Jnumal nf Educational Psychology
1986, Vol. 78, No- 4. 243-255
Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
OO22-O663/86/SOO.75
Acquisition of Literacy: A Longitudinal Study of Children in First
and Second Grade
Connie Juel, Priscilla L. Griffith, and Philip B. Gough
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas at Austin
The purpose of this study was to test a model of early literacy acquisition. The model
focused on development in word recognition, spelling, reading comprehension, and writing,
and on the interrelation of growth in each of these skills. Longitudinal data were collected
as students went from first through second grade. Incoming characteristics (i.e., ethnicity,
IQ, oral language) and the rate at which each child progressed through his or her reading
books were related to growth in phonemic awareness, spelling-sound knowledge, and lexical
knowledge. The impact of these factors on development in word recognition and spelling
was explored. Additionally, the relation of word recognition and listening comprehension
to reading comprehension, and the relation of spelling and ideation to story writing, were
examined. Results strongly suggest that without phonemic awareness, exposure to print does
little to foster spelling—sound knowledge. The relation between word recognition and spelling
was shown to be especially strong, because development of both skills appears to rely on
similar sources of knowledge. The relation between reading comprehension and writing
appeared less strong, because the generation of ideas involved in story production did not
appear isomorphic to the processes involved in reading comprehension.
& Armstrong, 1974; Grimmer, 1970; Heil, 1976; Woodfin,
1968) or by examining the extent to which instruction in
one area transferred to the other area (e.g., Doctorow, Wittrock, & Marks, 1978; Smith, Jensen, & Dillingofski, 1971).
Both of these types of studies of early reading and writing
have tended to show an association between improved writing skills and improved reading comprehension. However,
the correlation is not uniformly robust, and results do not
follow any systematic pattern. (For an excellent review of
this area see Stotsky, 1984). It is perhaps because neither
line of study into the reading-writing relation attempted to
examine the patterns of cognitive abilities which may serve
as the foundation for these skills that the precise nature of
their interrelation has not yet been clearly defined.
A recent study by Shanahan (1984) began to address this
problem. Shanahan used factor analysis to describe the relations among multiple reading and writing measures of
second- and fifth-grade students as well as between beginning and advanced readers. His results indicated that the
reading-writing relation changes with reading development. Among beginning readers a word production (spelling) and word recognition (phonics) factor explained the
largest amount of variance. For advanced readers the spelling contribution was not as important as a vocabulary diversity variable.
Shanahan's results indicated that the reading comprehension and writing skills of young children are influenced
primarily by word-level skills (e.g., decoding and spelling),
and support the hypothesis that automatic lower level skills
arc critical to higher order cognitive processes. With automatic word recognition, attention can be more fully focused on comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Early
efficient word recognition seems to lead to better comprehension than does the reverse order (Calfee & Piontkowski,
1981; Lesgold, Resnick, & Hammond, 1985). The direc-
The acquisition of literacy can be defined as acquiring
the ability to both comprehend and produce written text.
The current study was an attempt to describe the growth of
literacy through the first two grades and to assess the effects
of various incoming characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, oral vocabulary) and school-developed skills (e.g., spelling) on
that growth. Specifically, the study focused on development
in word recognition, spelling, reading comprehension, and
writing, and on the interrelations of growth in these skills.
There has been a growing interest in these questions in
recent years. To date, only partial answers have been offered, because the typical study has examined but one pair
of the above four skills. For example, the link between
word recognition and spelling has been the object of a number of investigations (e.g., Ehri, 1980; Henderson & Chard,
1980; Marsh, Friedman, Welch, & Desberg, 1980), as has
the connection between invented spellings and early writing
attempts (Chomsky, 1979; Read, 1981). The relation between children's reading comprehension and their developing writing skills has frequently been studied either by
looking at various components of writing (e.g., sentence
structure and vocabulary) as they relate to reading achievement (e.g., Baden, 1981; Bippus, 1977; Evanechko, Ollila,
We wish to thank the children of Houston Elementary School
and the following teachers, who so graciously allowed us into
their classrooms: Juanita Ball, Susan Crone, Beverly Dantley, Rita
Espinoza, Mary Kay Gerut, Cynthia Hipp, Althca Josey, Adella
Mancias, Janie Martinez, Jane Mullen, Robert Sardaneta, Maria
Seloff, Diane Smothermon, Marsha Tread way, and Joan Woods.
We would also like to thank both the principal, Arturo Guerrero,
and the librarian, Sherry Healcy, for their assistance with the
research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Connie Juel, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, EDB 406, Austin, Texas 78712.
243
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
244
C. JUEL, P. GRIFFITH, AND P. GOUGH
tionality of the lower order skill, spelling (whether invented
or standard), to the higher order skill of writing is less clear.
Several theorists, including Bereiter (1980), Gundlach (1981),
and Scardamalia (1981), have commented on the necessity
for many aspects of the writing process (e.g., spelling) to
become automatic so that the attention of the writer is available for the different aspects of composing (e.g., organization of ideas). Thus it may be that if the lower order
process of spelling requires extended conscious attention,
then spelling skill will influence the writing process more
than the higher order composing processes will.
For many children, automaticity in word processing skill
seems to occur very early—by second or third grade
(Doehring, 1976; Golinkoff & Rosinski, 1976; Guttentag
& Haith, 1978, 1979, 1980; Rosinski, 1977; Rosinski, Golinkoff, & Kukish, 1975; West & Stanovich, 1979). But in
first grade we should expect to see writing dominated by
spelling ability, and reading comprehension controlled by
word recognition skill. Higher order "thinking" processes
should begin to have more of an impact on writing and
reading by the end of second grade. The degree to which
reading and writing arc similar skills will depend both on
the extent to which word recognition and spelling rely on
similar sources of information and on the extent to which
reading comprehension and writing involve similar thinking
processes.
In particular, an emphasis on the similarity of thinking
processes involved in reading and writing has led several
theorists to view them as mirror images of a common skill,
an ability to relate printed and spoken language. Indeed,
the so-called transactional view of reading, which holds that
the reader reconstructs the author's message, is based on
this premise (cf. Rosenblatt, 1978). Certainly both reading
and writing require knowledge of the language (e.g., English) underlying its printed and spoken forms, and both
require knowledge of that language's orthography (i.e., the
rules that relate its printed and spoken forms). If reading
and writing further require the same constructive thinking
processes, then it is possible that both reading and writing
are simply different manifestations of a single common skill
(Squire, 1984; Tierney & Pearson, 1984).
