View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Empowering Young Writers: A Multimodal Case Study of Emergent Writing in Urban Preschool Classrooms

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Empowering Young Writers: A Multimodal Case Study of Emergent Writing in Urban Preschool Classrooms
Language: English
Authors: Katie A. Mathew (ORCID 0000-0003-3994-8512), Vera J. Lee (ORCID 0000-0003-3705-5833), Claudia Gentile, Casey Hanna (ORCID 0009-0009-4912-2045), Alene Montgomery (ORCID 0009-0005-6430-0816)
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(6):2117-2129.
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: 13
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Preschool Children, Childrens Writing, Emergent Literacy, Beginning Writing, Urban Schools, Writing Instruction, Teaching Methods, Phonics, Writing (Composition), Writing Strategies, Freehand Drawing, Self Expression
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01797-4
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: With a view of children as social negotiators, this study explored how preschool children's voices were nurtured through the implementation of an early-writing/applied phonics approach called Kid Writing (KW). The approach encouraged children to compose writing from their lives as they were guided by an adult who scaffolded the writing process. An analysis of classroom observations, focus groups, and children's work samples revealed the extent to which preschool children's voices, motivation, and writing capabilities were supported. Imperative to children's success as writers in this study was the expansion of preschool teachers' views of what counts as writing. By legitimizing the full developmental continuum of children's early writing attempts, including scribbling, mark-making, drawing, and early letter formation, the results of this study documented what young children are capable of when they are empowered to self-express through their joy of writing. The findings disrupt the notion that preschool children are not ready to write. Rather, children's overall literacy learning is supported by providing opportunities for preschoolers to write from their lived experiences.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1479550
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGimO12ibEjvA5FM9kYlFLOAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEedy9GOAKmQECLLBgIBEICBm3NmJP87MttFYFTHYO07em3fOyER4XegUDaTnsvYO25_QNPy1GQPeG7EtRuaRf3tqe1OQAgglliy2op8mJ7SDbiNVoPOX_FN1MrjgIUdeamm0DKZarJfFNjHuwmVBqd6AlNXW85xRBx_gRsQhDTxd7r3KfhQois0GC7OU7KVGwHJK6h2wZoxFlV2aCYtuTOHO5gF0KpQBeI4aOxS
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187189982;5mx01aug.25;2025Aug11.03:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187189982-1">Empowering Young Writers: A Multimodal Case Study of Emergent Writing in Urban Preschool Classrooms </title> <p>With a view of children as social negotiators, this study explored how preschool children's voices were nurtured through the implementation of an early-writing/applied phonics approach called Kid Writing (KW). The approach encouraged children to compose writing from their lives as they were guided by an adult who scaffolded the writing process. An analysis of classroom observations, focus groups, and children's work samples revealed the extent to which preschool children's voices, motivation, and writing capabilities were supported. Imperative to children's success as writers in this study was the expansion of preschool teachers' views of what counts as writing. By legitimizing the full developmental continuum of children's early writing attempts, including scribbling, mark-making, drawing, and early letter formation, the results of this study documented what young children are capable of when they are empowered to self-express through their joy of writing. The findings disrupt the notion that preschool children are not ready to write. Rather, children's overall literacy learning is supported by providing opportunities for preschoolers to write from their lived experiences.</p> <p>Keywords: Preschool; Emergent writing; Applied phonics; Early literacy development; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01831-5.</p> <p>"I'll hear kids so excited to show their parents what they drew and what they wrote, but then when the parent sees it, they'll be like, 'Oh, but you spelled this word wrong,' ...instead of giving them a positive feedback, the parents are pointing out what they need to fix."–Ms. Jenny</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Ms. Jenny is a teacher at a preschool that serves a diverse population of children in a large urban city. This is her second year participating in an early writing program called Kid Writing (KW). The story that Ms. Jenny shared is symbolic of the larger tensions that exist around early literacy, and particularly emergent writing; about how children attain writing skills in developmentally appropriate ways. The parent's response in Ms. Jenny's story is emblematic of how early writing is often perceived, in that what counts as writing is correctly spelled words or perfectly handwritten uppercase and lowercase letters. Rohloff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref1">29</reflink>]) argue that children are often "caught between contrasting expectations for what 'counts' as writing" (p. 1228), as seen in Ms. Jenny's story. Researchers note the consequences of not approaching early writing from a developmental stance, one of which is "undermining confidence in [children's] abilities at a crucial moment" (p. 1228) when children are experiencing developmental changes between preschool and kindergarten. The researchers explain that preschool children need ample opportunities to experiment with creating stories visually and orally and composing text (e.g. scribbling, letter-like writing), without the expectation that they will master conventional writing before entering kindergarten. Preschool is a transitional period for children who require adequate support and guidance to build their writing skills while maintaining their joy, motivation, and confidence as developing writers.</p> <p>The issue of what "counts" as writing in preschools is also connected to early childhood practitioners' beliefs about how children learn to write which are often dominated by state and national standards. In Bingham and Gerde's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref2">6</reflink>]) study of Head Start teachers' early writing knowledge and practices, 47 preschool teachers were asked to examine children's writing which exhibited a range of composing and print concept knowledge. Results revealed that the teachers discussed children's ability to compose more frequently with the samples that reflected conventional writing with correct spelling. As for samples that were made up of mainly drawings and less conventional writing, those samples received less acknowledgement from the teachers. The researchers also found that across the writing samples the teachers focused on children's handwriting and specific skills that the children had developed or not developed; there was less emphasis on print concepts (e.g., how children's attempts at writing communicated meaning). The teachers' knowledge of early writing, aligned with early learning standards for writing supported by Head Start and state curricula. For example, the Head Start Learning Outcomes Framework emphasizes writing progression from drawing, scribbling, letter-like marks, to letters. In a comparison study of early learning standards in 42 states with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Tortorelli et al. (2021) found that state standards are not aligned with the developmental progression of early writing, which contributes to a "differing set of expectations for children and classroom practices across early childhood settings" (p. 744). Only 53.7% of the early learning standards across 42 states emphasized handwriting skills and 38.4% addressed composing, which was mainly the practice of verbally dictating for children instead of asking children to compose, using a "variety of developmentally appropriate forms of writing" (Rohloff et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>], p. 1229) such as scribbling or drawing. In Pennsylvania where the current study took place, the state presents similar early writing standards. Under the category of "writing" children are expected to brainstorm, draw pictures, and talk about these, but it is the adult who writes the words about the child's picture and reads them out loud (PA Department of Education, 2014). Too often, teachers are dictating and writing "for" children instead of encouraging children to take the initiative with writing. Dictation was one of the early writing instructional practices that was prominent across the preschool centers in the current study as some of the teachers, including one of the center directors believed that preschool children were not ready to compose.</p> <p>Ms. Jenny's story reflects what is missing from writing standards, practices, and our collective understanding of the possibilities of early writing. What is lacking is a child-centered developmental approach to early writing. An approach that provides opportunities for children to demonstrate what they can do when they are allowed to compose, supports adults to write <emph>with</emph> children and not simply <emph>for</emph> children, and invites children to connect writing to their lives while building their phonological skills. The purpose of the current study was to document preschool children's writing capabilities when they were given the opportunity to compose from their lived experiences with the guidance of an adult who supported the connection between children's meaning-making and early writing/applied phonics. We explored the adaptation of Kid Writing (KW), an early literacy/applied phonics approach implemented across five preschool centers. The main research questions we explored were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How did KW support children's voices by giving them opportunities to compose from their lived experiences?