The Relationship between Writing and Phonemic Awareness in



| |

| |

The Relationship between Phonological Awareness and Name

Writing in Preschool and Kindergarten

Denise K. Robinson

George Mason University

Abstract

This review investigates the relationship between phonological awareness and name writing in preschool and kindergarten settings. Studies focused on phonological awareness, invented spelling, letter name and sound relationships, and name writing are presented. Writing activities, including children’s name writing, are shown to be effective in building phonological awareness. Studies researching letter writing, as well as letter naming and sounds are included. An innovative look at the way children visualize writing and their names in preschool and kindergarten is presented.

It is early November. In Mr. G’s kindergarten classroom, the children are setting out their materials and getting ready for Writing Workshop. Mr. G has called a small group of students together so that he can monitor and scaffold their writing. This group has a developed sense of story. They can draw pictures that show events over several pages. None of them are writing letters or words yet. At Mr. G’s suggestion to add words to their stories, Angela begins writing text using the letters of her name. Jett uses a single letter to represent each word he wants to use, carefully forming the word in his mouth and asking Mr. G for confirmation of each letter he chooses. Marisol writes an ‘s’ for sun and ‘h’ for house, using an alphabet chart, but struggles to label any other pictures. Mr. G wonders about the best way to teach these children to write.

Writing is an important part of a child’s early literacy development. In preschool and kindergarten classes, children are taught to read and write alphabet letters, to recognize and use letter sounds, and to put these skills together to produce their own narratives. This review will look specifically at the aspects of phonological awareness and children’s name writing as instructional foci in early childhood classrooms. In their discussion of emergent writing, Sulzby and Teale (1991) suggest that children follow a developmental path as they become conventional writers. They recognize developmental spelling as a form of children’s writing, but do not mention specific relationships between children’s writing and phonemic awareness, a connection recognized by others (He & Wang, 2009; Piasta, Purpura & Wagner, 2010; Vernon & Ferriero, 1999).

Studies chosen for inclusion in this paper report on research related to writing with preschool and kindergarten children in classroom settings. In the first section, research related to writing and phonological awareness, especially letter sound knowledge is outlined. Next, research on name writing by children as a means of enhancing early writing and spelling are detailed. Studies which included a writing task, but which were primarily concerned with reading behaviors (e.g. Korat, 2005; Ukrainetz, Cooney, Dyer, Kysar, & Harris, 2000) were not included. Similarly, research focused on home-based literacy activities such as storybook reading (Aram & Levin, 2002; Frijters, Barron, & Brunello, 2000; Sénéchal, LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998), specific home writing programs (Wollman-Bonilla, 2001), or continuity or disparity between home and school literacy experiences (Dusmuir & Blatchford, 2004; Haney & Hill, 2004) have been excluded.

Review of Research

Phonological Awareness and Writing Instruction

The relationship between phonological awareness and writing has been documented in a quantitative study, which investigated the effects of two instructional approaches based on interactive writing and metalinguistic games over a 16-week period. Craig (2006) looked at the relationships between phonological awareness, reading, and spelling. Kindergarten students (n=87) from a predominantly white, middle-class, suburban school were randomly assigned to either the ‘interactive writing-plus’ or ‘metalinguistic games-plus’ groups. These groups were further divided into flexible small groups of four to five students for intervention by experienced teachers other than the kindergarten classroom teachers. The interactive writing-plus group focused on a contextualized approach that integrated developmentally appropriate modeling and practice of both phonological and alphabetic skills in reading, writing, and word study. The mentaliguistic games-plus group received instruction using a training program which had been previously proven successful in building phonological awareness skills. Pre- and post-intervention test data were collected in several areas, including letter identification, phonemic awareness, spelling and reading. Craig (2006) indicated concluded that the interactive writing-plus and metalinguistic games-plus interventions “demonstrated comparable performances on measures of phonological awareness, spelling, and pseudoword reading” (p.726), and that “results revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups on word identification, passage comprehension, and word reading development measures, with the adapted interactive writing group demonstration greater achievement” (p. 714). According to Craig, these results suggest that writing instruction that supports invented and conventional spelling can be instrumental in enhancing both word reading and reading comprehension. It should be noted, however, that these interventions were in place in addition to regular kindergarten instruction, which may have had an impact on results. There was no control group with which to compare.

