Current Writing Assessment Practices of Kindergarten through Second Grade Educators
Saved in:
| Title: | Current Writing Assessment Practices of Kindergarten through Second Grade Educators |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Meaghan McKenna (ORCID |
| Source: | Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2025 38(1):95-119. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 25 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Early Childhood Education Preschool Education Elementary Education Kindergarten Primary Education |
| Descriptors: | Writing Evaluation, Writing Instruction, Preschool Teachers, Kindergarten, Elementary School Teachers, Elementary Education, Beginning Writing, Writing Tests, Test Format, Scoring, Student Evaluation, Evaluation Methods |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11145-023-10503-6 |
| ISSN: | 0922-4777 1573-0905 |
| Abstract: | This article describes the development and administration of the "Kindergarten-Second Grade (K-2) Writing Data-Based Decision Making (DBDM) Survey." The "K-2 Writing DBDM Survey" was developed to learn more about current DBDM practices specific to early writing. A total of 376 educational professionals (175 general education classroom teachers, 42 special education teachers, 118 speech-language pathologists, and 41 specialists (e.g., interventionists, coaches, educators supporting emergent bilinguals) who work with kindergarten, first, and/or second grade students in school settings in the United States participated in this survey study. Results include participant responses to 32 closed-ended items and 2 open-ended items covering five domains: (a) demographic information; (b) assessment(s) types, (c) administration procedures, (d) scoring procedures, and (e) information gathered. Descriptive and regression analyses were applied to summarize the survey results. Findings from this survey indicated that even with limited or no guidance, some educators within all groups of professionals surveyed are assessing students. However, ongoing improvements need to be made to prioritize writing upon school entry. These results remind us of the importance of partnership with educators to ensure accurate understanding of resources available for assessment, current areas of need, and how implementation can feasibly occur in the practice setting when developing and studying approaches to assessment. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1458041 |
| 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_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHWlR5uC4WuuWENuaYJ-4l5AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA4dm8a5Ka7_IO_qkgIBEICBm-I3zlRw7jNDbD9301Lr7uCyohC4MEe1sR9diD59dxhSAE7OQ7LM8RI557gJDGpYBBevH53jglPyUTvINzAXcdvNpaFyz-CXePca880s8baEs8hOeCfKlDyxZb0Wpd1kD5VLA08UKzVkbvXVAF_TOYL3X_6y67I8oCtHBYeDR5YHgiagKm3v3ED8JuNAehQlFP-rwS00gy4gh5R2 Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0182347461;2ap01jan.25;2025Jan23.04:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182347461-1">Current writing assessment practices of kindergarten through second grade educators </title> <p>This article describes the development and administration of the Kindergarten-Second Grade (K-2) Writing Data-Based Decision Making (DBDM) Survey. The K-2 Writing DBDM Survey was developed to learn more about current DBDM practices specific to early writing. A total of 376 educational professionals (175 general education classroom teachers, 42 special education teachers, 118 speech-language pathologists, and 41 specialists (e.g., interventionists, coaches, educators supporting emergent bilinguals) who work with kindergarten, first, and/or second grade students in school settings in the United States participated in this survey study. Results include participant responses to 32 closed-ended items and 2 open-ended items covering five domains: (a) demographic information; (b) assessment(s) types, (c) administration procedures, (d) scoring procedures, and (e) information gathered. Descriptive and regression analyses were applied to summarize the survey results. Findings from this survey indicated that even with limited or no guidance, some educators within all groups of professionals surveyed are assessing students. However, ongoing improvements need to be made to prioritize writing upon school entry. These results remind us of the importance of partnership with educators to ensure accurate understanding of resources available for assessment, current areas of need, and how implementation can feasibly occur in the practice setting when developing and studying approaches to assessment.</p> <p>Keywords: Kindergarten; First grade; Second grade; Writing; Assessment; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10503-6.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Although the ability to express one's thoughts in writing is critical for success in school and the workplace, the most recent reports from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicate that only 28% of fourth grade students demonstrate writing proficiency. This problem persists as students advance in grade level as only 25% of children are proficient writers in eighth or twelfth grade (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref1">77</reflink>]). Writing skills of young children predict academic success in early elementary grades (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref2">59</reflink>]; Manfra et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref3">68</reflink>]). Despite the clear need to improve writing for young children, writing research has attracted little attention compared with research on reading and math (Mo et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref4">75</reflink>]). Juel ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref5">50</reflink>]) and Abbott et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]) demonstrated that like reading, writing difficulty persists as children progress through school. Research reports that planned targeted instruction based on data positively impacts student performance in reading (e.g., Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]) and math (e.g., van Geel et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref8">93</reflink>]). Districts and schools are increasingly expected to use data to assess and interpret student response to core and tiered instruction (Bondie et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref9">17</reflink>]), yet little is known pertaining to writing data-based decision making (DBDM), especially for the early grades where the growth trajectories of children's writing development are formed.</p> <p>DBDM consists of using data to identify students' strengths and opportunities for growth, selecting and implementing evidence-based practices and interventions (e.g., use of self-regulated strategy development when providing instruction on all components in the writing process from planning to revising/editing for multiple genres (see Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref10">39</reflink>]; Troia, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref11">91</reflink>]), monitoring the progress of students' responsiveness to instruction, and making adjustments based on data. The continuous use of this high-impact action leads to improvements in teacher practices and student outcomes (e.g., Carlson et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]; Jung et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref13">52</reflink>]). Thus, there is an increasing expectation of educators to participate in data collection, utilization, and analysis (Ebbeler et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]; Mandinach &amp; Schildkamp, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref15">67</reflink>]) to maximize the effectiveness of instruction (McMaster et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref16">73</reflink>]). While all schools are increasingly expected to use data to drive decision making as indicated in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]), information regarding how DBDM can be implemented to improve early writing is limited.</p> <p>To engage in DBDM in the earliest elementary grades (kindergarten-second), assessment data are needed. Assessment data should inform present levels of student performance specific to beginning writers. Beginning writing skills are informed by theoretical frameworks, state standards, and knowledge from experts (both researchers and practitioners). The <emph>Simple View of Writing (SVW)</emph> Theory (Juel et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref18">50</reflink>]) conceptualizes and thus, calls us to assess both transcription (handwriting, spelling, upper/lowercase letter use, punctuation) and text generation (planning, and organization of writing, sentence structure, vocabulary, and topic maintenance). State academic standards exist for all skills within the <emph>SVW</emph>. For example, transcription standards include printing upper/lowercase letters, capitalization of the first word in a sentence, use of proper nouns, and pronoun I; use of punctuation (end of sentences, commas, apostrophes); and phonetic spelling for untaught words and conventional spelling for words with common vowel patterns. Text generation standards include production and expansion of simple and compound sentences; use of nouns, verbs, prepositions, adjectives, and adverbs; as well as recall of information from experiences or gathering of information from provided sources to answer a question and focusing on a topic and strengthening writing through revising and editing. Vygotsky's sociocultural theory (1978) supports active collaboration in the classroom amongst teachers and students throughout the writing process to support writing development. There are also standards that address peer collaboration and responding to the questions and suggestions provided by peers. Additionally, standards call for composition of all genres (narrative, informational, and opinion) beginning in kindergarten. Assessments are administered to obtain data, however, the bulk of writing assessment research occurs in upper grade levels (Philippakos &amp; FitzPatrick, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref19">79</reflink>]). When Behizadeh and Pang ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref20">12</reflink>]) conducted a document analysis of state writing assessment formats and scoring practices in the United States, the earliest grade level referenced was third. The administration of the NAEP does not begin until grade four. Although all elementary grade levels were included in Graham et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref21">37</reflink>]) meta-analysis of true and quasi-experimental studies evaluating the effectiveness of formative writing assessments, findings yielded the earliest grade level containing studies was second with the smallest percentage (8%) of included studies (3 of 39).</p> <p>A variety of methods for collecting data to measure the writing of children in early elementary grades have been developed. These include assessments with technical adequacy such as the Written Expression Curriculum Based Measures (WE-CBMs) (e.g., Coker &amp; Ritchey, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]; McMaster &amp; Espin, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref23">72</reflink>]) and Early Written Expression Screeners (Keller-Margulis et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref24">54</reflink>]); the Test of Early Written Language—Third Edition (Hresko et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref25">46</reflink>]), Kauffman Test of Educational Achievement—Written Expression subtests (Kaufman &amp; Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref26">51</reflink>]), the Woodcock Johnson—Fourth Edition writing subtests (Schrank et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref27">85</reflink>]); and an analytic rubric [assessment name removed for peer review] (McKenna et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref28">70</reflink>]). Additionally, the Developmental Writing Scale (Sturm et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref29">89</reflink>]), the 6 + 1 trait scoring system (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory [NREL], [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref30">76</reflink>]) and an adapted version of the 6 + 1 trait scoring system (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref31">56</reflink>]) all exist for use. Linguistic (e.g., grammar, spelling, vocabulary) and discourse analyses (e.g., organization, topic maintenance) have been used to evaluate a small number of variables or one type of writing genre in the early elementary grades (e.g., Hall-Mills &amp; Apel, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref32">47</reflink>]; Kent et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref33">53</reflink>]; Wagner et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref34">94</reflink>]; Wood et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref35">98</reflink>]).