</item> <p></p> <item> What was the influence of KW on students' early writing development?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187189982-3">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>In our study, we drew upon two important concepts developed by Dyson ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>]). The first is that children are "social negotiators," and their written and oral language development is connected to dialogue. Children develop language as they observe and learn how it is used by the people living around them as they engage in cultural activities. They also understand that language is a way for them to "interpret and act on the world" as well as in the world (p. 5). Children are also negotiating three different kinds of worlds: the school, home/community, and their peers. They negotiate these cultures through multiple mediums, such as "written words, spoken ones, and pictures" (p. 5). Dyson and Genishi ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]) argue that children are actively engaging in social practices particularly in playful activities and interactions with other children. In addition, Dyson's concept of the "permeable curriculum" also guided our work. In order to foster children as social negotiators, teachers and children must be afforded opportunities to be "curious and willing to imagine worlds beyond their own" (p. 9), whereas a unidirectional literacy curriculum negates such opportunities. Children are also afforded agency to be decision-makers in a permeable classroom.</p> <p>Another important framework that informed our study is Gentry and Ouellette's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref7">18</reflink>]) "Five Phases of Word Reading and Developmental Spelling" which was originally published in 1987 and referenced as developmental spelling stages. Gentry and Ouellette ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]) have since adopted the term "phases" to emphasize the idea of development in which children may move within and across more than one phase, whereas the term, "stages", conveys the idea that a child can only be in one stage at a time. They argue that early developmental spelling is characterized by children randomly scribbling, then writing letters and partially spelled words, to composing letters that represent sounds in a word. In Phase 0 they do not have mastery of the alphabet and are able to guess letters they recall from memory. Phase 1 is also known as the pre-alphabetic phase in which children have very limited alphabetic and phonemic awareness knowledge. Phase 2 is called the partial alphabetic phase because children are beginning to have alphabetic knowledge and can connect some letters to sounds when they read or spell. Phase 3 is referred to as the full alphabetic phase because children have full alphabetic knowledge and are able to spell every sound in a word. Finally, Phase 4 is the consolidated/automatic alphabetic phase, children are reading and spelling "whole words or chunks words" (p. 73). Children at this phase can decode and recognize patterns that exist in words e.g., prefixes and syllables that support reading and spelling. Gentry and Ouellette's developmental spelling framework informed the Kid Writing approach in which children are supported in developing phonological knowledge that aligns with the child's phase of writing.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-4">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189982-5">Young Children's Experiences with Writing</hd> <p>Studies have suggested that as early as age, two children demonstrate early writing skills and an interest in using writing to communicate meaning (Puranik & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref10">28</reflink>]; Rowe, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref11">30</reflink>]). Children's first attempts at writing begin through imitating the act of writing by creating drawings and symbolic markings that represent their thoughts and ideas (Dennis & Votteler, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]; Rowe & Neitzel, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref13">34</reflink>]). Through preschool and into the early school years, children's writing follows a developmental continuum that proceeds from scribbles and markings to letters and words. This developmental trajectory typically unfolds over the preschool years and continues into the early school years, guided by both internal cognitive processes and external social interactions (Ventura et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref14">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research in early childhood education underscores the profound impact of sociocultural factors on the development of writing skills in young children. From their earliest attempts at mark-making to their emergence as proficient writers, children's writing development is deeply intertwined with their social and cultural experiences (Heath, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]). Researchers have conducted studies that show how young children's early attempts at writing are shaped by sociocultural factors through their interactions with adults (Rowe, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref16">31</reflink>]). These interactions involve collaborative exchanges, where children and adults take turns in writing, using gestures, verbal communication, and mark-making. The way adults respond to children's early writing provides insights into the content, processes, and functions of writing. As children actively participate in these collaborative events, their marks are given the status of writing, and they are positioned as writers (Rowe, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]). This process of emergent writing allows children to develop identities as writers, gain insights into the writing process, and understand the social meaning of written language.</p> <p>Furthermore, cultural beliefs and practices surrounding literacy also shape children's early writing experiences (Barratt-Pugh, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>]). For example, cultural attitudes toward writing, literacy practices within the home, and community norms regarding language use all influence children's perceptions of writing and their engagement with written language. Dong et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref19">11</reflink>]) found that a rich home literacy environment increased student academic achievement and enhanced children's reading comprehension level. The researchers also found that parental involvement with their child's literacy development was of even greater benefit than providing a rich home literacy environment.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-6">Teaching Early Writing in Preschool</hd> <p>Whereas preschool writing instruction has been identified as a crucial factor in enhancing children's literacy development (Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]), research reveals significant challenges in enacting developmentally appropriate and responsive writing curricula, including a shortage of time allocated to writing activities within preschool settings and a limited understanding among preschool teachers regarding the writing capabilities of young children. Pelatti et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]) highlighted this issue, indicating that while preschool teachers typically spend an average of 18 min/day on language and literacy activities, only a mere 2 min are devoted to writing. Additionally, studies have pointed out that the teaching practices of preschool teachers often encompass a narrow range of pedagogical approaches (Gerde et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]; Bingham et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]). Writing instruction in preschool classrooms primarily emphasizes transcription skills (handwriting, letter formation, and name-writing skills) neglecting other essential aspects such as composition and inventive spelling (Bingham et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref25">7</reflink>]; Molfese et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref26">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>The overemphasis on transcription (handwriting, spelling) compared to composition in preschool classrooms may reflect adults' beliefs about young children's writing capabilities. Generally, preschool teachers' knowledge of early writing development aligns with research-based conceptualizations for handwriting and print concepts, but less so for composing (Bingham et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]). When teachers mention that they encourage children to write for meaning, they provide few details as to what is expected of children or how best to scaffold children's attempts (Gerde et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref28">20</reflink>]). A systematic analysis of adults' views on early writing (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref29">37</reflink>]) concludes that incomplete conceptualizations of early writing and misalignment of standards likely contribute to the differing expectations for children and classroom practices observed across early childhood settings. Early learning standards conceptualize writing as primarily a physical act, very closely tied to fine motor development, whereas Common Core writing standards more broadly focus on composition processes and outcomes. Given that adult involvement in children's writing is supported as a strong predictor of literacy gains (Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>]) preschool teachers would benefit from additional professional learning experiences designed to support their understanding and sense of efficacy in teaching composing skills (Bingham & Gerde, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref31">6</reflink>]; Barker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>]). Teachers' beliefs about the significance of early writing and their attitudes towards writing activities play a vital role in their self-efficacy. Those who see writing as a fundamental part of early education and who show enthusiasm for writing tend to have higher self-efficacy (Bingham & Gerde, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref33">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-7">Approaches to Early Writing that Value Young Children's Composition Alongside Transcription S...