View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Exploring the Multimodality of Emerging Writing by Multilingual Kindergarteners

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Exploring the Multimodality of Emerging Writing by Multilingual Kindergarteners
Language: English
Authors: Gordon Blaine West (ORCID 0000-0002-8956-136X), Jeanne Beck
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(6):2073-2087.
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: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Descriptors: Emergent Literacy, Beginning Writing, Childrens Writing, Multilingualism, Bilingual Students, Kindergarten, Young Children, Freehand Drawing, Written Language, Language Proficiency, Writing Tests, Semiotics, Text Structure
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-025-01894-y
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: Young, linguistically diverse learners often leverage multimodality to more fully express their ideas in writing. To better support and assess English writing development, it is vital to understand multimodality as part of their emerging writing skills. In this study, we examine how drawings and written language are used jointly in multimodal ensembles by emerging multilingual writers to convey meaning. Specifically, we look at English language writing produced on a screener administered to assess the language proficiency of multilingual learners when they enter school. Students (n = 1,597, aged 5-6) across 25 U.S. states were administered the writing assessment. Our exploratory study examines student responses to a narrative writing task from a subset of 300 students, with 100 students each from high, mid, and low English language proficiency levels, as indicated by their performance on the writing task. Drawing from a social semiotic understanding of multimodality, we developed a coding scheme and used it to code each writing sample for multimodal features. Although students were not asked to draw in addition to writing, emerging writers often used drawings and layout features to convey meaning. Lower proficiency writers were more likely to use drawings, and their drawings were often the most salient mode used to convey meaning in their responses. Higher proficiency writers were more likely to use more complex layout features like text wrapping. Results further show that drawings and layout features functioned to increase the complexity and cohesion in all samples.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1479549
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGbOo0535RhNtRBemU3m9h1AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDj5-VBFwle5DYExWAIBEICBm41By8UZyeGSVqIlqbUFlASpZWDkot59ICbPm1ySGqdt3w1s6PsQqKRcql4I36Q9yLv9-_e9oeYpA5m79SJXjJSlqQVwGMNZ3lUpssBykneMVocs2S0lRiinDzbPJcTILCpiFaJo2OA-RNUX6fHE4C8Fm7MPFwqU7pcBbBH2LBu2WmHefqX5vUcUJtlfHPO_bzfmx7YBINjYVga3
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187189993;5mx01aug.25;2025Aug11.03:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187189993-1">Exploring the Multimodality of Emerging Writing by Multilingual Kindergarteners </title> <p>Young, linguistically diverse learners often leverage multimodality to more fully express their ideas in writing. To better support and assess English writing development, it is vital to understand multimodality as part of their emerging writing skills. In this study, we examine how drawings and written language are used jointly in multimodal ensembles by emerging multilingual writers to convey meaning. Specifically, we look at English language writing produced on a screener administered to assess the language proficiency of multilingual learners when they enter school. Students (n = 1,597, aged 5–6) across 25 U.S. states were administered the writing assessment. Our exploratory study examines student responses to a narrative writing task from a subset of 300 students, with 100 students each from high, mid, and low English language proficiency levels, as indicated by their performance on the writing task. Drawing from a social semiotic understanding of multimodality, we developed a coding scheme and used it to code each writing sample for multimodal features. Although students were not asked to draw in addition to writing, emerging writers often used drawings and layout features to convey meaning. Lower proficiency writers were more likely to use drawings, and their drawings were often the most salient mode used to convey meaning in their responses. Higher proficiency writers were more likely to use more complex layout features like text wrapping. Results further show that drawings and layout features functioned to increase the complexity and cohesion in all samples.</p> <p>Keywords: Multimodality; Kindergarten; Multilingual learners; Writing; Assessment; Language; Communication and Culture Linguistics Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-2">Introduction</hd> <p>For kindergarten learners (aged 5–6), literacy is highly multimodal, involving images, gestures, speech, and other modes that are used in connection with written text. This multimodality can be used to leverage language and literacy learning for multilingual learners as they learn to write in English (Early et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]; Schall-Leckrone, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref2">31</reflink>]; Taylor & Leung, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]; Wheeler, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref4">40</reflink>]). These studies have helped expand our understanding of the importance of multimodality in early literacy, but the use of multimodality in assessments of early language and literacy is still developing (Brown & Allmond, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]). Since multimodality is an important part of literacy and language development, it is important to expand our understanding of how multilingual writers use multimodal features in their emerging writing. A better understanding of multimodality in emerging writing benefits educators in developing supportive and inclusive pedagogy, which can help guide the development of multimodal language and literacy assessments that more accurately reflect the highly multimodal classroom environments where students are developing their languages and literacies.</p> <p>We define emerging writing in this paper as the developing skills to communicate through "written representations, symbols, and letters" (Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]), with written text as just one aspect of multimodal ensembles used to convey meaning. There have been numerous studies of the emerging writing of young monolingual learners in English (e.g., Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]; Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>]; Rohloff et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]). This research has helped to develop various assessments of emerging writing in English and to provide pedagogical guidance. However, fewer studies have focused on the emerging English language writing of young multilingual learners (Williams & Lowrance-Faulhaber, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref10">42</reflink>]). In the United States, 15.1% of all kindergarten students are identified as English learners[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>] (ELs) (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). State and local educational entities are legally bound to provide appropriate support services to students identified as ELs. To be identified as ELs, students undergo a screening process as determined by states and districts. As part of this screening process, English language proficiency in speaking and listening is often assessed, though students may also be assessed in English language writing and reading proficiency (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]). Further, federal legislation requires that the English language development of students identified as ELs is monitored through annual summative assessments in which writing is assessed. For these reasons, it is important to extend our understandings of the emerging English language writing of multilingual kindergarten learners. In particular, since multimodality is a crucial part of their writing development but typically not included in assessments of their writing (Brown & Allmond, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]), it is important to better understand how the meaning is conveyed multimodally in their writing. Doing so can help guide the development of more reliable and accurate measures in assessment and provide clearer pedagogical guidance to educators working with these students.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-3">Multimodality and Young Learner Writing</hd> <p>We are guided in this study by a social semiotic understanding of multimodality (Bezemer & Kress, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]; Kress, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]; van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref16">38</reflink>]). There are three relevant tenets of this understanding of multimodality to this study: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>) meanings are made using multiple <emph>modes</emph>, each of which offers different semiotic resources for meaning making, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>) the recognition and use of those modes to convey meaning depends on the social context in which people are situated, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>) modes work together in ensembles to convey meaning. First, this concept of multimodality broadens our understanding of communication, wherein written language is just one mode among many. A mode is "a socially shaped and culturally given resource for making meaning" (Kress, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref20">18</reflink>], p. 60), for instance, gesture, speech, layout, and writing are all different modes. Each of these modes offers different semiotic resources for communication, for example speech offers resources like lexis, syntax, pitch, intonation, and duration to convey meanings (Bezemer & Kress, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]). Writing offers lexis and syntax as well, but also different resources like spacing, bolding, and underlining to convey meaning. The different modes, with their various resources, particularly benefit young multilingual learners in creating opportunities for students to leverage their culturally and linguistically diverse strengths (Bañuelos & Banes, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]). In kindergarten, literacy is often highly multimodal, involving images, oral language, gestures, etc., and students embrace multimodal communication because "Multimodal expression is natural for young children since they do not necessarily privilege one mode of expression over another" (Taylor & Leung, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref23">34</reflink>], pp. 2–3).