Understanding Young Children's Composition across Three Key Components: Transcription, Connection, and Discourse
Saved in:
| Title: | Understanding Young Children's Composition across Three Key Components: Transcription, Connection, and Discourse |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Margaret F. Quinn (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2025 39(1):42-60. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Early Childhood Education Elementary Education Kindergarten Primary Education |
| Descriptors: | Early Childhood Education, Young Children, Kindergarten, Preschool Children, Childrens Writing, Emergent Literacy, Writing Exercises, Writing Skills, Phonetic Transcription, Writing Processes |
| DOI: | 10.1080/02568543.2024.2326139 |
| ISSN: | 0256-8543 2150-2641 |
| Abstract: | Early writing (i.e. young children's emerging skills prior to the onset of skilled writing) provides important foundations for literacy; however, its components are not evenly understood, assessed, or supported. Transcription skills (handwriting/spelling) are emphasized, while other aspects of composing are often sidelined. Understanding multiple composing components, including transcription, is critical. This study, examining a large corpus of composing samples (N = 394 samples) across two writing tasks, explores composing using a holistic conceptual frame and includes components of transcription in context (handwriting and spelling), connection (relationship between pre- and post-writing verbalizations), and discourse (quantity of ideas expressed). The results demonstrate variable skills (38%-41% of samples using scribbling and drawing; 63%-68% demonstrating connection between pre- and post-writing verbalizations) and further demonstrate that children express more ideas prior to writing, compared to following writing, on average (M = 3.48-4.12 ideas in pre-writing verbalization; M = 2.60-3.13 in post-writing verbalization), suggesting that many children transform and shorten their writing naturalistically and without prompting. Relationships between components were inconsistent (transcription and connection significantly related, ps < 0.05; other relationships were nonsignificant, ps > 0.05). The study provides insights into children's writing processes and has implications for instruction and assessment. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1456344 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwExq3wBDT798B8MIcYZmC_ZAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBVau1J2xxN_GCtiIQIBEICBm-XG_xZja7uy7gfH5mw5NjpcqMBo4SQPinLqR4UPkbho_d_VE5LsU1PfJfTS_xIPGW2NghtsvxV_5GVVeGFpUuRC5IxBnx45Sse6sV5Blq1_qpKtordvfR1yMWUTJ3Cjq4KSlwLCfZHWMyTyGgoPYxjc5Y95BTxGSfVSre7sbtHI67XA53BsBt64qRg02l1aULRCr0b95C7HpRhN Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0182047473;40z01jan.25;2025Jan07.01:26;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182047473-1">Understanding Young Children's Composition Across Three Key Components: Transcription, Connection, and Discourse </title> <p>Early writing (i.e. young children's emerging skills prior to the onset of skilled writing) provides important foundations for literacy; however, its components are not evenly understood, assessed, or supported. Transcription skills (handwriting/spelling) are emphasized, while other aspects of composing are often sidelined. Understanding multiple composing components, including transcription, is critical. This study, examining a large corpus of composing samples (N = 394 samples) across two writing tasks, explores composing using a holistic conceptual frame and includes components of transcription in context (handwriting and spelling), connection (relationship between pre- and post-writing verbalizations), and discourse (quantity of ideas expressed). The results demonstrate variable skills (38%-41% of samples using scribbling and drawing; 63%-68% demonstrating connection between pre- and post-writing verbalizations) and further demonstrate that children express more ideas prior to writing, compared to following writing, on average (M = 3.48–4.12 ideas in pre-writing verbalization; M = 2.60–3.13 in post-writing verbalization), suggesting that many children transform and shorten their writing naturalistically and without prompting. Relationships between components were inconsistent (transcription and connection significantly related, ps &lt;.05; other relationships were nonsignificant, ps &gt;.05). The study provides insights into children's writing processes and has implications for instruction and assessment.</p> <p>Keywords: Composition; early childhood assessment; early literacy; kindergarten; preschool; writing; young children</p> <p>Research interest in early childhood writing (ages 3–6) has intensified in recent years across orthographies (e.g., Arabic – Ahmad &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>]; Hebrew - Aram et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>], English – Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]; Mandarin – Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref4">71</reflink>]). In a U.S. context, writing involves the intentional act of meaning-making, often using a combination of drawing, dictating, and writing with alphabetic print and is most simply defined as including both transcription (i.e., procedural and physical skills such as letter formation and spelling) as well as composing (i.e., generative skills to ideate and translate those ideas into writing) (see: Juel et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>]). The writing itself varies considerably based on development of the writer spanning from seemingly random scribbles to more precise and orthographically connected letter combinations. In this article, we refer to writing that typically occurs during the preschool (ages 3–5) and kindergarten (ages 5–6) years in a U.S. context. Aligned with increased research interests in writing, expectations in early childhood curricula and standards in the U.S. have increased in early writing (e.g., Gerde, Skibbe, et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]; Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref7">67</reflink>]). While children's writing includes multiple components, in classroom practice, preschool teachers demonstrate an emphasis on handwriting and spelling over composing. This prioritization may reflect the misalignment between preschool and kindergarten writing standards in the U.S. Preschool writing standards focus heavily on letter formation, while kindergarten writing standards focus on composing (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref8">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>That said, respective to reading-related aspects of emergent literacy, early writing and particularly the generative aspects of writing, or composing, are not understood in their most emergent stages (e.g., C. S. Puranik &amp; Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref9">51</reflink>]; Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref10">52</reflink>]). Composing has been characterized as idea generation beyond the word level in children's oral, written, or pictural products. However, more research is needed to unpack and disentangle aspects of writing that are generative and compositional in nature. This study explores an approach to conceptualizing early composing that can support the transition from preschool to kindergarten writing.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-2">Guiding conceptual framework</hd> <p>Early literacy is composed of smaller component skills that are amalgamated and grow in sophistication over time in order for an individual to read or write (e.g., Berninger &amp; Winn, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]; Kaderavek et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>]; Paris, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]; Scarborough, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref14">59</reflink>]). This study is primarily informed by two frameworks of early or beginning writing: C. S. Puranik and Lonigan's ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref15">51</reflink>]) theoretical framework for early writing and Berninger and Winn's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]) Not-so-Simple View of Writing framework.</p> <p>C. S. Puranik and Lonigan's ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref17">51</reflink>]) early writing theoretical framework establishes emerging writing skills as being informed by three strands of knowledge: conceptual, procedural, and generative. Conceptual knowledge refers to the knowledge necessary for writing that supports a child's understanding of how writing works. This includes understanding that marks on paper carry meaning, purposes for writing, and writing conventions (e.g., linearity, left-to-right directionality in English). Conceptual knowledge has been shown to be important to later outcomes (e.g., Hooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref18">25</reflink>]). Procedural knowledge refers to code-related knowledge and the ability to enact them, including name writing, letter writing and identification, and word spelling, all of which are similarly critical foundational pieces for later success (e.g., Aram, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>]; Manfra et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref20">35</reflink>]; National Early Literacy Panel, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref21">37</reflink>]). The last component is generative knowledge, which refers to children's ability to suffuse meaning "through writing beyond the single-word level" (C. S. Puranik &amp; Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref22">51</reflink>], p. 456). Children demonstrate generative skills when they produce ideas beyond single words through print, drawing, or verbal representations, such as writing phrases or sentences using alphabetic print, drawing a cake to represent a birthday party invitation, or dictating a story to an adult. While not explicitly stated by the authors when defining their model, implicit within generative knowledge is the understanding that in order for ideas to be produced beyond the single-word level, children must demonstrate some form of intentionality and connection in translating those ideas.</p> <p>In addition, the Not-so-Simple View of Writing framework (Berninger &amp; Winn, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]; Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>]) includes four aspects for fluent writing: transcription skills (e.g., procedural skills such as handwriting, keyboarding, spelling); text generation at the word, sentence, and discourse level (generative skills); executive functioning (e.g., goal setting, planning, reviewing, revising); as well as working memory. While this model is intended for more beginning writers (e.g., early elementary school age, rather than preschool), it is critical to understand how writing takes shape given multiple cognitive processes. Further, similar to the model defined in the work of C. S. Puranik and Lonigan ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref25">51</reflink>]), in order for children to plan and review writing, intentionality and connection must be maintained.</p> <p>Drawing from both frameworks, children's conceptual knowledge, transcription skills, generative skills, executive functioning, and working memory are critical to early writing, and children use these aspects of writing in different ways depending on their development and purposes. In this study, we use "writing" as an umbrella term. Children write when they make marks on paper to represent alphabetic print or ideas. Copying letters from an alphabet chart, tracing letters, scribbling to represent their names, and drawing to represent ideas are all examples of writing. In this study, we more specifically define early composing as the process by which children draw from conceptual knowledge, transcription skills, generative skills, executive functioning, and working memory to create products that capture their ideas in print, drawing, or verbal language. Children compose when they draw a picture of a balloon to retell a birthday party event, when they form seemingly random letter-like symbols to make a grocery list, and when they write the letter "p" to tell a story about children in a pool. How and which aspects of writing children draw upon during composing impacts their products (i.e., compositions). In this study, we specifically focus on three writing aspects critical to composing processes and products: transcription skills and the generative subskills connection and discourse, which we discuss in later sections.