Early reading should be studied from three perspectives: the function of print, the form of print, and the conventions of print. In so doing, it may be possible to avoid some of the hazards that have plagued the field, such as unsubstantiated assumptions about beginning reading and how it should be taught, erroneous beliefs that maturation plays an overriding role in learning to read, and shortsighted approaches to assessment of young children's knowledge of and progress in early reading. Two case studies of young children demonstrated how to avoid these hazards. First, they showed that young children are learning about reading before they read, and that if researchers study children's attempts, they will be in a firmer position to offer reading instruction. Second, looking at children's responses with contrasting tasks and with the same task over a period of time helped to demonstrate how reading experiences play a more substantial role in learning to read than does maturation. Third, studying children's patterns and attempts to participate in reading tasks gives richer information about what they are learning than does tabulation of their correct responses. (FL)