In their review of the literature relating to invented spelling and phonemic awareness of young children, Silva et. al. (2010) found evidence of a link between the two. Recognizing that some letter names are directly related to the letters’ sounds and that some are not, the researchers sought to discover how this discrepancy affected the invented spellings and phonological growth of Portuguese kindergartners. Five groups of 10 children each were given spelling pre-test of common Portuguese words following a CVCV (consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel) spelling pattern. Four groups received writing instruction through a twice weekly intervention program. The fifth group, the control, was engaged in a program which that focused on categorization of different shapes by attributes. A post-test was given following the interventions, which each had a different focus. Group 1 was taught words whose first syllable matched the letter name and was asked to think about using letter names as a strategy; Group 2 again focused on words whose first syllable matched the letter name but learned to use letter sounds to write words. Groups 3 and 4 learned words whose initial syllable matched the letter sound but focused either on letter names or letter sounds to write words. Regardless to which experimental group the students were assigned, they made significant improvements in their ability to spell the CVCV words in the test protocol, while Group 4 (focusing on letter sounds) made the highest gains overall, showing statistically significant improvement related to words whose initial syllable was similar to the letter sound. The students in the control group did not show improvement. The researchers concluded that intervention could improve both phonological awareness and the actual writing of words.

In a qualitative study of a similar nature, Vernon and Ferreiro (1999) found that phonological awareness is a developmental skill and that both reading and writing activities can help to heighten awareness of the sound structure of language. Using a sample of 54 Mexican kindergartners, the researchers tested three hypotheses: first that there is a strong relationship between phonological awareness and the level of writing development in five- and six-year-old children; second, these children many analyze oral words in a different way when provided with purely oral stimuli than when these stimuli are accompanied by a piece of writing; and finally, that the internal structure of languages must somehow influence the way children analyze oral stimuli (Spanish-speaking children will not follow the same path as English–speaking children to reach phonological awareness). The children were interviewed on two consecutive days. They were given a writing task on the first day and two oral segmentation tasks on the second. No intervention was provided. The independent variable was children’s conceptualization of writing based on their understanding of oral segmentation of words (no segmentation, syllabic segmentation, through to full phonological segmentation, letter by letter). The findings suggest that the children’s ability to segment words correlates to their writing levels, but can be influenced by how the task was presented. The researchers conclude that children who are given the opportunity to write freely will be able to analyze their own speech when writing, further increasing their letter sound knowledge.

The Vernon and Ferreiro (1999) study was replicated in part by Kamii and Manning (2002). Their sample population was a group of 68 English-speaking kindergartners from a higher socio-economic community, with more literacy-based instruction in the schools, than in the original study. Following the original methodology, the children were again interviewed on consecutive days and were given the same types of writing and oral segmentation tasks. Again, no intervention was provided. As in the previous study, the researchers found a strong relationship between levels of oral phonemic segmentation and writing levels, and were, in fact, able to draw conclusions about the children’s level of phonemic awareness through their writing. Recognizing the reciprocity of reading and writing, Kamii and Manning (2002) suggest that beginning readers should be encouraged to write because as they write, children analyze their own speech. This self-analysis translates into improved differentiation of phonemes, impacting both reading and writing skills. Their findings support those of Vernon and Ferreiro (1999) and have similar implications for the early introduction of writing as part of the literacy instruction of young students, suggesting that researchers should focus on children’s writing as a window to phonemic awareness and that beginning readers should be encouraged to write so that they will practice differentiating phonemes in a natural way.