</p> <p>While much is known about the aspects of handwriting and spelling (i.e., transcription), less is known about the impact of composition skills on later development or the ways in which these skills might develop across time (Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref26">52</reflink>]). Composing remains an important end goal for written language acquisition, a critical aspect of writing instruction (e.g., Bingham et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref27">8</reflink>]), and a prominent feature in early literacy writing standards (e.g., Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref28">67</reflink>]) and curricula (Gerde, Skibbe, et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-3">Early writing development, instruction, and assessment</hd> <p>Early writing is an important aspect of early and emergent literacy (Teale &amp; Sulzby, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref30">64</reflink>]), but is understudied respective to reading-focused aspects (e.g., C. S. Puranik &amp; Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref31">51</reflink>]). Despite this, research in early writing has increased over the last decades and much more is known about the ways in which writing develops, particularly procedurally (e.g., handwriting and spelling). Research suggests that children's handwriting and spelling skills increase in conventionality and sophistication across time (e.g., Levin &amp; Landsmann, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]; C. S. Puranik &amp; Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref33">50</reflink>]), leading toward fluent and skilled writing. Research also suggests that children's transcription abilities (including handwriting and spelling) vary depending upon the task context, with children providing more conventional writing when asked to write in a more structured, scaffolded, or constrained task (e.g., name writing or picture prompts; Bus et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]; Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref35">53</reflink>]) compared to more open-ended tasks. Research also suggests that children may draw on writing skills variably, presenting more complex writing one day and less complex writing the next (e.g., Rowe &amp; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref36">58</reflink>]). In general, however, writing, at least in terms of transcription, typically progresses along a roughly predictable trajectory. For example, over time, children's letter formation transforms from scribbles to linear scribbling to discrete forms to letter-like shapes to letters. In addition, children's spelling patterns transform from random letters to non-phonemic syllable representation to invented spelling accounting for a beginning or salient sound to accounting for more than one sound and finally to conventional spelling (e.g., C. S. Puranik &amp; Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref37">50</reflink>]; Schickedanz &amp; Casbergue, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref38">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Assessments of early writing are conducted in a variety of ways but relatively similarly, often focusing on handwriting and spelling skills rather than other aspects of composing. Studies often ask children to write their names (e.g., Diamond et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]; Pavelko et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref40">42</reflink>]) and/or a series of letters (e.g., Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]; Molfese et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref42">36</reflink>]). Studies also may ask children to spell a series of words (e.g., Gerde et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref44">70</reflink>]) to understand their spelling skills. Across the literature, studies frequently employ similar code structures to interpret early writing data, often including a scale reflecting developmental expectations of handwriting skills (e.g., Levin et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref45">30</reflink>]; Levin &amp; Bus, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref46">31</reflink>]; e.g., scribbling precedes rudimentary letter forms) or an analysis of the use of particular writing features (e.g., C. S. Puranik &amp; Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref47">50</reflink>]) as children often include multiple types of writing within one sample (e.g., a child could include linear scribbles and rudimentary letter forms or another might include drawing as well as invented spelling). Approaches such as these, which account for levels of conventionality or features of conventional writing within samples, are often used to understand children's writing within composing contexts (e.g., Chen &amp; Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref48">13</reflink>]; Pavelko et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref49">42</reflink>]; Rowe &amp; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref50">58</reflink>]). These assessments and this body of research provide important initial insights into the development of writing skills in young children and how best to measure them. However, while early composing includes and leverages transcription skills, these assessments that focus on transcription do not tell the whole story about young children's composing.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-4">The nature of early composing</hd> <p>Drawing from the frameworks discussed above, children's conceptual knowledge, transcription skills, generative skills, executive functioning, and working memory are critical to early writing and writing more broadly. Composition skills include the ability to generate and manipulate ideas and translate those ideas into writing. In addition to this generation and translation process, composition requires planning, monitoring, and often reviewing and revising (e.g., Berninger &amp; Winn, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>]; Hayes &amp; Flower, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref52">24</reflink>]). For this study, we considered three aspects of composing: transcription, connection, and discourse, which are not discrete, independent skills.</p> <p>Respective to other early writing components, a shared understanding of the nature of early composing, particularly around connection and discourse, and how it is best measured is lacking in the literature (e.g., Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref53">52</reflink>]). To date, the literature is dominated by approaches to composing assessment that focus entirely or largely on children's use of transcription (e.g., Harmey &amp; Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref54">22</reflink>]; Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref55">52</reflink>]). Transcription development is the best understood component, following a trajectory from scribbles to letter-like shapes and letters to eventual conventional spelling (Rowe &amp; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref56">58</reflink>]). However, composition in the early years can be understood as a collection of smaller components, including children's transcription use in composing contexts, that also considers the degree to which connection between ideas can be seen in their written products and processes, and the type and level of discourse apparent in their writing. In the literature, understanding of the development of connection and discourse in early writers is less understood, and assessments are less of a focus as well. Each of these composing components reflect particular measurement and assessment approaches.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-5">Transcription</hd> <p>By far the most common approach (see: Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref57">52</reflink>]) to assessing early composing skills in the literature is examining the sophistication of children's written transcription (e.g., handwriting, spelling) when engaged in a composing context. Thus, despite the fact that composing and transcription are theoretically two key skills or processes contributing to the overall action of writing, they often overlap in that the transcription skills that children demonstrate within a composing context serve as a proxy for overall composing. For example, in their foundational study developing a theoretical framework for early writing, C. S. Puranik and Lonigan ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref58">51</reflink>]) defined generative knowledge as "writing beyond the single-word level" (p. 456) and measured it by examining decontextualized writing products in response to scaffolded tasks and the presence or absence of transcription features such as linear writing, left-to-right orientation, discrete units or letters, and others. Other studies have used similar approaches that prioritize transcription within composing contexts in English (e.g., Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>]; Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref60">11</reflink>]; Pavelko et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref61">42</reflink>]) and in a variety of other languages (e.g., Chinese: Chen &amp; Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref62">13</reflink>]; Malay: Razak et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref63">56</reflink>]). In these studies, understanding of children's composing process is constrained by their transcription skills, which develops along a trajectory from scribbles to letter-like forms to letters and so on to conventional spelling. In order for children to effectively write and use composing skills, transcription is necessary; thus, though it is a separate component of writing from composing, their overlapping nature makes it a worthwhile assessment point in order to capture and understand children's composing.</p> <p>More holistic approaches (e.g., Harmey &amp; Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]; Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref65">53</reflink>]; Rowe &amp; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref66">58</reflink>]) designed to comprehensively capture early composition include or prioritize elements of transcription as well. For example, Harmey and Wilkinson ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref67">22</reflink>]) developed an observational rubric for writing and included several transcription and code-related items such as use of orthographic information, use of letter-sound knowledge, and use of print knowledge (i.e., direction and orientation). Similarly, Rowe and Wilson ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref68">58</reflink>]) used a developmentally and contextually appropriate writing task and incorporated many aspects of writing, including subscales that cover intentionality (i.e., connection between writing and child's intentions) and task message-match (i.e., the degree to which the child was able to meet the demands of the task); however, they featured writing form and linearity subscales entirely focused on transcription within the composing context.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-6">Connection</hd> <p>Other approaches to understanding, assessing, and measuring young writers' composition include examining some aspect of connection – that is, the degree of connectedness between what children have written and what they planned to write or what they read back or between what they have written or planned to write and the task itself. For example, Rowe and Wilson's ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref69">58</reflink>]) task-message match subscale considers the degree to which children can provide oral outputs that address the task context and simultaneously the length and complexity of those oral outputs (e.g., words vs. phrases vs. sentences). Similarly, other research has documented the ways in which children's writing is connected, or not, to the genre and demands of the task context (e.g., Coker &amp; Ritchey, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref70">14</reflink>]; C. Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref71">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another aspect of connection that has been considered in previous research is the connectedness between children's written and verbal outputs – that is, what they wrote and either what they planned to write or stated that they had written when reading output back. For example, Rowe and Wilson ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref72">58</reflink>]) report on a subscale designed to evaluate children's intentionality, measuring the connection between what children wrote and what they read back following the writing process (e.g., child points to specific marks while reading back). This subscale and its components are derived from foundational work (e.g., Harste et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref73">23</reflink>]; Tolchinsky-Landsmann &amp; Levin, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref74">66</reflink>]) that similarly depicts the development in the connection between children's intentions and their writing. Although the study focused more on parent supports of child writing, rather than the writing itself, Leyva et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref75">33</reflink>]) used a similar approach by examining children's encoding (ability to read back what they had written) while simultaneously examining their transcription abilities. Similar, albeit more limited, research has begun considering the ways in which children's plans for writing are connected to their written outputs (e.g., Rowe &amp; Miller, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref76">57</reflink>]; Siew &amp; Nor, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref77">61</reflink>]). Research also has considered multiple connections simultaneously (between pre- and post-writing verbalizations and writing; between verbalization(s) and the task context; between writing and task context). For example, Quinn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref78">54</reflink>]) examined children's composing by classifying approaches into categories of "match." The sample was divided into groups such as "no match" (no connections between oral [post-writing verbalization] and written outputs and the task), "task match" (connection between verbalization and task, no connection to writing), "text match" (connection between verbalization and writing, no connection to task), and "all match" (all aspects connected). This approach or one that is similar is found in other studies (e.g., Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref79">53</reflink>]; Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref80">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research that includes some element of "connection" to examine children's composing is limited in nature, but growing. What is also important to note is that in many or most examinations of connection, as referenced above, highest performance requires well-formed letters and phonological connections, positioning transcription as a key aspect even when not a focus. While this makes sense given the end goal of writing (to compose skillfully using conventional transcription), it also raises questions of developmental appropriateness when composing is being measured among preschoolers. Among this age group, connection, if measured by examining the connection between children's verbal and written outputs, will be entirely constrained by their transcription. In order for an assessor to determine that writing is connected to a verbalization, the assessor must be able to read the writing. Given early learning standards and expectations, it may be inappropriate to expect conventional and legible transcription that meets the task and demonstrates children's intentions, either in pre- or post- verbalization (e.g., Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref81">67</reflink>]). Thus, it may be worthwhile to consider the connection in children's writing as separate from and not contingent on the conventionality of their transcription (see: Rowe &amp; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref82">58</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-7">Discourse</hd> <p>In addition to transcription and connection, discourse is an important component of composition that can and should be measured with skilled as well as early and emergent writers. Discourse, among young writers, can include or focus on idea generation and the structure of those ideas within the context of writing. Research has documented this by considering discourse levels (e.g., in Rowe &amp; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref83">58</reflink>] - label vs. phrase vs. sentence) or number of ideas (e.g., quantity of "idea units" containing a subject and a verb; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref84">29</reflink>]; C. Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref85">48</reflink>]). Often, idea unit counting is used among more conventional writers (i.e., early elementary). Further, typically, these approaches are used alongside a measure of total words written, which can yield insight into children's writing complexity and expression. Again, this approach is effective when examining children's more conventional written products. That said, oral language idea generation is often used to understand oral language and narrative among young children (e.g., Boudreau, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref86">9</reflink>]; O'Neill et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref87">40</reflink>]). It is possible that children's verbalizations in the context of a writing task may yield insight into their idea generation and composing.</p> <p>The composition aspects of transcription, connection, and discourse all offer important information about children's writing processes and skills and represent common approaches for early composing measurement in the literature to date. Further, these components offer insights into a broader composing picture than just one could provide on its own – including how children physically write (transcription), how children think about writing (connection), and how children generate and communicate ideas (discourse). However, taken together, it is likely that these elements can provide information regarding development and skill prioritization. Writing is task dependent, meaning that children likely approach writing tasks differently – with different approaches, processes, and skills – depending upon the nature of the task itself. For example, when asked to write their name, children may write their name conventionally and in full, but when asked to respond to an open-ended composing prompt (e.g., Bus et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref88">10</reflink>]; Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref89">53</reflink>]), children may write scribbles. Further, research suggests that discourse can be impacted by task design (Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref90">53</reflink>]) with children providing fewer ideas to more scaffolded tasks and more ideas when in open-ended tasks. What is not known is the ways in which skills are prioritized and impacted by one another. In other words, children with more advanced transcription may initially present writing with fewer ideas because they are more aware of the alphabetic principle and the ways in which ideas are translated into words, letters, and sounds. On the other hand, children with less sophisticated transcription may provide robust verbalizations (Quinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref91">54</reflink>]). As more research documents how self-regulation is drawn upon differentially by children in writing contexts based upon task and skill/development level (e.g., Chandler et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref92">12</reflink>]; C. S. Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref93">47</reflink>]), it is worth considering the ways in which children draw upon composition aspects differentially depending upon their skill levels.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-8">The current study</hd> <p>Children's composing is informed by the ways in which they can transcribe, the connectedness of their ideas and how they plan and reflect on their writing given those ideas, and the quantity of ideas they express. Understanding composing requires a broad snapshot that incorporates multiple skills and processes that include both written and verbal outputs to understand the ways in which children think and engage with writing. Considering that even among more skilled writers, theoretically writing is multifaceted (e.g., Berninger &amp; Winn, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref94">6</reflink>]; Hayes &amp; Flower, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref95">24</reflink>]), assessing and understanding the relations between composing components in young children is essential. Given the critical need for a greater understanding of early composing and effective assessment approaches for both research and practical purposes, this study seeks to examine children's responses to composing prompts in order to address the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the characteristics of young children's early composing in the context of procedural writing prompts with regard to transcription, connection, and discourse levels?</item> <p></p> <item> How do children's transcription conventionality, connection, and discourse relate to one another in the context of composing?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0182047473-9">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182047473-10">Participants</hd> <p>Participants for this study were 165 three- to six-year-old children who were assessed as a part of two different studies of literacy and writing in separate geographic locations and contexts. Children included in the study represent a variety of different preschool backgrounds. One study was conducted in Head Start and lottery-funded PreK classrooms in a large metropolitan area in the southeastern U.S. Most of the sample participants derived from this study (<emph>n</emph> = 131). The second study was conducted in three preschool and one kindergarten classrooms within a university lab school at a large university in a small city in the southeastern U.S. Given the study context, this secondary sample of lab school children was small (<emph>n</emph> = 34).</p> <p>Across the full sample (<emph>N</emph> = 165), children were 5 years old on average (<emph>M</emph> = 60.25 months in spring, <emph>SD</emph> = 6.38). Gender, race/ethnicity, and language status was collected through caregiver surveys. When considering completed and returned surveys (<emph>n</emph> = 160), the sample was roughly split by gender (47.5% male, 52.5% female). Race/ethnicity information was collected from the surveys (survey item completed <emph>n</emph> = 140) and demonstrated a diverse sample: 57.86% Black/African-American (<emph>n</emph> = 81), 12.14% Latinx/Hispanic (<emph>n</emph> = 17), 25% White (<emph>n</emph> = 35), 4.29% Asian/Asian American (<emph>n</emph> = 6), and 0.7% mixed or other background (<emph>n</emph> = 1). The sample primarily identified their children as speaking primarily English in the home (93.25%). Among students who spoke a home language other than English primarily at home, caregivers reported speaking Spanish, Mandarin, or Nepali. Students were typically developing and without any diagnosed special needs, per returned caregiver surveys.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-11">Procedures</hd> <p>Some children were assessed at two time points (fall/October and spring/May) while the remainder were assessed in the spring only. We collectively considered all samples individually, rather than on the writer level; in total, 394 individual writing samples were analyzed. In order to collect these samples, the lead author trained graduate research assistants to administer and analyze writing from young children. The training included a two-hour session to review the task procedures, including testing practice with peers. In separate sessions, graduate research assistants were trained to analyze writing samples after they had been collected. This session included discussions of procedures, practice items, and independent scoring to determine reliability (see below).</p> <p>During data collection, children whose caregivers consented for them to participate in the studies worked on writing with a graduate assistant (or the lead author) in a quiet, private area of their school or classroom. Children were assessed using two composing tasks. Per the assessment protocols, assessors asked children what they planned to write, then asked children to write on provided paper. Following completion of writing, the assessors asked children what they had written. During the pre-writing verbalization/planning stage and the post-writing/review stage, assessors wrote down children's utterances word-for-word; sessions were not video or audio recorded. Assessors also made any necessary anecdotal notes, including information about the order and direction in which children wrote, page orientation, self-talk, and message matching (e.g., pointing to letters while writing). No specific scaffolding was provided but assessors offered general encouragement ("good writing!" and "you're doing great!") in order to maintain consistency across assessors.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-12">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182047473-13">Invitation</hd> <p>In the first composing task, children were asked to write an invitation to a party. This measure is adapted from Skibbe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref96">62</reflink>]), which used a similar measure in a study of parental scaffolding. The invitation task has been used to assess children's independent writing as well (e.g., Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref97">53</reflink>]). To support children and support them in developing ideas at the onset, assessors provided instructions, such as, "Now we are going to pretend we are having a party. What kind of party would you like to have?" Once children replied, assessors continued, "If we are going to have a [child's response to previous question] party, we need to write an invitation to the party to let your friends know about the party. What kind of information will you put in your invitation?" Assessors recorded children's verbal responses in writing and subsequently instructed them to write their response. Finally, they were asked to review what they had written, which assessors recorded in writing as well.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-14">List</hd> <p>In the second composing task, children were asked to write a list of supplies they would need for the party. List writing is a commonly used task for early composition assessment (e.g., Leyva et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref98">33</reflink>]; Neumann et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref99">38</reflink>]; Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref100">53</reflink>]; Zecker, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref101">69</reflink>]), as it is a familiar context for children and likely to reflect uses of writing they have seen or experienced before. Research suggests that list writing is easier for young children than other forms of writing (e.g., Stellakis &amp; Kondyli, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref102">63</reflink>]). Just like in the preceding task, children were given an opportunity to "plan" their writing, then write, then review their writing. Assessors transcribed both pre-writing and post-writing verbalizations, and any other verbalizations children offered during the writing process.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-15">Data coding</hd> <p>All 394 writing samples were coded to understand children's composing across the three critical composition components: transcription, connection, and discourse. The approach for coding each composition component and its reliability is detailed below. A selection of samples and their assigned codes across the three components is shown in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Three components with samples and example coding.