</p> <p>The privileging of one mode over another (e.g., writing over drawings) is shaped by the broader social context in which we are situated, which does impose hierarchies on modes of meaning making (Bezemer & Kress, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>]), particularly in educational and assessment settings where students learning to convey meaning in writing is prioritized (Ray & Glover, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref25">27</reflink>]). This fact highlights the second tenet, that the use of modes is embedded within socio-cultural structures. The recognition of modes and the meanings they convey are also socially mediated. Drawings offer semiotic resources like color, salience, and shape, that are more open to interpretation by viewers seeking to make meaning than writing may be. For example, colors may convey different affective meanings, and the sociocultural background of the viewer helps to shape how they interpret meaning from colors (Kawai et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref26">14</reflink>]). It is important to note that, regardless of how open to interpretation the meaning conveyed by various modes may be, the use of these modes, even in young children's communications, is never arbitrary (Kress, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>]). The use of modes is purposeful and that understanding helps us to take seriously the meanings that young children convey in their writing and drawing.</p> <p>A less commonly studied mode used in ensembles with writing is layout, or how different elements are arranged on the page (Kress & van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>]; Kress, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]). Kress and van Leeuwen ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref30">19</reflink>]) studied layout as a mode through which meaning is conveyed in the context of professionally produced print media. It has been less studied in the context of children's writing; however, layout offers semiotic resources including text directionality (left to right in English; right to left in languages like Arabic and Hebrew), linearity, and text wrapping. Other scholars of young children's writing have examined the semiotic resources of layout from a developmental perspective, describing how children develop awareness and mastery of these features of writing through instruction and practice (e.g., McGill-Franzen, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>]; Rohloff et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref32">28</reflink>]). Understanding text directionality, linearity, and text wrapping as semiotic resources of layout allows us to reframe the writing that children produce from a more asset-based perspective, where we understand that children are utilizing a growing repertoire of modes to convey meanings in specific ways.</p> <p>Different modes work together in ensembles to convey meaning. For young children, writing is often composed together with drawings in a larger multimodal ensemble to more effectively convey complex meanings. Meaning making always depends on the reading not of individual modes but of reading the larger multimodal ensembles (Jewitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]). The individual modes work together in these ensembles, serving complimentary functions and building cohesion between the modes (Bezemer & Kress, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]). In these ensembles, the modes are arranged and organized purposefully by the designer (person communicating) (Kress, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]). When we read young children's writing then, we read it as a multimodal ensemble, together with the drawing (if one exists), and with the understanding that the child has purposefully designed it to convey the meaning they intended.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-4">Multimodal Ensembles</hd> <p>It is important to examine the relationship between the different modes used in multimodal ensembles to understand how young children use different modes to convey meanings. While they serve complimentary functions, modes may be equally or unequally used in ensembles. When they are unequally used, some may be either subordinate or dominate in conveying meaning (Kress & van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref36">19</reflink>]; Martinec & Salway, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref37">21</reflink>]). One way to determine the hierarchical relationship between modes is to examine the <emph>salience</emph> of modes, or how they are arranged to attract attention (van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>]). Salience can be determined by the position of modes on the page (e.g., is writing more central than the drawing?), and by relative size (e.g., is the drawing larger than the text?).</p> <p>Salience is a basic indication of the relationship between modes in ensembles. The modes, as parts of an ensemble, also build cohesion in different ways. Martinec and Salway ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]) developed a useful framework for determining the types of cohesion developed between text and images. Treating both images and writing as clauses in ensembles, they have identified three types of cohesion between those clauses: elaboration, where the writing or image restates or clarifies information; extension, where the writing or image adds information that the other does not convey; and enhancement, where the text or image gives information about how, when, or why, that is missing in the other. In looking specifically at children's (aged 9–11) multimodal narratives, Pantaleo ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref40">24</reflink>]) found different types of cohesion between modes. Looking at student-created picture books, she showed how a student was able to convey that the character was speaking directly to the reader through both the image of the character (gazing directly at the reader) and the text, verbally addressing the reader. She also showed an instance where a student created visual links between character's speech by using a different color and font for each character's dialogue throughout the book. In all these cases, modes in ensembles do not simply convey different bits of information but rather work together in cohesive ways to convey more complex meanings than the single modes on their own convey.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-5">Studies of Multimodality in Young Learner Writing</hd> <p>Previous studies of emerging writing have often looked at both older students (e.g., elementary, as in Pantaleo, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref41">24</reflink>]) and defined multimodality in various ways. In a review of studies on bi/multilingual learner emerging writing, Williams and Lowrance-Faulhaber ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]) highlighted that multilingual writing development is a growing field. They found that while progressions of emerging writing are similar for all children, multilingual learners have a variety of linguistic tools and resources that can introduce additional variation into their compositions. They also noted that multimodal composing practices support multilingual learners' linguistic development. Most studies that specifically analyze multimodal composition of young learner writing have focused on older elementary aged learners (ages 8–12) and have not explicitly detailed how multilingual learners may have participated in the study. In one earlier study, van Leeuwen ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref43">36</reflink>]) used a social semiotic framework to show the ways in which elementary students composed multimodal texts (drawing and writing) to depict a trip to a science museum. He found that the different focus and emphasis of the compositions were influenced by the sociocultural environments of the different schools the students attended, showing how multimodal meaning making is socioculturally situated.</p> <p>Since young learner writing often combines other modes, like drawing and color (Ray & Glover, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]), multimodality is present in studies of young multilingual learner writing, even if it is not the focus of analysis (e.g., Machado & Hartman, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref45">20</reflink>]). In studies that have focused on how elementary-aged multilingual writers use multiple modes in their compositions, researchers have found that drawings support linguistic production, allow learners to convey more complex meanings, and support identity development (Ahn & West, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]; Pantaleo, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>]; Pietikäinen & Pitkänen-Huhta, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref48">25</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref49">32</reflink>]). A few recent studies have found that treating writing as a multimodal composing process that naturally involves drawings also supports the linguistic production of multilingual kindergarten learners (Bañuelos & Banes, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>]; Cun, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref51">5</reflink>]; Schall-Leckrone, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref52">31</reflink>]). Importantly, by allowing kindergarten learners to use an expanded repertoire of modes, Schall-Leckrone ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref53">31</reflink>]) showed that learners had increased agency and were able to communicate more effectively. Cun ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]) also showed how children learning Chinese were able to utilize the different semiotic resources afforded by the modes of sticks and leaves to create Chinese characters that aided their language learning and multilingual composing. Multimodality, through the combination of modes of drawing and writing, afford multilingual kindergarteners expanded opportunities for more complex meaning making that support, among other things, the development of their linguistic repertoires.</p> <p>Since multimodal composition affords complex meaning making, Brown and Allmond ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref55">4</reflink>]) argue that assessments should also support a more comprehensive understanding of children's multimodal meaning making. Without a solid understanding of how multilingual kindergarten learners with emerging writing use multimodality in writing and drawing compositions, however, we cannot develop valid and reliable measures in language assessments that account for and evaluate their full multimodal compositions. This study builds on previous work to help understand how multimodal features of emerging writing by multilingual kindergarten learners function and are used. To that end, the research questions that guide this study are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How are multimodal features used to make meaning in English language writing by multilingual learners when drawing is naturally occurring (neither prompted nor discouraged)?