But it is also possible that the relation is much looser
than this. Of the two components of literacy, reading and
writing, the ability to produce well-constructed text is surely
the more difficult. Reading occurs most typically at the
level of reading for meaning (Baker & Brown, 1984) and
involves keeping track of whether comprehension is proceeding smoothly. Understanding at this level may not involve reflection or organization of information for later recall.
Writing, on the other hand, seems to require some creativity, the generation of ideas, and the ability to organize these
ideas, which is not necessary for reading (though see the
transactionalists). We adopt, as a working hypothesis, this
latter view; that is, we suppose that reading and writing are
distinctly composed.
The view of literacy that guided this study is simple;
some will find it simplistic. But we defend this approach,
for we believe there is a great virtue in seeing how far a
simple model will take us. For one thing, a model is not
wrong just because it is simple; it is wrong only if it yields
false predictions. But even more important, if it is wrong,
one can see where it went wrong and so advance our understanding, a benefit that complex models seldom afford.
Thus we are determined to take what we see as the simplest
possible view until the data force us to do otherwise.
We begin with a simple view of reading (cf. Gough &
Tunmer, 1986) that reading is composed of (a) decoding
(i.e., word recognition) and (b) listening comprehension.
This is not to suggest that either of the components, decoding and listening comprehension, is simple in itself but
to argue that these two skills are the critical components of
reading. That is, we suppose that reading crucially involves
decoding, the ability to translate print into linguistic form.
But we do not suppose that decoding alone is sufficient for
reading. Having derived the linguistic form represented in
print, the reader must then comprehend that form. To do
this, we suppose that the reader employs the same mechanisms, the same knowledge of morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics that are used in the comprehension
of spoken language in order to understand decoded print.
We recognize that written text has certain distinctive characteristics from speech with differential impact upon the
comprehension process (cf. Rubin, 1980). But we are inclined to agree with those researchers who emphasize the
commonality of the demands of written and spoken language upon the comprehender (cf. Sticht & James, 1984).
Thus, we believe that given perfection in decoding, the
quality of reading will depend entirely on the quality of the
reader's comprehension; if a child's listening comprehension of text is poor, then his reading comprehension will
be poor, no matter how good his decoding.
In like manner, we suppose that writing is composed of
(a) spelling and (b) ideation (i.e., the generation and organization of ideas). We are sure that both spelling and
ideation are complex processes. For example, Flower and
Hayes (1980) have outlined an extensive model of how
ideation involves planning, reflection, and revision of writing in the skilled adult writer. But we believe that spelling
and ideation are the two components that best characterize
the act of writing. Although in the absence of ideas spelling
is an empty skill, the best of ideas cannot be written without
at least a modicum of spelling ability.
On the surface, then, we suppose that reading and writing
are each composed of two distinct abilities, decoding and
comprehension in one case, and spelling and ideation in the
other. But we do assume that decoding and spelling share
a common denominator. This is the set of spelling-sound
correspondence rules of the language, or what we may call
its orthographic cipher.
The cipher is thus implicated in both decoding and spelling. But neither decoding nor spelling can be reduced to
knowledge of the cipher. Decoding regular and unequivocal
words like crisp and jump and spell requires only knowledge of the spelling-sound correspondence rules of English.
But there are (at least) two types of words that cannot be
decoded with the cipher alone. One is that of irregular words,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ACQUISITION OF LITERACY
hkspintj which apparently violate those rules. The other is
that of words which incorporate equivocal letter sequences,
sequences to which more than one correspondence rule can
be applied, like steak (compare leak and head, to say nothing of area). Thus decoding requires, in addition to the
cipher, considerable specific lexical knowledge, knowledge
of which rules do (and do not) apply to which particular
words. The only way to gain lexical knowledge appears to
be through exposure to printed words.
Similarly, spelling cannot be accomplished with only the
cipher. Knowing the cipher, it would be difficult to misspell
dish or gun or lamp. But again there are apparently two
sets of exceptions, the irregulars (like pint) and the equivocals (like green, which might as well be written greari).
Neither decoding nor spelling, then, can be accomplished
with only the rules of the cipher. Both require, in addition,
knowledge about specific items in the lexicon, about which
rules do (or do not) apply to specific words. Thus the decoder must learn which pronunciation of ea applies in beak
and break, the speller, that I'll is spelled ea in mean but ee
in green. So we posit that both decoding and spelling are
composed of (a) the cipher and (b) knowledge of specific
lexical items, or what we call lexical knowledge.
It is evident, then, that in our view, the cipher is at the
heart of early literacy. It is the basic component of decoding, which is one of the two components of reading. At the
same time, the cipher is a basic component of spelling,
which we hold to be a necessary component of writing.
We believe that knowledge of the cipher itself can be
traced to two factors. On the one hand, there is phonemic
awareness. The evidence now seems overwhelming that the
knowledge that the spoken word can be broken down into
smaller units (i.e., its phonemes) is a powerful determinant
of reading acquisition (cf. Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Share,
Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984; Torneus, 1984; Tunmcr & Nesdale, 1985). We view this variable as a necessary, but not sufficient, component of the cipher. That is,
it is hard to imagine how one could learn the spelling—sound
correspondence rules without awareness of the sounds which
those rules implicated. But at the same time, phonemic
awareness could not possibly lead to decoding or spelling
without some experience with print, that is, without some
experience that demonstrated to the aspiring reader which
letter or letter sequence went with which sound. Thus we
posit that knowledge of the cipher is composed of (a) phonemic awareness and (b) experience with print. However,
we stress the idea that until some prerequisite amount of
phonemic awareness is attained, exposure to print will do
little to increase knowledge of the cipher.
Children enter first grade with varying degrees of phonemic awareness. Some children may lack almost any
awareness of the sounds within words, perceiving them as
inseparable single "sound" units, whereas other children
may be relatively sophisticated in phonemic awareness, able
to rhyme words, speak Pig Latin, and so forth. Environmental influences, such as rich exposure to the English
language in the home, and their interplay with a child's
natural abilities, could cause such differences. We suspect
245
that the relatively poor reading achievement of minority
students is partly attributable to poorer phonemic awareness
of school English due to dialect and second-language differences, and perhaps cultural differences. The latter may
involve such things as "playing" with words at home through
rhyming games, exposure to printed word rhymes as in
nursery rhymes and Dr. Seuss books. Because relatively
little training in oral phonemic awareness occurs in first
grade, children entering with poor phonemic awareness would
appear disadvantaged if, indeed, a causal relation exists
between phonemic awareness and growth in cipher knowledge.
The model of literacy acquisition we are hypothesizing
is shown in Figure 1. The model includes what we take to
be the primary variables in literacy acquisition in first and
second grade. It is hypothesized that ethnicity, IQ, and oral
language influence development of phonemic awareness;
then, through phonemic awareness, these incoming characteristics influence the early stages of literacy acquisition.