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Child's writing and transcription coding&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Child's verbalizations and connection and discourse coding&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;graphic href="ujrc&amp;#95;a&amp;#95;2326139&amp;#95;ilg0001.gif" content-type="Graph" /&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Advanced invented spelling (4)&lt;/bold&gt; &amp;#8211; child's writing addresses more than one sound in a word&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pre-writing verbalization: &lt;italic&gt;"Dear friend, make sure you come to my party!"&lt;/italic&gt; Post-writing verbalization: &lt;italic&gt;"Dear friends"&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Connected&lt;/bold&gt; &amp;#8211; child's verbalizations are largely consistent&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Number of ideas in pre-writing verbalization: &lt;bold&gt;4&lt;/bold&gt; Number of ideas in post-writing verbalization: &lt;bold&gt;1&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;graphic href="ujrc&amp;#95;a&amp;#95;2326139&amp;#95;ilg0002.gif" content-type="Graph" /&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Scribbles/drawing (1)&lt;/bold&gt; &amp;#8211; child's writing contains linear scribbles&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pre-writing verbalization: &lt;italic&gt;"Toys, wrapping paper"&lt;/italic&gt; Post-writing verbalization: &lt;italic&gt;"Power Ranger toy, gun, costume, dinosaur, ninja turtle costume"&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Connected&lt;/bold&gt; &amp;#8211; child's verbalizations are largely consistent&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Number of ideas in pre-writing verbalization: &lt;bold&gt;2&lt;/bold&gt; Number of ideas in post-writing verbalization: &lt;bold&gt;6&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;graphic href="ujrc&amp;#95;a&amp;#95;2326139&amp;#95;ilg0003.jpg" content-type="Graph" /&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Letters and letter-like shapes (2)&lt;/bold&gt; &amp;#8211; child's writing contains letters that are not connected to intended sounds/words&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pre-writing verbalization: &lt;italic&gt;"I love circles"&lt;/italic&gt; Post-writing verbalization: &lt;italic&gt;"Happy birthday Adiyan"&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Disconnected&lt;/bold&gt; &amp;#8211; child's verbalizations are inconsistent and unrelated to one another&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Number of ideas in pre-writing verbalization: &lt;bold&gt;2&lt;/bold&gt; Number of ideas in post-writing verbalization: &lt;bold&gt;2&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0182047473-16">Transcription</hd> <p>First, we coded for transcription. Taking account of children's ability to transcribe to some degree of intentionality within a composing context is the prevailing approach to early composition assessment/measurement (Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref103">52</reflink>]); thus, we accounted for this in the current study. Children's writing samples were coded for the use of particular transcription approaches, including drawing and scribbling, using letters and letter-like shapes, using beginning invented spelling (i.e., accounting for an initial or salient sound in a word, such as writing <emph>C</emph> to represent <emph>cake</emph>), and/or using advanced invented spelling (i.e., accounting for multiple sounds within words, such as writing <emph>CK</emph> to represent <emph>cake</emph>). Children's writing could be coded for more than one feature (e.g., using drawing and letters). However, for analytic purposes, these were assigned numbers (drawing/scribbling = 1, letters and letter-like shapes without orthographic connection = 2, beginning invented spelling = 3, advanced invented spelling = 4) and children's writing was coded based upon the highest code used in the sample (e.g., if the writing demonstrated both drawing/scribbling and beginning invented spelling, the "highest" code would be given, thus, the sample would be coded as a "3"). The order of codes was based on previous research documenting the typical and expected development of transcription skills in children (e.g., C. S. Puranik &amp; Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref104">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>To ensure interrater reliability, a random subsample of approximately 15% (<emph>n</emph> = 30 samples from each task) was coded by the lead author as well as a trained coder, with moderate to strong reliability maintained across the two tasks (invitation task <emph>k</emph> =.79, list task <emph>k</emph> =.80). The remainder of the samples were coded by the lead author. A further 20% subsample (<emph>n</emph> = 79 samples) were coded independently by the lead author and a trained coder to test for drift and consistency, and coders agreed on 80% of codes (63 consistent, 16 disagreements). The disagreements were discussed and resolved. A final subsample of 10 were coded independently and codes were consistent across coders.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-17">Connection</hd> <p>To consider the connectedness of children's writing, we looked to similarities and differences between their pre-writing verbalizations and their post-writing verbalizations. In this way, we hoped to better understand the processes that children take up as they plan, enact, and review their writing in the earliest stages, addressing initial aspects of working memory and executive function processes in a rudimentary way. Composing is a black box, and by attending to children's connections between what they plan to write and what they said they wrote, we may begin to disentangle what happens when they write. Like transcription, we used a categorical code system and coded children's composing samples as either "connected," "disconnected," or "missing." For connected writing, children maintained the same verbalization pre- and post-writing (e.g., a child plans to write "come to our party" and repeats that back verbatim when asked what they did write). We also considered writing "connected" if children's pre- and post-writing verbalizations were closely matched semantically (e.g., pre-writing verbalization "let's dance" and post-writing verbalization "dance party" was counted as connected). Composing samples that were "disconnected" were those that provided pre- and post-writing verbalizations that were different from one another (e.g., child plans to write, "I love you please come to my party every day" and when asked what they wrote reflects, "an envelope"). In this code structure, we were less interested in the content or nature of shifts in ideas (see more below) but more so about whether they maintained connection between pre- and post-writing. Lastly, children coded as "missing" were those who refused either the pre- or post-verbalization (or in some cases, both).</p> <p>To ensure reliability, the authors worked together to code connection on a subsample of 15% (<emph>n</emph> = 30 samples from each task). Samples were independently coded by the two authors and compared with moderate to strong reliability consistent across the two tasks (invitation task <emph>k</emph> =.87, list task <emph>k</emph> =.86). The remainder of the sample was split and independently coded by the two authors. A further 20% subsample (<emph>n</emph> = 80 samples) was coded independently by both authors to test for drift and consistency and coders agreed on 90.32% of codes (73 consistent, 7 disagreements). The disagreements were discussed and resolved. A final subsample of 10 was coded independently and codes were consistent across coders.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-18">Discourse</hd> <p>To understand children's discourse and initial text generation and ideation within the composing context, we parsed children's verbalizations into constituents we refer to as idea units (e.g., Dowty et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref105">17</reflink>]). Thus, using a linguistic lens for data coding, we considered groups of words that function as a syntactic unit at the phrase level as one idea unit (see Figure 1). Like in previous research (see: C. S. Puranik &amp; Al Otaiba, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref106">46</reflink>], for example), phrases were counted as idea units if they contained a subject and a verb, either explicitly or implicitly stated (e.g., "you come to my party" and "come to my party" are identical, as the "you" is implied in the second example). In addition to these subject-verb clauses or units, we also counted noun and elaborated noun phrases (outside the subject-verb clause), verb or verb phrases (again, outside the subject-verb clause), objects or object phrases, sequence words (such as first, then, last), and adverbs apart from "not" as idea units.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Example of parsing and idea unit coding.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-19">Interrater reliability</hd> <p>To ensure interrater reliability and consistency of coding approaches for discourse coding, we underwent a rigorous process of independent and consensus coding, refining conceptualizations, and comparisons. Following training, subsamples of the data (10% per task over 2–3 rounds) were independently coded by the second author and two graduate research assistants. Once the proportion of agreement was 90% or greater across all three coders, the remaining samples were coded independently; however, an overlap of randomly selected samples were coded by all three (20% of remaining samples). For the list task, the proportion of agreement for the triple-coded samples ranged from 88.8%-91.7%, demonstrating consistency across coders. For the invitation task, the proportion of agreement was lower (ranging from 73.4%–81.3%). As a result, the issues were discussed and the overlap sample was consensus coded. Coders then recoded the samples that had previously been independently coded (<emph>n</emph> = 126). Proportion of agreement ranged from 88.5% to 92.9% on the recorded data, suggesting consistency. Any additional discrepancies in codes were discussed and resolved.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-20">Data analysis</hd> <p>Following data coding and interrater reliability, statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) 28 for Mac, with a.05 level of confidence. Prior to analyses, data were checked for outliers and normality; no issues were detected. Approaches to analysis included measures of central tendency, correlational analyses, chi-squared tests, and cross-tabulation analyses to address research questions around the focal three components of composing and the relationships therein.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-21">Results</hd> <p>Broadly, results suggest that children's compositions represent a variety of different skill levels across the three components. Results from each component are presented below. Additionally, relationships between the three components are explored.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-22">Transcription in a composing context</hd> <p>Children's transcription performance is presented in Table 2. Children demonstrated a variety of transcription skills across the coding levels, with higher concentrations in drawing/scribbling and letters/letter-like shapes. Approximately, 75% of the samples across both tasks were either met with drawing/scribbling (e.g., child's pre-writing and post-writing verbalizations for the invitation task are "come to the party" and their writing sample consists of linear scribbles on the page) or letters and letter-like shapes without an orthographic connection (in the list writing task, a child's pre-verbalization is "my favorite toys" and post verbalization is "A B D A O O E S O D," matching the letters the child wrote). As shown in the table, there are slight differences by task in terms of proportion at each level. Comparatively, few children used either beginning invented spelling (e.g., child's list task pre-writing verbalization was "cake, balloons, cupcakes, candy" and post-writing verbalization was "cake" and the child wrote <emph>C</emph>, accounting for one sound in the word) or advanced invented spelling (e.g., child's invitation task pre-writing verbalization was "Dear friends, make sure you come to my party" and the child wrote <emph>Dier Fieds</emph>). Across both prompts, beginning and advanced invented spelling amounted to 24% of the total sample. Children were mostly consistent with their transcription levels presenting similar approaches in response to each task (e.g., 75% of children using drawing/scribbling in the invitation task also used drawing/scribbling in the list task; 60% of the children using invented spelling in the invitation task also used it in the list task).</p> <p>Table 2. Composing performance across components.