</item> <p></p> <item> How do multimodal features of emerging English language writing differ between low-, mid-, and high-level English language proficiency multilingual kindergarteners when drawing is naturally occurring (neither prompted nor discouraged)?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187189993-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189993-7">Participants</hd> <p>Participants in this study were kindergarten ELs who took part in a field test of the WIDA Screener for Kindergarten assessment. The WIDA Consortium, based out of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, consists of 41 U.S. states, territories, and educational agencies.</p> <p>Responses from WIDA Screener for Kindergarten Field Test were collected in two phases in 2019 and 2020. Phase I took place in August and September of 2019, while Phase II took place in January and February of 2020. The number of participants by phase of the field test is provided in Table 1. In total, 1,597 students took part in the field test.</p> <p>Table 1 Participants by phase of the field test</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Phase</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number</p></th><th align="left"><p>Percent</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Field Test I</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>742</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>46.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Field Test II</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>855</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>53.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1,597</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100.0</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Of the 1,597 participants, 805 (50.4%) were identified as female, 777 (48.7%) were identified as male, and 15 (0.9%) were unknown. States in which field testing was conducted can be seen in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2 Participants by location (<emph>n</emph> = 23 states)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>State</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number</p></th><th align="left"><p>Percent</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>AL</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>57</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>FL</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>40</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>GA</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>97</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IL</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IN</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>KY</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>MA</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>121</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>MI</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>322</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>MN</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>124</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>MO</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>103</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>MT</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NC</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NJ</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NM</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>OK</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PA</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>112</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>RI</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>TN</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>UT</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>49</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>VA</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>VT</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WI</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WY</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1,597</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100.0</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>All participants were identified by their schools as English learners at the time of data collection. The race and ethnicity of kindergarten participants, as reported by the schools, is provided in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3 Participants by race and ethnicity</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Race/ethnicity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number</p></th><th align="left"><p>Percent</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Hispanic (of any race)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>757</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Asian (non-Hispanic)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>439</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>27.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>White (non-Hispanic)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>235</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Black (non-Hispanic)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unknown</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Multi-racial (non-Hispanic)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>American Indian</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pacific Islander</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1,597</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100.0</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Educators reported that the students in the study used 69 different home languages, with Spanish being the most common home language of participants at just over 40% (see Table 4). Over a quarter of participants had no recorded home language, 5% reported Arabic, and 4.2% reported English as their home language. These numbers represent challenges in collecting information on home languages from schools and districts that use different methods to gather and report this data, including home language surveys where families may indicate English as a home language, among others. This anomaly occurs in other datasets as well (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref56">23</reflink>]). In all cases, however, schools have used screening data to identify students as English learners. The category of "other" includes languages such as Gujarati, Korean, Haitian, Tagalog, Khmer, Ukrainian, Albanian, Amharic, Tonga, and Igbo, which were reported as being the home languages of fewer than ten students included in the study.</p> <p>Table 4 Home languages of participants</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Language</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number</p></th><th align="left"><p>Percent</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Spanish</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>674</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>42.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unspecified</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>408</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Arabic</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hmong</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>54</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Chinese</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>26</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Telugu</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Portugese</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Russian</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Japanese</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hindi</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tamil</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>German</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Polish</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Somali</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Other*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>135</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1,597</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100.0</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*Includes all languages used by fewer than 10 participants in the study</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-8">Data Collection</hd> <p>Field testing for the WIDA Screener for Kindergarten was conducted to gather performance data for the assessment. For this study, we conducted a post-hoc analysis of the writing samples gathered during field testing. For the field test, participants were recruited from across the WIDA consortium to ensure a representative sample of students in terms of geographic location, language background, gender, and other demographic characteristics.</p> <p>The WIDA Screener for Kindergarten is a paper and pencil test administered one-on-one with a teacher or other professional who has undergone test administrator (TA) training. All test administrators who participated in the field test went through a specially designed training course before administering the test. To the extent possible, the test is meant to be administered by educators who know the student they are assessing (often their EL teacher). This assessment is intended to be administered when students enter kindergarten to assist in determining whether a student requires English language support services to fully access the curriculum. The test is responsive in design and is scored locally by the TA. The writing test consists of a series of tasks. The first task is name writing, followed by letter copying, production of initial sounds from words, and production of single words. These tasks all use images printed in the response booklet for scaffolding and prompting, with students writing their responses in unlined response boxes. There is no space for drawing pictures in these first tasks. Instead, students are directed to look at the images provided to support their writing. At the end of the writing domain test is a narrative writing task. For this study, we analyzed only student responses to the narrative task since we were interested only in how students composed writing for an open-ended task.