The ability to segment words into sounds and to translate those sounds into letters results in the invented spelling attempts of most young writers. Recognizing that the literature suggests that children who are encouraged to use invented spelling produce longer, more fluent writings than those who are not, He and Wang (2009) looked at the invented spelling of two kindergarten and two first grade native speakers of Taiwan. Each participant met individually with one of the researchers on a weekly basis for 14 months. After completing an oral planning session with one of the researchers, the students were asked to write independently about their choice of several topics. When the writing task was completed, the child was asked to read the writing to the researcher. This activity was followed by an interview designed to determine any spelling rules that were used by the students in their invented spellings. After analyzing the participants’ invented spellings, He and Wang found that they could be classified as letter-name based or letter-sound based. They concluded that the students were spelling words based on how they felt in their mouths or sounded when they said them, findings which that the researchers related to the complexity of the English language and which that echo the “interconnected relation between articulation and spelling” (p. 51) found by previous researchers. Also supporting previous research findings, He and Wang found that the children’s invented spellings changed or disappeared as they became more familiar with English. As Vernon and Ferriero (1999) had found in their investigation of Spanish speaking kindergartners, He and Wang found that the Taiwanese student’s invented spellings differed slightly from those previously found by researchers working with American children. They suggest that their findings may help teachers of young English Language Learners to design more effective writing instruction, allowing these students to “increase their phonological awareness and, accordingly, their spelling competency” (p. 55), rather than waiting to begin writing instruction until the students have fully developed their phonemic awareness of alphabet letters and their sounds.

Looking at the relationship between beginning reading and writing skills of 60 American children in the spring of their kindergarten year, Ritchey (2008) also looked at invented spelling and letter writing. Acknowledging the shared role of phonological awareness for both reading and spelling, she notes that “in many cases, students’ earliest development of writing skills, especially writing alphabet letters, is unconsidered or uncontrolled for when spelling has been included” (Ritchey, 2008, p. 29). She used four writing, four reading, and two phonological measures to extend previous research conducted with first-graders downward to the kindergarten year. The researchers did not conduct any interventions but collected data took from February-May after instruction on all letters and letter sounds had been given by classroom teachers. No significant differences were found regarding writing or reading performance for gender or handedness on any of the measures used. In writing letters, there were 13 letters that more than 90 per cent of the children could write; K and q proved most difficult, along with Cc, Ss, and Zz. Spelling proved a more difficult task; no children were able to spell all target sounds and two students could not spell any of the target sounds. Most students were able to spell both real and nonsense words at least partially correctly. One student spelled all of the words, two children did not earn any points. This study found moderate to strong correlations among reading and writing measures, but noted only weak correlations between letter writing and phonological awareness measures. Letter sound knowledge was a significant predictor of both spelling measures, but letter name knowledge was not found to be a significant predictor of letter writing.

Piasta, Purpura, and Wagner (2010) also looked at letter name and letter sound skills, for preschool, rather than kindergarten students. A total of 58 English-speaking three- and four-year old children were randomly assigned to combined letter name and sound (LNLS), letter sound (LS) only, or control (number identification) instructional groups, which each received 34 scripted lessons. Pre- and post-assessment data was collected on alphabet, phonological awareness, letter-word identification, emergent reading, and developmental spelling measures. Significant gains were noted for all alphabet knowledge measures, with outcomes slightly favoring the LNLS over the LS intervention. Piasta, et .al. expressed surprise that this was not a more significant difference. Children in the LNLS group performed significantly better than the control group for measures of letter sound knowledge, and better than the LS group. All children made significant gains on Letter-Word Identification and gains on other emergent reading and spelling measures, none of which were significant between groups.

This is the place for integration, if not more throughout the above reviews. What does this body of literature “say”?

“A” is for Angela

What are the instructional implications for choosing not to wait to begin writing instruction until phonological awareness is complete? Neuman (2004) suggests that their names are often the first words that children learn to spell and that this act “puts them on the road to learning many different things about print” (p. 37). Bloodgood (1999) saw the written name as a “tool to construct literacy” and a “social accomplishment that establishes our literate identity” (p. 342). She used both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore these connections in a longitudinal study of three-, four-, and five-year-olds and found that children can use their names to understand letter sounds, but that “once name writing becomes automatic and letter names and sounds are internalized, they become less effective learning tools” (p.363). Bloodgood’s 1999 study has been cited in each of the other research efforts related to name writing cited here.