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Component/Task&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Indicators&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Transcription&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Drawing and Scribbling&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Letters and Letter-like Shapes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Beginning Invented Spelling&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Advanced Invented Spelling&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Invitation Task&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;38.4% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 76)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;38.4% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 76)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.1% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 12)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;15.2% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 30)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;List Task&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;41.4% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 82)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;32.8% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 65)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.6% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 21)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.6% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 29)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Connection&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Missing&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Disconnected&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Connected&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Invitation Task&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.61% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 15)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28.79% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 57)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;63.13% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 125)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;List Task&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.59% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 16)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;23.23% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 46)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;68.18% (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 135)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Discourse&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pre-writing Verbalization Ideas &lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt; (&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Post-writing Verbalization Ideas &lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt; (&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Invitation Task&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.48 (2.60)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.60 (2.19)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;List Task&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.12 (2.91)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.13 (2.59)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0182047473-23">Connection</hd> <p>When examining the connection between children's pre- and post-writing verbalizations, connection was varied and some differences were presented between the two tasks. The largest proportion of samples across the two tasks represented a strong connection between pre- and post-writing verbalizations. Among the sample of invitation tasks, 63.13% (<emph>n</emph> = 125) were coded as connected responses. For example, a child's pre-writing and post-writing verbalization on the invitation task was identical – "would like you to come" – and was therefore coded as connected. Among list sample, 68.18% (<emph>n</emph> = 135) were coded as demonstrating connection. In the list task, a child's pre-writing verbalization was "balloons, party hats, cakes, decorations, and love," whereas their post-writing verbalization was "party hats, cake, love, decorations." Although not an exact match, these two verbalizations contained linked and repeated ideas and structure and were coded as connected. Although fewer in number, a portion of the samples represented disconnected verbalizations, with slightly more disconnected verbalizations associated with the invitation task (28.88%, <emph>n</emph> = 57) compared to the list task (23.23%, <emph>n</emph> = 46). Disconnections included semantically unrelated pre- and post-verbalizations (e.g., a child says, "their names, my name" before writing and "moo" after writing.). Further, a small subset of samples was coded as "missing" (7.58%, <emph>n</emph> = 15 in invitation; 8.08%, <emph>n</emph> = 16 in list), in which a child chose not to provide a pre-writing and/or post-writing verbalization. Across tasks/time points, children were roughly consistent; for example, 73.6% of children who had connected verbalizations in the invitation also presented connected verbalizations in the list task (<emph>n</emph> = 92).</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-24">Discourse</hd> <p>The number of idea units differed between and within children's pre-writing and post-writing verbalizations. On average, in the invitation task, children's pre-writing verbalizations contained on average 3.48 idea units (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.60, range: 0–19); however, this number decreased on average in the post-writing verbalizations to 2.57 idea units on average (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.19, range: 0–11). For example, a child's pre-writing verbalization in the invitation task was "It's a Christmas party. Can you please come?," containing 3 ideas, while another child's post-writing verbalization in the same task was "cupcakes, hat parties, a table party, a drooby house," containing 4 ideas. In the list task, children verbalized on average 4.12 idea units before writing (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.91, range: 0–24) and 3.13 idea units after writing (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.59, range: 0–20). For example, a child's pre-writing verbalization in the list task was "a trampoline, a picture of <emph>The Grinch Stole Christmas</emph>, stickers, a doggy," containing 5 ideas, while another child's post-writing verbalization in the same task was "my mom bought me the Star Wars book and police Lego set," containing 4 ideas.</p> <p>The mean number of ideas decreased from pre-writing to post-writing verbalization, regardless of task. In the invitation task, 50.25% of children post-writing verbalizations had fewer ideas than their pre-writing verbalizations; this was true among 54.82% in the list writing task. However, not all children decreased in number of ideas in this way. Some children maintained the same number of ideas from pre- to post-writing (30.46% in invitation task, 24.37% in list task) and others increased the number of ideas (19.29% in invitation task, 20.81% in list task). Using correlational analyses, children's discourse correlated across task, rather than within task. For example, the number of idea units in the list pre-writing verbalization was correlated with the number of idea units in the invitation pre-writing verbalization (<emph>r</emph> =.37, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01) but was not correlated to a statistically significant degree to the number of ideas in the post-writing of the list task (<emph>r</emph> =.14, <emph>p</emph> =.054). This was consistent across both tasks and both verbalizations, demonstrating transformations occurring from pre-writing to post-writing, but less variability between the two tasks. Partial correlations suggest that controlling for age and gender does not impact these relationships: pre- and post-writing verbalizations are related to one another to a statistically significant degree regardless (<emph>r</emph>s =.36 [pre] and.38 [post], <emph>p</emph>s &gt;.001).</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-25">Relationships between composing components</hd> <p>When considering the relationships between the three components of transcription, connection, and discourse, cross-tabulation analyses were used to understand the ways in which these various components interact (see Table 3). When considering the invitation task, with children demonstrating emerging transcription skills, they were roughly split in terms of their connection (e.g., of children using drawing/scribbling in their invitation task, 35.14% demonstrated disconnection between pre/post verbalizations <emph>n</emph> = 26, 56.8% demonstrated connected pre/post verbalizations <emph>n</emph> = 42, and 8.1% were missing one or both verbalizations <emph>n</emph> = 6). In contrast, among children demonstrating either beginning or advanced invented spelling, children more often demonstrated connection between pre- and post-writing verbalizations (68.89%, <emph>n</emph> = 31) compared to disconnection (22.22%, <emph>n</emph> = 10) or missing responses (8.89%, <emph>n</emph> = 4). Chi-square analyses denote a significant association between transcription and connection (<emph>Χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref107">8</reflink>) = 35.31, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001).</p> <p>Table 3. Relationships between components.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Component&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Discourse&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Invitation &lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt; ideas (&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;List &lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt; ideas (&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Planning&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Review&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Difference&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Planning&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Review&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Difference&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Transcription&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;% Connected&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;% Connected&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Scribbling/Drawing&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.18 (1.96)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.32 (2.13)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;.85 (2.58)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;56.76%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.93 (2.54)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.49 (3.28)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;.43 (3.89)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;65.43%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Letters/Letter-likes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.50 (2.37)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.74 (1.91)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;.76 (2.29)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;68.92%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.05 (3.04)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.80 (1.95)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;1.25 (3.71)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;64.62%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Beginning Invented Spelling&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.25 (1.86)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.33 (2.84)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.08 (2.23)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;75%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.45 (1.70)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.35 (1.87)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;2.10 (2.59)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;76.19%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Advanced Invented Spelling&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.54 (4.03)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.64 (2.33)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;1.91 (4.27)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;70%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.68 (3.98)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.29 (1.92)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;1.39 (2.91)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;82.76%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Connection&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Missing&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3 (4.81)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.60 (4.15)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.25 (5.22)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.75 (5.83)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Disconnected&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.11 (2.06)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.49 (2.05)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;.61 (2.26)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.57 (2.38)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.54 (1.67)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;1.02 (2.26)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Connected&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.71 (2.46)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.66 (1.93)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;1.06 (2.50)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.29 (2.70)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.38 (2.21)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;.91 (2.78)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Similar results appear in the list task: among children using drawing/scribbling, 65.43% (<emph>n</emph> = 53) demonstrated connection in verbalizations, 27.16% (<emph>n</emph> = 22) demonstrated disconnection in verbalizations, and 7.41% (<emph>n</emph> = 6) had one or both verbalizations missing. Among those demonstrating beginning or advanced invented spelling in the list task, 80.39% (<emph>n</emph> = 41) also had connected verbalizations, 11.76% (<emph>n</emph> = 6) demonstrated disconnection in their verbalizations, and 7.84% (<emph>n</emph> = 4) were missing either or both a pre- and/or post-writing verbalization. As shown in Table 3, children with higher transcription levels (beginning or advanced invented spelling) demonstrated higher levels of connection than children using less developed transcription forms in their composing. The relationship between transcription and connection was also significant in the context of the list task (<emph>Χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref108">8</reflink>) = 17.26, <emph>p</emph> =.03).