</hd> <p>Research has shown that when children engage in writing activities that draw from their own experiences and cultural backgrounds, they exhibit higher levels of engagement, demonstrate improved language and writing skills, and experience increased self-esteem (Bernhard et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>]; Martínez-Álvarez et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref35">23</reflink>]; Rowe & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref36">33</reflink>]). Researchers have concluded that explicitly valuing children's cultural experiences in their compositions plays a crucial role in supporting their active involvement as writers. As a result, a number of early writing approaches have emerged that seek to center children's experiences as they begin composing about their lives.</p> <p>Play-based pedagogies, such as stations or bookmaking, allow children to practice early literacy through socialization, problem-solving, and creative activities with their peers (Worthington & van Oers, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref37">41</reflink>]). For example, Bahlmann Bollinger and Myers ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>]) suggest that teachers intentionally provide children with multiple avenues to practice literacy by creating classroom environments where children can elect to collaboratively play at centers equipped with literary tools (e.g., books, art supplies, drawing utensils). Self-initiated play at centers allows children to "become participants in and authors and readers of their own stories" (Van Hoorn et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref39">38</reflink>], p. 204). Moreover, bookmaking and play-based authorship have emerged as strategies that playfully center young children's voices in literacy instruction. Creating books with children where they can employ a wide range of drawing techniques can help build their enthusiasm for composition (Brewster, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref40">9</reflink>]). Moreover, Bentley and Souto-Manning ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>]) suggest that playful bookmaking can honor children as authors by building on their prior knowledge and connecting to their authentic interests.</p> <p>Additionally, teachers have increasingly adopted multimodal approaches to center children's voices in literacy development beyond reading and writing. For example, Schrodt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref42">36</reflink>]) suggest that teachers can adopt pictorial and oral storytelling strategies to help children leverage their family and community capital in the classroom. Pedagogies such as these allow children to generate authentic ideas for their writing. These multimodal approaches value the production of writing, through oral storytelling, drawing, and composing, and position children as meaning-makers and authors of their own stories (Wohlwend, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref43">40</reflink>]; Zurcher & Stefanski, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref44">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-8">The Kid Writing Approach</hd> <p>In this study, we explore the implementation of an early writing approach called Kid Writing (KW) in preschool. Originally developed by two primary school teachers, the KW approach prompts children to compose writing from their lives (Feldgus et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]). Children are invited to participate in a writing center where a variety of writing tools are available (e.g., journals, pencils, crayons) including an adult who supports children's compositions. First, children are encouraged to think of a story or topic and draw a picture that describes it. Next, children are guided through phonics-based spelling to listen for sounds in the words of their story. Finally, adults model conventional English for students by showing the children their writing using "adult-writing" underneath their drawing and/or writing. The KW approach supports sub-lexical pathways for beginning readers and writers, such as, "sounding out words, and spelling [that] are very much at the heart of orthographic learning" which help children to learn how spelling patterns, words, sounds and meaning are connected to spoken language (Gentry, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>], Gentry & Ouellette, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>], p. 13). In this study, experienced literacy coaches attended preschool classrooms once per week from September to June 2022–2023 to model and support preschool teachers in using KW to support children's writing. Additionally, coaches regularly met with the PreK centers' teams to discuss writing development and developmentally appropriate practices, as well as design and integrate KW as part of their overall center literacy approach. Coaches also offered parent/caregiver workshops three times during the school year. During these workshops, the coaches modeled the KW process for caregivers, shared student work, and provided resources to support caregiver implementation of KW at home.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-9">Methods</hd> <p>This multimodal case study took place in fifteen preschool classrooms across five early learning centers in one multicultural, multilinguistic urban neighborhood located in a large city in the Northeastern United States (Table 1). The centers served diverse communities. Between 4 and 7 languages were represented in each of the school communities and between 12 and 29% of children had IEPs at each center. This study was part of a larger 3-year project exploring the adaptation of KW for preschool. Data from Years 1 and 2 of the project were analyzed for the current study.</p> <p>Table 1 Demographics of Kid Writing preschools</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Key demographics of participants</p></th><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Names of centers</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Rhodes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Crest</p></th><th align="left"><p>Thornton</p></th><th align="left"><p>Allen</p></th><th align="left"><p>Needham</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Race</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Black</p></td><td align="left"><p>38%</p></td><td align="left"><p>25%</p></td><td align="left"><p>46%</p></td><td align="left"><p>53%</p></td><td align="left"><p>41%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Caucasian</p></td><td align="left"><p>32%</p></td><td align="left"><p>25%</p></td><td align="left"><p>11%</p></td><td align="left"><p>18%</p></td><td align="left"><p>18%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Asian</p></td><td align="left"><p>30%</p></td><td align="left"><p>19%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1%</p></td><td align="left"><p>22%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>31%</p></td><td align="left"><p>40%</p></td><td align="left"><p>28%</p></td><td align="left"><p>19%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ethnicity</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Hispanic</p></td><td align="left"><p>3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>9%</p></td><td align="left"><p>34%</p></td><td align="left"><p>41%</p></td><td align="left"><p>15%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Non-Hispanic</p></td><td align="left"><p>97%</p></td><td align="left"><p>91%</p></td><td align="left"><p>66%</p></td><td align="left"><p>59%</p></td><td align="left"><p>85%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Students with IEP</p></td><td align="left"><p>12%</p></td><td align="left"><p>19%</p></td><td align="left"><p>14%</p></td><td align="left"><p>29%</p></td><td align="left"><p>14%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of home languages represented</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187189982-10">Data Sources and Analysis</hd> <p>Case study methodology relies on multiple sources of data (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref48">42</reflink>]), and in this study, we collected data across multiple modalities (i.e. observations, interviews, and writing