That is, initially, the influence of incoming characteristics
such as IQ is strongest through their influence upon phonemic awareness. We realize this is a strong statement, but
believe it is justified because several studies have shown
that phonemic awareness is a more powerful predictor of
literacy acquisition than are more generalized measures of
intelligence (Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Share et al., 1984;
Stanovich, Cunningham, & Feeman, 1984; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). We hold that the reason for this finding is that
phonemic awareness is critical for achieving the first step
in becoming an independent reader: gaining spelling—sound
knowledge (or what we call cipher knowledge) (Gough &
Hillinger, 1980; Gough, Juel, & Roper/Schneider, 1983).
Phonemic awareness combined with exposure to print
contributes to cipher knowledge. Neither alone will suffice
to foster cipher knowledge. Thus, a child can be exposed
to lots of print (i.e., all the first-grade readers), but still not
develop cipher knowledge unless the insight of phonemic
awareness was first in place (or occurred early in the print
exposure).
Exposure to print also fosters lexical knowledge (i.e.,
knowledge of which cipher rules apply or do not apply to
particular words). The combination of cipher and lexical
knowledge can provide the information with which to spell
and recognize words. Spelling combined with ideas yields
the basis for writing; word recognition combined with the
skills involved in listening comprehension produces reading
comprehension.
The model is simplified in that only those influences
which we believe are primary influences on a factor are
depicted. For example, exposure to print no doubt influences phonemic awareness, but it is not viewed as a primary
shaper of phonemic awareness. The model is also simplified
in that the factors are rather global in nature. We have not,
for example, attempted to break down "listening comprehension." Certainly listening comprehension involves both
oral language and IQ, but we are not prepared to define
how they operate with other factors to form listening comprehension. The purpose of the current study was simply
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
246
C. JUEL, P. GRIFFITH, AND P. GOUGH
Listening
Comprehension
Reading
I
Comprehension!
Figure 1. Proposed model of literacy acquisition.
to test the validity of the components in the model and the
hypothesized relations among them.
Method
Subjects
The children attended a large, lower middle-class school in
Austin, Texas. Permission slips to participate in the study were
sent to all parents of first-grade children at the beginning of the
1982 school year. All first-grade children in the school from whom
we obtained parental permission were included in the study. The
original sample consisted of 129 first-grade children: 56 Anglo
Americans, 43 Hispanic Americans, and 30 black Americans.
Approximately half of each ethnic group was female. The children
continued to be tested through second grade. By the end of their
second-grade year, 80 subjects remained. Nine children had been
retained at the end of first grade, and 40 children left the school
between the beginning of first and the end of second grade. Almost
all the children in our study lived in the same lower middle-class
housing subdivision.
The children were scattered among eight classrooms in first
grade, and seven classrooms in second grade. At the beginning
of first grade the children were placed in one of two basal reading
series. Fifty-eight children were placed in the 1980 American
Book Company (ABC) series, and 71 children were placed in the
1980 Scott Foresman (SF) series. Both series are "eclectic" in
nature, blending sight word, phonics, and use of context in approaches to word identification. There was no significant difference in Metropolitan Readiness Test (MRT; Nurse & McGauvran,
1976) scores between children in the two series (mean SF MRT
= 53.5; mean ABC MRT = 55.9; F{\, 126) = 0.23, p = ns,
MSC - 165.9). Both basal programs were supplemented with a
synthetic phonics program developed by the local school district.
Each teacher spent the first 20 to 30 min of each reading period
on this whole-class phonics instruction. The district provided the
teachers with a script from which to teach these lessons. Thus,
the daily phonics instruction was standardized across the classrooms.
Procedure
IQ. At the beginning of second grade we administered the vocabulary and block design subjects from the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). Results of these two subtests were summed to form an estimated IQ score. The test-retest
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ACQUISITION OF LITERACY
reliability is .86 on the WISC-R vocabulary subtest and .85 on
the block design subtest.
Oral language and listening comprehension. The Metropolitan
Readiness Test was administered by the school district in September of first grade. We were particularly interested in the language
subtest, which assesses school language and listening comprehension. It involved marking pictures that correctly illustrate the meaning
of orally presented short passages. The test-retest reliability of
this subtest is .72.
Similar to this subtest is the listening comprehension subtest of
the IOWA test (Hieronymous, Lindquist, & Hoover, 1980). It
was administered by the school district at the end of April and the
beginning of May in both grades. The composite test-retest reliability on the IOWA is .98.
Phonemic awareness. In October, February, and April of first
grade and in October and April of second grade we administered
a phonemic awareness test developed by Roper/Schneider (1984).
This oral test has six subtests, each with seven items, and is
individually administered. The subtests are (1) phonemic segmentation (e.g., "Say 'no.' What are the 2 sounds in 'no'?"); (2)
blending (e.g., "Say /n/,/i/,/s/. What word is /n/,/i/,/s/?"); (3)
deletion of first phoneme (e.g., "Say 'top.' Now say 'top' without
the /t/."); (4) deletion of last phoneme (e.g., "Say 'same.' Now
say 'same' without the /m/."); (5) substitution of first phoneme
(e.g., "Say 'ball.' Instead of/b/, begin a new word with /k/.");
(6) substitution of last phoneme (e.g., "Say 'park.' Instead of
/k/, end a word with /t/."). The seven alpha coefficients, representing the average of all possible split-half reliabilities, are
greater than .7 for all subtests. Details on test development can
be found in Roper/Schneider (1984).
Exposure to print. In October of first grade we also determined
the first measure of exposure to print, which we called place in
series. This measure represented the number of words seen in
running text in the basal series to which each child was assigned
at the time of testing. Place in series was computed for October,
February, and April of each grade. Although we use this measure
to estimate exposure to print, we recognize the children were
exposed to print outside of school. However, in informal discussions at the end of the study (when the children and testers had
become quite at ease and friendly with each other), very few of
the children said they read outside of school, and even fewer (i.e.,
less than 5%) could tell about stories they had read. Though clearly
inexact, place in the basal scries probably reflects the amount of
the print that was read by many of these first- and second-grade
children, and it seems logical that those children who were further
ahead in the basal readers are also the ones more likely to read at
home.
Cipher knowledge. In October, February, and April in first
grade and in November and April in second grade, the Bryant
Test of Basic Decoding Skills (Bryant, 1975) was individually
administered. The Bryant test consists of a list of 50 nonsense
words, which children are to read aloud. The test reliabilities
(Cronbach's alpha) are .96 for first grade and .90 for second
grade.
Lexical knowledge. We used the IOWA spelling subtest as a
measure of lexical knowledge. The spelling subtest requires recognition of words that are incorrectly spelled.