</p> <p>While research on these assessments exists, many of the studies haven't included educators. For example, existing writing assessment literature often reports on graduate students serving as coders (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref36">59</reflink>]; Sturm et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref37">89</reflink>]). Teachers have reported complicated interpretation procedures of writing CBMs (Payan et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref38">78</reflink>]). McKenna et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref39">70</reflink>]) found that translating research into practice becomes challenging when practitioners who are expected to use the measure have minimal involvement or during development. After reviewing the writing survey/questionnaire studies to date, we identified a pressing need to learn more about which assessments educators across the nation are currently using within their practice to inform instruction and what guidance is given regarding administration, the purpose of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-3">Writing surveys</hd> <p>Many of the surveys examining writing practices have addressed upper elementary, middle, and high school grade levels, (e.g., Bañales et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>]; Blamey et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>]; Gilbert &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>]; Gillespie et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref44">36</reflink>]; Kiuhara et al, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref45">62</reflink>]; Leko et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref46">63</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref47">66</reflink>]; Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref48">83</reflink>]; Troia &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref49">92</reflink>]). Much like the surveys conducted in the upper grades, those conducted with kindergarten through second grade educators have focused on one group of practitioners with the majority being general educators (e.g., Cutler &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]; Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref51">26</reflink>]; Gillespie Rouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref52">34</reflink>]; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref53">35</reflink>]; Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref54">40</reflink>]; Hsaing et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref55">49</reflink>]). Information pertaining to writing practices of special educators (Rankin-Erickson &amp; Pressley, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref56">82</reflink>]), speech-language pathologists (Blood et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref57">15</reflink>]; Bridges &amp; Kelley, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref58">16</reflink>]; Fallon &amp; Katz, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]; Finestack &amp; Satterlund, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]), and instructional coaches (Bean et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref61">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref62">11</reflink>]) is even more meager.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-4">General education teachers</hd> <p>Survey research with general education teachers has asked questions corresponding to preparation for teaching writing (Cutler &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref63">27</reflink>]; Gillespie Rouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref64">34</reflink>]; Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref65">40</reflink>]; Hsaing et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref66">49</reflink>]); perceptions of effectiveness and attitudes toward writing (Cutler &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref67">27</reflink>]; Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref68">40</reflink>]; Hsaing et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref69">49</reflink>]); teachers' beliefs and use of writing to support learning of content or concepts (Gillespie Rouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref70">34</reflink>]); frequency and type of adaptations implemented by teachers for children experiencing difficulty writing (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref71">35</reflink>]); and handwriting instructional practices (Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref72">26</reflink>]). On surveys that asked about writing assessment there were only four items rated on a scale corresponding to the frequency (i.e., teachers monitoring writing process, students monitoring writing progress, writing portfolios, student use of rubrics) (Cutler &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref73">27</reflink>]; Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]; Hsaing et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref75">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-5">Special education teachers</hd> <p>Surveys about practices of special educators serving students in kindergarten through second grade are sparse. In 2000 Rankin-Erickson and Pressley surveyed 31 elementary special educators from 19 states about their instructional practices in literacy. One set of items were dedicated to writing. Teachers reported the frequency in which they taught writing (e.g., weekly, daily) and their evaluation approach which mostly consisted of a writing portfolio (73% of teachers). Teachers also reported on types of writing activities; 20% used Writers Workshop and 97% addressed story writing. Leko et al., ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref76">63</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref77">66</reflink>]) found that special education teachers serving children in grades 6–12 from a large midwestern state least often taught intensive writing when compared to other literacy skills (e.g., vocabulary, comprehension).</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-6">Speech-language pathologists</hd> <p>Blood et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref78">15</reflink>]) and Bridges and Kelley ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref79">16</reflink>]) surveyed school-based SLPs working with children in Pre-K through twelfth grade asking questions pertaining to perceptions of knowledge, confidence, and preservice and professional learning outlets (e.g., university courses, conferences, etc.). Blood et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref80">15</reflink>]) found that training and clinical experiences for assessing and providing intervention addressing written language disorders was limited. Bridges and Kelly ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref81">16</reflink>]) also included the content area of reading as well and found that writing skills (e.g., composing and writing complete sentences; using capitalization and punctuation) were targeted far less frequently in intervention than reading skills. Finestack and Satterlund ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref82">30</reflink>]) surveyed SLPs working with children of all ages about their approaches to intervention on grammatical skills which included some questions pertaining to writing. They found that 27% of SLPs reported never using writing to address grammar and only 15% reported frequently using writing to address grammar. They most frequently reported using drill, book reading, conversation, and narrative development activities to support children's grammatical skills.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-7">Instructional specialists</hd> <p>A limited literature base about instructional coaches addressing writing also exists. Bean et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref83">10</reflink>]) surveyed members of the International Reading Association to better understand the roles of reading specialists in schools. Reading specialists reported that they were involved in assessment of writing to a prompt. One of the specialists surveyed, reported that as a result of the minimal instruction for classroom teachers in providing reading instruction, they spent time in the classroom modeling these skills including writing among other techniques (e.g., phonics, use of literature). Most coaching research includes case studies of the roles of instructional coaches in elementary schools (e.g., Mangin &amp; Dunsmore, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref84">69</reflink>]; Walpole &amp; Blamey, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref85">95</reflink>]). In Mangin and Dunsmore ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref86">69</reflink>]), coaches wrote goals around improving writing, however the goals addressed 3rd grade. In addition, one coach reported meeting with upper grade level teachers to discuss a writing assessment. In Walpole and Blamey ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref87">95</reflink>]) all 17 literacy coaches identified as the chief assessor at their schools. While writing was an area of assessment, no specifics on the types of measures or approaches used were reported. The schools where the coaches worked committed to genre-based writing instruction, however no additional details were shared.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-8">Purpose of the current study</hd> <p>In summary we found that surveys of writing in early elementary grades measured general education teachers' theoretical orientations, beliefs, and instructional practices (e.g., Cutler &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref88">27</reflink>]; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref89">35</reflink>]; Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref90">40</reflink>]; Hsiang et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref91">49</reflink>]) and SLPs' approaches to intervention and professional learning (e.g., Blood et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref92">15</reflink>]; Bridges &amp; Kelley, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref93">16</reflink>]). Minimal information was available on previous surveys conducted with special education teachers and instructional specialists. All surveys reviewed contained very few items about writing DBDM assessment and instructional practices leaving us with more questions than answers about professional practices. Additionally, each group of educational professionals were surveyed individually. However, these educators all have roles and responsibilities to deliver writing assessment, sometimes in collaboration with one another (e.g., American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA), [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref94">5</reflink>]; International Literacy Association Standards, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref95">48</reflink>]; state academic standards). Thus, we developed a descriptive questionnaire to increase our understanding of early educators approaches to writing assessment.</p> <p>This descriptive, online questionnaire was developed to increase our knowledge of the everyday practices of a range of educators (i.e., teachers, special educators, speech-language pathologists, instructional coaches, and interventions) and to determine if differences existed across roles. It was designed to inform an audience of researchers and practitioners. The data collected have the potential to inform our understanding of current practice as well as lead to future research focusing on early elementary writing DBDM and generation of resources that can assist educators with writing assessment. The following research questions were addressed:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What types of writing assessments are used by early elementary educators?</item> <p></p> <item> What procedures exist for administration and scoring of each of the writing assessments?</item> <p></p> <item> What information is gathered during assessment administration (e.g., genres, skills)?</item> <p></p> <item> What differences in assessment approaches exist between groups of educators?</item> </ulist> <p>Based on the literature reviewed, we hypothesized that early elementary educators would use a range of approaches to writing assessment and employ a variety of assessments with WE-CBMs being least often used. We expected that procedures existed for administration and scoring of assessments though they may vary in explicitness. Past studies of assessment in early primary grades (e.g., Kent et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref96">53</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref97">55</reflink>]; Puranik &amp; Al Otaiba, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref98">80</reflink>]; Wagner et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref99">94</reflink>]), led us to posit that transcription skills would be measured most often. Past studies of instruction/intervention (e.g., Kirby et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref100">61</reflink>]; Spencer &amp; Peterson, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref101">88</reflink>]; Zumbrunn &amp; Bruning, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref102">99</reflink>]) led us to believe that the narrative genre most often assessed. We hypothesized that all the professionals surveyed would use assessment but that general educators would use an assessment more often than others (e.g., SLPs, special educators, coaches).