours, they acquire new knowledge. The writing system becomes an object of knowledge. When unfamiliar knowledge is impossible to assimilate, they experiment and hypothesize to first interpret, and later theorize, about the nature and function of the writing system. The systems children construct help them to make sense of the world. The incorporation of new information, and the need to maintain consistency, requires reorganization of the child’s interpretative systems. The child thus moves through successive and more sophisticated modes of interpretation.
Gaining literacy is a challenge to the child. Children must cope with contradiction in their knowledge and willingly resolve those conflicts to obtain literacy. Ferreiro (1984) suggests we accredit children appropriately:
Either we conceive literacy development as the acquisition of a set of marks, the functions of which becomes clear through social experiences while the structure remains opaque, or we admit that the struc
ture of the system (more precisely, the reconstruction of it as a system) is a necessary part of the ownership process. Children pose deep questions to themselves. Their problems are not solved when they succeed in meaning fully identifying a letter or string of letters, because they try to under stand not only the elements or the results but also, and above all, the very nature of the system, (p. 172)