Word recognition and spelling. In April of first and second
grade we administered the spelling and reading subtests of the
Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT; Jastak, Bijou, & Jastak,
1978). These are production tests. The spelling test requires a
child to write words pronounced orally by the tester. The reading
subtest requires a child to pronounce individual words. The testretest reliability is .97 on the WRAT spelling test and .96 on the
WRAT word-recognition test.
247
Reading comprehension. We used the reading comprehension
subtest of the IOWA to assess reading comprehension. The reading comprehension subtest requires comprehension of both sentences and stories. It was administered by the school district at
the end of April and the beginning of May in both grades.
Writing. In April we also elicited a writing sample from each
child. In both grades we showed each child the same colorful
picture of animals in a schoolroom setting and asked them to write
a story about what might be going on in the picture. The picture
was selected after we asked several first- and second-grade children who were not in the study to choose among several pictures
the one they would like to write a story about. The selection of
pictures represented scenes we thought would appeal to children
and included a variety of subjects, from alien spaceships and creatures to children playing a game. Our animal school picture was
the one most often chosen. Certainly the school setting represented
a situation with which children are quite familiar, and the animal
characters seemed to appeal to these young children.
In asking the children to write a story, we did not specify an
audience. We did, however, emphasize that they were to write a
story about the picture, and in fact, when some children asked if
they should tell what they saw in the picture, we reiterated, "Write
a story about the picture." When each child completed the written
story, the child read it to the tester. In this way ambiguities resulting from the children's inadequate spellings could be resolved.
We observed that the children almost never made attempts at
revision. Thus our informal observations support the conclusions
of Graves (1979, 1983) and others (Calkins, 1980) that revision
is a task that does not come naturally to a child. Neither did the
children in our study do a lot of free writing in school. Informal
observations in the classrooms indicated that, on the average, the
children participated in composing activities no more than once a
week.
A holistic score, ranging from 1 (low) to 7 (high) was assigned
to each sample on the basis of the judgments of three raters. A
representative writing sample for each rating was used as a guide
for assigning these scores. The average interrater reliability was
.72, using the Pearson r statistic. In first grade 23% of the samples
fell into a group described as being cither lists of words or else
text so primitive that it was virtually not readable. (In second
grade none of the samples fell into this group.) These were assigned a holistic score of either 1 or 2, based primarily on the
first two categories determined by Loban (1963). Those samples
receiving a score of 1 were characterized as containing (a) pictures
and drawings in lieu of text, (b) meaningless symbols and tangles
of letters, or (c) lists of words either unrelated or only partially
related to the picture. Those samples receiving a score of 2 were
characterized as containing (a) occasional groups of related words,
(b) lists of words related to the picture or (c) barely comprehensible language. Scores of 3 through 7 were assigned to the remaining samples.
A similar procedure was followed for scoring the second-grade
samples. Because of an increased diversity in the writing capabilities of the children in the study, the range of holistic scores
was increased from 7 in first grade to 10 in second grade. The
first- and second-grade scales are not equivalent. That is, samples
receiving a score of 1 or 2 on the first-grade scale would receive
a score of 0 on the second-grade scale. No first-grade samples
were of a quality that they would have been scored 8, 9, or 10
on the second-grade scale. Although the directions were identical
at both grades, children in the second grade were much more likely
to write a narrative than were the first-grade children, who often
wrote descriptions of the picture. Figure 2 and Table 1 give examples of writing samples representing points along the first- and
second-grade scale.
248
C. JUEL, P. GRIFFITH, AND P. GOUGH
Table 1
Examples of Writing Samples
First-grade writing sample receiving a holistic score of 5
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Figure 2.
of 1.
First-grade writing sample receiving a holistic score
Raters were asked not to evaluate the writing samples based
upon how the children had spelled words. Rather, they were instructed to consider level of story development, syntactic maturity,
and richness of vocabulary when assigning a holistic score.
Ideas. We also asked the children, at a later time, orally to tell
a story about the picture. The children's oral stories were tape
recorded and later transcribed and rated on the same criteria as
the writing samples. We hoped these oral renditions would reveal
children's story ideas, apart from the mechanics of writing. We
labeled this score the idea measure.
At school the or
tech is call the Boy to
make a Words. A the Boy
Make the Word sometime
The Boys a Gils or seen
at the one boy he make a cRose. A he
got A toy
First-grade writing sample receiving a holistic score of 7
A tacher mole siad to one
of her children. I will have
to go. the mole siad
goodbye. And she
went to get a nother
childe. The mole got a
new little mouse.
Second-grade writing sample receiving a holistic score of 1
The Teacher is get in your cet.
The Teacher sEteb teake the seteb
chrde. Win they get to school
Analysis of the Data
Second-grade writing sample receiving a holistic score of 10
Some data were analyzed with hierarchical multiple regression
and some with analysis of variance. Path analysis was performed
with SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) regression;
results were obtained by entering all variables into the model at
the same time. Path analysis is based upon correlational data and
thus does not allow direct causal interpretations. However, longitudinal data permit somewhat stronger inferences about causal
relations than do purely correlational studies because changes in
one variable can be shown to be followed closely in time by
corresponding changes in another variable (Lesgold et al., 1985).
The path coefficients for the straight arrows in the model shown
in Figure 3 are the standardized regression coefficients obtained
when each endogenous variable was regressed on those variables
directly impinging upon it (Asher, 1976). Consider the paths leading to first-grade phonemic awareness in Figure 3 as an example.
To determine the path coefficients leading to that variable, a
regression equation was formed with phonemic awareness as the
dependent variable and ethnicity, IQ, and the language subtest of
the Metropolitan Readiness Test (MRT) as the independent variables. The values of .21 and .25 represent the standardized regression coefficients associated with IQ and the language subtest. In
the case of ethnicity, two path coefficients were computed. Because ethnicity is a categorical variable, it was necessary to create
"dummy" variables to obtain these path coefficients. Therefore,
the two values for the path coefficients of this variable, - .26 and
— .45, represent the average deviation of each ethnic group explicitly included in the model from the Anglo group.