</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-9">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182347461-10">Survey development</hd> <p>A rigorous multistage process was used to ensure that content validity was established prior to disseminating the <emph>K-2 Writing DBDM Survey</emph>. The commonly accepted stages of an instrument development process (McCoach et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref103">71</reflink>]) allowed for the adequate coverage of items on the survey in relation to the DBDM for early writing construct (Messick, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref104">74</reflink>]). Content validity was assessed using four approaches: (a) identification of the purpose of the survey and target group (i.e., educators working in kindergarten, first, and/or second grade), (b) creation of a blueprint of items, (c) expert panel review by researchers and educational leaders, and (d) cognitive interviews with practitioners representing the groups surveyed.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-11">Identification of the purpose of the questionnaire</hd> <p>During the first stage, the purpose of the survey was identified. After reviewing the existing surveys on the topic of early elementary writing assessment (Bean et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref105">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref106">11</reflink>]; Blood et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref107">15</reflink>]; Bridges &amp; Kelley, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref108">16</reflink>]; Cutler &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref109">27</reflink>]; Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref110">26</reflink>]; Gillespie Rouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref111">34</reflink>]; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref112">35</reflink>]; Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref113">40</reflink>]; Hsaing et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref114">49</reflink>]; Rankin-Erickson &amp; Pressley, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref115">82</reflink>] Fallon &amp; Katz, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref116">29</reflink>]; Finestack &amp; Satterlund, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref117">30</reflink>]), it was evident that they could not adequately represent the construct of interest because information pertaining to assessment and DBDM practices was sparse. Additionally, these surveys didn't ask the same questions to educators working in a variety of interrelated positions. After reviewing the literature, the first two authors drafted the initial item pool. The first author who has experience spearheading multi-tiered system of supports implementation in school/district settings and currently researches early elementary writing, worked in collaboration with an early childhood education systems research expert who specializes in investigating early writing assessment, instruction, and professional development practices (the second author).</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-12">Creation of a blueprint of surveys items</hd> <p>During the second stage, the content domains were defined. A blueprint of 24 items was created with a total of 21 close-ended and three open-ended items. The close-ended items covered: (a) assessment(s) administered, (b) administration procedures, (c) skills measured, (d) data use, and (e) instructional/intervention planning. The open-ended items asked about (a) DBDM successes, (b) DBDM barriers, and (c) uploading materials used to assess writing.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-13">Expert panel review</hd> <p>In Stage 3, experts reviewed the 24 initial survey items. Experts who authored publications on elementary writing assessment and instruction, response to intervention, elementary teacher preparation for early literacy skills instruction; worked for a state department of education and/or discretionary projects funded by the state; supervised elementary teaching and learning programs in school districts; and worked in industry settings providing professional development on assessment, instruction, and DBDM to educators were emailed and invited to provide feedback on the survey items. Many of the experts began their careers as classroom teachers or school-based SLPs but were currently in higher education, state-level, or district administrative roles. A copy of the questionnaire was attached to emails. This allowed the experts to preview the survey prior to providing their feedback about the relevance and clarity of each item online via a Qualtrics survey. The expert panel consisted of six reviewers. The reviewers were given the opportunity to rate all items on the questionnaire. They used a 4-point scale (not at all relevant, somewhat relevant, relevant, very relevant) with a "don't know" option to indicate the relevance of each item for DBDM in early writing. If an item received a rating of not at all relevant or somewhat relevant, then the experts were asked to provide information on why the content addressed in the item was not relevant to a DBDM survey. The experts also provided feedback on item clarity using a 3-point scale (not at all, somewhat, very) with a "don't know" option. Experts suggested alternate wording for questions if they did not appear clear or concise or only somewhat appeared clear and concise.</p> <p>The data gathered from the six experts were analyzed. A traditional item analysis of the ratio of the expert panel relevance and clarity ratings was calculated to determine the item content validity index (I-CVI; Lynn, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref118">65</reflink>]). The number of experts who provided ratings of relevant or very relevant for an item was divided by the total number of experts who rated the item. Two of the items did not have an 80% or higher relevance agreement between the experts. After further review, both of these items were revised to address the concerns of relevance posed. These revisions corresponded to the comments made by the reviewers which included adding additional follow-up questions to an item about training to better understand the amount of training received. Additionally, the reviewers suggested additional choices for educators to select when responding to both of the questions to increase relevance. There were 12 items that did not have an 80% or higher clarity agreement between the experts. These items were all reworded using the alternate wording suggested by the expert panel. There were an additional eight items that were also revised based on the input provided by one of the experts. All of the revisions and additions were made to the questionnaire prior to beginning cognitive interviews.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-14">Cognitive interviews</hd> <p>Stage 4 consisted of cognitive interviews held via phone or a virtual meeting platform with eight educators (3 general education teachers, 2 SLPs, 1 special education teacher, 1 interventionist, and 1 instructional coach) from across the US who served children in grades K-2 and worked in public and private school settings. The interviews were conducted using both think-aloud and verbal prompting procedures (Barnum, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref119">9</reflink>]; Willis, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref120">97</reflink>]). A copy of the survey was emailed to the educators prior to the interview. After reading each question, the educators shared their interpretation about what it meant. Any unclear items were discussed to determine how to revise the item. The educators answered each of the items, noted where they felt answer choices were unclear, and shared additional questions and/or answer choices that they thought should be added. A total of 8 questions were added to the survey after these interviews and 7 questions were revised (e.g., genres assessed, accommodations provided, administration in whole group, small group, or individually). The cognitive interviews were the final development stage to ensure all survey questions would be easily understood by participants.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-15">Questionnaire dissemination</hd> <p>During Stage 5, the survey was shared using convenience sampling. An infographic and a paragraph explaining the survey invited educators (i.e., general education and special education teachers, speech-language pathologists, coaches, interventionists, and curriculum specialists) who worked with kindergarten, first, and/or second grade students in school-based settings. This was posted on social media (i.e., groups on Facebook and Instagram accounts that are frequently accessed by educators [e.g., Science of Reading What I Should Have Learned in College, Engaging Early Learners]). It was also shared by the ASHA Special Interest Group for Language, Learning, and Education and the Division for Early Childhood.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-16">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 448 educators began the survey after agreeing to the consent form approved by the university Institutional Review Board. To orient survey participants, prior to answering the initial question, an overview of the survey was provided which included the definition of DBDM for early writing (from the review of literature). Seventy one responses were omitted because 60 participants did not answer any questions corresponding to DBDM, seven participants worked outside of the US, and four participants were not currently working in a school setting (e.g., private educational consultant). Of the 376 educators who participated, 175 were general education classroom teachers, 42 were special education teachers, 118 were SLPs, and 41 were specialists (e.g., interventionists, coaches, educators supporting emergent bilinguals). A total of 107 worked in kindergarten, 43 worked in first grade, 34 worked in second grade, and 191 served students in two or more of the grade levels. Special education teachers used a variety of service delivery models: 60% (25 of 42) worked in self-contained classrooms or provided solely pull out services and 40% (17 of 42) co-taught in a general education classroom and/or provided push in services. Educators' years of experience ranged from less than a year to 25 or more. The majority of participants (<emph>n</emph> = 284, 76%) held a graduate level degree (e.g., M.Ed., Ed.S., Ph.D.) and worked in a public school (<emph>n</emph> = 318, 85%). Two hundred and thirty one (61%) indicated that they worked at a Title I site. Educators worked in 49 different states. When asked to describe their work setting, 202 (54%) said suburban, 94 (25%) reported urban, and 80 (21%) said rural.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-17">Data analysis</hd> <p>When conducting survey research participants choose the items they complete. The partial nonresponse data were included so that results of the questions answered were reported (DeLeeuw et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref121">25</reflink>]). The available data from the survey items found in the supplemental material were quantitatively analyzed through descriptive statistics to address RQs 1–3. Logistic regression was used to investigate the likelihood of using different assessment approaches given various demographic variables (e.g., position) to address RQ4.