</p> <p>The narrative writing task is open ended, consisting of a narrative retelling of a story. For the task, a TA first reads a story to the student, pointing at a series of four images depicting scenes in the story. Then, the student is prompted to orally retell the story before being asked to write the story. Students write in a response booklet, which provides an open space for writing within a framed outline on the page. There are no writing lines (see Fig. 1). Students were not directed to draw pictures by the TA as part of the task, but neither were they directed to stop drawing if they did choose to draw. In contrast to tasks where students may be prompted to draw and write, in this task, students were free to either compose with drawings or not. For this reason, we find the drawings produced as part of these writing samples to be authentic aspects of student writing or their authentic design of multimodal ensembles to convey meaning. Visual support is provided by images depicting scenes in the story, which remain visible to the student throughout the task.</p> <p>After writing, the TA asks the student to read back what they have written and transcribes the student's writing. Then, once the student has left the room, the TA uses a Writing Rubric (https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/WIDA-Writing-Rubric-PreK-Kindergarten.pdf) to score the writing on a scale of 0 through 6, with 6 being the highest score.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-9">Analysis</hd> <p>After the field test, all writing samples and TA transcriptions were scanned and double-scored by trained raters, ensuring that local scores given by TAs were accurate. For this study, we selected a subset of responses for a more in-depth analysis. We found drawings in approximately 30% of the writing samples. In line with the exploratory nature of this study, and to ensure we had samples on which we could conduct a multimodal analysis, we first selected samples with drawings and then randomly selected additional samples at the low, mid, and high score levels, as determined by their narrative raw score. In total, we selected 100 samples at each proficiency level for a total of 300 responses, 28% of which included drawings. This study focuses on narrative writing responses (See Table 5).</p> <p>Table 5 Subset for analysis</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Level</p></th><th align="left"><p>Name writing sample</p></th><th align="left"><p>Narrative writing sample</p></th><th align="left"><p>Narrative raw score</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Low</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 or 2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mid</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 or 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>High</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>5 or 6</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A coding scheme was developed in two stages. First, from November 2021 to March 2022, a regular series of coding workshops were held with the first author and two other kindergarten English language specialists. The coding scheme was developed in an iterative process by looking at both a set of ten writing samples from the dataset, chosen to provide examples of student drawings alongside writing and writing scored at different proficiency levels, and by reviewing coding schemes from previous studies (e.g., Kirby et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref57">16</reflink>]; Rowe & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]). Next, a pilot coding phase was conducted in which the three participants (first author and two kindergarten English language specialists) in the coding workshops coded 30 randomly selected writing samples from the dataset, including ten at each proficiency level. Several calibration meetings were held to work through disagreements, reach a consensus on coded features, and refine the coding scheme. The resulting coding scheme for multimodal features is broken down into two main categories: layout features and drawing features (see Appendix A).</p> <p>After the coding scheme was refined, this study's first and second author coded 300 responses, with 20% interrater coding and an interrater reliability score (calculated using intraclass correlation, ICC) of 95.3%. Coding was done by filling out a survey form for each writing sample, where coders were asked to respond to questions to code for 83 features across four categories: mechanical (e.g., sound/letter correspondence, letter formation), narrative (e.g., characters and setting elements, plot features), discourse (e.g., clauses and cohesion), and multimodal features (see Appendix B). In this paper, we focus only on the multimodal features to give a more in-depth understanding of how these were present in writing samples. Binary coding was completed for all features, determining whether a feature was present or not present. As such, the frequency of features within individual responses was not recorded, only its presence or absence.</p> <p>Coding for multimodal features required a theoretically informed analysis of the writing samples. For instance, we used van Leeuwen's ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref59">38</reflink>]) notion of salience to inform our analysis of which elements of the writing sample were most salient and Martinec and Salway's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref60">21</reflink>]) concepts of multimodal cohesion to guide the coding of cohesion between drawings and writing in the samples. For analysis of the finished coding, we employed quantitative measures. There were very few open-ended responses to the coding of multimodal features, so there was no need for a systematic qualitative analysis of open-ended responses. For the binary responses, we conducted a descriptive statistical analysis, presented below, to help better show patterns that emerged from the coding process.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-10">Findings</hd> <p>In the following section, we break down our findings by category. First, we provide analysis of layout features, which occurred in all 300 writing samples. Next, we provide a more in-depth analysis of multimodal features relating to drawings as part of multimodal ensembles, examining salience and then drawing and text cohesion. In each category, we provide findings from the analysis across samples at the three different proficiency levels.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-11">Layout Features</hd> <p>Many layout features we coded for did not show meaningful differences in the way that students at different proficiency levels produced writing. All writing samples had a clearly discernible pattern or visual organization. Similarly, all text in the responses was written from left to right, with one exception of a student writing letters diagonally across the page. Only one writing sample used a heading to indicate a title for the narrative writing. There were also very few (<emph>n</emph> = 21; 9 low, 7 mid, 5 high) instances of underlining or drawing boxes around words. While these features did not differ across proficiency levels, these findings help us understand that kindergarten students regularly organize their compositions visually on the page, even without writing lines, and they are aware of the convention of writing English left to right.</p> <p>We saw patterns begin to arise from the text layout features for which we coded. Some students wrote one or two words per line, what we called a "word list style," or wrote across the page and then wrapped the text to the line below (Table 6).</p> <p>Table 6 Text layout features</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Feature</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Low</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Mid</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>High</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Total</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Word list style</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>59</p></td><td align="left"><p>59%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>39</p></td><td align="left"><p>39%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>6%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>104</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34.7%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Text wrapping</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>13%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>36</p></td><td align="left"><p>36%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>93</p></td><td align="left"><p>93%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>142</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47.3%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The majority (59%) of low proficiency responses used a word list style for the text layout, while only 6% of the high proficiency samples used this style. The vast majority (93%) of high proficiency samples used text wrapping. The mid proficiency samples showed a mix of word list style (39%) and text wrapping (36%). This finding indicates that as students' English writing proficiency increases, they are more likely to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>) produce more language, enough to text wrap, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>) to then use text wrapping for their text layout.</p> <p>Word list style and text wrapping accounted for 246 responses, or 82% of the total writing responses. The remaining 18% of samples included one high proficiency sample with one sentence per line, 25 mid proficiency samples that had only one line of text, or one sentence per line, and 28 low proficiency samples that had one or two words total in the sample. Table 7 shows examples of the different types of text layout in the samples.</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-12">Drawings</hd> <p>On the narrative writing task, students were not asked to draw a picture, but neither were they instructed to stop drawing if they did so. In total, there were 85 (28.3%) writing samples that included a drawing, and of those 69 (23.0%) included a drawing of something that was recognizable by the coders (Table 8). Many of the drawings that were unrecognizable included abstract shapes or scribbled out sketches. Although a relatively small number of writing samples included drawings, since they occurred naturally, unprompted, as part of the students' writing, we found they provide valuable insights into how students at different proficiency levels used drawings to convey meaning as part of a multimodal composition process.</p> <p>Table 8 Frequencies of drawings across proficiency levels</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Feature</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Low</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Mid</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>High</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>All</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>No.</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td><td align="left"><p>No.