ASSESSING EARLY LITERACY - NEW METHODS NEEDED.Cathy Nutbrown and Peter Hannon

Division of Education, The Education Building,University of Sheffield, S10 2JA U.K.

************Dans cet article, iI est expose que la mesure et l'evaluation du developpernent de I'aptitudeit lire et it ecrire des jeunes enfants en Grande Bretagne etalent en regard sur la nouvellecomprehension du comment se developpe cette aptitude. l'accent et mis sur des enfantsde 3-5 ans en G.B. et I'on consid-3re deux points principaux: 1) la necesslte de nouvellesmethodes it la lurniere d'une nouvelle vision du developpernent de la lecture/ecritureprecoce, 2) la place de I'evaluatlon dans la perspective d'une aptitude qui surgit.

En este articulo es argumentado que midiendo e imponiendo el desarrollo de enselianza anilios [ovenes en la Gran Bretalia atraza un entendimiento de como su enselianza sedesarrolla. EI enfoque es en nilios de 3 a 5 alios de edad en Gran Bretana y considera dospuntas especiales; 1) la necesidad para nuevas metodos para i1umunar una nueva vision dedesarrollo de enselianza temprana, 2) el lugar de evaluacien de una perspectiva de'ensenanza que surge'

INTRODUCTION.

In this paper we argue that measuring andassessing literacy development of youngchildren in Britain has lagged behind newunderstanding of how their literacydevelops. We will focus on children agedthree to five years in Britain and considertwo main points:

* the need for new methods in the lightof a new view of early literacydevelopment* the place of assessment in the

'emergent literacy' perspective.

Traditionally, the literacy of very youngchildren has not been assessed at all - theassumption being that literacy at this agedid not exist (Walker 1975), and all thatcould be done was to assess children'sreadiness to acquire it. Our review of theliterature has revealed exceptions such asClay (1972), who developed her'Diagnostic Survey' and Goodman andAltwerger (1981), who developed their 'SixLiteracy Tasks: but these methods weredesigned for particular research purposes.Other methods intended for wider use(Harrison and Stroud, 1956; Thackray andThackrey, 1981) have not assessedcapabilities, understandings, skills andinterests in literacy, so much as children'sreadiness to begin the process of acqulrinqthem. They have assessed isolated skillssuch as children's ability to match picturesor objects with similar attributes,knowledge of colours, one to one

27

correspondence and identification of apicture when told a word. One test(Downing, Ayres and Schaeffer 1982) hasmade use of pictures of people usingliteracy to assess whether a childrecognises literacy behaviour orunderstands its function. Its authorsclaimed it to be a 'more direct measure ofreadiness' than earlier tests, because ittested 'a child's comprehension' (Ayresand Downing 1982, p.282). However, thistest does not offer ways of measuringwhat a child can do in terms of literacy. Itappears that new measures of earlyliteracy, incorporating insights from thedeveloping body of research about howchildren under five become literate, werenot developed during the 1980's.

* The need for new methods of measuringand assessing early literacy in the light ofa new view of early literacy development

The lack of measures of early literacy isnot surprising when we consider thatresearch in this field has only developed inthe late seventies, and gained momentumduring the eighties. Researchers such asSulzby (1985), Goodman (1980), Harste,Woodward and Burke (1984), Ferreiro andTeberosky (1979), have demonstrated justhow much very young children know aboutliteracy. They begin to recognise,understand and use print in theenvironment. There is acknowledgementnow that it is more useful to view ve!'y

young children as 'literate' rather thangetting ready to be literate. However, ithas taken ti me to generate this body ofknowledge and few researchers havereached the point of also developingmeasures other than on an 'ad hoc' basis,where specific instruments have beendevised for a particular research project.

Research in the field has revealed at leastthree aspects of early literacy dev­elopment which are worth assessing:children's response to environmental print,sharing books and stories and earlywriting.

Children's response to environmentalprint.

Young children begin to recognise andunderstand print in the environment froman early age. Two-year-olds see the largeyellow 'M' of the MacDonald's logo andknow that it means a burger and fries.Environmental print, as researchers (andmany children) tell us, is an importantpart of learning to read. Young childrenare very skilled at identifying signs andsymbols which carry some meaning forthem. Environmental print is a powerfulpart of literacy which many teachers knowabout and incorporate into their teaching.However. so far. only a few researchers(for example Jones and Hendrickson,1970) have developed measurementinstruments to find out what children knowabout the environmental print and thesehave been solely for research purposes.There are apparently no published tests ofreading which reflect this important facetof early literacy.

