...revealed name writing was significantly correlated with word and non-word identification. No significant gender differences were found on the measure of name writing. Suggestions are made for future research to address inclusion of name writing assessments in early screening batteries for students at-risk for reading difficulties, and to address the hypothesis that name writing skills may reflect an understanding of the alphabetic principle.

**********

The current national focus on early intervention and goal to leave no child behind are particularly strong in the area of literacy, and for good reason. Reading is a fundamental skill that is an essential prerequisite for future academic success, most areas of employment, and day to day living. Yet many children leave elementary school reading significantly below skill expectations (Blachman, 1996; Flesch, 1981). Estimates of the prevalence of reading disabilities range from 4 to 10% of school age children (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Pennington, 1991), and as many as 20% of all children experience difficulty learning to read (Good, Simmons, & Smith, 1998). Because skills involving reading become increasing interrelated with age (Adams, 1990; Curtis, 1980; Stanovich, Cunningham, & Feeman, 1984), research on preventing reading difficulties must focus on young children. Research indicates that there are several early literacy skills helpful in predicting children most at risk for developing reading difficulties, and thus in need of early intervention (e.g., Grossen, 1997; National Research Council, 1998). Early literacy skills found to be good predictors of future reading skills include phonological awareness (Fletcher & Footman, 1994; Mauer & Kamhi, 1996; Snider, 1995; Snowling, 1995; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994), vocabulary knowledge (McKeown, Beck, & Pope, 1985; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986), and alphabet knowledge (Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Elbro, Borstrom, & Peterson, 1998).

Although these well studied early literacy variables are clearly significant predictors of later reading achievement and contributors to reading skill development, they do not address early experiences with print. Scholnick (2002) emphasizes the connections among language, literacy, and symbolic systems such as print and writes: "... there are numerous inroads into understanding and diverse potentials to link notations, language, and thinking. Because systems overlap, each system can refine representations generated by others (pp. 8-9)." More specifically, researchers in the area of emergent literacy propose that early experiences with print are intricately linked to skills such as phonological awareness and sound-symbol relationships (Clay, 1982; Olson, 2002), and provide insight into theories that children are developing and testing about print (Fields & Spangler, 2000). Olson (2002) notes that research highlighting the identification of phonological awareness as a precursor for the development of fluent reading decoding has not gone far enough and writes, "To segment words, the child has first to learn that an utterance can be segmented into words (p. 156)." Thus, understanding that a word corresponds to a printed symbol may be as important a precursor to reading as being able to segment an orally presented word into phonemes.

A good deal of research exists investigating the types of emergent literacy skills demonstrated by young children. For instance, much has been learned regarding the extent to which young children can name letters, identify phonemes in words, and label pictures. However, the underlying mechanism explaining how children make connections between text and language and the developmental trajectory of attaining such skills are less frequently addressed. An analysis of name writing skills not only has the potential to address such questions about early exposure to print and the construction of literacy knowledge through writing, but also has an added benefit of being a quick and inexpensive assessment tool. In studies of early literacy development, name writing has been overlooked. In fact, early attempts at writing are often ignored and considered to be meaningless scribbling. Instead, many teachers, parents, and psychologists consider learning to write a process of modeling complicated visual-motor skills via direct teaching activities (Lieberman, 1985).

One argument for including name writing in studies of beginning print is that one's name is often the first type of writing a child is able to master. In fact, early name writing is one of the first language experiences offering consistent exposure to both print and oral form of a word (Villaume & Wilson, 1989). The frequent exposure to one's name in both print and oral form occurs across settings, most often in preschool and daycare settings, to denote ownership of personal possessions. Furthermore, one's name is symbolic of the emerging sense of self that marks the emotional development of the preschool child. Children begin to recognize their own reflection in the mirror as "self" at approximately age 2 (Hetherington, Parke, & Locke, 1999). Also at this point in development, the young child is beginning to develop a categorical sense of self that allows for classification of self into categories of "same" or "different" as compared to other things in her environment (Berk, 2000). In fact, Vygotsky (1962) proposed that this awareness of names signifies the point at which language and thought come together to form the basis of intellect.

Like developmental milestones in emotion and cognition, name writing follows a predictable developmental course potentially useful in screening for those with some types of developmental delays. For instance, by age 3 children spontaneously produce scribbles that are distinctly different when attempting to draw from those made when attempting to print (Brenneman, Massey, Machado, & Gelman, 1996; Deford, 1980; Hildreth, 1936). Children learn to write in a predictable pattern including circular scribbles, linear continuous scribbles, letter-like symbols, and finally actual letters. Refer to Bloodgood (1999), Fields and Spangler (2000), and especially Hildreth (1936), for research reviews more specifically addressing the developmental progression of name writing skills in children. In addition, Clay (1982) described the developmental process of learning to write which involves trial and error and hypothesis testing becoming more complex with age, as opposed to a rote process of copying models of print.

In addition to being the earliest attempt at print and following a predictable developmental course, name writing is arguably the most inherently meaningful print in a young child's environment. Research in cognitive and educational psychology has established a strong connection between learning and motivation (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Pintrich, Anderman, & Klobucar, 1994). One's own printed name is an extremely meaningful piece of text that young children are likely to see in...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from Child Study Journal
The effects of knowledge and task on students' peer-directed questions..., June 01, 2003

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.