Haney, Bissonnette, and Behnken (2003) investigated the relationship between name writing and early literacy skills using a measure that they developed, the Name Writing Scale, which gave point values to the child’s efforts at first name writing. Up to ten points can be earned through meeting specific criteria related to that actual formation of the letters in the child’s name. A sample of 162 kindergarten students, already part of a larger study, were assessed in a variety of early literacy skills including basic reading skills, phonological awareness, vocabulary knowledge, alphabet knowledge, and name writing during the spring semester. The researchers found that the Name Writing Scale was “significantly and positively correlated with the Letter-Word and Non-Word Identification tests, and was marginally and positively correlated with the Alphabet Knowledge test” (Haney et al., 2003, p. 106). The Name Writing Scale was being used as a research tool, rather than as a screening tool; no interventions were in place for this study. However, the authors suggested that name writing activities might be used to further early literacy skills in a natural environment.

Molfese, Beswick, Molnar, and Jacobi-Vessels (2006) looked at the letter naming and writing skills of young students as they entered public preschool programs in the fall. The sample included 55 low- income participants and 23 who attended the same programs, but whose parents paid tuition costs. The children were assessed on a variety of measures, including general cognitive ability, receptive vocabulary, letter naming and word reading, writing (name writing and letter and number dictations), and copying (both letters and numbers). Correlations were drawn between the children’s letter naming and word reading skills and their ability to write letters, numbers, and their names. Molfese et al. note that “It was expected that skills in letter naming would be related to writing skills, and this was found” (p.15). Significant correlations between letter naming and letter and number writing, whether dictated or copied, were found. Similarly, name writing scores were shown to be related to scores on writing dictated letters and numbers. No significant differences were found if the first letter of the child’s name was, or was not, one of the 15 letters included in the letter naming test. Skills in copying letters were significantly correlated with name writing scores. Only weak correlations were found between name writing and word reading, although name writing was moderately correlated to letter naming. The researchers concluded that “Although these skills in letter identification and writing are expected to grow over the course of the school year, it is an important finding that there is already a foundation of skills at the start of the school year from which additional growth can occur” (Molfese et al., 2006, pp. 15-16). Influences of socio-economic status were noted: scores for letter naming, word reading, and letter and number writing and copying were lower for the children from lower income families.

Recognizing that social influences, such as income, may affect early literacy skills (Molfese et al., 2006) Welsh, Sullivan, and Justice (2003) argue that “as children come to school from increasingly diverse backgrounds and with a range of previous literacy experiences, attention to name as a culturally relevant word may serve to connect the home and school cultures” (p.758). They investigated the use of children’s name writing as a general indicator of emergent literacy knowledge using a large sample of 4-year-old children from at-risk preschool programs across the Commonwealth of Virginia (n=3,546). The sample was nearly equal as to gender, 44% were African American, 42% European American, 5% were Hispanic, and 6% were of other or mixed ethnicity. Students were given the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Preschool (PALS-PreK) in the fall. Researchers utilized the name writing, rhyme awareness, beginning sound awareness, alphabet knowledge, concept of word, and print knowledge for their study. Based on the results on the name writing task, the children were divided into four ability-level groups: those whose representations were nonconventional or used scribbles; those who used random letters and symbols; those whose names were written nearly correctly; and those whose names were correct. These categories are developmental in nature, as opposed to the more physical writing traits measured by the Name Writing Scale (Haney & Bissonnette, 2003). Quantitative methods were then used to correlate name writing to the other tasks, for each group. Analysis revealed statistically significant correlations on all measures, with the strongest found for Name Writing and Alphabet Knowledge, Print Knowledge, and Concept of Word. When looked at by groups, there was evidence that children in the highest name writing groups were also the highest in the other areas tested. After controlling for age, analysis supported this finding. Finally, linear and stepwise regression procedures were used for the whole sample to determine if name writing ability could be predicted by scores attained on the other tasks. Results indicate that Alphabet Knowledge was the greatest predictor, followed by Print Knowledge, and the child’s age. Based on their findings, Welsh et .al. (2003) concluded that their study confirms the need to support the writing efforts of preschool children, especially as they write their names, which “can provide considerable detail about their advancing levels of literacy acquisition” while “specific areas of emergent literacy knowledge may contribute significantly to the level of children’s name writing representations” (p. 774).