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182347461-19">Types of assessments administered (RQ#1)</hd> <p>Participants were asked to identify the types of assessments they used to assess early writing. Educators reported using 0–5 assessments. Approximately one-third (<emph>n</emph> = 120, 32%) of participants surveyed did not administer an assessment, with SLPs most frequently reporting this. The assessment selected most frequently by 167 (44%) of the participants was the writing rubric, with general education teachers using this assessment type most often. The assessment used least often was the WE-CBMs by only 27 (11%) educators. The examples of the other types of assessments used by 56 participants included writing samples, spelling inventories, unit assessments from their curriculum, team created assessments, writers workshop, and success criteria. One kindergarten general education teacher commented, "We come up with our own as a grade level team and create our own scoring sheets to grade them with." An SLP said, "informal writing assessments (i.e., giving prompts)." The educators who indicated that they did not administer a writing assessment were asked how they measured student response to writing instruction and/or intervention. A general education kindergarten teacher said, "We don't because we have a new canned curriculum that we cannot stray from for fidelity's sake." Another general education kindergarten teacher said, "We observe. Base our instruction on performance or lack thereof." A third general education kindergarten teacher said, "To be honest, writing is not a focus in our grade level at my school. This is because of the huge lack of basic skills students come with (some have never even seen a pencil let alone held one), behaviors, I don't think our school day is as long as surrounding towns so lack of time, and the huge focus we put in reading." A first grade general education teacher said, "We do not have a writing curriculum so it is only measured as a part of phonics/sight word/sentence dictations." A special education teacher said, "We use the state standards as a guide." Another special education teacher said, "Unfortunately we do not have a formalized writing assessment or interventions. For ELA there is a writing scale but it's optional." An SLP said, "I don't as a speech-language pathologist, I have rarely seen anyone write goals for writing, if ever. Writing is not a priority in the school setting, and tends to be geared towards the grammar and function (letter formation and spacing etc.) rather than the actual quality of the content itself." An interventionist replied, "At this time we are not offering writing intervention. Intervention is phonics and reading only."</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-20">Procedures for assessment administration and scoring (RQ#2)</hd> <p>Educators responded to questions corresponding to assessment administration procedures that included: (a) training received for assessment use; (b) guidelines for assessment administration or writing sample collection, (c) materials provided, (d) monitoring of fidelity, and (e) accommodations were provided. Educators also shared how they scored assessments.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-21">Training</hd> <p>Many educators did not receive any training for how to use the writing assessment(s) selected; the percentage who received training ranged from 30 to 79%. Educators most often received training for how to administer norm-referenced assessments (34 of 43 respondents). They least often received training on how to use other types of writing assessments (15 out of 50 respondents) and standards progressions (19 of 51 respondents). Regardless of assessment type, those who received training frequently selected that it was provided by their district and/or school. Those who used WE-CBMs, written language analyses, and norm-referenced assessments reported using print materials (e.g., guides, books, manuals). WE-CBM users engaged in trainings found online (e.g., webinars) and those using normative/standardized assessments noted that their training was provided through college courses/graduate school.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-22">Guidelines</hd> <p>Guidelines followed by educators when administering assessments or collecting writing samples most frequently came from districts and schools ranging from 42% (11 of 26 users of written language analyses, 16 of 38 users of other assessments)—58% (11 of 19 WE-CBM users). Educators least often used guidelines from research 0% (0 of 38 other assessment users)—8% (2 of 26 users of written language analyses/discrete measures) and online 0% (0 of 19 WE-CBM users). A kindergarten teacher who used a rubric noted, "we blend what our district thinks is best to what we create." Administration/collection of writing samples most frequently occurred individually ranging from 63% (86 of 137 rubric and 26 of 41 standards progression users) to 71% (27 of 38 other assessment users). However, those administering WE-CBMs selected individually, small group, and whole group contexts with an equal amount of frequency. Students wrote independently with no prompting, modeling, or support, most often when WE-CBMs (14 of 19 respondents—74%) and written language analyses/discrete measures (19 of 25 respondents—76%) were used. In contrast, educators using a rubric evaluated independent writing least often, with 78 of 135—58% of respondents reporting collection of independent writing samples. Educators were asked to comment on the prompting, modeling, and support provided. Another kindergarten teacher using a rubric said, "When students are writing, I first model a piece similar to what they're expected to write. While modeling, I discuss the points on my rubric: conventions, sight words, cvc words spelled correctly, etc. The students then write independently and I provide support in small groups. During this time, I give prompts for letter sounds, sounding out words, specific conventions, and adding details. It all depends on the individual child and what their needs are at that time." A kindergarten teacher using a standards progression responded, "Verbal reminders, sentence stems sometimes written down in highlighter, sometimes written on the whiteboard for students to copy down. An accommodation for one student with a 504 is highlighting what the student is saying and asking them to trace over it." One kindergarten teacher noted, "all writing standards for kindergarten in Arizona state with support." While another kindergarten teacher said "students respond to a question and are asked to respond in 2–3 sentences (end of year), teacher support is to help maintain focus and stretch words."</p> <p>Educators most frequently administered assessments/collected writing samples using a script containing directions. Responses ranged from 51% (19 of 37 standards progression users) to 95% (18 of 19 WE-CBM users). Those using other types of assessments most frequently collected samples in student writing journals (18 of 35—51%). A coach shared differences in how writing samples were collected at each grade level when a rubric was used, "In K and 1 students are told the writing samples will be scored but they replicate their everyday journal writing. It is a free write about whatever the student wants to write about. In 2nd grade students are given writing prompts." A first grade general education teacher who collected writing samples to score with a standards progression shared how she read a book to introduce writing topics. For example, after reading, "My Pocket Sloth Goes to School" the teacher asked students to brainstorm ideas that they would include in a writing piece about what might happen if they brought an animal to school. Then, the teacher provides the students with writing paper to respond to the prompt.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-23">Materials</hd> <p>When asked about where the rubric came from, participants most often selected their curriculum (55 of 128—43%). Options least often selected were that the rubric was given as part of participation in a research project (4 of 128—3%) and that the rubric was from an open source website (e.g., Education Northwest) (7 of 128—5%). Those who used WE-CBMs, standards progressions, and other types of assessments said they most often came from their district ranging from 7 of 18 (39%) WE-CBM users—19 of 38 (50%) standards progression users. When asked about how to determine which written language analyses/discrete measures to use 13 of 23 respondents—57% noted it was based on grade level standards and the item with the least responses was from a research article or researching 4 of 23—17%. A special education teacher serving students in all three grade levels said, "IEP goals" when asked how they determined written language analyses/discrete measures to use.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-24">Fidelity</hd> <p>Educators were asked if they monitored fidelity (compliance) to guidelines (e.g., reading from a script, following directions for order of presentation, etc.) when administering assessments and/or collecting writing samples. Administration fidelity ranged from 7 to 41% with those using other types of assessments monitoring fidelity least often (2 of 28 respondents) and those using norm-referenced assessments most often (9 of 22 respondents). When asked how fidelity was measured participants selected self-monitoring through use of checklists during administration to ensure accuracy or observations during administration by a site-based/district administrator. A first grade general education teacher who used a rubric said, "trust."</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-25">IEP/504 accommodations</hd> <p>When asked about providing IEP or 504 Plan accommodations when administering assessments/collecting writing samples, 19 of 20 (95%) of educators who administered WE-CBMs did, whereas accommodations were provided least often by 95 of 138 (69%) rubric users. The accommodation provided most often for every assessment type was extended time (84–97%). The accommodation provided least often by users of WE-CBMs, written language analyses, standards progression, and other types of assessments was the use of special equipment (e.g., slant board) (26–38% of respondents), users of standardized norm-referenced assessments selected verbal praise least often (provided by 38% of respondents), and rubric users selected oral presentation least often (33%). When selecting other, a special education teacher commented, "what is written into IEP and keeps the measure valid for the specified assessment."</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-26">Scoring</hd> <p>When asked about the procedures for scoring, educators most often scored by themself, ranging from 13 of 17 (76%) of WE-CBM users to 110 of 125 (88%) of rubric users. A reading specialist whose site used rubrics commented, "classroom teachers score (PLC), I step in when they don't agree." A kindergarten teacher who used a rubric said, "When scoring samples by myself, if unsure how to assess, I can go to the reading coach or team for additional support."</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-27">Information gathered (RQ#3)</hd> <p>Educators were asked to share the different writing skills they measured when using rubrics, written language analyses, and standards progressions. Educators who used WE-CBMs and/or norm-referenced assessments were asked to share the type(s) of assessments selected. Educators were also asked to report on the genre(s) they assessed.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-28">Skills measured</hd> <p>One hundred and twenty seven rubric users shared skill(s) they measured. Punctuation was most frequently selected by 114 (90%), followed by on topic 104 (82%), and upper/lowercase letter use 102 (80%). Skills least often selected included vocabulary by 34 (27%), sentence variety by 36 (28%), and quantity of ideas by 38 (30%). When asked about the written language analyses, educators most often identified use of punctuation and capitalization (21 of 23—91%) and the number of different vocabulary words (11 of 23—48%) least often. Those who used a standards progression measured upper/lowercase letter use most often (79%—30 of 38 respondents) and exploring a variety of digital tools to produce and publish writing, including in collaboration with peers least (10 of 38 respondents—36%).</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-29">Types of assessments selected</hd> <p>Educators who administered WE-CBMs most frequently used correct word sequences (9 of 14 educators—64%) and least often used total words written (5 of 14—36%). The standardized norm-referenced assessment selected most often was the Oral and Written Language Scales (16 of 29—55%). The Woodcock-Johnson was used least often (6 of 29—21%).</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-30">Genres</hd> <p>Educators most often assessed informational writing (to share information e.g., write about an animal) with the standards progression (38 of 43—88%), rubric (120 of 145—83%), WE-CBMs (18 of 23—78%), and other assessments (28 of 39—72%). Educators who used the WE-CBMs (17 of 23—74%) and/or a standards progression (32 of 43—74%) also frequently selected personal narratives. Those who used written language analyses most often assessed narrative writing (22 of 33—67%) and personal narratives (21 of 33—64%). Educators least often assessed persuasive informational writing (blending opinions with facts e.g., explain why it is important to eat healthy food) (8 of 29—21% of other assessment users), (36 of 145—25% rubric users), (9 of 33—27% written language analyses users), (7 of 23—30% WE-CBM users), (15 of 43—35% standards progression users). Educators who used a standards progression (38 of 43—88%) and rubric (123 of 145—85%) most often assessed three or more genres. Educators who used WE-CBMs (20 of 23—87%), other types of assessment (33 of 39 = 84%), and written language analyses (26 of 33—79%) most often assessed two or more genres. A first grade teacher also noted poetry. An SLP commented, "the standards progression for the early grades is almost exclusively at the sentence level, not the genre/paragraph level." A special education teacher commented that genre(s) were dependent on the norm-referenced assessment administered.