samples). To respond to our first research question, how did KW support children's voices by giving them opportunities to compose from their lived experiences, we drew primarily upon classroom observations as well as focus group interviews with the preschool teachers and coaches who led KW. Classroom observations of 15 classrooms (<emph>n</emph> = 15) were conducted in the spring and an observation template ("Appendix") was used to capture notes and photographs of children, teachers, and coaches engaging in KW. Focus group interviews were then conducted with the literacy coaches (<emph>n</emph> = 3) and preschool teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 15). Topics covered in the focus group interviews included KW implementation, coaching, children's growth and parental involvement. Five researchers analyzed the classroom observation data using an analytic memo process adapted from Saldaña ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref49">35</reflink>]). A preliminary list of codes was established and then each of the researchers independently coded the data using both a deductive approach, using the list of codes, and an inductive approach, allowing new codes to emerge. As the researchers coded the data, analytic memos captured researchers' reflections on emerging patterns, categories, and themes (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref50">35</reflink>], p. 51). The researchers met to discuss and refine the codes and then these codes were applied to the focus group data. After coding the focus group data, the researchers looked across the codes and memos to establish themes.</p> <p>To address research question two, what was the influence of KW on children's early writing development, we collected and rated samples of children's written work from the fall and spring of the school year. We found that most rubrics used to evaluate early writing development focused on development typical of children in the early elementary grades, not preschool children, therefore, we developed a rubric specific to the needs of the study. In year 1, 260 writing samples were collected over the course of the school year from 50 preschool-age children participating in the KW program. The age and disability status of the children was not considered during the evaluation of their writing samples. The researchers did informally gather this information during classroom observations to get a sense of the range of ability of the children but this information was not used for analysis purposes. This provided a rich source of children's writing samples that we used to develop the rubric. Seven researchers (the five researchers mentioned above and two graduate student assistants) with varying levels of expertise in early writing engaged in an empirical, multi-staged process of developing an early writing rubric appropriate for preschool children (Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Phases of preschool developmental writing (Gentile, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>])</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Phase 1: From scribbles to letters</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Scribbles only: reader can't make out what the child drew</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Almost drawings: more than scribbles (such as shapes) but reader can't quite see what the child is trying to draw</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Drawings: reader can get a sense of what objects are that the child drew</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Including almost letters with the drawings: looks like the child was trying to write letters</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Including one clear letter with the drawings: one of the marks is clearly a letter; the others are not</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Phase 2: From letters to words</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Including more than one letter, but not yet a word: some marks are clearly letters, but not grouped to form a word</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Letters grouped to indicate words: but they aren't recognizable as words</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>Letters grouped to form primitive words: words that are not spelled fully and/or correctly, some letters may be reversed, but the reader can tell what the word likely is</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>Letters grouped to form both primitive words and some regular words (words that are spelled mostly correctly, although one or two letters may be reversed)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>Letters grouped to form almost all or all regular words (only one or two primitive words)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Phase 3: From words to phrases/sentences</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mostly regular words laid out to look like a phrase, with a clear drawing (often the phrase describes the drawing)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mostly regular words laid out to form a primitive sentence: may include some capitalization, punctuation and/or clear spacing between words but some words are missing from the sentence or are undecipherable</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mostly regular words laid out to form one sentence: with clear spacing between words; may include some capitalization, punctuation</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mostly regular words laid out to form two or three sentences, with clear spacing between words; may include some capitalization, punctuation</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mostly regular words laid out to form more than three sentences, with clear spacing between words; may include some capitalization, punctuation</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187189982-11">Rubric Development</hd> <p>First, the team worked in pairs to review about 50 writing samples (randomly selected from the 260 samples available) and ordered the samples from low to high levels of development. The team then shared their ordering and discussed the key qualities of the children's writing at each level of development until they arrived at an agreed upon set of levels of development and descriptors for each level. At a meta-level, this resulted in three broad phases of writing development: From Scribbles to Letters; From Letters to Words; and From Words to Phrases/Sentences, with multiple levels at each phase.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-12">Rubric Testing and Refinement</hd> <p>Second, the team used the levels to individually rate 100 more writing samples (randomly selected), to determine whether the levels and descriptors worked for a wider range of children's writing, revising the levels as needed. One revision made was to add an additional level to capture a wider range of children's drawing. Originally, Level 1 was scribbling and Level 2 was drawing shapes or images but we found that there was another level in between these two in which children were clearly trying to draw shapes or images but could not quite do so (almost drawings). The revised rubric is presented below (Table 2).</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-13">Training and Calibrating Raters</hd> <p>Third, the team members began to individually rate the same 30 writing samples (randomly selected), and then compared ratings, discussing any areas of disagreement and clarifying the descriptors at each level. Agreement was at about 80% percent exact and almost 100% adjacent. They then individually rated another 30 writing samples and compared ratings. Agreement was over 90% exact and 100% adjacent. The team was then considered qualified to rate the children's writing samples.</p> <p>We then used the rubric to analyze the 322 writing samples collected in Year 2 from 46 children participating in the KW program. These samples were dated and organized into fall (September to December 2022) and spring (January to May 2023). Forty percent of the samples were rated by two members of the team and the overall interrater reliability was 89% exact and 99% adjacent. Mean writing scores for each center were then calculated for fall and spring.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-14">Results</hd> <p>From the classroom observations and focus groups two themes emerged: KW supported children's voices by entrusting children with when, how, and what they write, and by constructing a climate and culture for child-centered literacy. From the children's writing samples, we see how the approach influenced their writing development.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-15">Entrusting Children with When, How, and What They Write</hd> <p>Within the KW approach, children were given autonomy over when, how, and what they wrote. This theme documents how supporting and scaffolding children's desire to self-express in multiple forms enabled them to find joy in writing at all stages of literacy development, especially when their voices were centered and prioritized in the process. Teachers noted that the practices of KW gave children multiple, authentic opportunities to bridge their "home" and "school" worlds through writing and storytelling.