For the first-grade path analysis, oral language was estimated
with the language subtest from the MRT, which was given in
September. In second grade, incoming oral language was estimated by the listening comprehension subtest from the IOWA,
given at the end of first grade. Phonemic awareness was estimated
in both first and second grade by the phonemic awareness test
given in October of each grade. The February place-in-series measure was used to estimate exposure to print in both grades. Cipher
knowledge in both grades was measured in April with the Bryant
test. Lexical knowledge was estimated in both grades with the
spelling subtest of the IOWA. Spelling and word recognition were
Once upon a time in Ms. Clacks
class a mouse gave Ms. Clack a
piece of candy. Ms. Clack said thank
you. Then she told the class to
get out there spelling books and
do padge 102-120. then the
children said that's a lot of
work. Then the teacher gave them
more work then said d 110-200
Then Then children did not want
any more work. Then they started
there work. The next day Ms. Clack
wasn't there. Then the class
said now we can do any
thing we want. Just then
a vouse said not so fast. Then
the door open and it was a
subutute. The teacher told
her name. The children thaoght
she was a which becaue she
looked like one. The children
were scared. She made them
do hundreds of work when
uschool was over they ran as
fast as the could
measured with the respective WRAT subtests given in April in
both grades. Likewise, the oral story (used to estimate "ideas")
was administered in April, and the May subtest from the IOWA
was used to estimate listening comprehension. Writing ability was
tapped in April of both grades, and reading comprehension was
estimated by the May reading comprehension subtest from the
IOWA.
Results and Discussion
Table 2 presents descriptive data on all the measures.
Table 3 gives the correlations among all the measures in
249
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ACQUISITION OF LITERACY
Word
Recognition I
06,-20
Reading
= .54,.59
Comprehension
Figure 3. Path analysis of proposed model of literacy aequisition. (Path coefficients for the
straight arrows are standardized regression coefficients. The first listed number represents first
grade, and the second number represents second grade. *p < .05. **p < .01.)
each grade. The path analysis for the model being tested
appears in Figure 3.
Phonemic awareness. Ethnicity, IQ, and entering oral
language skills each contribute to phonemic awareness. The
impact of ethnicity on phonemic awareness was slightly less
in second grade. The actual mean scores appear in Table
4. In Table 4 it can also be seen that differences in English
oral language proficiency increased slightly between the
ethnic groups from first to second grade and that there was
not a statistically significant difference in IQ scores between
the groups.
The importance of these findings is apparent from the
results of some hierarchical multiple regressions shown in
Table 5. Even after the influence of IQ is entered into the
regressions, both the cognitive variables of listening comprehension and particularly phonemic awareness—the two
areas where ethnicity did have a significant impact—appear
to strongly influence year-end performance in spelling, word
recognition, writing, and reading comprehension in first
grade, and to a lesser extent in second grade. These findings
suggest the need for oral phonemic awareness training for
entering first-grade children with poor phonemic awareness. Without special training, children with poor phonemic
awareness appear disadvantaged in learning to read and
write (Williams, 1984). As shown in Table 4, the present
study suggests such children are frequently minority children. H may be that training in oral phonemic awareness
should be a routine precursor to reading instruction—as it
is, for example, in the Soviet Union (Downing, 1984).
Cipher knowledge. We expected that (a) phonemic
awareness would be a powerful determinant of growth in
knowledge of the cipher, and (b) although exposure to print
would aid growth in phonemic awareness, it would do little
to increase cipher knowledge until a prerequisite amount of
phonemic awareness is attained. To test these hypotheses,
we looked at a restricted sample of the data. That is, we
identified two groups of children, both of whom had been
exposed to fairly large amounts of print (i.e., upper 50th
percentile on the place-in-series variable) at the end of first
grade but who differed in their levels of phonemic awareness (i.e., high amount of phonemic awareness vs. low
phonemic awareness), and we tested them for a difference
250
C. JUEL, P. GRIFFITH, AND P. GOUGH
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of All Variables
Variable
M
SD
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
First grade
MRT language (September)
Phonemic awareness (October)
Phonemic awareness (February)
Phonemic awareness (April)
Bryant (October)
Bryant (February)
Bryant (April)
Place in series (October)
Place in series (February)
Place in series (April)
WRAT word recognition (April)
WRAT spelling (April)
Writing (April)
Oral story (April)
IOWA listening comprehension (May)
IOWA reading comprehension (May)
IOWA spelling (May)
12.8
15.0
25.9
30.7
3.4
11.7
11.4
11.1
6.3
6.0
13.5
19.7
379.4
5,909.6
16,287.8
21.6
10.9
11.1
12.9
984.3
5,390.7
11,739.5
3.8
4.4
16.9
43.0
16.9
9.8
3.5
1.6
2.5
4.5
15.1
5.4
Second grade
WISC-R vocabulary (September)
WTSC-R block design (September)
Phonemic awareness (October)
Phonemic awareness (April)
Bryant (November)
Bryant (April)
Place in series (October)
Place in series (February)
Place in series (April)
WRAT word recognition (April)
WRAT spelling (April)
Writing (April)
Oral story (April)
IOWA listening comprehension (May)
IOWA reading comprehension (May)
IOWA spelling (May)
19.2
16.4
34.9
36.3
26.2
30.6
23,227.1
38,284.6
58,407.9
37.5
16.3
4.4
4.4
21.5
48.9
21.7
5,0
9.4
7.1
6.6
12.5
11.0
15,486.7
21,601.6
27,104.7
12.6
4.4
2.6
2.5
3.8
10.9
5.2
Note. MRT = Metropolitan Readiness Tests, Level II. Bryant =
Diagnostic Test of Basic Decoding Skills. WRAT = Wide Range
Achievement Test. IOWA = IOWA Tests of Basic Skills, Primary Battery. WTSC-R = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised.
in their ability to read pseudo-words. As predicted, we found
a significant difference on the Bryant test between the two
groups, F(l, 45) = 28.7, p < .001, MSe = 106.8. Forthe
low phonemic awareness group the mean score on the Bryant
test in May was only 3.7, SD = 5.3, and the mode was
zero. Despite having been exposed to large amounts of print
and a year of phonics instruction, many children with poor
phonemic awareness could not read a single nonsense word
at the end of first grade. In contrast, the mean score for the
high phonemic awareness group was 27.9, SD = 10.8, and
the mode was 21.
After some phonemic awareness is achieved, however,
exposure to print probably contributes to cipher knowledge
by providing practice in reading regular spelling patterns.
An estimate of the impact of exposure to print in school
reading books on cipher knowledge appears in Table 6. The
unique contribution of exposure to print, beyond that shared
with phonemic awareness, is .087 in first grade and .048
in second grade. The unique contribution of phonemic
awareness, though, is greater at .211 in first grade and .186
in second grade. Although exposure to print does not appear
to make as direct a contribution to cipher knowledge as
does phonemic awareness, it is the only way to gain lexical
knowledge (Figure 3).