Sharing books and stories.

Sharing books is an obvious part oflearning to read. It seems strange thenthat, in early childhood education in manycountries, until recently, children had towait until they were ready before theycould have a 'reading book'. It is clearthat children need books first, before theycan be expected to become competentbook handlers or readers.

In the UK, the Sheffield Early LiteracyDevelopment Project (Hannon, Weinbergerand Nutbrown, 1991) focused on ways ofworking with parents to promote early

28

literacy. One of the most powerful factorsin promoting literacy with children asyoung as two years seemed to be sharinghigh quality books which were beautifullyillustrated, well written. depictingdynamics of humanity, picture books andstory books of different levels ofcomplexity. However, apart from Clay's(1972) well known procedures with hertwo test books for six year olds, it is notusual to test children's knowledge ofbooks and reading.

Early writing.

In the term 'early writing' we includechildren making marks which look likewriting, but which may not beconventional. In New Zealand, Clay (1975)demonstrated that the early marks ofchildren form the foundation for moreconventional writing later. In the UK,Payton (1984) illustrated in a detailedcase study of her daughter, how a youngchild began to read and write. Researchersin the USA have highlighted ways in whichchildren come to writing (Goodman 1980;Schickedanz 1990) and the importance ofinformal and naturalistic support (Sulzby1990; Teale 1990). Nevertheless, chil­dren's attempts at early writing appear tohave been overlooked when literacy abilityis measured.

* The place of assessment in the'emergent literacy' perspective.

As researchers in the past two decadeshave learned more about literacy, it hasbecome clear that children under the ageof five are not 'getting ready' to beliterate, they are 'getting on' with beingliterate.

Traditional reading readiness tests, whichfocus on visual discrimination tests andabilities like matching, picture recognitionand so on, do not fit with this view. YettaGoodman (1980), encountered thisproblem when studying a group of childrenwho 'failed' some reading readiness tests.She wrote;

'Yet even these children were beyondbeginning reading. They were doing thingsand had developed concepts which werepart of the reading process of matureproficient readers'

We agree with Goodman that the problemlay, not with the children, but with thetests. We see a need to develop newmeasures which include the threeelements of environmental print, sharingbooks and stories and early writing.

Teale (1990) has called for thedevelopment of new and more naturalisticways of assessing. Chittenden andCourtney ( 1989) have argued thatteachers need new ways of assessingchildren's developmental progress andsuggest that portfolio systems are asuitable alternative to formal tests. Hodges(1988) also favours teacher assessmentrather than formal tests based on a part­to-whole concept of reading. Stallman andPearson (1990), after a comprehensivereview of 20 reading readiness tests,several basal reading program tests andfirst grade standardised tests published inthe USA concluded:

The assessment (and no doubt, theinstruction) of both early literacy andadvanced literacy are beset by implicit, ifnot explicit adherence to three related,counterproductive, and fallacious con­structs decomposition decontext­ualisation, and objectivity'. (Stallman &Pearson, 1990, P17)

We believe that teachers need somemethod of ongoing assessment practice,(e.g. Barrs et al. 1989), but this is notwithout its problems. When assessmentand measurement are in the hands ofteachers, political difficulties arise. Asteachers of young children we haveworked with the kind of systems where webuild up a picture of a child's abilities overtime: saving their work, talking with theirparents, talking with the children,observing them working on their literacyand other aspects of their development.This is an essential and integral part of theteaching and learning process, but is itenough for politicians and policymakers? .

We would like to see teachers supported inthe ongoing, continuous assessments ofyoung children and this havinq thecredibility it deserves as the best possibleform of assessment. For this to happen,

29

teachers need clearly to articulate theways in which children learn to be literate,how they identify and enable progressionin children's learning and use appropriateways to demonstrate it. The most valuablekind of literacy assessment in early yearsteaching is done by teachers who observe,record, save examples, discuss withparents and children and continuallyreflect on the learning of the children theyteach. If this remains unacceptable to thepoliticians and policy makers, then othermeasures which support the work ofteachers and build on current researchmay need to be developed.

We suggest that it is in the hands ofresearchers to develop better measures ofearly literacy development. New ways ofmeasuring young children's literacydevelopment are needed for reasonsrelated to research and to policy.

* Research.

Researchers need valid measures toexplore the relationship between literacydevelopment and other factors, to carryout studies to show the efficacy ofdifferent interventions and to evaluateteaching strategies and interventionprogrammes. Although individual re­searchers can continue to devise measuresto meet the needs of particular studies, itwould save time and permit comparisonsbetween findings from different studies, ifcommon measures were available.