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-16">Supporting Children's Voices</hd> <p>During classroom observations, children would self-select when they wanted to write. While many teachers would invite children to write during a specific time of day, other teachers shared that children could choose to write throughout the school day. Furthermore, when children did choose to write, they selected their own topics, and how they wrote, with adults encouraging them to express themselves according to their own writing capabilities through drawing, writing letters, and writing phrases/sentences. Coaches and teachers would praise children's work and gently scaffold children to attempt the next level of writing. One teacher reflected that when "some of [her] kids draw something, they'll try to write it by themselves" (Source: Thornton Teacher). Whole group literacy lessons also became more student-directed through the infusion of KW approaches. One teacher noted that, "at one point in time, (the students) were actually reading the question of the day and telling me how to spell it. I would say that they got that from the Kid Writing" (Source: Crest Teacher).</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-17">Self-Expression Through Multiple Literacy Modalities</hd> <p>The KW process recognizes that literary expression is not limited to reading and writing; rather, children can also express themselves orally and through drawing. Observations of KW classrooms found teachers and children engaged in multiple literacy activities in which children drew their stories, orally described these stories, and wrote the story together through verbal and handwritten dialogue. This approach provided children with multiple avenues to share their stories, especially students learning to read and write English. One classroom observation noted that an English Language Learner (ELL) was "able to communicate meaning through drawing before they knew how to speak/write English words/sentences" (Source: Crest Teacher). Thus, through KW, children were able to express themselves in multiple ways at whatever point they were on in their literacy journey.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-18">Enjoyment of Writing</hd> <p>KW cultivated a learning environment in which children were eager to engage in writing. This eagerness could be observed outside of designated "KW time," when children were invited by an adult to write. During observations, children constantly approached the writing center, asking to participate in writing. Additionally, children demonstrated enthusiasm about participating in KW's social processes. Children were excited to collectively share the writing process with their classmates and teachers. As described by one teacher,I like the fact that the children will write things and say, 'Look, look, look. This says <emph>such and such</emph>', or, 'Hey, what does this word spell?' It may not spell anything, but I will sound it out, and they'll say, 'What's that word?' I said, 'I don't know, but it's a word you created.' (Source: Crest Teacher)</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-19">Authentic Purposes and Audiences</hd> <p>By engaging in KW, children wrote with an authentic purpose and shared their work with a meaningful audience. Children were frequently observed drawing family members, friends, hobbies, and places or things they have interacted with inside or outside of school. A teacher discussed how KW helped her children develop stories about their lives, "Last year, they just wanted to draw a picture and then they finished. But now they want to write about this – and they want to talk about the story – and then they want to write about their own journey" (Source: Rhodes Teacher). The KW approach helps teachers embrace, encourage, and center student storytelling in the classroom: "Some children are very imaginative, and they give you a whole story, so we try to embrace that" (Source: Thornton Teacher). Within the KW framework, the content for writing is the child's worldview and the approach created authentic pathways for young children to share how they negotiate their world.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-20">Constructing a Climate and Culture for Child-Centered Literacy</hd> <p>The implementation of KW in the preschool classrooms constructed a climate and culture for child-centered literacy. This theme acknowledges the ways in which the adults in the classroom played a pivotal role in fostering a supportive literacy environment, illuminating the key components that contributed to a nurturing literacy culture that valued children's attempts, supported their expression, and embraced a differentiated approach to meet individual needs. To enable this, a shift in the early literacy beliefs and practices of participating teachers was noted.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-21">Positive Reinforcement</hd> <p>Teachers and coaches within the KW framework actively recognized and praised children's attempts at writing. Such acknowledgment became a cornerstone for building a culture where every child's progress was recognized. For instance, in the classroom observations Assistant Teacher John was frequently described as praising what the children had drawn—"at this point [he] is mostly circulating and giving praise, [saying,] 'It's beautiful'" (Source: Ms. Jackie's class). KW coaches also conceived of the "Praise, Praise, Push" method, whereby they would praise the child for the work they had already completed and then push them to identify sounds and add letters to the writing.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-22">Adapting to Individual Student Needs</hd> <p>A noteworthy aspect of the KW program is the commitment to scaffold children's ability to express themselves at any level. Teachers and coaches played a crucial role in providing the necessary support and guidance, tailoring assistance to individual needs. They supported the development of children's phonological knowledge through phonics instruction that is embedded in children's desire to express themselves. This scaffolding approach ensured that children could navigate the challenges of literacy with confidence, fostering a culture of continuous growth and development. Teachers also felt empowered to allow children to express themselves through writing or drawing or both. For example, if a child only wanted to draw, the teacher encouraged that, layering on the next level of writing support that would encourage children to possibly attempt letters next time.</p> <p>Teachers and coaches recognized and honored children as social communicators. In doing so, the literacy culture of the classroom was a platform for meaningful interaction and expression: "We have a child who recently started. She won't really speak to us, but she's been drawing now, and I think it's starting to encourage her to speak more" (Source: Crest Teacher). KW provided a means for teachers to acknowledge and address the unique needs of each child. This individualized approach contributed significantly to the creation of a climate where every child's learning style and pace were accommodated, fostering inclusivity and a sense of belonging. We observed several examples of how KW allowed teachers to differentiate learning, such as a teacher transitioning seamlessly between supporting children's written expression in English and Spanish.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-23">Adapting to Teachers' Needs and Styles</hd> <p>Across the preschool classrooms, KW was also characterized by its adaptability to teachers' individual needs and styles. The coaches encouraged teachers to implement KW in a way that suited their own comfort level, teaching style, and students. This flexibility allowed teachers to tailor the program to their unique teaching approaches, creating a climate where teachers felt capable of delivering effective literacy instruction. An overarching observation was the evident shift in teachers' perspectives and approaches to early literacy. One coach noted: "I think we introduced this whole idea that you know what, if you show them and work with them and nurture them, they can do more" (Source: Coach). The program catalyzed professional growth, encouraging teachers to adopt more child-centered, supportive, and adaptable practices, thereby influencing the broader literacy culture within their classrooms and preschool centers. One teacher said: "I would say [KW] just helped me with teaching the children... I understand KW, it's like the sounds they hear and it's not just me giving them the letter to write" (Source: Rhodes Teacher). A key part of this shift was teachers' direct and consistent observations of their students' literacy growth within the KW approach.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-24">The Influence of KW on Children's Writing Development</hd> <p>Within children's writing we saw examples of how their writing progressed from rudimentary scribbles to discernable drawings, to including some letters, to grouping letters phonetically, to communicating simple phrases through writing. Figure 1 is an example of the beginning of the developmental phase—scribbles that are almost a drawing. In this drawing, it is not clear to the reader what the drawing represents until the child tells the story and the adult underwrites for them. In Fig. 2, we see the end of the first phase, where there are some discernible shapes and perhaps some letters evident. In Fig. 3 we see the beginning of the second phase, a clear group of letters that make up a word, but we can't understand yet what the word is until the adult hears it from the child. In Fig. 4, we see the beginning of the third phase, from words to phases/sentences. We can see a clear word, Faith, and letters to indicate other words (flowers for my sister). We see the letters relating to the sounds of the words.