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-31">Differences in how educators approach assessment (RQ#4)</hd> <p>We used logistic regression to address how different groups of educators approached assessment and if there were differences in assessment practices based on the school setting. We found that special education teachers (OR = 0.35, <emph>p</emph> = 0.007) and SLPs (OR = 0.12, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001) were statistically significantly less likely to use any writing assessment compared to general education teachers. Special educators who used an assessment were statistically significantly more likely to use multiple writing assessments compared to general educators (OR = 2.14, <emph>p</emph> = 0.04). Second grade teachers were statistically significantly more likely to use multiple writing assessments compared to kindergarten teachers (OR = 2.88, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01). Educators serving more than one grade level were statistically significantly less likely to use any writing assessment compared to kindergarten teachers (OR = 0.19, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001). There were no differences in the use of any assessment or multiple assessments when evaluating practices across school setting (rural, urban, suburban and title I, non-title I). Results are presented in Tables 1 and 2.</p> <p>Table 1 Logistic regression estimates of differences in assessment use across positions</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Position&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th char="." align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Any assessment&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th char="." align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Multiple assessments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Special Education Teacher&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Estimate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722; 1.046*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.7595*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;S.E&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.3903&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.3608&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;OR&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.35&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Speech-Language Pathologist&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Estimate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722; 2.152***&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722; 0.4441&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;S.E&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.2839&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.3026&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;OR&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.12&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Specialist&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Estimate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722; 0.322&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.3779&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;S.E&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.4478&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.3795&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>S.E.</emph> Standard Error, <emph>OR</emph> Odds ratio, Reference group = General Education Teachers *<emph>p</emph> &lt;.05, ***<emph>p</emph> &lt;.001</p> <p>Table 2 Logistic regression estimates of differences in assessment use across grade levels served</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Position&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Any assessment&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Multiple assessments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;First Grade&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Estimate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722; 0.1007&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722; 0.03381&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;S.E&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.4941&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.44261&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Second Grade&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Estimate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.5971&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.05893*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;S.E&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.6625&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.41795&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;O.R&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char" /&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.88&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="3"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Multiple Grades&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Estimate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722; 1.6859***&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.11838&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;S.E&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.3073&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.29061&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;O.R&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.19&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>S.E.</emph> Standard Error, <emph>OR</emph> Odds ratio, Reference group = Kindergarten *<emph>p</emph> &lt;.05, ***<emph>p</emph> &lt;.001</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-32">Discussion</hd> <p>The <emph>K-2 Writing DBDM Survey</emph> was developed to explore current DBDM practices for writing, because of the positive impact of DBDM for supporting student learning in other content areas including reading (e.g., Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref122">19</reflink>]) and math (e.g., van Geel et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref123">93</reflink>]). Questions specific to writing assessment practices were included and a variety of education professionals were recruited to simultaneously complete the survey to expand upon the survey data previously collected (e.g., Blood et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref124">15</reflink>]; Bridges &amp; Kelley, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref125">16</reflink>]; Cutler &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref126">27</reflink>]; Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref127">40</reflink>]; Hsaing et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref128">49</reflink>]). We found that one out of every three respondents did not assess writing. Regardless of the assessment type(s), many of the selections made to provide more detail about assessment practices were consistent. Training corresponding to administration did not often occur. Guidelines were most frequently developed by districts and/or schools. Fidelity of administration was infrequently monitored, students were not always expected to produce independent writing, and IEP or 504 accommodations were not always provided. Educators most often completed scoring by themself. Transcription skills (letter formation, use of capitalization, punctuation) were most frequently measured and text generation skills (vocabulary, quantity of ideas, sentence variety) were least often assessed; even though the <emph>SVW</emph>, state standards, and expert researchers and practitioners have identified both of these as areas that are critically important for writing development. Opportunities for peer collaboration were rarely evaluated even though this is well aligned with the sociocultural theory, standards, and expert input. Data were collected on informational and narrative genres most often, while persuasive informational (blending opinions with facts) was least often assessed. These findings inform practice, policy, future research, and advancements in training.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-33">Educators as partners</hd> <p>One important finding from this study is that partnering with educators when developing surveys about their practice is essential. Partnership with potential end-users of surveys, assessments, and curricula aligns with evidence-based practices for development (e.g., American Educational Research Association et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref129">3</reflink>]) and implementation science (e.g., Fixen et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref130">31</reflink>]). It ensures relevance to everyday practice and may promote candid responses like those provided by our participants. Social media recruitment allows a simple and familiar space for educators to respond. For example, an educator said, "I completed this for you. It was tough since writing isn't as heavily touched on in data for my district. Hope it helps!" Other educators said that they were honest when responding to accurately represent what is happening in schools.</p> <p>Respondents highlighted key areas of success and barriers as they work to provide quality education for young learners. Despite limited knowledge, guidance, and support, there were some educators in every position who used assessment. It is promising to find that there are general education teachers, special education teachers, SLPs, and specialists who recognize writing assessment as part of their role since it can be used for multiple purposes (e.g., universal screening, progress monitoring, formative). When educators provided prompting, modeling, and support to students completing writing assessments, they were using explicit, systematic instructional principles (Archer &amp; Hughes, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref131">7</reflink>]). If they didn't have access to materials educators referenced standards and/or created their own. Educators assessed more than one genre and some comprehensively assessed both transcription and ideation skills.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-34">Writing is a neglected content area</hd> <p>Written expression skills are necessary for success in all content areas (e.g., reading, science) (Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref132">81</reflink>]) and to survive and thrive in society (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref133">38</reflink>]). However, the results from this study confirm that writing, particularly writing assessment, remains neglected across early grades (Mo et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref134">75</reflink>]). Participant statements reiterate the priority of reading over writing. In fact, several participants indicated that writing is not addressed at the earliest grades in their school or that supporting writing was not part of their job responsibilities. Clearly the messages that there are strong reading and writing connections including shared foundational skills (Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref135">86</reflink>]) and that writing is an active ways to engage young children in important early reading skills (Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref136">42</reflink>]; Hofslundsengen et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref137">58</reflink>]) have not been taken up systematically by early elementary educators. These results reiterate the lack of recognition across a range of practitioners of how essential writing is to communication, literacy development, and for demonstrating understanding across content areas (Cope &amp; Kalantzis, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref138">20</reflink>]). This lack of attention may contribute to the low percentage (28%) of children writing proficiently (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref139">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>Assessment practices reflected a narrow definition of writing primarily focused on handwriting (i.e., letter formation) and print concepts (i.e., punctuation, spacing). It was far less common for educators to assess the full range of skills required for successful writing reflected in theoretical frameworks of early writing (Berninger &amp; Winn, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref140">13</reflink>]; Kim &amp; Schatschneider, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref141">60</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref142">57</reflink>]; Kim &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref143">58</reflink>]) or writing standards. Grade level standards (e.g., CCSS) for children in kindergarten through second grade address a range of writing skills and genres that were rarely assessed. For example, educators infrequently reported assessing spelling (estimated or conventional), composing including idea generation, word selection, argumentation, and genre features, or broader grammatical skills like syntax or sentence variety.