* Policy

New measures are also needed so thatpolicy makers can be well informed andunhelpful policies and governmentinterventions can be contested. In the UKthere have been claims that the standardsof reading have fallen (Cato and Whetton,1991). It is presently not possible to arguethis point in relation to the early years, or,what is worse, to provide evidence todispute it. Credible measures are neededin order to provide evidence aboutteaching methods and children's progress.Teachers need the evidence of scientific,rigorous, valid measures, so that they canstate categorically that new methods ofteaching children to be literate areeffective. Children may be failing readingtests (as did the children in Goodman's

study) but this suggests that we needbetter measures, not that we haveilliterate children or incompetent teachers.Perhaps it is more appropriate to say thatreading tests are failing our children?

Conclusion.

Researchers have played a key role inincreasing knowledge of and interest inyoung children's developing literacy. Thisseems to have had an effect uponteaching methods and on teachersexpectations of children. Therefore itfollows that researchers have someresponsibility to continue this process bydeveloping appropriate ways of assessingearly literacy, and to make them availableto teachers.

REFERENCES.

Ayres, O. & Downing, J. (1982) Testing children's

concepts of reading. Educational Research 24 N02

277-285.

Barrs, M., Ellis, 5., Hester, H. & Thomas, A. (1989) The

primary language record. London: ILEAl CLPE.

Cato, V. & Whetton, C. (1991) An enquiry Into local

education authority evidence on standards of reading of

seven-year- old children. A report by the National

Foundation for Educational Research. London:

Department for Education.

Chittenden, E. & Courtney, R. (1989) Assessment of

young children's reading: documentation as an

alternative to testing. In Strickland, 0.5. & Morrow,

l.M. (eds) Emerging lIteracy:young children learn to

read and write. Delaware: IRA

Clay, M. (1972) The early detection of reading dIfficulties:

a diagnostic survey. AUkland: Heinemann Educational

Books.

Clay, M. (1975) What did I write'? Auckland: Heinemann

Educational Books.

Downing, J., Ayres,D & Schaeffer, B. (1982) Linguistic

awareness In reading readiness (LARR) test. Windsor,

UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Ferreiro, E. & Teberosky, A- (1979) Literacy before

schooling. Portsmouth N.H.: Heinemann.

30

Goodman, Y. (1980) The roots of literacy. In: Douglas.

M.P. (ed) Claremont Reading Conference Forty Fourth

vesrbook. Claremont, C.A.: Claremont Reading

Conference.

Goodman, Y. & Altwerger, B. (1981) Print awareness in

preschool children: a working paper. Unpublished

research paper September 1981 N04. Tuscon:

University of Arizona.

Hannon, P., Weinberger, J. 8< Nutbrown, C. (1991) A

stUdy of work with parents to promote early literacy

development. Research Papers In Education 6 No.2,

77-97

Harrison, M.l. & Stroud, J.B. (1956) Harrison-Stroud

reading readiness profiles. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Harste, J.C., Woodward, V.A. & Burke, C.l. (1984)

Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth,

N.H.: Heinemann Educational Books.

Hodges, C. (1988) Assessing Early Literacy. Unpublished

report. ERIC EO 305 103. State University College at

Buffalo NY.

Jones, M. & Hendrickson, N. (1970) Recognition by

preschool children of advertised products and book

covers. Journal of Home Economics 62, N04, 263­

267.

Payton, S. (1984) Developing awareness of print: a young

child's first steps towards literacy. Educational Review

Occasional Publications N02 Birmingham UK: University

of Birmingham.

Schlckedanz, J.A. (1990) Adam's righting revolutions.

Portsmouth N.H.: Heinemann.

Stallman. A.C. & Pearson, P.D. (1990) Formal measures

of early literacy. Technical report No 511. Champaign,

III.: center for tile StUdy of Reading, University of

Illinois.

Sulzby, E. (1985) Klndergarteners as writers and readers.

In Farr, M. (ed) Children's early Writing development.

Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

(1990) Assessment of emergent writing and children's

language while writing. In Morrow, l.M. & Smith, J.K.

(eds) (1990) Assessment for instruction in early

literacy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Teale, W. (1990) The promise and challenge of informal

assessment in early literacy. In Morrow, l.M. & Smith,

J.K. (eds) (1990) Assessment for instruction in early

literacy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Thackray, D. & Thackray, C. (1974) Thackray reading

readiness profiles. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Walker, C. (1975) Teaching prereading skills. London:

Ward Lock.

**********