</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td><td align="left"><p>No.</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td><td align="left"><p>No.</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Drawing</p></td><td align="left"><p>52</p></td><td align="left"><p>52%</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p>24%</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>9%</p></td><td align="left"><p>85</p></td><td align="left"><p>28.3%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Recognizable drawing</p></td><td align="left"><p>43</p></td><td align="left"><p>43%</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td><td align="left"><p>18%</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>8%</p></td><td align="left"><p>69</p></td><td align="left"><p>23.0%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We first examined the content of the recognizable drawings to understand what students were drawing (Table 9). Across all proficiency levels, it was most common for students to use drawings to depict characters from the story (e.g., an elephant), followed by elements of the setting (e.g., rocks or trees). We also found evidence of more dynamic and sophisticated elements in drawings, including <emph>action</emph>, which we defined as showing any movement of a character. Common actions included the elephant looking for his friend or one of the animals eating some fruit. We also coded some drawings as depicting a <emph>problem/solution</emph>, which we defined as one of the characters either attempting to or successfully solving the problem in the story. The most common problems/solutions were drawings that depicted the elephant finding his friend the hippo. This type of coding relied on a contextual understanding of the drawings gained from the students' own written text, TA transcription of the writing, and knowledge that the students were producing their stories as retells of a story about an elephant and hippo.</p> <p>Table 9 Content of recognizable drawings across proficiency levels</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Drawing content</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Low</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Mid</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>High</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>All</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Characters</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>79.1%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>88.9%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>87.5%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>57</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>82.6%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Setting</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>62.8%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>66.7%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>75.0%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>45</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>65.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Action</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.6%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33.3%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>37.5%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>24.6%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Problem/solution</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.0%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.1%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.5%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.0%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Figure 1 is one example of a drawing that was coded as depicting a problem/solution. In the drawing, we see three different elephants and two different hippos. However, the drawing depicts three different scenes from the story, with the elephant (at the top center) looking first for the hippo but not finding him in the grass (three vertical lines behind the text). Then, at the bottom left and center of the page, we see the elephant finding the hippo behind a rock. Finally, at the bottom right, we see the two animals going to swim in the water (depicted as a rectangle-shaped pool). This drawing was coded as depicting all four elements: characters (elephant and hippo), setting (grass, tree, rocks), action (elephant looking), and problem/solution (elephant finding hippo). Given the low number of samples, it is not possible to determine any patterns of drawing content across proficiency levels, although looking at these drawings does help us to determine what types of content students depicted, and to note that drawings were able to depict more complex and sophisticated elements and were not limited to solely depicting characters or parts of the story setting.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Mid proficiency level writing sample. TA transcription: He first looked at the grass, but he was not here</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-13">Salience</hd> <p>We also coded for salience to determine which mode, drawing or writing, carried more weight in conveying meaning (van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref63">38</reflink>]). We coded salience based on which mode was more central on the page and by relative size of the modes, coding larger modes as being more salient. Calculations were derived from both recognizable and non-recognizable drawings. In the lower proficiency samples, drawings were often more or equally salient to the writing, while this trend dissipates in the mid and high-proficiency samples (Table 10). Figure 1 is an example of a mid-proficiency writing sample in which we coded the drawing as being more salient than the text. This is because the text is relatively small compared to the drawing and appears at only the top left of the page, while the drawing fills the rest of the space.</p> <p>Table 10 Salience of drawings and text across proficiency levels</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Feature</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Low</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Mid</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>High</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>All</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Text is more salient</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.8%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.6%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.9%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Drawing is more salient</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>27.1%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.4%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.4%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38.8%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Drawing/text equal salience</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>22.4%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.2%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.4%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>32.9%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Figure 2 shows a low proficiency sample, which we coded as the writing and drawings having equal salience. In this sample, the drawings are roughly the same size as the writing and occupy roughly an equal centrality on the paper, with the drawing accompanied by written text below it. By using the text to label the drawing, the student used both the drawing and writing to convey very similar meanings at roughly equal salience, which we explore more in looking at cohesion below. For writing samples where the text was more salient, the drawings often depicted a character from the story at the bottom or top of the page and writing to convey some action from the story. Although there are not enough drawings to make strong claims about any patterns in relation to the salience of mode shifts by proficiency level, these findings help us understand the different ways in which modes are used by students in emerging English writing to convey meaning.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Low proficiency level writing sample showing drawing and text of roughly equal salience</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-14">Drawing and Text Cohesion</hd> <p>The final coding we conducted was for the type of cohesion between the drawings and the writing. Looking at only the recognizable drawings—as we could not determine the relationship between the text and unrecognizable drawings—we found that nearly all the drawings and text were connected by a <emph>thematic</emph> cohesion (Table 11). We defined thematic cohesion as the text and drawing both having the same theme as the story the student was retelling through the narrative writing task. For example, the drawing would depict an elephant and the writing would be about an elephant. For those that did not have thematic cohesion, either the drawing was recognizable as something outside of the story retell (e.g., a house), or the writing was about a different story.</p> <p>Table 11 Drawing and text cohesion, calculated from recognizable drawings</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Feature</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Low</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Mid</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>High</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>All</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>No.</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Thematic (same theme as the told story)</p></td><td align="left"><p>41</p></td><td align="left"><p>95.3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>94.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>100.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>66</p></td><td align="left"><p>95.7%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Reference/Elaboration (image and text represent same concept)</p></td><td align="left"><p>21</p></td><td align="left"><p>48.8%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>22.2%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Extension (image or text adds info the other is missing)</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>34.9%</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>66.7%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>25.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>29</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.0%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For other types of cohesion, we used Martinec and Salway's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref64">21</reflink>]) framework to define two types of cohesion in the samples: <emph>reference</emph> cohesion, which we defined as a type of elaboration in Martinec and Salway's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref65">21</reflink>]) terms, where the drawing and text represent the same thing; and <emph>extension</emph> cohesion, which was when the drawing or text added information that the other was missing. All types of cohesion were more represented in lower proficiency samples. Reference cohesion was only prevalent in the lowest proficiency samples, appearing in 21 samples (48.8% of samples with recognizable drawings at that level), but not appearing in any of the high proficiency samples (Table 11).