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Scribbles: Level 1</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Letters: Level 4</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Words: Level 7</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Phrases: Level 11</p> <p>The writing of children across the five centers in fall 2022 ranged from levels 1 to 9, whereas by the spring 2023, their writing ranged from levels 1 to 13 (Table 3). Comparing children's mean writing scores fall to spring, we see growth across all five centers. At three centers, children's writing grew an average of 1 level, fall to spring. At one center, children's writing grew by an average of 2 levels and at the fifth center, by 3 levels, fall to spring. Note that the average fall and spring writing scores are based on a sample of 2 to 4 pieces of writing in the fall and 3 to 4 pieces of writing in the spring, all of which were rated using the rubric presented in Table 3, by trained early literacy researchers.</p> <p>Table 3 Children's mean writing scores from fall 2022 to spring 2023</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Centers</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Number of children</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Fall</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Spring</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Fall to spring mean score difference</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Mean writing score</p></th><th align="left"><p>Score range</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean writing score</p></th><th align="left"><p>Score range</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Rhodes</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–7</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–10</p></td><td align="left"><p> + 3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Crest</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–7</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>2–8</p></td><td align="left"><p> + 2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Thornton</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–8</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–12</p></td><td align="left"><p> + 1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Allen</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>2–8</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>3–12</p></td><td align="left"><p> + 1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Needham</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–9</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>3–13</p></td><td align="left"><p> + 1</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187189982-25">Discussion</hd> <p>This study showed the possibilities of an early writing approach that accepts and enhances children's earliest attempts at writing, beyond transcription and writing letters, and demonstrated that with the support of an adult guiding their written expression through applied phonics, preschool children were eager and able to communicate through writing. Within the KW approach, children were entrusted with when, how, and what they wrote and the full developmental continuum of written expression, from oral expression, to scribbling, to drawing, to writing letters, to writing phrases, was celebrated and seen as writing. Thus, through their written work, we saw that KW gave children a powerful tool to be able to express themselves, giving children a platform as social negotiators and an opportunity to use language to interpret and act on their world through writing (Dyson, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>To capture and honor the full spectrum of children's early writing, we used an empirical approach to organize and classify children's written work. The Phases of Preschool Developmental Writing (Gentile, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref53">16</reflink>]) developed through this study expands upon Gentry and Ouellette's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>]) "Five Phases of Word Reading and Developmental Spelling" and adds more detail around what can be observed in young children's writing attempts. While Gentry and Ouellette's Phases 0 and 1 focus on children's transition from non-alphabetic to alphabetic knowledge, our scale includes drawing as an early expression of writing and captures children's attempts at making shapes, letter-like forms, figures, and drawings alongside their emerging attempts to write letters, phrases, and sentences. By documenting finer nuances within Gentry and Ouellette's phases of developmental spelling ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>]), we provide legitimacy to the function of drawing within the writing continuum and offer expanded opportunities for adults to scaffold children's early composition and transcription.</p> <p>Constructing a climate and culture for child-centered literacy was a critical element of the success of the KW approach within the classrooms where this study took place. The way adults respond to children's early writing provides children with insights into the content, processes, and functions of writing (Rowe, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>]). The adults in KW classrooms, preschool teachers and literacy coaches, granted legitimacy to children's writing attempts, regardless of where they were at on the continuum of writing development, celebrating children's scribbling, drawing, letters, phrases, and sentences. Expanding preschool teachers' beliefs about what counts as writing was fundamental to creating a classroom climate that supported children's desire and ability to compose. Several teachers in this study remarked upon the notable shift in their own perspectives after experiencing KW, saying that they were surprised and delighted by what children were capable of when the classroom culture of writing expanded beyond a focus on children's ability to form letters. As such, KW was a permeable curriculum (Dyson, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref57">12</reflink>]), which allowed children's authentic self-expression to emerge in negotiation with teachers' expanded writing beliefs.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-26">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study suggests several implications for writing instruction, curriculum, and professional development for early childhood teachers. The most obvious is that early writing instruction benefits from a child-centered focus. While some writing instruction will naturally focus on letter formation, it should also include activities that give children the opportunity to write about their lives and experiences (Moll et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>]). Moreover, letter formation activities that provide children with a means for applying phonics (rather than simply memorizing specific letters) will help enhance their early writing and reading development. In addition, professional development for early childhood teachers should include watching video recordings of children engaging in applied phonics writing (such as Kid Writing) and review samples of children's written work, so that they may witness the full range of early literacy skills in which children can engage and thrive, and, thus, expand their understanding and expectation for early literacy education.</p> <p>In the introduction, we presented the story of Ms. Jenny, a teacher in this study, who recounted what happens when adults do not understand and embrace the full developmental continuum of early writing. In the story, Ms. Jenny goes on to say that after the parent noted that the child had spelled a word wrong, the child's face fell, their eagerness to share their writing and their story completely extinguished. This story demonstrates how adults' understanding of the form and function of early writing influences children's views of themselves and their confidence as writers. Although including parent/caregiver perspectives was beyond the scope of this study, it is clear that teachers' beliefs expanded and it is possible that teachers' expanded beliefs might begin to influence other adults in children's environments, like family members. Consistent with other research which shows the importance of valuing children's desire to compose whilst supporting their transcription development (Rohloff et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]), this study showed what children are capable of when adults' beliefs about early writing expand to include the full developmental continuum of writing. Ms. Jenny and the teachers in this study underwent a critical shift in perspective that enabled them to observe how children acquire and express both composing and transcription skills. Although the regularity and intensity of the KW professional development that the teachers in this study experienced may not be possible in every classroom, this study shows that updating early writing curricular standards, assessment tools, and teaching approaches in ways that reflect the full developmental continuum of early writing is needed. Moreover, efforts should be made to expand our collective understanding of emergent writing that places children at the center of writing and by sharing what is possible with a wider audience which includes teachers, administrators, and parents.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-27">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to gratefully acknowledge Diane Waff, Judy Buchanan, and the Literacy Coaches associated with the Philadelphia Writing Project. We would also like to thank all of the directors, site directors, and teachers at our partnering preschools.