</p> <p>To accurately assess student writing progress, educators need to be able to elicit and score writing with a measure that demonstrates evidence of validity and reliability (Lembke et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref144">64</reflink>]). However, the WE-CBM, an assessment with an extensive history of technical adequacy research (e.g., Ritchey &amp; Coker, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref145">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref146">84</reflink>]) was used least often. Research was rarely consulted to establish guidelines and obtain materials for any assessment type. Even though assessment research exists in these grade levels (e.g., Coker &amp; Ritchey, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref147">21</reflink>]; Keller-Margulis et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref148">54</reflink>]; McKenna et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref149">70</reflink>]). Some educators modified the resources provided to them, which may compromise the psychometric properties of the assessment, and others noted using informal approaches like observations of student writing to inform practice.</p> <p>Educators serving children with disabilities (i.e., special education teachers, SLPs) rarely reported use of assessment, even though professional organizations representing each group of educators surveyed all express the importance of assessment to promote quality instruction and children's learning (e.g., ASHA, Division for Early Childhood (DEC), Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), International Reading Association, National Education Association). For example, the DEC, an organization for professionals who work with children with disabilities has the recommended practice of practitioners gathering and using data (DEC, 2020). The CEC publishes professional standards that include using assessment to understand the learner. Throughout these standards the use of data for instructional decision making is emphasized (CEC, 2020). The ASHA position statements (e.g., ASHA, 2001; ASHA, 2010) describe the role the SLP has in assessing writing and identifying children at risk for writing difficulties.</p> <p>This finding that writing assessment is absent and/or of narrow scope in early elementary grades across US schools may indicate a lack of understanding that data collection, utilization, and analysis (Ebbeler et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref150">28</reflink>]; Mandinach &amp; Schildkamp, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref151">67</reflink>]) to maximize effectiveness of instruction (McMaster et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref152">73</reflink>]) is also essential for writing. Moreover, the negative writing experiences that teachers reported they had as students themselves (Colby &amp; Stapleton, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref153">23</reflink>]; Hall &amp; Grisham-Brown, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref154">41</reflink>]) may influence why early educators, at least in the US, limit their time teaching writing (e.g., Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref155">81</reflink>]) and as we see in this study, their writing assessment approaches. This may also be the result of the limited coursework addressing writing during pre-service programs (e.g., Hall, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref156">43</reflink>]) and training opportunities at work.</p> <p>School and state level resources and policies may be influencing educators' assessment approaches as well. The absence of quality assessment selection may reflect a lack of attention to writing in the curriculum, learning standards, or resources for providing adequate assessments, training, or data management supports at the school level (Author et al., in preparation). It was clear from educator responses in this study that assessment was often a grade level or school level approach and thus, may be impacted more by administration and school-level resources than individual educators. While writing is included in state standards, teachers have expressed concerns with these standards (Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref157">42</reflink>]) and note that they reflect an incomplete picture of writing (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref158">90</reflink>]). This is important because learning standards inform teachers' practices for a range of skills. Moreover, limited writing assessment may reflect the reality that early elementary educators have to make choices about where to focus their time. Since writing is not assessed through state/national examinations until third grade (Behizadeh &amp; Pang, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref159">12</reflink>]) and reading and math data are used when calculating teacher value-added model scores (Angrist et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref160">6</reflink>]) it remains a lower priority–for assessment and subsequently instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-35">Lack of consensus regarding expectations</hd> <p>Survey responses from participants suggest that there is a lack of consensus regarding expectations for student performance on writing assessments in the earliest elementary grade levels. This may be due to the fragmentation in research about early writing development (Harmey &amp; Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref161">44</reflink>]), limited checks of fidelity of administration, and lack of opportunities for educators to meet as a team for scoring. When researchers have collected written language samples from children, their writing has been produced independently (e.g., McKenna et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref162">70</reflink>]; Kent et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref163">53</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref164">55</reflink>]; Puranik &amp; Al Otaiba, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref165">80</reflink>]; Wagner et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref166">94</reflink>]). However, such procedures weren't always replicated in the practice setting.</p> <p>Responses demonstrated that many educators have a limited understanding of the CCSS (Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref167">42</reflink>]). As one example, many teachers in this study reported that they would often assess writing that was modeled for students and/or provide assistance while children wrote. Some teachers used this scaffolded approach because state standards indicated "with prompting and support." While this is true in some kindergarten state standards (e.g., Arizona), "prompting and support" is only noted for some kindergarten and first grade reading CCSS which have been adopted by the majority of states. Writing CCSS indicate that children should "use a combination of drawing, dictation, and writing." Additionally, printing of letters begins in kindergarten along with expectations for capitalization of the first word in a sentence and the pronoun I. A clear consensus of writing assessment procedures needs to be established for kindergarten children in states where standards still indicate "prompting and support" because they will need to be prepared to independently write in first grade. Another example, is the variability in the type of student writing evaluated. Some educators assessed word level writing (spelling), writing of a single sentence, or writing at the paragraph level. This is because grade level standards do not currently contain objective criteria (e.g., total number of sentences children should write, specific organizational elements to include within writing, etc.). The narrow conceptualization of writing reflected in the standards is revealed in teacher's assessment approaches.</p> <p>Challenges with assessment may also reflect the varying expectations and content focus of learning standards written for early elementary grades compared to preschool (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref168">90</reflink>]). The lack of consistency in the standards informing instruction across the early childhood development period of birth to eight years can make it very challenging for educators to develop appropriate expectations and assessment approaches that reinforce and reflect an understanding of where children are before they enter each grade level and when they exit. To most accurately inform instruction that meets individual needs and monitors mastery of skills taught, educators must evaluate the writing performance of children regularly and within different learning contexts (e.g., reading, science, social studies). To prepare children for success on the state-level writing assessments conducted in the intermediate grade levels, children need opportunities to write and participate in developmentally appropriate assessment upon school entry.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-36">Limitations</hd> <p>Our study included a national sample of early elementary educators. However, convenience sampling was used and responses were anonymous. It is unclear if answers provided by participants are representative of the population of early elementary educators and a rate of return could not be calculated. The missing data that resulted because participants selected which questions to answer may have biased these results.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-37">Future directions</hd> <p>Future work should continue with engagement of and partnership with educators to ensure an accurate understanding of resources available, current needs, and how implementation occurs in everyday practice when use of specific writing assessments are evaluated. It is clear that there is more work to do to provide educators with feasible approaches to writing assessment that are meaningful and sustainable to promote DBDM. While the findings of this study begin to shed light on current writing assessment approaches, we need an in depth understanding of the procedures in place for conducting assessments and observations of student writing. More information about the expectations provided to and/or generated by early elementary educators needs to be gathered along with what assessments considered to be formal or informal. It would be helpful to understand how educators use different assessment types. A content analysis of writing assessments used by educators is needed to identify how well these tools align with existing research. Additionally, investigation of how to integrate writing into other academic content areas and/or how to allocate time for writing in the master schedule is needed.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-38">Conclusion</hd> <p>Assessing the writing of students is needed for DBDM in early grade levels, a practice shown to promote children's learning in multiple areas including reading and math (e.g., Slavin et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref169">87</reflink>]). Without this practice in place, the poor student outcomes outlined above will persist and writing difficulty will continue to go undiscovered (White, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref170">96</reflink>]). Translation of the writing research conducted in early elementary grade levels to the practice setting is essential. This study calls us to recognize the importance of implementation science principles when designing and conducting assessment research to continue to work towards closing the research to practice gap.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-39">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182347461-40">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no relevant conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-41">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file 1.</p> <hd id="AN0182347461-42">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0182347461-43"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref17" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Act, E. S. S. (2015). Every student succeeds act. Public law, 114–195.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref6" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abbott RD, Berninger VW, Fayol M. Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102; 2: 281. 10.1037/a0019318</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref129" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &amp; National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents [Position Statement]. Available from <ulink href="http://www.asha.org/policy">www.asha.org/policy</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref94" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools [Professional Issues Statement]. Available from <ulink href="http://www.asha.org/policy/">www.asha.org/policy/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref160" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Angrist J, Hull P, Pathak P, Walters C. Interpreting tests of school VAM validity. American Economic Review. 2016; 106; 5: 388-392. 10.1257/aer.p20161080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref131" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Archer AL, Hughes CA. Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. 