</p> <p>Most writing samples that displayed reference cohesion between the drawing and writing did so by using text to label drawings, as in Fig. 2. Figure 3, however, shows an example of reference cohesion where the student has used text to write the name (Gonzo) of the hippo in the drawing. This is an interesting example that we coded as reference cohesion. However, since Gonzo is not the name of the hippo in the story that the students are retelling, it could also be considered a sort of extension cohesion since the name would then add information that the drawing does not contain. This case exemplifies the complexity of student compositions and the creative ways they use drawing and text to build stories.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Mid proficiency sample showing reference/elaboration cohesion. TA transcription: Gonzo (student assigned name for the hippo), fruit</p> <p>For extension cohesion, we most often saw examples like Fig. 4, in which the writing adds information that the drawing does not depict. In this sample, the drawing is quite elaborate, showing the elephant finding the hippo behind a rock, depicting characters, the setting, action, and a problem/solution. In this case, the participant used both response pages. The writing reiterates the action of the scene, "Elephant was finding Hippo," but it also adds new information about what they did next, "Elephant and Hippo went in the river," that the drawing does not depict. A less typical example of extension cohesion is in Fig. 1, where the text, "He first looked at the grass, but he was not here," is extended by the drawing, which depicts the second scene, where the elephant finds the hippo, and then the third scene where they go to play in the water. Although this type of extension cohesion, where the drawing extended the meaning of the text, was less common, this sample also helps us understand the range of creative ways in which students made use of multiple modes to compose narratives.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 High proficiency sample showing extension cohesion. TA transcription: Elephant was finding Hippo. Elephant and Hippo went in the river</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The data shows several trends that help us understand the multimodality of young multilingual learners' emerging English language writing. Our findings broadly confirm and build nuance for previous studies showing multimodality as an important way multilingual emerging writers convey meaning (Bañuelos & Banes, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>]; Cun, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref67">5</reflink>]; Schall-Leckrone, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref68">31</reflink>]). First, when we examine the layout of their writing, we see that higher proficiency writers tend to use word wrapping more often than those still in the early stages of developing proficiency. Text wrapping is related to how much language learners are producing since it takes a certain amount of language to be able to text wrap, but even in writing samples at lower proficiency levels that have enough language to use a text wrapping layout, we more often see word list style writing. Previous multimodality studies of layout have studied professionally produced print media and design tools (e.g., Djonov & van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>]; Kress & van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref70">19</reflink>]). With a focus on layout in this study, we hope to extend that analysis further to children's emerging writing since layout is an important way meaning is conveyed, but little is known about how children utilize layout as they compose multimodal writing ensembles.</p> <p>When students produced drawings, they primarily included characters from the story and elements of the setting (e.g., trees, grass, rocks). We have some evidence that drawings that were part of lower proficiency writing samples, however, contained more variety in their content than those at higher proficiency levels. This is likely related to findings that indicated drawings were the more salient mode in conveying meaning at lower proficiency levels. It seems that as proficiency in English language writing increases for these kindergarten learners, they convey more meaning through writing. We are only able to see evidence for this in the narrative writing task; however, it would also be fruitful to explore other forms of writing at the word or sentence level to see if multimodality is tied to narrative or discourse levels of writing. The design of letter and word level tasks on the WIDA Screener for Kindergarten does not provide space for drawings; rather, images are provided in the response booklets for the students to act as both prompts and to provide scaffolding. Previous studies found that multimodality, in the form of compositions that include drawings and writing, expands opportunities for students to convey more complex meanings, and that their linguistic production was supported by the drawings (Ahn & West, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>]; Pantaleo, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref72">24</reflink>]; Pietikäinen & Pitkänen-Huhta, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref73">25</reflink>]). This study adds a greater understanding of how, through greater variety in the content and salience of drawings, emerging multilingual writers can convey more complex meanings with drawings.</p> <p>We also build on previous work in this study by examining how young learners build cohesion between drawing and writing. We showed that this occurs in several ways, building on Martinec and Salway's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref74">21</reflink>]) framework, with the most prevalent being thematic cohesion. Tentatively, we can identify a trend of lower proficiency writing relying more on reference cohesion to connect drawings and writing. This fits with an emphasis on labeling drawings as a common early literacy practice in classrooms (Ray & Glover, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref75">27</reflink>]). There is also evidence of extension cohesion in the learners' work, where we see more elaborate drawings that convey information that supplements that conveyed in the text, and at other times, simple drawings whose meanings are extended by written text with more information.</p> <p>This study has implications for educators and classroom practice. First, this work provides support for asset-based understandings of emerging writing. Specifically, our analysis of word wrapping and word list writing, detailed analysis of the content of drawings, and how drawings are cohesive with written text further confirm Bezemer and Kress's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>]) contention that all modes are used intentionally and are designed by the composers to convey specific meanings. By understanding how layout is used and how drawings and writing are connected through different types of cohesion, we can understand that emerging writers are purposeful in using these modes to convey meaning. Educators and those evaluating young learner writing may use this understanding to take a more asset-based view of student work, seeing the sophisticated ways in which kindergarten writers can use drawings to convey meaning as part of multimodal ensembles (see also West & Beck, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref77">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>This work also has implications for the assessment of emerging writing with multilingual learners. Constraining the modes available, as may happen in an assessment of English language writing, does serve a purpose. It helps provide evidence of students' ability to convey meaning in that specific mode. However, by expanding our definitions of what writing is for young multilingual learners, we may take a more expansive accounting for and asset-based view of their abilities. We can also ensure their rights to expression (Stein, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref78">33</reflink>]) across the modalities they use. For kindergarten learners, particularly multilingual learners composing in English, this can allow them greater agency in communication (Schall-Leckrone, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref79">31</reflink>]). Test designers creating assessments for kindergarten language proficiency and literacy should consider multimodal task design as a way of supporting students' linguistic production.</p> <p>Bezemer and Kress ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>]) remind us that communications are always being assessed and judged by those who are interpreting them, as "the interpreter has the power to select materials in her/his environment to engage with and attach meaning to. That power also has significant implications for assessment" (pg. 88). This fits with the call by Brown and Allmond ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref81">4</reflink>]) for assessments that more comprehensively capture the composing process for young learners. Since multimodality is socially situated, and the understanding and use of modes, particularly those more open to interpretation, like drawing, relies on the socio-cultural contexts of the composers and viewers, assessing them as part of large-scale assessments becomes difficult. There are no widely adopted or accepted standards that would guide such an assessment yet. We do note a movement in this direction for example, with the adoption of content standards and English Language Development Standards that do acknowledge the multimodality of communication (Grapin, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref82">10</reflink>]; WIDA, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref83">41</reflink>]). This acknowledgment of multimodality is important and may help with a more expansive definition of language in writing assessments in the future.