How children learn to write words by Rebecca Treiman, Brett Kessler (review)

In this ambitious book, Treiman and Kessler provide in-depth descriptions of how written scripts capture oral language and how children learn to use them. The diversity of information as well as the abundance of illustrative examples presented will be of interest to educators and researchers alike.

After an introductory chapter, T&K quickly and deeply immerse the reader into the intricacies of writing systems. At forty-two pages, Ch. 2 is the longest and densest chapter in the book. This is not an easy read, but will gratify those who take notes and construct tables. It is here that the authors describe the outer forms of writing scripts and at what level they represent oral language, be it at the word, syllable, or phoneme level. Perhaps the most useful information for educators is found in Chs. 3 and 4. Here we learn that children’s perceptual skills and language knowledge can ease the task of becoming literate. T&K argue convincingly that humans are built, from the getgo, to detect patterns. The review of existing models of spelling acquisition in the next chapter sets the ground for the authors’ proposed model of learning to spell: the integration of multiple patterns (IMP). According to the IMP, there are at least two classes of patterns to be learned: patterns regarding the outer forms of letters, and patterns regarding the links between graphic forms and language. To learn about these patterns, children rely on general learning mechanisms as well as formal literacy instruction. Although the IMP is promising, my lab members and I look forward to learning more about the interplay among the mechanisms that underlie experiential change in the perception, extraction, and representation of the different classes of patterns and their linkages.

Ch. 5 describes how very young children acquire knowledge about the outer forms of written language, for instance, that it is two-dimensional, directional, and sequential. In contrast, Ch. 6 covers how young children between the ages of two and five learn about the symbolic nature of written scripts. In these chapters and those that follow, T&K discuss how existing theories and their IMP model account for children’s performance. And, whenever appropriate, they present educational implications or recommendations.

The next three chapters focus on abecedaries. In Ch. 7, T&K trace the lineage of modern alphabets. In this wonderfully descriptive chapter, we learn that the order of letters can be traced to an ancient Phoenician abecedary going back to 1300 bc. This order, maintained through centuries, appears to be entirely arbitrary, despite far-fetched efforts to find a rational explanation. Modifications were mostly deletions and insertions to reflect changes in phonology. Indeed, only the Arabic alphabet has been reordered, and this was done to reflect similarities in letter shape. The chapter discusses whether learning the order of letters has any benefit other than enabling the learner to quickly locate information presented alphabetically. In the next chapter, we learn about the principles guiding letter shapes, and how children come to perceive and produce these basic symbols. It is Ch. 9, however, that really captured the attention of members of my lab, most likely because it concerns how children come to understand that letters represent sounds. T&K make a solid case about the value of letter names, at least those that have Latin roots. Educators will be interested in the short but very interesting section on the question of whether children should be taught letter names, to which the authors’ answer is yes.

The preceding nine chapters set the stage for Ch. 10 on early spelling and Ch. 11 on complex spellings. In fact, these two chapters provide the raison d’être of the book. In Ch. 10, the authors conduct a fine-grained analysis of how children use the names of letters (at least certain letters) in their initial attempts to spell the sounds they hear in words. Children’s attempts are rarely correct orthographically, although...