2010; Guilford Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref40" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bañales G, Ahumada S, Graham S, Puente A, Guajardo M, Muñoz I. Teaching writing in grades 4–6 in urban schools in Chile: A national survey. Reading and Writing. 2020; 33; 10: 2661-2696. 10.1007/s11145-020-10055-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref119" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Barnum CM. Usability Testing and Research. 2002; Longman</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bean RM, Cassidy J, Grumet JE, Shelton DS, Wallis SR. What do reading specialists do? Results from a national survey. The Reading Teacher. 2002; 55; 8: 736-744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bean RM, Kern D, Goatley V, Ortlieb E, Shettel J, Calo K, Marinak B, Sturtevant E, Elish-Piper L, L'Allier S, Cox MA, Frost S, Mason P, Quatroche D, Cassidy J. Specialized literacy professionals as literacy leaders: Results of a national survey. Literacy Research and Instruction. 2015; 54; 2: 83-114. 10.1080/19388071.2014.998355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Behizadeh N, Pang ME. Awaiting a new wave: The status of state writing assessment in the United States. Assessing Writing. 2016; 29: 25-41. 10.1016/j.asw.2016.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berninger, V. W, &amp; Winn, W. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In MacArthur, C. A, Graham, S, &amp; Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–114). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blamey KL, Meyer CK, Walpole S. Middle and high school literacy coaches: A national survey. Journal of Adolescent &amp; Adult Literacy. 2008; 52; 4: 310-323. 10.1598/JAAL.52.4.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blood, G. W, Mamett, C, Gordon, R, &amp; Blood, I. M. (2010). Written language disorders: Speech-language pathologists' training, knowledge, and confidence. Language Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 41(4), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/09-0032)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bridges MS, Kelley E. Experiences and perceptions of school-based speech-language pathologists related to literacy: Results from a national survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2023; 54; 1: 189-197. 10.1044/2022_LSHSS-22-00010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bondie RS, Dahnke C, Zusho A. How does changing "one-size-fits-all" to differentiated instruction affect teaching?. Review of Research in Education. 2019; 43; 1: 336-362. 10.3102/0091732X18821130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlson D, Borman GD, Robinson M. A multistate district-level cluster randomized trial of the impact of data-driven reform on reading and mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2011; 33: 378-398. 10.3102/0162373711412765</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connor CM, Lara JJ, Crowe EC, Meadows JG. Instruction, student engagement, and reading skill growth in reading first classrooms. The Elementary School Journal. 2009; 109; 3: 221-250. 10.1086/592305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cope, B, &amp; Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2016). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coker DL, Ritchey KD. Curriculum based measurement of writing in kindergarten and first grade: An investigation of production and qualitative scores. Exceptional Children. 2010; 76: 175-193. 10.1177/001440291007600203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colby SA, Stapleton JN. Preservice teachers teach writing: Implications for teacher educators. Literacy Research and Instruction. 2006; 45; 4: 353-376. 10.1080/19388070609558455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Exceptional Children and The Division for Early Childhood. (2020). Initial practice-based professional preparation standards for early interventionists/early childhood special educators (EI/ECSE) (initial birth through age 8).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cutler L, Graham S. Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100; 4: 907. 10.1037/a0012656</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeLeeuw, E. D, Hox, J. J, &amp; Huisman, M. (2003). Prevention and treatment of item nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics, 19, 153–176.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donica, D. K, Larson, M. H, &amp; Zinn, A. A. (2012). Survey of handwriting instruction practices of elementary teachers and educational programs: Implications for occupational therapy. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 26(2–3), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.3109/07380577.2012.693244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ebbeler J, Poortman CL, Schildkamp K, Pieters JM. Effects of a data use intervention on educators' use of knowledge and skills. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2016; 48: 19-31. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fallon KA, Katz LA. Providing written language services in the schools: The time is now. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2011; 42; 1: 3-17. 10.1044/0161-1461(2010/09-0068</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finestack LH, Satterlund KE. Current practice of child grammar intervention: A survey of speech-language pathologists. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2018; 27; 4: 1329-1351. 10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fixsen DL, Blase KA, Naoom SF, Wallace F. Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice. 2009; 19; 5: 531-540. 10.1177/1049731509335549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert J, Graham S. Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal. 2010; 110; 4: 494-518. 10.1086/651193</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillespie A, Graham S, Kiuhara S, Hebert M. High school teachers use of writing to support students' learning: A national survey. Reading and Writing. 2014; 27: 1043-1072. 10.1007/s11145-013-9494-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillespie Rouse A, Kiuhara SA, Kara Y. Writing-to-learn in elementary classrooms: A national survey of US teachers. Reading and Writing. 2021; 34; 9: 2381-2415. 10.1007/s11145-021-10148-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S, Bollinger, A, Olson, C. B, D'Aoust, C, MacArthur, C, McCutchen, D, &amp; Olinghouse, N. (2018). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide. NCEE 2012-4058. What Works Clearinghouse.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Capizzi A, Harris KR, Hebert M, Morphy P. Teaching writing to middle school students: A national survey. Reading and Writing. 2014; 27: 1015-1042. 10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Harris KR, Fink-Chorzempa B, MacArthur C. Primary grade teachers' instructional adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003; 95; 2: 279. 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Hebert M, Harris KR. Formative assessment and writing: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal. 2015; 115; 4: 523-547. 10.1086/681947</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S, McKeown, D, Kiuhara, S, &amp; Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo Y, Puranik C, Dinnesen MS, Hall AH. Exploring kindergarten teachers' classroom practices and beliefs in writing. Reading and Writing. 2022. 10.1007/s11145-021-10193-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, A. H. (2016). Investigating what matters for writing instruction in South Carolina elementary schools: Teachers' perceptions of effective writing strategies and barriers to implementation. Reading Matters, 16, 17–23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, A. H, &amp; Grisham-Brown, J. (2011). Writing development over time: Examining preservice teachers' attitudes and beliefs about writing. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(2), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2011.572230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall AH, Hutchison A, White KM. Teachers' perceptions about the common core state standards in writing. Journal of Research in Education. 2015; 25; 1: 88-99</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall-Mills S, Apel K. Linguistic feature development across grades and genre in elementary writing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2015; 46; 3: 242-255. 10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14-0043</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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofslundsengen, H, Hagtvet, B. E, &amp; Gustafsson, J. E. (2016). Immediate and delayed effects of invented writing intervention in preschool. Reading and Writing, 29, 1473–1495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9646-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hresko, W. P, Herron, S. R, Peak, P. K, &amp; Hicks, D. L. (2012). TEWL 3: Test of Early Written Language - Third Edition. Pro-Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsiang TP, Graham S, Yang YM. Teachers' practices and beliefs about teaching writing: A comprehensive survey of grades 1 to 3 teachers. Reading and Writing. 2020; 33: 2511-2548. 10.1007/s11145-020-10050-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Literacy Association. (2017). Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals 2017: Key shifts in roles and standards (updated). Retrieved from International Literacy Association's website: <ulink href="http://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/resource-documents/standards-chart.pdf">http://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/resource-documents/standards-chart.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juel C. Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1988; 80; 4: 437-447. 10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jung PG, McMaster KL, Kunkel AK, Shin J, Stecker PM. Effects of data-based individualization for students with intensive learning needs: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research &amp; Practice. 2018; 33; 3: 144-155. 10.1111/ldrp.12172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, A. S, &amp; Kaufman, N. L. (2014). KTEA-3: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kent S, Wanzek J, Petscher Y, Al Otaiba S, Kim YS. Writing fluency and quality in kindergarten and first grade: The role of attention, reading, transcription, and oral language. Reading and Writing. 2014; 27; 7: 1163-1188. 10.1007/s11145-013-9480-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keller-Margulis MA, Ochs S, Reid EK, Faith EL, Schanding GT Jr. Validity and diagnostic accuracy of early written expression screeners in kindergarten. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2019; 37; 5: 539-552. 10.1177/07342829187699</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim YS, Al Otaiba S, Puranik C, Folsom JS, Gruelich L. The contributions of vocabulary and letter writing automaticity to word reading and spelling for kindergartners. Reading and Writing. 2014; 27; 2: 237-253. 10.1007/s11145-013-9440-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim YS, Al Otaiba S, Puranik C, Folsom JS, Greulich L, Wagner RK. Componential skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences. 2011; 21; 5: 517-525. 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim YS, Al Otaiba S, Wanzek J. Kindergarten predictors of third grade writing. Learning and Individual Differences. 2015; 37: 27-37. 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020). Interactive dynamic literacy model: An integrative theoretical framework for reading and writing relations. In R. Alves, T. Limpo, &amp; M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading-writing connections: Towards integrative literacy science (pp. 11–34). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38811-9_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y. S. G, &amp; Graham, S. (2022). Expanding the Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Writing (DIEW): Reading–writing relations, and dynamic relations as a function of measurement/dimensions of written composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim YS, Schatschneider C. Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017; 109; 1: 35-50. 10.1037/edu0000129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby MS, Spencer TD, Iva Chen YJ. Oral narrative instruction improves kindergarten writing. Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly. 2021. 10.1080/10573569.2021.1879696</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiuhara SA, Graham S, Hawken LS. Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009; 101; 1: 136. 10.1037/a0013097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leko MM, Handy T. Literacy instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Examining teacher practice and preparation. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal. 2019; 17; 1: 117-138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leko MM, Handy T, Roberts CA. Examining secondary special education teachers' literacy instructional practices. Exceptionality. 2017; 25; 1: 26-39. 