Another study which looked at name writing and letter knowledge in preschoolers, conducted by Drouin and Harmon (2009), investigated the relations between name writing and letter knowledge, incongruities in children’s name writing and letter knowledge skills, and good name writing skills versus good name-specific letter knowledge skills in a sample of 114 preschoolers enrolled in five child care centers. Their results echoed others (Bloodgood, 1999; Molfese et al., 2006) in terms of significant correlations between name writing and letter knowledge but noted that 13-15 per cent of the preschoolers could write all the letters in their names without recognizing them or were able to recognize all of the letters in their names without being able to write them. Drouin and Harmon (2009) “question the recommendation that name writing be used as a developmental assessment tool (Haney, 2002; Haney et al., 2003), because in this sample, name writing abilities were not necessarily reflective of children’s understanding of the alphabetic principle” (p. 269).

Taking another approach to name writing, Treiman, Cohen, Mulqueeny, Kessler, and Schechtman (2007) investigated the visual aspects of writing through the use of preschool children’s names. Recognizing that writing a name “requires detailed memory representations and good motor skills” (Treiman et al, 2007, p. 1459), children were asked to decide whether various displays were correctly written names. A series of four experiments involved similar numbers of middle- and upper-class younger preschoolers, older preschoolers, and sometimes kindergartners from the St. Louis area. In experiment 1, participants looked at pairs of cards to test their preferences for different capitalization patterns and to distinguish between Latin alphabet letters and visually dissimilar symbols. The researchers found that all groups of children, including the younger preschoolers, preferred Latin letters, although the youngest students did not seem to know about conventional capitalization patterns, which developed significance for the older groups. The second experiment used a similar methodology, asking participants to chose the card that showed their name “the way it should look” from cards showing the name written with differing capitalization patterns. Similar results to experiment 1 were found: the youngest children showed no preference for pattern, older preschoolers preferred all capital letters but accepted conventional patterns, and kindergartners preferred conventional name capitalization. Experiment 3 looked at the orientation of print; both younger and older preschoolers were significantly more likely to choose the horizontal representation. In the final experiment, changes were made to the child’s name through letter substitutions in initial, medial, and final letters of the child’s name with letters that were visually similar and that were visually dissimilar. Older preschoolers were most likely to choose the correct representation. Younger participants were less likely to accept changes to the beginning letter than the medial or final letter. Letter replacements that were visually similar to the correct letter were more likely to be accepted, regardless of placement. Treiman et al concluded that even young preschoolers have a working knowledge of letter characteristics. Kindergartners appear to gain much of their letter knowledge from books; preschoolers seem to be more influenced by home literacy experiences and the ways that their parents write their names. The authors suggest that when assessing young students’ knowledge about writing and concepts of print, “assessments based solely on book print miss some of the knowledge that preschoolers possess and, indeed, some of the knowledge that is best developed at this age” (Treiman et al, 2007, p. 1470).

Again, some sort of summary would be good here.

Not sure the two sections above need to be separated – the studies in all of them relate to the same questions…or am I missing something? What distinguishes the studies in this section from the above section?