Word recognition and spelling. We further predicted that
word recognition and spelling depend on the same sources
of knowledge—cipher knowledge and lexical knowledge—
and thus the two skills should be highly correlated. Indeed,
the correlation between WRAT word recognition and spelling was .84 (N = 108, p < .001) in first grade and .77 (N
= .83, p < .001) in second grade. The path analysis in
Figure 3 indicates that in first grade the total R2 accounted
for by cipher knowledge and lexical knowledge is .75 for
word recognition and .72 for spelling, whereas in second
grade the total R2 is .54 for both spelling and word recognition. In other words, for both skills these two factors
account for both a large and similar amount of variance
within each grade level.
The influence between cipher and lexical knowledge does
appear to shift between the grades, however. In first grade
there is a predominance of cipher knowledge, which probably reflects a "sound it out" strategy. By second grade,
lexical knowledge predominates, suggesting that a more
automatic processing is occurring. This shift is particularly
evident in word recognition. As shown in Table 6, the
unique contribution of lexical knowledge to word recognition, beyond that which it shares with cipher knowledge,
is only .034 in first grade but increases to .203 in second
grade. Likewise, the unique contribution of cipher knowledge is .208 in first grade but drops to .042 by second
grade. This finding is in line with that of other studies that
have found increased direct, nonmediated processing of words
as readers become more skilled (Barron, 1981; Ehri & Wilce,
1985, Juel, 1983; Posnansky & Rayner, 1977; Waters, Seidenberg, & Bruck, 1984). In spelling, the same trend occurs, though it is much less dramatic. The unique contribution
of lexical knowledge is .074 in first grade, increasing to
.146 in second grade; the unique contribution of cipher
knowledge is . 145 in first grade, dropping to .080 in second
grade.
Reading comprehension and writing. We suggested that
although reading comprehension and writing also are dependent on cipher knowledge and lexical knowledge, they
will not be as strongly correlated as word recognition and
spelling, for they also draw upon distinct abilities. This was
the case. In first grade the correlation between reading comprehension and writing was .26 (TV — 100, p < .01). This
correlation is significantly less than the correlation between
word recognition and spelling in first grade (z = 6.77, p
< .001). In second grade the correlation between reading
comprehension and writing was ,39 (N = 69, p < .01).
Again, this correlation is significantly less than the correlation between word recognition and spelling in second grade
(Z = 2.28, p < .05).
As predicted, reading comprehension in first grade appears to be heavily influenced by word recognition ability.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ACQUISITION OF LITERACY
-2
251
s; s; s; M oi s: (
12
2
252
C. JUEL, P. GRIFFITH, AND P. GOUGH
Table 4
Effects of Ethnicity on Phonemic Awareness, Oral
Language, and IQ
Second grade
First grade
Ethnic group
SD
M
M
SD
Entering phonemic awareness
Anglo
Black
Hispanic
20.1
8.0
12.8
11.1
8.9
11.3
38.6
31.3
33.7
3.6
7.7
7.8
19.1
15.1
15.5
3.7
4.0
4.6
39.3
33.0
34.6
9.1
11.5
11.8
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Enterin:g oral language
Anglo
Black
Hispanic
3.2
2.7
3.7
13.7
12.3
11.9
IQ
Anglo
Black
Hispanic
a b
Note. In both grades * the results of the October phonemic awareness test are compared. For entering oral language, in first grade"
the Metropolitan Readiness Test's language subtest is the basis
for comparison; in second grade,d comparisons are on the IOWA
listening comprehension subtest given at the end of first grade.
For IQ, summed WISC-R block design and vocabulary subtests
were given in September of second grade.e
a
F(2, 126) = 12.1, p < .001, MSe = 116.8. b f(2, 82) = 7.5,
p < .001, MSe = 43.6. CF(2, 127) = 4.3, p < .05, MSe =
10.6. dF(2, 109) = 11.2, p < .001, MSe = 17.1. e F(2, 78)
- 2.3, MS, MSe = 117.8.
6. The unique contribution of ideas to writing, above the
variance that it shares with spelling, is only .048 in first
grade, but increases to .294 in second grade. Likewise, the
unique contribution of spelling is .319 in first grade, and
decreases to .087 in second grade.
It is important to note that the idea measure contributes
to writing over and above the IQ and oral language proficiency measures. Table 7 shows a hierarchical multiple
regression in which the increase in R2 due to the idea measure is .251 after IQ and listening comprehension have been
entered. These data suggest that the generation of ideas
involves some distinct abilities besides those assessed by
IQ and listening comprehension tests. It should also be
noted that the correlation between the idea measure (oral
story) and the IOWA reading comprehension subtest was
very low both in first grade (r = .13, N = 78, p = ns)
and second grade (r — .19, N = 66, p = ns). If, as the
transactionalists suggest, reading involved the same generative processes as those involved in writing, we should
expect a much higher correlation.
Putting the components of the model together. The scatterplot in Figure 4 shows the relation between phonemic
awareness and cipher knowledge in May for the entire sample of first-grade children. There were virtually no firstgrade children with low phonemic awareness in May who
Table 5
Effect of Phonemic Awareness on Word Recognition,
Spelling, Reading Comprehension, and Writing
Increase in R2
R
Reading comprehension in May in first grade increases .71
standard deviation for each standard deviation increase in
May word recognition. Listening comprehension has a nonsignificant statistical impact (Figure 3). The tremendous
impact of word recognition on reading comprehension is
shown in Table 6. The unique contribution of word recognition, beyond what it shares with listening comprehension, is .419 in first grade and .403 in second grade. However,
in second grade, listening comprehension does make a significant unique contribution of .037. We suspect that the
impact of listening comprehension would continue to increase in subsequent grades—as both word recognition becomes more automatic and as more advanced texts require
more usage of the knowledge of morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics, which also are used in the comprehension of spoken language, to understand decoded print.