10.1080/09362835.2016.1196442</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lembke, E. S, Garman, C, Deno, S. L, &amp; Stecker, P. M. (2010). One elementary school's implementation of response to intervention (RTI). Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly,26(4), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2010.500266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–385.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mandinach EB, Schildkamp K. Misconceptions about data-based decision making in education: An exploration of the literature. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2021; 69: 1-10. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100842</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manfra L, Squires C, Dinehart LH, Bleiker C, Hartman SC, Winsler A. Preschool writing and premathematics predict grade 3 achievement for low-income, ethnically diverse children. The Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 110; 5: 528-537. 10.1080/00220671.2016.1145095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mangin MM, Dunsmore K. How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2015; 51; 2: 179-213. 10.1177/0013161X14522814</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCoach DB, Gable RK, Madura JP. Instrument development in the affective domain. 2013; Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4614-7135-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenna, M, Dedrick, R, &amp; Goldstein, H. (2022). Development and initial validation of the early elementary writing rubric to inform instruction for kindergarten and first-grade students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 47(4), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084211065977</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMaster K, Espin C. Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education. 2007; 41; 2: 68-84. 10.1177/00224669070410020301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMaster KL, Shin J, Espin CA, Jung PG, Wayman MM, Deno SL. Monitoring elementary students' writing progress using curriculum-based measures: Grade and gender differences. Reading and Writing. 2017; 30: 2069-2091. 10.1007/s11145-017-9766-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Messick S. The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist. 1975; 30; 10: 955-966. 10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.955</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mo Y, Kopke RA, Hawkins LK, Troia GA, Olinghouse NG. The neglected "R" in a time of Common Core. The Reading Teacher. 2014; 67; 6: 445-453. 10.1002/trtr.1227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2011. 2012; Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 6+1 Trait® Writing [NREL]. (2014). <ulink href="http://www.nea.org/tools/lessons/59760.htm">http://www.nea.org/tools/lessons/59760.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Payan AM, Keller-Margulis M, Burridge AB, McQuillin SD, Hassett KS. Assessing teacher usability of written expression curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention. 2019; 45; 1: 51-64. 10.1177/1534508418781007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Philippakos ZAT, FitzPatrick E. A proposed tiered model of assessment in writing instruction: Supporting all student-writers. Insights into Learning Disabilities. 2018; 15; 2: 149-173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik CS, Al Otaiba S. Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing. 2012; 25; 7: 1523-1546. 10.1007/s11145-011-9331-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik CS, Al Otaiba S, Sidler JF, Greulich L. Exploring the amount and type of writing instruction during language arts instruction in kindergarten classrooms. Reading and Writing. 2014; 27: 213-236. 10.1007/s11145-013-9441-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rankin-Erickson JL, Pressley M. A survey of instructional practices of special education teachers nominated as effective teachers of literacy. Learning Disabilities Research &amp; Practice. 2000; 15; 4: 206-225. 10.1207/SLDRP1504_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ray AB, Graham S, Houston JD, Harris KR. Teachers use of writing to support students' learning in middle school: A national survey in the United States. Reading and Writing. 2016; 29: 1039-1068. 10.1007/s11145-015-9602-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritchey KD, Coker DL Jr. An investigation of the validity and utility of two curriculum-based measurement writing tasks. Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly. 2013; 29; 1: 89-119. 10.1080/10573569.2013.741957</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritchey KD, Coker DL Jr. Identifying writing difficulties in first grade: An investigation of writing and reading measures. Learning Disabilities Research &amp; Practice. 2014; 29; 2: 54-65. 10.1111/ldrp.12030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrank, F. A, McGrew, K. S, &amp; Mather, N. (2014). WJ-IV: Woodcock–Johnson IV. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan T. Relationships between reading and writing development. Handbook of Writing Research. 2016; 2: 194-207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slavin RE, Cheung A, Holmes G, Madden NA, Chamberlain A. Effects of a data-driven district reform model on state assessment outcomes. American Educational Research Journal. 2013; 50; 2: 371-396. 10.3102/0002831212466909</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spencer TD, Petersen DB. Bridging oral and written language: An oral narrative language intervention study with writing outcomes. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2018; 49; 3: 569-581. 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sturm JM, Cali K, Nelson NW, Staskowski M. The developmental writing scale: A new progress monitoring tool for beginning writers. Topics in Language Disorders. 2012; 32; 4: 297-318. 10.1097/TLD.0b013e318272159e</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tortorelli L, Gerde HK, Rohloff R, Bingham GE. Ready, set, write: Early learning standards for writing in the common core era. Reading Research Quarterly. 2022; 57; 2: 729-752. 10.1002/rrq.436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troia, G. (2014). Evidence-based practices for writing instruction (Document No. IC-5). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: <ulink href="http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configuration">http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configuration</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troia GA, Graham S. Common core writing and language standards and aligned state assessments: A national survey of teacher beliefs and attitudes. Reading and Writing. 2016; 29: 1719-1743. 10.1007/s11145-016-9650-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Geel M, Keuning T, Visscher AJ, Fox J-P. Assessing the effects of a school-wide data-based decision-making intervention on student achievement growth in primary schools. American Educational Research Journal. 2016; 53: 360-394. 10.3102/0002831216637346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner RK, Puranik CS, Foorman B, Foster E, Tschinkel E, Kantor PT. Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2011; 24: 203-220. 10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walpole S, Blamey KL. Elementary literacy coaches: The reality of dual roles. The Reading Teacher. 2008; 62; 3: 222-231. 10.1598/RT.62.3.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White KM. Associations between teacher–child relationships and children's writing in kindergarten and first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2013; 28; 1: 166-176. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willis GBPresser S, Rothgeb JM, Couper MP, Lessler JT, Martin E, Martin J, Singe E. Cognitive interviewing revisited: A useful technique, in theory. Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. 2004; Wiley: 23-43. 10.1002/0471654728.ch2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood CL, Schatschneider C, Hart S. Average one year change in lexical measures of written narratives for school age students. Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly. 2020; 36; 3: 260-277. 10.1080/10573569.2019.1635544</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zumbrunn S, Bruning R. Improving the writing and knowledge of emergent writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Reading and Writing. 2013; 26; 1: 91-110. 10.1007/s11145-012-9384-5</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Meaghan McKenna; Hope Gerde and Nicolette Grasley-Boy</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref170"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1458041 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Current Writing Assessment Practices of Kindergarten through Second Grade Educators – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meaghan+McKenna%22">Meaghan McKenna</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9430-415X">0000-0001-9430-415X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hope+Gerde%22">Hope Gerde</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7783-7771">0000-0001-7783-7771</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nicolette+Grasley-Boy%22">Nicolette Grasley-Boy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8219-9038">0000-0002-8219-9038</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 38(1):95-119. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 25 – 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="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool 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="%22Writing+Evaluation%22">Writing Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Instruction%22">Writing Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Teachers%22">Preschool Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beginning+Writing%22">Beginning Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Tests%22">Writing Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Format%22">Test Format</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scoring%22">Scoring</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s11145-023-10503-6 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0922-4777<br />1573-0905 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This article describes the development and administration of the "Kindergarten-Second Grade (K-2) Writing Data-Based Decision Making (DBDM) Survey." The "K-2 Writing DBDM Survey" was developed to learn more about current DBDM practices specific to early writing. A total of 376 educational professionals (175 general education classroom teachers, 42 special education teachers, 118 speech-language pathologists, and 41 specialists (e.g., interventionists, coaches, educators supporting emergent bilinguals) who work with kindergarten, first, and/or second grade students in school settings in the United States participated in this survey study. Results include participant responses to 32 closed-ended items and 2 open-ended items covering five domains: (a) demographic information; (b) assessment(s) types, (c) administration procedures, (d) scoring procedures, and (e) information gathered. Descriptive and regression analyses were applied to summarize the survey results. Findings from this survey indicated that even with limited or no guidance, some educators within all groups of professionals surveyed are assessing students. However, ongoing improvements need to be made to prioritize writing upon school entry. These results remind us of the importance of partnership with educators to ensure accurate understanding of resources available for assessment, current areas of need, and how implementation can feasibly occur in the practice setting when developing and studying approaches to 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: EJ1458041 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1458041 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11145-023-10503-6 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 25 StartPage: 95 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Writing Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Preschool Teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Kindergarten Type: general – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Elementary Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Beginning Writing Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Tests Type: general – SubjectFull: Test Format Type: general – SubjectFull: Scoring Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Current Writing Assessment Practices of Kindergarten through Second Grade Educators Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Meaghan McKenna – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Hope Gerde – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Nicolette Grasley-Boy IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0922-4777 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-0905 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 38 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