</p> <p>When considering connection levels and discourse, on average, children decreased in ideas from pre-writing verbalization to post-writing. Additionally, regardless of connection level, children's average number of ideas was roughly equivalent. For example, in the invitation task, missing pre-writing verbalization ideas = 3.00 (<emph>SD</emph> = 4.81) and post-writing verbalization ideas = 2.60 (<emph>SD</emph> = 4.15); disconnected pre-writing verbalization ideas = 3.11 (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.06) and post-writing verbalization ideas = 2.49 (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.05); last, connected pre-writing verbalization ideas = 3.71 (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.46) and post-writing verbalization ideas = 2.66 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.93). Similar results appear in the list task samples: missing pre-writing verbalization ideas = 4.25 (<emph>SD</emph> = 5.22) and post-writing verbalization ideas = 2.75 (<emph>SD</emph> = 5.83); disconnected pre-writing verbalization ideas = 3.57 (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.38) and post-writing verbalization ideas = 2.54 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.67); last, connected pre-writing verbalization ideas = 4.29 (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.70) and post-writing verbalization ideas = 3.38 (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.21).</p> <p>Further, we considered the ways in which children's discourse changed from pre- to post-writing verbalizations. Among the four main transcription categories in the invitation task, the greatest change was among those children demonstrating the most sophisticated writing (advanced invented spelling) who on average reduced ideas from pre- to post-writing by 1.91. In contrast, on average, children using beginning invented spelling increased their ideas minimally (.08) while those who used scribbling/drawing or letters and letter-like shapes decreased more minimally from pre- to post (−.85 and −.76, respectively). When examining list samples, children writing letters and letter-like shapes (<emph>M</emph> = −1.25), beginning invented spelling (<emph>M</emph> = −2.10), and advanced invented spelling (<emph>M</emph> = −1.39) all decreased the number of ideas when comparing their pre- to post-writing verbalizations to varying degrees. Samples in which drawing/scribbling was used also reduced ideas but to a lesser extent (<emph>M</emph> = −.43). There were no clear patterns of discourse transformations from different transcription levels. Considering groups that either represent reducing ideas, maintaining ideas, and adding ideas are not significantly related to transcription level (invitation: <emph>Χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref109">8</reflink>) = 8.89, <emph>p</emph> =.352; list: <emph>Χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref110">8</reflink>) = 10. 39 <emph>p</emph> =.239).</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-26">Discussion</hd> <p>This study attempted to document a potential assessment approach for young children's composing. Drawing from Berninger and Winn ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref111">6</reflink>]) and C. S. Puranik and Lonigan ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref112">51</reflink>]), we define composing as the process by which children draw from a variety of skills and processes including conceptual knowledge, transcription skills, generative skills, executive functioning, and working memory to create products that capture their ideas in print, drawing, or verbal language. Specifically, this study explored (a) the transcription levels children demonstrated within a composing context, (b) the connectedness between children's pre-writing and post-writing verbalizations, (c) the number of ideas present in their verbalizations, and (d) the relationships between these composing components. This work yields considerable insights for researchers and practitioners explored below.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-27">"I don't know how to write!": Children's developing composition skills</hd> <p>While theoretically, composing and transcription are separate processes contributing to overall writing (e.g., Berninger &amp; Winn, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref113">6</reflink>], Juel et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref114">27</reflink>]; C. S. Puranik &amp; Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref115">51</reflink>]), these components overlap in critical ways, including how transcription can be used to understand composing. This study provides critical, initial understandings for how these interdependent and often convergent processes relate to one another. Across both tasks, children deployed variable transcription approaches, connection levels, and idea units. Further examination of the relationships between these composing components yielded insights into the ways in which composing subskills are variably used by children at different development stages and with differing skill levels. Theoretically, children's verbal compositions are rich and robust until they learn that there is a direct relationship between what one wants to write and what is written. It is at this point that children's composing becomes constrained by their transcription levels (e.g., Quinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref116">54</reflink>]). Our expectation was that children with many ideas might demonstrate less sophisticated writing in terms of transcription, while those with advanced transcription skills may offer few ideas (to dedicate cognitive energy to accurately writing those ideas). Our results indicate a more complex picture and one that seems to perhaps be task specific. As noted in Table 3, in the list task, the average pre-writing ideas increased with transcription sophistication while the decrease in idea units from pre- to post-writing were more intensified with those children who were demonstrating beginning invented spelling compared to other types of transcription. In contrast, this group (beginning invented spelling) saw the smallest changes from pre- to post-writing in the invitation task. Similar to the list task, lower levels of transcription demonstrated, on average, fewer ideas. The greatest change in the invitation task from pre- to post-writing were those children with the most advanced transcription.</p> <p>These findings, depending on task (e.g., invitation, list), align with and contrast with previous work that suggest that children with less developed transcription also may lack connection and translation (e.g., Quinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref117">54</reflink>]; Rowe &amp; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref118">58</reflink>]). Additionally, these findings reflect that early composing is task dependent and children respond differentially based upon the task context they are confronted with (e.g., Bus et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref119">10</reflink>]; Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref120">53</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref121">53</reflink>]). These findings speak to the need to better understand the influence of both transcription and task, and their interaction, on children's discourse processes when composing. It is possible that the nature of these tasks contributed to these differences. For example, because of the familiarity and its somewhat constrained nature, the list task may have yielded a greater number of idea units compared to the invitation task, particularly from children with more advanced writing skills.</p> <p>The degree to which the relationship between components depends on the orthography in which the child is writing is as yet unknown. This work represents initial glimpses into connections between composing components and suggests relationships across components in varying ways dependent on development. Extant literature in non-English orthographies also documents linkages between transcription and discourse (e.g., Spanish – Jiménez &amp; Hernández-Cabrera, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref122">26</reflink>]) and between connection and writing quality across multiple components (e.g., Italian – Pinto et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref123">43</reflink>]). More research is needed, across orthographies, to understand the ways in which these components interact and develop independently and collectively across time.</p> <p>Additionally, the degree to which the relationship between components is mediated by working memory and self-regulation was not a focus of this study and remains unclear. For example, the sequential and concurrent cognitive flexibility demands (see Podjarny et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref124">44</reflink>]) of early composing tasks are not clear, as children toggle between working with ideas and capturing those ideas in print, and may have a developmental component.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-28">"What did I say I was going to write?": Memory, self-regulation, and writing</hd> <p>This type of assessment requires that children can remember their pre-writing plan, write accordingly, and recall something when reviewing that aligns with or resembles their writing and their pre-writing verbalization. As a result, children's working and short-term memories and their self-regulation weigh on their ability to participate and perform well. Extant literature reinforces the important connections between early writing and self-regulation, but the relationship between these constructs is not immediately clear, with some research showing cross-lagged significance (e.g., Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref125">70</reflink>]) and others not (C. Puranik &amp; Li, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref126">49</reflink>]). Importantly, however, a growing body of research is examining the writing and self-regulation connection and finding, for example, that children perhaps draw differentially on self-regulation depending on the task and their developmental level (e.g., C. S. Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref127">47</reflink>]; Wickstrom &amp; Pelletier, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref128">68</reflink>]). Relatedly, research suggests that self-regulation is critical in serving a moderating role, impacting the relationship between early writing and fine motor skills (Chandler et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref129">12</reflink>]). Limited research has specifically connected self-regulation and working memory to very early composing (e.g., Quinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref130">54</reflink>]); however, current literature documents robust connections between self-regulation and various aspects of more advanced composing (e.g., among Portuguese 2nd-graders – Cordeiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref131">15</reflink>]; among Icelandic 2nd-graders – Oddsdóttir et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref132">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>This mirrors and supports the current study. We found that children's pre- and post-writing verbalizations demonstrated various levels of connection but with connection more likely occurring among children with more advanced transcription who also likely have more developed self-regulation skills they are drawing upon to execute the tasks. Research suggests working memory is critical for early learning processes (e.g., Preßler et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref133">45</reflink>]). Though outside of the scope of this study, it would be beneficial to directly understand relationships between working memory, self-regulation, and burgeoning composition skills.</p> <p>In the current study, pre- and post-writing verbalizations are artifacts of children's working memory. It is further critical to understand the ways in which the ideas (i.e., discourse) shifted or transformed from the pre- to the post-verbalization as a means of further encapsulating the ways in which self-regulation and working memory are manifested in children's work. However, it is worth noting that the actual physical writing process may lead to some of these transformations. For example, a child may provide considerable ideas in the pre-writing verbalization, then write, and when recalling what was written, name far fewer ideas – not because he has forgotten, but rather because the writing did not reflect the initial plan. Future research should seek to examine the ways in which children transform ideas during writing to understand the ways in which their writing, working memory, and self-regulation are interacting.