</p> <p>This study is exploratory and while we believe it provides important contributions and implications, there are limitations. While others have found a greater variety of composing processes for multilingual learners compared to monolingual peers, which Williams and Lowrance-Faulhaber deem "a bilingual advantage" ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref84">42</reflink>]: 63), there is less data in our study to support comparisons between monolingual and multilingual writers. Given the broad range of home language represented in our data and the more exploratory focus on multimodality in multilingual learner writing in English, we did not find data to support differences in writing patterns between students with different home language backgrounds. Instead, we believe the data in this study shows how multilingual learners produce highly complex emerging writing in English, using multimodality, in part, to do so. We follow other researchers in cautioning against comparisons that flatten the complexities within languages (e.g., varieties of Spanish), and the socio-historical conditions through which "standard" varieties of languages have been used to compare and establish hierarchies between learners (Rosa & Flores, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref85">29</reflink>]; Train, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref86">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students in this study were not required to draw as part of the writing process. This had two likely impacts on our data. First, it meant that the drawings were produced spontaneously as a natural process of composing by emerging writers. The compositions are compelling because the drawings are solely motivated by learners using their expanded communicative repertoire to convey meaning. Second, the number of drawings that we were able to find in the data set was limited since not all students did draw. This also makes our study more exploratory. More work is needed to further develop a deeper understanding of how emerging writing is multimodal and how those multimodal ensembles function to make meaning. Future studies would benefit from collecting data from students responding to multiple prompts, including some that explicitly ask students to draw and write. Future research may also benefit from examining the sequence of drawing and writing, looking at whether students choose to draw first and then label or add writing, while others may write first and then draw to elaborate. The sequence in which students create these multimodal ensembles may also have implications for assessment and teaching.</p> <p>Video data will also be important in future studies to capture modalities used to compose emerging writing that are not captured on paper alone. Video would allow for analysis of not only the modalities captured on paper but also the speech, gestures, and other modes important in the composition process, particularly in early childhood. Finally, we know from previous research that picture book reading supports language learning (e.g., Dowdall et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref87">7</reflink>]), and that reading picture books is a culturally situated activity (Heath, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref88">12</reflink>]). Since students in this study were using writing to retell a story, future studies may also investigate how picture books are understood and responded to by multilingual learners and how their exposure to reading picture books may impact their writing.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-16">Appendix A: Multimodal Coding Categories and Features</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189993-17">Layout Features</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Text directionality.</item> <p></p> <item> Text layout (test wrapping, word list style, etc.)</item> <p></p> <item> Headings or titles.</item> <p></p> <item> Underlining or boxes drawn around words or phrases.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187189993-18">Drawing Features</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Recognizability of the drawing.</item> <p></p> <item> Location of drawing in relation to written text.</item> <p></p> <item> Salience of drawing in relation to written text.</item> <p></p> <item> Cohesion of drawing in relation to written text.</item> <p></p> <item> Content of drawings (e.g., characters, setting, action).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187189993-19">Appendix B: Full Coding Scheme for Multimodal Features</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189993-20">Note</hd> <p>All responses, unless otherwise indicated, were binary yes/no responses to the questions.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-21">Multimodal Features: Layout</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is there any discernible visual organization and/or pattern to the layout of the text and/or drawings on the paper?</item> <p></p> <item> Is there a clear directionality to the text in the writing sample?</item> <p></p> <item> Does the text run from left to right, horizontally?</item> <p></p> <item> Does the text run from top to bottom, vertically?</item> <p></p> <item> Does the text run diagonally?</item> <p></p> <item> Are there only 1–2 words per line?</item> <p></p> <item> Do phrases or sentences wrap around at the end of the page?</item> <p></p> <item> Is there a discernible heading for the writing sample?</item> <p></p> <item> Where is the text located on the paper? (indicated using a 9 square grid)</item> <p></p> <item> Are there instances of boxes drawn around words in the writing sample?</item> <p></p> <item> Are there instances of individual words being underlined in the writing sample?</item> <p></p> <item> Are there instances of phrases or sentences being underlined in the writing sample?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187189993-22">Multimodal Features: Drawing and Text</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Does the writing sample include a drawing?</item> <p></p> <item> Is the image recognizable?</item> <p></p> <item> Describe the drawing. (open-ended response)</item> <p></p> <item> Where is the drawing located on the paper? (indicated using a 9 square grid)</item> <p></p> <item> Is the drawing located above the text in the writing sample?</item> <p></p> <item> Is the drawing located to the left of the text in the writing sample?</item> <p></p> <item> Is the drawing located to the right of the text in the writing sample?</item> <p></p> <item> Is the drawing located beneath the text in the writing sample?</item> <p></p> <item> Is the drawing located within or surrounded by the text in the writing sample?</item> <p></p> <item> What is most salient in terms of size and placement? (indicated by a selection of one of four choices: the text, the drawing, the drawing and text are equally salient, or unable to determine)</item> <p></p> <item> Are the text and drawing cohesive or connected by representing the same theme?</item> <p></p> <item> Is there reference cohesion, where the image and text both represent the same thing?</item> <p></p> <item> Is there extension cohesion, where the image or text adds information that is missing in the other?</item> <p></p> <item> Is there another type of cohesion between the text and the image? If so, describe. (open-ended response)</item> <p></p> <item> Are one or more characters from the told story represented in the drawing?</item> <p></p> <item> Are one or more elements of the setting from the told story represented in the drawing?</item> <p></p> <item> Is some or all of the action from the told story represented in the drawing?</item> <p></p> <item> Are some or all of the elements of a problem/solution from the told story represented in the drawing?</item> <p></p> <item> Are other elements of the told story represented in the drawing? If so, describe. (open-ended response)</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187189993-23">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank Marcy Olson, Lynn Shafer Willner, and Mark Chapman for their contributions to this work.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-24">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189993-25">Competing Interest</hd> <p>The authors disclose the following financial interests and relationships related to the project:</p> <p>• Gordon West is employed by WIDA. Jeanne Beck worked as a paid intern at WIDA at the time of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0187189993-26">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187189993-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref11" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ahn SY, West GB. Young learners' portrayals of 'good english teacher' identities in South Korea. Applied Linguistics Review. 2017; 9; 2–3: 225-248. 10.1515/applirev-2016-1064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref18" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bañuelos, R. F, & Banes, L. C. (2022). 'Being bilingual is cool': Co-constructing bilingual identities with dual language kindergarteners. In S. Brown, & L. Hao (Eds.), Multimodal literacies in young emergent bilinguals: Beyond print-centric practices (pp. 131–146). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800412361-013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bezemer, J, & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication: A social semiotic frame. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brown S, Allmond A. Constructing my world: A case study examining emergent bilingual multimodal composing practices. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2021; 49; 2: 209-221. 10.1007/s10643-020-01062-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref51" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cun, A. (2023). An arts-based lesson: Chinese heritage children's multimodal early writing using fallen leaves. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01504-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref69" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Djonov E, van Leeuwen T. Between the grid and composition: Layout in PowerPoint's design and use. Semiotica. 2013; 197: 1-34. 10.1515/sem-2013-0078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref87" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Dowdall N, Melendez-Torres GJ, Murray L, Gardner F, Hartford L, Cooper PJ. Shared picture book reading interventions for child Language development: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development. 2020; 91; 2: e383-e399. 10.1111/cdev.13225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Early M, Kendrick M, Potts D. Multimodality: Out from the margins of english Language teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 2015; 49; 3: 447-460. 10.1002/tesq.246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> García, O, & Kleifgen, J. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for english learners (2nd ed.). Teachers College.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grapin S. Multimodality in the new content standards era: Implications for english learners. TESOL Quarterly. 2019; 53; 1: 30-55. 10.1002/tesq.443</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall AH, Gao Q, Guo Y, Xie Y. Examining the effects of kindergarten writing instruction on emergent literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Early Child Development and Care. 2023; 193; 3: 334-346. 