Critique and Implications

In reviewing the literature on phonological awareness and writing instruction, studies seem to fall into two broad categories, those which assess knowledge without providing interventions (Vernon & Ferriero, 1999; Kamii & Manning, 2002; Ritchey, 2008) and those which provided intervention over a period of time, with or without a control group (Craig, 2006; He & Wang, 2009; Piasta et al., 2010; Silva, et al., 2010). Both types of studies appear to share a conceptual belief that there is a relationship between a child’s level of phonological awareness and other early literacy skills and that writing instruction can influence the child’s phonological awareness. Studies which that do not provide interventions can only provide a snapshot of where a child’s skills lie at the moment assessments are made. Those that provide interventions can suggest instructional strategies which that may have been instrumental in helping the child to gain skills. When more than one strategy is outlined, a preferred method can be suggested (e.g. Craig, 2006). However, since children live in the real world, socio-cultural influences must be taken into consideration. Yes Interventions put in place in addition to regular classroom teaching cannot be sure that the intervention was the cause of increased skills; progress may have been influenced by other teaching or by home or other outside supports and expectations. Sample populations must also be looked at with a critical eye. Some (Craig, 2006; Kamii & Manning, 2002; Piasta, et al., 2010) used predominantly Caucasian, middle class, English speaking children in their studies. Silva, et al. worked with middle class Portuguese children; Vernon and Ferriero used low SES Mexican children. It may be that future research may need to expand the demographic base of sample populations, if results are to be generalized for classroom instruction. good points

Name writing studies tended not to provide interventions. Rather, investigators looked at skill levels for name writing, letter name knowledge, letter sound knowledge, and related early literacy skills in the fall (Molfese et al., 2006; Welsch, 2003), spring (Haney et al., 2003), or at unspecified times (Drouin & Harmon, 2009; Treiman et al., 2007). Only Bloodgood (1999) presented a longitudinal study, spanning two school years. Treiman specifically looked at the influences of the way the family wrote the child’s name on the way the child perceived correct spelling; h, however, little mention of family influences were made in the other name writing studies. The influence of family literacy practices on writing behaviors has been investigated in several studies excluded from this study (Aram & Levin, 2002; Dusmuir & Blatchford, 2004; Frijters, Barron, & Brunello, 2000; Haney & Hill, 2004; Sénéchal, LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998). Investigations of relationships between home literacy, name writing, and children’s early literacy skills might prove an informative topic for research.

In looking at the implications of the research efforts outline above for practitioners, Haney (2002) suggests that

investigation of how preschool children learn letter shapes, letter sounds, the actual process of writing letters on paper, and the ultimate meaning provided by the printed name (i.e. ownership, identity) may shed light on how children construct knowledge of language and print from their own environment to develop beginning literacy skills (p. 104).

Treiman et al. (2007) point to a more visual understanding of children’s early literacy skills. Teachers of young children may want to consider the impact of visual information as well as the actual motor skills involved in writing when analyzing assessment data collected in the classroom. Name writing activities appear to be a developmentally appropriate way to build letter sound connections and phonological awareness for preschool and kindergarten children.

Throughout the above critique you make many excellent observations. It is important to explicitly turn these observations into suggestions – e.g., “Therefore, it is important for future research to consider…” or “Therefore, this body of literature is lacking…”

Conclusions

This review looked at two aspects of preschool and kindergarten children’s writing: the relationship between phonological awareness and writing and the use of letter name writing to build phonological awareness. OK – be much more explicit about this at the beginning and throughout Phonological awareness is tied to emergent literacy skills such as early reading and invented spelling, often part of the preschool or kindergarten classroom literacy activities. Research results suggest that writing instruction that supports invented and conventional spelling can be instrumental in enhancing both word reading and reading comprehension (Craig, 2006), that invented spelling is a developmental process that can be influenced by writing instruction (Kamii & Manning, 2002; Silva et al., 2010; Vernon & Ferriero, 1999). A combination of letter name and letter sound instruction can be more effective in enhancing phonological awareness than a solely letter sound focus (Piasta et al., 2010) and consideration should be given to the actual act of writing letters and its impact on spelling (Ritchey, 2008).