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-28">Funding</hd> <p>This research was supported by the William Penn Foundation.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-29">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189982-30">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-31">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>This research was approved under a Human Subjects Protocol by the Institutional Review Board at Drexel University.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-32">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent to participate in this study was obtained from all participants and, in the case of children, written informed consent was obtained from their legal guardians.</p> <hd id="AN0187189982-33">Appendix: Classroom Observations Template</hd> <hd1 id="AN0187189982-34">Classroom Observation Rubric: PreK KW    Date: ________      Observer:__________________________</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0187189982-35">General Info:</hd1> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>School</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><bold>Lead Teacher</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><bold># other adults</bold></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Classroom</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><bold># teachers</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><bold># children</bold></p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd1 id="AN0187189982-36">Classroom Layout:</hd1> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Room arrangement</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Desks, centers, reading areas, technology, other set ups?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Walls/boards</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Letters, words, chunk charts, student work?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Writing materials</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Journals, pencils, crayons, markers, letter charts, books?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Position of adults</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Teachers' table? Room for small groups?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd1 id="AN0187189982-37">During KW Lesson/Activities:</hd1> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Flow of time</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Start time, length of KW, time for sharing?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Tone of room</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Routines? Joy? Confidence? Engagement?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Classroom Talk</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>What do teachers say? Students? Languages?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Tasks and Activities</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>KW activities? Who is writing?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Roles</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Roles of teacher, assistant teacher, coach?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd1 id="AN0187189982-38">Key KW Activities:</hd1> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Reinforcing letter recognition</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Did the teacher use skywriting, pointing out letters in songs and names, encouraging magic lines/model writing/finger spacing?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Using KW techniques</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Emphasizing sound-symbol correspondence, stretching words, asking questions to help students elaborate their stories, adult under writing</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Giving feedback to students</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Did the teacher accept, encourage and show enthusiasm for a range of "writing" from wiggly lines to magic lines, to initial consonants, to letters, etc.?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Demonstrating conventions of writing</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Did the teacher do write alouds with the children to demonstrate the conventions of writing? (e.g. left to right, different types of sentences, story sequence, etc.)?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Inviting students to help her write</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Did the teacher have the children help her write, so they can show what they have learned/stay engaged?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Finding letters/words in room</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Did the teacher show the children how to "find" letters/words in the room when they are writing?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Emphasizing sound chunks</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Is there evidence, such as "crowns," that she is emphasizing sound chunks, endings, etc.?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Sharing</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Did children read their own work?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Giving positive feedback</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Did the teacher reinforce children's writing through positive feedback as well as inviting questions?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <bold>NOTES/Researcher Reflection:</bold> </p> <hd id="AN0187189982-39">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187189982-40"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref38" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bahlmann Bollinger CM, Myers JK. Young children's writing in play-based classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2019; 48; 2: 233-242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref32" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barker KS, Kim D-H, Pendergraft E. "It felt good to be included": A mixed-methods study of pre-kindergarten teachers' experiences with professional learning. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2022; 50; 4: 593-604</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref18" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barratt-Pugh, C. (2020). The socio-cultural context of literacy learning. In Literacy learning in the early years (pp. 1–26). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref41" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bentley, D, & Souto-Manning, M. (2019). Pre-k stories: Playing with authorship and integrating curriculum in early childhood. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref34" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bernhard JK, Cummins J, Campoy FI, Ada AF, Winsler A, Bleiker C. Identity texts and literacy development among preschool English language learners: Enhancing learning opportunities for children at risk for learning disabilities. Teachers College Record. 2006; 108; 11: 2380-2405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref2" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bingham GE, Gerde HK. Early childhood teachers' writing beliefs and practices. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023; 14: 1236652. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1236652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref25" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bingham GE, Gerde HK, Pikus AE, Rohloff R, Quinn MF, Bowles RP, Zhang XY. Examining teachers' early writing knowledge and practices. Reading and Writing. 2022; 35; 9: 2201-2227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref23" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bingham GE, Quinn MF, Gerde HK. Examining early childhood teachers' writing practices: Associations between pedagogical supports and children's writing skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2017; 39: 35-46</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref40" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brewster JC. Teaching young children to make picture books. Early Childhood Education Journal. 1997; 25; 2: 113-117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dennis LR, Votteler NK. Preschool teachers and children's emergent writing: Supporting diverse learners. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2013; 41: 439-446</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dong Y, Wu SXY, Dong WY, Tang Y. The effects of home literacy environment on children's reading comprehension development: A meta-analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 2020; 20; 2: 63-82</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson, A. H. (1993). Negotiating a permeable curriculum: On literacy, diversity, and the interplay of children's and teachers' worlds. Concept paper no. 9. National Council of Teachers of English.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson AHCushman E, Kintgen ER, Kroll BM, Rose M. Coach Bombay's kids learn to write: Children's appropriation of media material for school literacy. Literacy: A sourcebook. 2001; Bedford: 325-357</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson, A. H, & Genishi, C. (2013). Social talk and imaginative play. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed, pp. 164–181). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldgus, E. G, Cardonick, I, & Gentry, R. J. (2017). Kid writing in the 21st century: A systematic approach to phonics, spelling, and writing workshop (2nd ed.). Hameray Publishing Group, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gentile, C. (2022). Phases of preschool developmental writing. In Pre-K kid writing evaluation study.