10.1080/03004430.2022.2090932</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heath SB. What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society. 1982; 11; 1: 49-76. 10.1017/S0047404500009039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jewitt, C, Bezemer, J, & O'Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kawai C, Zhang Y, Lukács G, Chu W, Zheng C, Gao C, Ansorge U. The good, the bad, and the red: Implicit color-valence associations across cultures. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. 2023; 87; 3: 704-724. 10.1007/s00426-022-01697-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, A. A, Ho, P, Beck, J, Kim, H, Chapman, M, & Glick, A. (2023). English learner identification of kindergarten learners: Implementing WIDA Screener for Kindergarten (WIDA Working Paper No. WP-2023-1). Wisconsin Center for Education Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby MS, Spenser TD, Chen Y-J-I. Oral narrative instruction improves kindergarten writing. Writing & Reading Quarterly. 2021; 37; 6: 574-591. 10.1080/10573569.2021.1879696</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kress, G. (2014). What is a mode? In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 60–75). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kress, G, & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Machado E, Hartman P. I want to be pè Adedayo: Young children enacting resistance in/through translingual writing about their names. Research in the Teaching of English. 2020; 54; 4: 342-366. 10.58680/rte202030737</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinec R, Salway A. A system for image–text relations in new (and old) media. Visual Communication. 2005; 4; 3: 337-371. 10.1177/1470357205055928</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGill-Franzen, A. (2006). Kindergarten literacy: Matching assessment and instruction in kindergarten. Scholastic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics (2024). English learners in public schools. Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pantaleo S. Metalepsis in elementary students' multimodal narrative representations. Research in the Teaching of English. 2019; 54; 1: 8-30. 10.58680/rte201930239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pietikäinen S, Pitkänen-Huhta A. Multimodal literacy practices in the Indigenous Sámi classroom: Children navigating in a complex multilingual setting. Journal of Language Identity & Education. 2013; 12; 4: 230-247. 10.1080/15348458.2013.818471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik CS, Boss E, Wanless S. Relations between self-regulation and early writing: Domain specific or task dependent?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019; 46: 228-239. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ray, K. W, & Glover, M. (2008). Already ready: Nurturing writers in preschool and kindergarten. Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohloff R, Tortorelli L, Gerde HK, Bingham GE. Teaching early writing: Supporting early writers from preschool to elementary school. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2023; 51; 7: 1227-1239. 10.1007/s10643-022-01365-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosa J, Flores N. Unsettling race and Language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society. 2017; 44; 2: 149-170. 10.1017/S0047404517000562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe DW, Wilson SJ. The development of a descriptive measure of early childhood writing: Results from the write start! Writing assessment. Journal of Literacy Research. 2015; 47; 2: 245-292. 10.1177/1086296X15619723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schall-Leckrone, L. (2022). La tortuga Esta tiptoeing: Multimodal storytelling in a bilingual kindergarten. In S. Brown, & L. Hao (Eds.), Multimodal literacies in young emergent bilinguals: Beyond print-centric practices (pp. 105–116). Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith BE, Pacheco MB, Khorosheva M. Emergent bilingual students and digital multimodal composition: A systematic review of research in secondary classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly. 2021; 56; 1: 33-52. 10.1002/rrq.298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein, P. (2008). Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms: Representation, rights and resources. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor SV, Leung CB. Multimodal literacy and social interaction: Young children's literacy learning. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2020; 48; 1: 1-10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Train R. Real Spanish: Historical perspectives on the ideological construction of a (foreign) Language. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies. 2007; 4; 2–3: 207-235. 10.1080/15427580701694604</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Leeuwen T. It was just like magic—A multimodal analysis of children's writing. Linguistics and Education. 1998; 10; 3: 273-305. 10.1016/S0898-5898(99)00010-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education/National Center for Education Statistics (2020). State nonfiscal survey of public elementary and secondary education. EDFacts file 141, Data Group 678. Digest of Education Statistics 2020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, G. B, & Beck, J. (2023). Cultivating and making meaning of kindergarten multilingual learner multimodal writing. MIDTESOL Journal, 6, 51–62. <ulink href="http://midtesol.org/journal6-3">http://midtesol.org/journal6-3</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wheeler DL. Why kindergarten is the model english learner educational environment. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2021; 49: 95-98. 10.1007/s10643-020-01051-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> WIDA. (2020). WIDA english language development standards framework, 2020 edition. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams C, Lowrance-Faulhaber E. Writing in young bilingual children: Review of research. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2018; 42: 58-69. 10.1016/j.jslw.2018.10.012</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0187189993-28"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> We use the term "English Learner" for accuracy when referencing specific educational policies, however we prefer the use of "Multilingual learners" following García and Kleifgen's ([9]) call to move away from deficit-based terms like "English learner."</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Gordon Blaine West and Jeanne Beck</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref88"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1479549
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Exploring the Multimodality of Emerging Writing by Multilingual Kindergarteners
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gordon+Blaine+West%22">Gordon Blaine West</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8956-136X">0000-0002-8956-136X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jeanne+Beck%22">Jeanne Beck</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(6):2073-2087.
– 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: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emergent+Literacy%22">Emergent Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beginning+Writing%22">Beginning Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Writing%22">Childrens Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multilingualism%22">Multilingualism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bilingual+Students%22">Bilingual Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Freehand+Drawing%22">Freehand Drawing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Written+Language%22">Written Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Tests%22">Writing Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semiotics%22">Semiotics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Text+Structure%22">Text Structure</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-025-01894-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Young, linguistically diverse learners often leverage multimodality to more fully express their ideas in writing. To better support and assess English writing development, it is vital to understand multimodality as part of their emerging writing skills. In this study, we examine how drawings and written language are used jointly in multimodal ensembles by emerging multilingual writers to convey meaning. Specifically, we look at English language writing produced on a screener administered to assess the language proficiency of multilingual learners when they enter school. Students (n = 1,597, aged 5-6) across 25 U.S. states were administered the writing assessment. Our exploratory study examines student responses to a narrative writing task from a subset of 300 students, with 100 students each from high, mid, and low English language proficiency levels, as indicated by their performance on the writing task. Drawing from a social semiotic understanding of multimodality, we developed a coding scheme and used it to code each writing sample for multimodal features. Although students were not asked to draw in addition to writing, emerging writers often used drawings and layout features to convey meaning. Lower proficiency writers were more likely to use drawings, and their drawings were often the most salient mode used to convey meaning in their responses. Higher proficiency writers were more likely to use more complex layout features like text wrapping. Results further show that drawings and layout features functioned to increase the complexity and cohesion in all samples.
– 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: EJ1479549
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1479549
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-025-01894-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 2073
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Emergent Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beginning Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multilingualism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bilingual Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Freehand Drawing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Written Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Semiotics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Text Structure
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Exploring the Multimodality of Emerging Writing by Multilingual Kindergarteners
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gordon Blaine West
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jeanne Beck
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1