Children are interested in writing their own names. The research reviewed indicated that name writing activities are appropriate ways to enhance phonological awareness. While some researchers (Haney, 2002; Haney, et.al, 2003) suggest using name writing skills as a tool to learn about a child’s other early literacy skills, others (Drouin & Harmon, 2009) caution against this. Correlations have been found between letter naming and letter writing (Molfese et al., 2006). Welsh et.al (2003) concluded that their study confirms the need to support all writing efforts of preschool children, especially as they write their names. Name writing skills can provide a window to other early literacy skills for preschool and kindergarten children.

Good job accumulating and synthesizing a number of studies on an important topic. A more clear focus on exactly what you wanted to find out (specifically, what do you mean by writing when working with non-readers and writers), a clearer organization, and more integration and summary throughout the paper would have helped.

References

Aram, D. & Levin, I. (2002). Mother-child joint writing and storybook reading: Relations with literacy among low SES kindergartners. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 202-224.

Bloodgood, J. (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 342-367.

Craig, S. A. (2006). The effects of an adapted interactive writing intervention on kindergarten children’s phonological awareness, spelling, and early reading development: A contextualized approach to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 714-731. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.714

Drouin, M. & Harmon, J. (2009). Name writing and letter knowledge in preschoolers: Incongruities in skills and the usefulness of name writing as a developmental indicator. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 263-270. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.05.001

Dunsmuir, S. & Blatchford, P. (2004). Predictors of writing competence in 4- to 7-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 461-483.

Frijters, J. C., Barron, R. W., & Brunello, M. (2000). Direct and mediated influences of home literacy interest on prereaders’ oral vocabulary and early written language skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 266-477. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.466

Haney, M. & Hill, J. (2004). Relationships between parent-teaching activities and emergent literacy in preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 174, 215-228. doi:10.1080/03004430320000153543

He, T. & Wang, W. (2009). Invented spelling of EFL young beginning writers and its relation with phonological awareness and grapheme-phoneme principles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 44-56. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.001

Kamii, C. & Manning, M. (2002). Phonemic awareness and beginning reading and writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17, 38-46.

Korat, O. (2005). Contextual and non-contextual knowledge in emergent literacy development: A comparison between children from low SES and middle SES communities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 220-238. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.04.009

Molfese, V. J., Beswick, J., Molnar, A. & Jacobi-Vessels, J. (2006). Alphabetic skills in preschool: A preliminary study of letter naming and letter writing. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 5-19.

Neuman, S. (2004). Introducing children to the world of writing. Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 18(4), 34-39.

Ritchey, K. D. (2008). The building blocks of writing: Learning to write letters and spell words. Reading and Writing, 21, 27-47. doi:10.1007/s1145-007-9063-0

Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E. M., & Daley, K. E. (1998). Differential effects of home literacy experiences o the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 96-116.

Silva, C., Almeida, T., and Alves Martins, M. (2010). Letter names and sounds: Their

implications for the phonetisation process. Reading and Writing, 23, 147-172. doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9157-3

Sulzby, E. & Teale, W. (1991) Emergent literacy. In Handbook of Literacy Research (pp. 727-758). New York: Longman.

Treiman, R., Cohen, J., Mulqueeny, K., Kessler, B., & Schechtman, S. (2007). Young children’s knowledge about printed names. Child Development, 78, 1458-1471. doi:10.1111/j.1476-8624.2007.01077.x

Ukrainetz, T. A., Cooney, M. H., Dyer, S. K.; Kysar, A. J., & Harris, T, J. (2000). An investigation into teaching phonemic awareness through shared reading and writing. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 331-355.

Vernon, S. A. and Ferreiro, E. (1999). Writing development: A neglected variable in the consideration of phonological awareness. Harvard Educational Review, 69, 395-416.

Welsch, J. G., Sullivan, A. & Justice, L. M., (2003). That’s my letter!: What preschooler’s name writing representations tell us about emergent literacy knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 757-776. doi:10.12107/s15548430jlr3502_4

Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2001). Family involvement in early writing instruction. Journal of Early

Childhood Literacy, 1, 167-192. doi:10.1177/14687984010012003

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download