In both first and second grade, spelling and ideas make
significant contributions to writing. As predicted, in first
grade, spelling has the dominant influence, whereas in second grade having ideas holds the lead (Figure 3). It appears
that word-level skills (i.e., decoding and spelling) influence
the quality of reading comprehension and writing for many
first-grade students. By the end of second grade, when these
skills are more automatic (as evidenced by the increased
impact in second grade of lexical knowledge on spelling
and word recognition), higher order processes apparently
become more involved. This shift is clearly seen in Table
Variable
1st grade 2nd grade 1st grade 2nd grade
Word recognition
WISC-R block
WISC-R vocabulary
IOWA listening
Phonemic awareness
.143
.282
.456
.834
WISC-R block
WISC-R vocabulary
IOWA listening
Phonemic awareness
.140
.300
.492
.777
.168
.356
.438
.548
.020
.059*
.128**
.487**
.028
.098**
.065*
.301**
.019
.071*
.152**
.362**
.007
.049
.093**
.218**
.069*
.068*
.122**
.236**
.077*
.194**
.034
.172**
.084*
.008
.108**
.131**
.044
.000
.041
.018
Spelling
.081
.236
.386
.606
Reading comprehension
WISC-R block
WISC-R vocabulary
IOWA listening
Phonemic awareness
.263
.370
.509
.709
.277
.521
.553
.691
Writing
WISC-R block
WISC-R vocabulary
IOWA listening
Phonemic awareness
.291
.304
.448
.576
.209
.210
.292
.322
Note. The phonemic awareness test in April and the IOWA listening comprehension test in May are used in all analyses.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
253
ACQUISITION OF LITERACY
Table 6
Contrasting Hierarchical Regressions of Some
Components of the Model
Table 7
Impact of Idea Measure on Second-Grade Writing
Variable
R
Increase in R2
\Qa
Listening comprehension
Ideas
.285
.379
.628
.081*
.063*
.251**
2
Increase in R
1 st grade 2nd grade 1 st grade 2nd grade
Variable
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Cipher knowledge
a
Summed WISC-R block design and vocabulary subtests.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Order I
Phonemic awareness
Exposure to print
.603
.671
.637
.674
.363***
.087***
.405***
.048*
Order 2
Exposure to print
Phonemic awareness
.489
.671
.517
.674
.239***
2i i**#
.267***
.186***
Word recognition
Order 1
Cipher knowledge
Lexical knowledge
.848
.868
.577
.732
719***
.034***
333***
.203***
Order 2
Lexical knowledge
Cipher knowledge
.739
.868
.703
.732
.545***
.208***
494***
.042*
Spelling
Order 1
Cipher knowledge
Lexical knowledge
.806
.851
.624
.732
549***
074***
.389***
j4£#**
Order 2
Lexical knowledge
Cipher knowledge
.761
.851
.675
.732
.578***
145***
.455***
.080***
^42***
.003
553***
.037*
The importance of cipher knowledge for word recognition (i.e., as shown in Figure 3), and subsequently for reading comprehension, is also suggested in Figure 4. Only 4
children with above-average Bryant scores had below-average reading comprehension at the end of first grade; all
other children who were at or above average on the Bryant
had at least average reading comprehension. We suggest
that those children with poor spelling—sound knowledge,
who have at least average reading comprehension at the end
of first grade, have succeeded in memorizing enough relevant visual cues about particular words to have a minimal
first-grade reading vocabulary. However, they are reading
in a qualitatively different manner than their peers who have
good spelling-sound knowledge. As we have argued elsewhere, they are "code" readers, who must rely on visual
cues, as opposed to "cipher" readers, who can also use
letter-sound information (cf. Gough & Hillinger, 1980;
Gough, Juel, & Roper/Schneider, 1983).
Reading comprehension
Order 1
Word recognition
Listening
comprehension
Order 2
Listening
comprehension
Word recognition
.736
.738
.743
.768
me in
50
.355
.738
.432
.768
.126***
419***
.187***
.403***
X
40
*
Writing
X
t
Order 2
Ideas
Spelling
.597
.636
.275
.608
.356***
.048*
.076*
.294***
X
X
)
[
G
w
20
X
xx x
X X
X X
X X
X
0
%
Xx X
X»
X
30
Order 1 .
Spelling
Ideas
X
X
X
XXX
XJ
x
XX
XX
oX
OQQt
0
.291
.636
.531
.608
.085*
^19***
.282***
.087**
Note. End-of-year tests are used in all analyses.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
x o
10
0
0
10
had average or above-average performance on the Bryant
decoding test. There were, however, some children with
average or above-average phonemic awareness in May who
had poor spelling-sound correspondence knowledge. Phonemic awareness appears a necessary, but not sufficient,
prerequisite to growth in cipher knowledge.
O0X
0
°°0
n
XX
* > 0O ° X X V
0
x
0
0
nnn nnnrwiflnn n
%
°
*x0
X
X
20
30
40
Phonemic Awareness
50
Figure 4, The relations among first-grade students' skill in May
in phonemic awareness, decoding, and reading comprehension.
(Children indicated with X scored at or above grade level on the
IOWA reading comprehension subtest. Children indicated with 0
scored below grade level on the IOWA reading comprehension
subtest.)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
254
C. JUEL, P. GRIFFITH, AND P. GOUGH
Phonemic awareness had a powerful influence on learning to read and write when the other cognitive variables of
IQ and general language proficiency (listening comprehension) were statistically controlled. The impact of phonemic
awareness on word recognition, spelling, reading comprehension, and writing is shown in Table 5. In each case in
first grade the impact of phonemic awareness is substantial
even after IQ and listening comprehension are entered into
the equations. The increase in R2 attributable to phonemic
awareness in first grade is .487 for word recognition, .362
for spelling, .236 for reading comprehension, and .131 for
writing. By the end of second grade there is still a substantial impact of phonemic awareness on all areas but writing. The increase in R2 due to phonemic awareness is .301
for word recognition, .218 for spelling, .172 for reading
comprehension, and .018 for writing. The lesser impact of
phonemic awareness at the end of second grade may be due
to the general increase in phonemic awareness with increasing age. It is clear that the overall large effect sizes of
phonemic awareness, over and above IQ and general language proficiency, underscore the extreme importance of
phonemic awareness on early literacy acquisition. The findings also agree with those of Bradley and Bryant (1983)
and Stanovich, Cunningham, and Feeman (1984) that phonemic awareness involves some skill distinct from general
intelligence or language ability.
Summary and conclusions. In summary, we have attempted to delineate and at least partially substantiate a
rather simple model of literacy acquisition in first and second grade. We believe we have shown the extreme importance of phonemic awareness in literacy acquisition. We
also believe we have shown that children will not acquire
spelling-sound correspondence knowledge until a prerequisite amount of phonemic awareness has been attained.
Without such phonemic awareness, exposure to print does
little to foster spelling-sound knowledge.
Finally, the relation between word recognition and spelling was shown to be strongly correlated, and both skills
appear to rely on similar sources of knowledge (i.e., cipher
knowledge and lexical knowledge). The relation between
reading comprehension and writing appears to be less strongly
correlated during the early stages of literacy acquisition,
because the generation of ideas involved in story production
does not appear isomorphic to the processes involved in
reading comprehension.
References
Asher, H. B. (1976). Causal modeling. Beverly Hills, CA; Sage
Publications.
Baden, M. J. P. (1981). A comparison of composition scores of
third grade children with reading skills, prc-kindergarten verbal
ability, self-concept, and sex. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 1517A.
Baker, B., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and
reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research
(pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Barron, R. W. (1981), Development or visual word recognition:
A review. In T. G. Waller & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading
research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 3, pp. 119—
158). New York: Academic Press.
Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. W. Gregg &
E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 7 3 96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bippus, A. C. (1977). The relationship of the quality of students'
written language, productivity of writing, and reading comprehension in grades four and six. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 399A.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and
learning to read—a causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.
Bryant, N. D. (1975). Diagnostic test of basic decoding skills.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Calfec, R. C , & Piontkowski, D. C. (1981). The reading diary:
Acquisition of decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 346373.
Calkins, L. M. (1980). Notes and comments: Children's writing
strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 331-341.
Chomsky, C. (1979). Approaching reading through invented
spelling. In L. B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and
practice of early reading (Vol. 2, pp. 43-65). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C . & Marks, C. (1978). Generative
processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 70, 109-118.
Doehring, D. G. (1976). Acquisition of rapid responses. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 41
(2, Serial No. 165)/
Downing, J. (1984). Reading research and instruction in the USSR.
Reading Teacher, 37, 598-603.
Ehri, L. (1980). The development of orthographic images. In U.
Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 311-338). New
York: Academic Press.
Ehri, L. C , & Wilce, L. S. (1985). Movement into reading: Is
the first stage of printed word learning visual or phonetic? Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 163-179.
Evanechko, P., Ollila, L., & Armstrong, R. (1974). An investigation of the relationship between children's performance in
written language and their reading ability. Research in the
Teaching of English, 8, 315—326.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg &
E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3 1 50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Golinkoff, R. M., & Rosinski, R. R. (1976). Decoding, semantic
processing, and reading comprehension skill. Child Development, 47, 252-258.
Gough, P. B., & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An
unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179—196.
Gough, P. B., Juel, C , & Roper/Schneider, D. (1983). Code and
cipher: A two-stage conception of initial reading acquisition. In
J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), Searches for meaning in
reading/language processing and instruction (pp. 207-211).
Rochester, NY: The National Reading Conference.
Gough, P. B, & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and
reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6 10.
Grimmer, F. (1970). The effects of an experimental program in
written composition on the writing of second grade children.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 5666A.
Graves, D. H. (1979). Research update: Andrea learns to make
writing hard. Language Arts, 56, 569-576.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work.
Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Gundlach, R. A. (1981). On the nature and development of chil-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ACQUISITION OF LITERACY
dren's writing. In C. H. Frederiksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.),
Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication (Volume 2, Writing: Process, development and
communication, pp. 133-152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guttentag, R. E., & Haith, M. M. (1978). Automatic processing
as a function of age and reading ability. Child Development,
49, 707-716.
Guttentag, R. E., & Haith, M. M. (1979). A developmental study
of automatic word processing in a picture classification task.
Child Development, 50, 894-896.
Guttentag, R. E., & Haith, M. M. (1980). A longitudinal study
of word processing by first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 701-705.
Heil, H. (1976). The development of selected language variables
in two modes of writing and their relationship to reading comprehension in the primary grades. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 137A.
Henderson, L., & Chard, J. (1980). The reader's implicit knowledge of orthographic structure. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive
processes in spelling (pp. 85-116). New York: Academic Press.
Hieronymous, A. N., Lindquist, E. F., & Hoover, H. D. (1980).
IOWA Test of Basic Skills, Primary Battery, Form 7. New
York: Houghton Mifflin,
Jastak, J., Bijou, S., & Jastak, S. (1978). Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
Juel, C. (1983). The development and use of mediated word identification. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 306-327.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lesgold, A., Resnick, L. B., & Hammond, K. (1985). Learning
to read: A longitudinal study of word skill development in two
curricula. In G. E. MacKinnon & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Reading
research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 4, pp. 107138). New York: Academic Press.
Loban, W. D. (1963). The language of elementary school children. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Marsh, G., Friedman, M., Welch, V., & Desberg, P. (1980).
The development of strategies in spelling. In U. Frith (Ed.),
Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 339-354). New York: Academic Press.
Nurse, J., & McGauvran, M. (1976). Metropolitan Readiness
Tests, Level II. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Posnansky, C. J., & Rayner, K. (1977). Visual-feature and response components in a picture-word interference task with
beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 24, 440-460.
Read, C. (1981). Writing is not the inverse of reading for young
children. In C. H. Frederiksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing:
The nature, development, and teaching of written communication Vol. 2 Writing: Process, development, and communication (pp. 105-118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roper/Schneider, H. D. W. (1984). Spelling, word recognition,
and phonemic awareness among first grade children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, and poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
255
Rosinski, R. R. (1977). Picture—word inference is semantically
based. Child Development, 48, (A^-(A1.
Rosinski, R. R., Golinkoff, R. M., & Kukish, R. S. (1975).
Automatic semantic processing in a picture-word interference
task. Child Development, 46, 247-263.
Rubin, A. (1980). A theoretical taxonomy of the differences between oral and written language. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce,
& W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 411^38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scardamalia, M. (1981). How children cope with the cognitive
demands of writing. In C. H. Fredericksen & J. F. Dominic
(Eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication (Volume 2, Writing: Process, development,
and communication, pp. 81-104). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An
exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 466-477.
Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F, Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984).
Sources of individual differences in reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324.
Smith, R., Jensen, K., & Dillingofski, M. (1971). The effects of
integrating reading and writing on four variables. Research in
the Teaching of English, 5, 179-189.
Squire, J. R. (1984). Composing and comprehension: Two sides
of the same basic process. In J. M. Jensen (Ed.), Composing
and comprehending (pp. 23-31). Urbana: IL: NCTE.
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984).
Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 278-303.
Sticht, T. G., & James, J. H. (1984). Listening and reading. In
P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 293317). New York: Longman.
Stotsky, S. (1984). Research on reading/writing relationships: A
synthesis and suggested directions. In J. M. Jensen (Ed.), Composing and comprehending (pp. 7-22). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Tiemey, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Toward a composing
model of reading. In J. M. Jensen (Ed.), Composing and comprehending (pp. 33-45). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Torneus, M. (1984). Phonological awareness and reading: A chicken
and egg problem? Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 13461358.
Tunmer, W. E., & Nesdale, A. R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, AX1-M1.
Waters, G., Seidenberg, M., & Bruck, M. (1984). Children's and
adult's use of spelling-sound information in three reading tasks.
Memory and Cognition, 12, 293—305.
West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1979). The development of
automatic word recognition skills. Journal of R'eading Behavior, II, 211-219.
Williams, J. P. (1984). Phonemic analysis and how it relates to
reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 240-245.
Woodfin, M. (1968). Correlations among certain factors and the
written expression of third grade children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 1237-1242.
Received March 3, 1985
Revision received January 28, 1986 •