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-29">"What should I write next?": Implications for the field</hd> <p>Research demonstrates that when asked to interpret children's early writing, teachers focus more attention on children's transcription skills rather than attending to composition (e.g., Bingham et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref134">7</reflink>]; Mackenzie &amp; Petriwskyj, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref135">34</reflink>]). Research also documents the ways in which teacher beliefs and practices about writing are entwined, finding that teachers often hold narrow beliefs around the nature of writing (i.e., with a focus on letter formation) and that these beliefs appear to be aligned with their practices (i.e., focusing instruction and supports for children's writing around their forming of letters, rather than on composing) (Bingham et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref136">7</reflink>]; Gerde, Wright, et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref137">20</reflink>]). Similarly, in research, the field is dominated by assessments of "writing" that focus solely children's transcription levels (e.g., Quinn &amp; Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref138">52</reflink>]). While these skills are critical to development and provide insight into children's writing, they do not tell the complete story. This study further emphasizes the need for comprehensive instruction including both transcription and composing skills so that they can develop in tandem. For beginning writers with more robust ideas and verbalizations here and in prior research (Quinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref139">54</reflink>]), it is important to embed opportunities to develop transcription in developmentally appropriate ways (e.g., drawing children's attention to writing, letter forms, and words to build conceptual knowledge). Meanwhile, for children who are more advanced in writing development, an emphasis on letter forms or orthography may constrain ideas; thus, it is important to bring balance and provide composition opportunities in which some of the transcription pieces could be scaffolded (e.g., prompts, mentor texts, word cards, providing spellings or support with letter formation), alleviating the cognitive burden associated and open space for more creative idea generation (see: Quinn &amp; Rohloff, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref140">55</reflink>]). Further, this study suggests the need for more planning-reviewing times for children. Although this approach, in this case, was used in a testing context rather than a naturalistic, instructional context, the ways in which children took up the writing process, transformed ideas, and were able to participate in writing prompts were further supported by the pre-writing and post-writing verbalization structure, suggesting this approach may be a promising one for use in classroom contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-30">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study, addressing questions of composition skills in young children, provides insights into the nature and relationship between composing components of transcription, connection, and discourse, suggesting the wide variability of children's skills in these areas and emphasizing the need for instructional opportunities that support these components as children develop writing skills and understandings.</p> <hd id="AN0182047473-31">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0182047473-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref59" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, A., Simmons, F. R., Willis, C. S., &amp; Porter, S. (2013). The impact of the development of verbal recoding on children's early writing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 76 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02056.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmad, H. A., &amp; Share, D. L. (2021). Foundations of early literacy among Arabic-speaking pre-school children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42 (5), 1195 – 1220. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716421000242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref19" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aram, D. (2005). Continuity in children's literacy achievements: A longitudinal perspective from kindergarten to school. First Language, 25 (3), 259 – 289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723705050339</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Aram, D., Hazan, H., &amp; Zohar, M. (2023). Characteristics of preschoolers' early spelling in hebrew. Reading and Writing, 36 (3), 491 – 515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10305-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref24" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham, S., &amp; Richards, T. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35 (1), 39 – 56. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref11" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger, V. W., &amp; Winn, W. D. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, &amp; J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96 – 114). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref134" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bingham, G. E., Gerde, H. K., Pikus, A. E., Rohloff, R., Quinn, M. F., Bowles, R. P., &amp; Zhang, X. Y. (2022). Examining teachers' early writing knowledge and practices. Reading and Writing, 35 (9), 2201 – 2227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10299-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref27" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bingham, G. E., Quinn, M. F., &amp; Gerde, H. K. (2017). Examining early childhood teachers' writing practices: Associations between pedagogical supports and children's writing skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 39, 35 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref86" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Boudreau, D. (2008). Narrative abilities: Advances in research and implications for clinical practice. Topics in Language Disorders, 28 (2), 99 – 114. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.tld.0000318932.08807.da</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bus, A. G., Both de Vries, A. C., de Jong, M. T., Sulzby, E., de Jong, W., &amp; de Jong, E. (2001). Conceptualizations underlying emergent readers' story writing. Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, K., Chen, Y. J., Shenoy, S., &amp; Cunningham, A. E. (2019). Preschool children's early writing: Repeated measures reveal growing but variable trajectories. Reading and Writing, 32 (4), 939 – 961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9893-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chandler, M. C., Gerde, H. K., Bowles, R. P., McRoy, K. Z., Pontifex, M. B., &amp; Bingham, G. E. (2021). Self-regulation moderates the relationship between fine motor skills and writing in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 57, 239 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.06.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, S., &amp; Zhou, J. (2010). Creative writing strategies of young children: Evidence from a study of Chinese emergent writing. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5 (3), 138 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coker, D. L., Jr., &amp; Ritchey, K. D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of writing in kindergarten and first grade: An investigation of production and qualitative scores. Exceptional Children, 76 (2), 175 – 193. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cordeiro, C., Limpo, T., Olive, T., &amp; Castro, S. L. (2020). Do executive functions contribute to writing quality in beginning writers? A longitudinal study with second graders. Reading and Writing, 33 (4), 813 – 833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09963-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamond, K. E., Gerde, H. K., &amp; Powell, D. R. (2008). Development in early literacy skills during the pre-kindergarten year in head start: Relations between growth in children's writing and understanding of letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23 (4), 467 – 478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.05.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dowty, D. R., Karttunen, L., &amp; Zwicky, A. M. (2005). Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerde, H. K., Bingham, G. E., &amp; Pendergast, M. L. (2015). Reliability and validity of the writing resources and interactions in teaching environments (WRITE) for preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 34 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerde, H. K., Skibbe, L. E., Wright, T. S., &amp; Douglas, S. N. (2019). Evaluation of head start curricula for standards-based writing instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47 (1), 97 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0906-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerde, H. K., Wright, T. S., &amp; Bingham, G. E. (2019). Preschool teachers' beliefs about and instruction for writing. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 40 (4), 326 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2019.1593899</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo, Y., Breit-Smith, A., Hall, A. H., &amp; Biales, C. (2018). Exploring preschool-age children's ability to write letters. Journal of Research in Education, 28 (2), 43 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harmey, S. J., &amp; Wilkinson, I. A. (2019). A critical review of the logics of inquiry in studies of early writing development. Journal of Writing Research, 11 (1), 41 – 78. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.01.02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A., &amp; Burke, C. L. (1984). Examining our assumptions: A transactional view of literacy and learning. Research in the Teaching of English, 18 (1), 84 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, J. R., &amp; Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg &amp; J. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3 – 30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooper, S. R., Roberts, J. E., Nelson, L., Zeisel, S., &amp; Kasambira Fannin, D. (2010). Preschool predictors of narrative writing skills in elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 25 (1), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018329</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez, J. E., &amp; Hernández-Cabrera, J. A. (2019). Transcription skills and written composition in Spanish beginning writers: Pen and keyboard modes. Reading and Writing, 32 (7), 1847 – 1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9928-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., &amp; Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 (4), 243 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaderavek, J. N., Cabell, S. Q., &amp; Justice, L. M. (2009). Early writing and spelling development. In P. M. Rhymer (Ed.), Emergent literacy and language development: Promoting learning in early childhood (pp. 104 – 152). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y.-S. G., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C. S., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., &amp; Wagner, R. K. (2011). Componential skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21 (5), 517 – 525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin, I., Both De Vries, A., Aram, D., &amp; Bus, A. (2005). Writing starts with own name writing: From scribbling to conventional spelling in Israeli and Dutch children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26 (3), 463 – 477. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716405050253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin, I., &amp; Bus, A. G. (2003). How is emergent writing based on drawing? Analyses of children's products and their sorting by children and mothers. Developmental Psychology, 39 (5), 891 – 905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.5.891</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin, I., &amp; Landsmann, L. T. (1989). Becoming literate: Referential and phonetic strategies in early reading and writing. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12 (3), 369 – 384. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548901200306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leyva, D., Reese, E., &amp; Wiser, M. (2012). Early understanding of the functions of print: Parent-child interaction and preschoolers' notating skills. First Language, 32 (3), 301 – 323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723711410793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mackenzie, N. M., &amp; Petriwskyj, A. (2017). Understanding and supporting young writers: Opening the school gate. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42 (2), 78 – 87. https://doi.org/10.23965/ajec.42.2.10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manfra, L., Squires, C., Dinehart, L. H., Bleiker, C., Hartman, S. C., &amp; Winsler, A. (2017). Preschool writing and premathematics predict grade 3 achievement for low-income, ethnically diverse children. The Journal of Educational Research, 110 (5), 528 – 537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1145095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molfese, V. J., Beswick, J. L., Jacobi-Vessels, J. L., Armstrong, N. E., Culver, B. L., White, J. M., Ferguson, M. C., Rudasill, K. M., &amp; Molfese, D. L. (2011). Evidence of alphabetic knowledge in writing: Connections to letter and word identification skills in preschool and kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 24 (2), 133 – 150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9265-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel. National Institute for Literacy. <ulink href="http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html">http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neumann, M. M., Hood, M., &amp; Ford, R. M. (2012). Mother-child joint writing in an environmental print setting: Relations with emergent literacy. Early Child Development and Care, 182 (10), 1349 – 1369. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.615928</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oddsdóttir, R., Ragnarsdóttir, H., &amp; Skúlason, S. (2021). The effect of transcription skills, text generation, and self-regulation on Icelandic children's text writing. Reading and Writing, 34 (2), 391 – 416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10074-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Neill, D. K., Pearce, M. J., &amp; Pick, J. L. (2004). Preschool children's narratives and performance on the peabody individualized achievement test–revised: Evidence of a relation between early narrative and later mathematical ability. First Language, 24 (2), 149 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723704043529</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40 (2), 184 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.40.2.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pavelko, S. L., Lieberman, R. J., Schwartz, J., Hahs-Vaughn, D., &amp; Nye, C. (2017). The development of writing skills in 4-year-old children with and without specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics &amp; Phonetics, 31 (7–9), 682 – 696. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2017.1310298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinto, G., Tarchi, C., &amp; Bigozzi, L. (2015). The relationship between oral and written narratives: A three‐year longitudinal study of narrative cohesion, coherence, and structure. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 551 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12091</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podjarny, G., Kamawar, D., &amp; Andrews, K. (2022). Two birds in the hand: Concurrent and switching cognitive flexibility in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 220, 105418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105418</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preßler, A. L., Krajewski, K., &amp; Hasselhorn, M. (2013). Working memory capacity in preschool children contributes to the acquisition of school relevant precursor skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 138 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik, C. S., &amp; Al Otaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing, 25 (7), 1523 – 1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9331-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik, C. S., Boss, E., &amp; Wanless, S. (2019). Relations between self-regulation and early writing: Domain specific or task dependent? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 228 – 239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik, C., Duncan, M., Li, H., &amp; Ying, G. (2020). Exploring the dimensionality of kindergarten written composition. Reading and Writing, 33 (10), 2481 – 2510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10053-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik, C., &amp; Li, H. (2022). Self-regulation and early writing: A longitudinal examination from preschool through first grade. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 220, 105420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105420</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik, C. S., &amp; Lonigan, C. J. (2011). From scribbles to scrabble: Preschool children's developing knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing, 24 (5), 567 – 589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9220-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik, C. S., &amp; Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Emergent writing in preschoolers: Preliminary evidence for a theoretical framework. Reading Research Quarterly, 49 (4), 453 – 467. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.79</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, M. F., &amp; Bingham, G. E. (2019). The nature and measurement of children's early composing. Reading Research Quarterly, 54 (2), 213 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, M. F., &amp; Bingham, G. E. (2022). Examining early composing: Children's differential writing performance based on task context and scoring conceptualization. Early Education and Development, 33 (1), 139 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1857167</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, M. F., Bingham, G. E., &amp; Gerde, H. K. (2021). Who writes what when?: Examining children's early composing. Reading and Writing, 34 (1), 79 – 107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10063-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, M. F., &amp; Rohloff, R. (2023). Not just handwriting and spelling: Assessing early composing skills. YC Young Children, 78 (1), 24 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Razak, R. A., Madison, C. L., Siow, Y. K., &amp; Aziz, M. A. A. (2010). Preliminary content validity and reliability of a newly developed Malay preschool language assessment tool. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 13 (4), 217 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1179/136132810805334985</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, D. W., &amp; Miller, M. E. (2016). Designing for diverse classrooms: Using iPads and digital cameras to compose eBooks with emergent bilingual/biliterate four-year-olds. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16 (4), 425 – 472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798415593622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, D. W., &amp; Wilson, S. J. (2015). The development of a descriptive measure of early childhood writing: Results from the write Start! writing assessment. Journal of Literacy Research, 47 (2), 245 – 292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15619723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scarborough, H. S. (2002). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman &amp; D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97 – 110). Guildford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schickedanz, J. A., &amp; Casbergue, R. M. (2009). Writing in preschool: Learning to orchestrate marks and meaning (2nd ed.). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siew, S. K., &amp; Nor, M. B. M. (2019). Supporting preschool children's early writing with self-regulated learning strategies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 13 (2), 69 – 93. https://doi.org/10.17206/apjrece.2019.13.2.69</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skibbe, L. E., Bindman, S. W., Hindman, A. H., Aram, D., &amp; Morrison, F. J. (2013). Longitudinal relations between parental writing support and preschoolers' language and literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 48 (4), 387 – 401. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.55</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stellakis, N., &amp; Kondyli, M. (2004). The emergence of writing: Children's writing during the pre-alphabetic spelling phase. L1–Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4 (2–3), 129 – 150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10674-004-1629-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teale, W. H., &amp; Sulzby, E. (1986). Introduction: Emergent literacy as a perspective for examining how young children become writers and readers. In W. H. Teale &amp; E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. vii – xxv). Ablex Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, L. J., Gerde, H. K., Piasta, S. B., Logan, J. A., Bailet, L. L., &amp; Zettler-Greeley, C. M. (2020). The early writing skills of children identified as at-risk for literacy difficulties. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 51, 392 – 402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolchinsky-Landsmann, L., &amp; Levin, I. (1985). Writing in preschoolers: An age-related analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6 (3), 319 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400006238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tortorelli, L. S., Gerde, H. K., Rohloff, R., &amp; Bingham, G. E. (2021). Ready, set, write: Early learning standards for writing in the common core era. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (2), 729 – 752. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wickstrom, H., &amp; Pelletier, J. (2021). Understanding the relation between behavioral self-regulation, academic learning, and children's drawings in kindergarten. Early Child Development and Care, 191 (6), 906 – 920. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1651304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zecker, L. B. (1999). Different texts, different emergent writing forms. Language Arts, 76 (6), 483 – 490. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00423922</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, C., Bingham, G. E., &amp; Quinn, M. F. (2017). The associations among preschool children's growth in early reading, executive function, and invented spelling skills. Reading and Writing, 30 (8), 1705 – 1728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9746-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, C., Bingham, G. E., Zhang, X., Schmitt, S. A., Purpura, D. J., &amp; Yang, F. (2020). Untangling Chinese preschoolers' early writing development: Associations among early reading, executive functioning, and early writing skills. Reading and Writing, 33 (5), 1263 – 1294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-10006-3</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Margaret F. Quinn and Rebecca Rohloff</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref140"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1456344 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Understanding Young Children's Composition across Three Key Components: Transcription, Connection, and Discourse – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Margaret+F%2E+Quinn%22">Margaret F. Quinn</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7838-8330">0000-0001-7838-8330</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rebecca+Rohloff%22">Rebecca Rohloff</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Childhood+Education%22"><i>Journal of Research in Childhood Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 39(1):42-60. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 19 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Writing%22">Childrens Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emergent+Literacy%22">Emergent Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Exercises%22">Writing Exercises</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Skills%22">Writing Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonetic+Transcription%22">Phonetic Transcription</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Processes%22">Writing Processes</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/02568543.2024.2326139 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0256-8543<br />2150-2641 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Early writing (i.e. young children's emerging skills prior to the onset of skilled writing) provides important foundations for literacy; however, its components are not evenly understood, assessed, or supported. Transcription skills (handwriting/spelling) are emphasized, while other aspects of composing are often sidelined. Understanding multiple composing components, including transcription, is critical. This study, examining a large corpus of composing samples (N = 394 samples) across two writing tasks, explores composing using a holistic conceptual frame and includes components of transcription in context (handwriting and spelling), connection (relationship between pre- and post-writing verbalizations), and discourse (quantity of ideas expressed). The results demonstrate variable skills (38%-41% of samples using scribbling and drawing; 63%-68% demonstrating connection between pre- and post-writing verbalizations) and further demonstrate that children express more ideas prior to writing, compared to following writing, on average (M = 3.48-4.12 ideas in pre-writing verbalization; M = 2.60-3.13 in post-writing verbalization), suggesting that many children transform and shorten their writing naturalistically and without prompting. Relationships between components were inconsistent (transcription and connection significantly related, ps < 0.05; other relationships were nonsignificant, ps > 0.05). The study provides insights into children's writing processes and has implications for instruction and assessment. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1456344 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1456344 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/02568543.2024.2326139 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 19 StartPage: 42 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Young Children Type: general – SubjectFull: Kindergarten Type: general – SubjectFull: Preschool Children Type: general – SubjectFull: Childrens Writing Type: general – SubjectFull: Emergent Literacy Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Exercises Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Phonetic Transcription Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Processes Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Understanding Young Children's Composition across Three Key Components: Transcription, Connection, and Discourse Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Margaret F. Quinn – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Rebecca Rohloff IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0256-8543 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 2150-2641 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 39 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Childhood Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