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gentry JR. An analysis of developmental spelling in GNYS at work. The Reading Teacher. 1982; 36: 192-200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gentry, J. R, & Ouellette, G. P. (2019). Brain words: How the science of reading informs teaching. Stenhouse Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerde HK, Bingham GE, Pendergast ML. Reliability and validity of the writing resources and interactions in teaching environments (WRITE) for preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2015; 31: 34-46. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerde HK, Wright TS, Bingham GE. Preschool teachers' beliefs about and instruction for writing. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education. 2019; 40; 4: 326-351</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall AH, Simpson A, Guo Y, Wang S. Examining the effects of preschool writing instruction on emergent literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Literacy Research and Instruction. 2015; 54; 2: 115-134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heath SB. Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. 1983; Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martínez-Álvarez P, Ghiso MP, Martínez I. Creative literacies and learning with Latino emergent bilinguals. Learning Landscapes. 2012; 6; 1: 273-298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molfese, V. J, Beswick, J. L, Jacobi-Vessels, J. L, Armstrong, N. E, Culver, B. L, White, J. M,. & Molfese, D. L. (2011). Evidence of alphabetic knowledge in writing: Connections to letter and word identification skills in preschool and kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 24, 133–150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moll LC, Amanti C, Neff D, Gonzalez N. Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice. 1992; 31; 2: 132-141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelatti CY, Piasta SB, Justice LM, O'Connell A. Language and literacy-learning opportunities in early childhood classrooms: Children's typical experiences and within-classroom variability. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2014; 29; 4: 445-456</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik CS, Lonigan CJ. From scribbles to scrabble: Preschool children's developing knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing. 2011; 24: 567-589</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik CS, Lonigan CJ. Emergent writing in preschoolers: Preliminary evidence for a theoretical framework. Reading Research Quarterly. 2014; 49; 4: 453-467</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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe DWBeard R, Myhill D, Riley J, Nystrand M. Early written communication. SAGE handbook of writing development. 2009; SAGE: 213-231</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe DW. Pointing with a pen: The role of gesture in early childhood writing. Reading Research Quarterly. 2019; 54; 1: 13-39</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, D. W. (2023). Writing in early childhood. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), The international handbook of research on writing. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe DW, Miller ME. Designing for diverse classrooms: Using iPads and digital cameras to compose eBooks with emergent bilingual/biliterate four-year-olds. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 2016; 16; 4: 425-472</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe DW, Neitzel C. Interest and agency in 2- and 3-year-olds' participation in emergent writing. Reading Research Quarterly. 2010; 45; 2: 169-195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrodt K, FitzPatrick E, McClain J. Supporting emergent writing with oral storytelling strategies. The Reading Teacher. 2022; 76; 4: 511-517</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tortorelli LS, Gerde HK, Rohloff R, Bingham GE. Ready, set, write: Early learning standards for writing in the Common Core era. Reading Research Quarterly. 2022; 57; 2: 729-752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Hoorn, J, Nourot, P, Scales, B, & Alward, K. (2011). Play at the center of the curriculum (5th ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ventura AC, Scheuer N, Pozo JI. Elementary school children's conceptions of teaching and learning to write as intentional activities. Learning and Instruction. 2020; 65101249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wohlwend K. Play as a literacy of possibilities: Expanding meanings in practices, materials, and spaces. Language Arts. 2008; 86; 2: 127-136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Worthington M, van Oers B. Children's social literacies: Meaning making and the emergence of graphical signs and texts in pretence. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 2017; 17; 2: 147-175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zurcher M, Stefanski A. Valuing and supporting the complex writing processes of emergent writers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 2022. 10.1177/14687984221123709</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Katie A. Mathew; Vera J. Lee; Claudia Gentile; Casey Hanna and Alene Montgomery</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref58"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1479550
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Empowering Young Writers: A Multimodal Case Study of Emergent Writing in Urban Preschool Classrooms
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katie+A%2E+Mathew%22">Katie A. Mathew</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3994-8512">0000-0003-3994-8512</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vera+J%2E+Lee%22">Vera J. Lee</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3705-5833">0000-0003-3705-5833</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Claudia+Gentile%22">Claudia Gentile</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Casey+Hanna%22">Casey Hanna</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0009-0009-4912-2045">0009-0009-4912-2045</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alene+Montgomery%22">Alene Montgomery</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0009-0005-6430-0816">0009-0005-6430-0816</externalLink>)
– 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):2117-2129.
– 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: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Writing%22">Childrens Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emergent+Literacy%22">Emergent Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beginning+Writing%22">Beginning Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Schools%22">Urban Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Instruction%22">Writing Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonics%22">Phonics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Strategies%22">Writing Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Freehand+Drawing%22">Freehand Drawing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Expression%22">Self Expression</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01797-4
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: With a view of children as social negotiators, this study explored how preschool children's voices were nurtured through the implementation of an early-writing/applied phonics approach called Kid Writing (KW). The approach encouraged children to compose writing from their lives as they were guided by an adult who scaffolded the writing process. An analysis of classroom observations, focus groups, and children's work samples revealed the extent to which preschool children's voices, motivation, and writing capabilities were supported. Imperative to children's success as writers in this study was the expansion of preschool teachers' views of what counts as writing. By legitimizing the full developmental continuum of children's early writing attempts, including scribbling, mark-making, drawing, and early letter formation, the results of this study documented what young children are capable of when they are empowered to self-express through their joy of writing. The findings disrupt the notion that preschool children are not ready to write. Rather, children's overall literacy learning is supported by providing opportunities for preschoolers to write from their lived experiences.
– 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: EJ1479550
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1479550
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01797-4
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 2117
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emergent Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beginning Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Freehand Drawing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Expression
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Empowering Young Writers: A Multimodal Case Study of Emergent Writing in Urban Preschool Classrooms
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Katie A. Mathew
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vera J. Lee
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Claudia Gentile
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Casey Hanna
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alene Montgomery
    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