View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Young Children's Composing Processes: Idea Transformations in Verbalizations from Pre-Writing to Post-Writing

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Young Children's Composing Processes: Idea Transformations in Verbalizations from Pre-Writing to Post-Writing
Language: English
Authors: Rebecca Rohloff (ORCID 0000-0003-4548-4996), Jackie Ridley, Margaret F. Quinn, Xiao Zhang
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(6):1961-1971.
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: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Childrens Writing, Writing Processes, Concept Formation, Prewriting, Verbal Communication, Preschool Children, Revision (Written Composition), Writing Strategies
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01800-y
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: Early writing includes both transcription skills (e.g., handwriting and spelling) and composing skills (e.g., the generation, manipulation, and translation of ideas into writing), yet early composing is not as well understood in academic research or by classroom educators. This study seeks to understand 1) how children retained or modified core idea units from pre-writing verbalizations to post-writing verbalizations and 2) how these transformations are related to other composing components, such as connection of ideas. Participants in this study included 133 children at the end of their prekindergarten year. Children completed two composing tasks related to planning a birthday party: an Invitation task and a List task, in which they were asked what they planned to write before writing and then what they had written after writing. Results indicate that most children's pre- and post-verbalizations were connected in meaning. While children overwhelmingly modified their core ideas on both tasks, more children retained ideas on the List task than the Invitation task. Children most often concurrently added and deleted ideas on both tasks, but did so less often when pre- and post-verbalizations were connected in meaning. Implications for supporting the complete writing process, from planning to review and revision, in classroom practices as well as further directions for research are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1479591
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGAsuIqEbCelL3LnmZrFmCwAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKfkBzSwXyUGF_R8KwIBEICBm8rsJZzhYR2bZCNPCQKNiIrhyfc-9-1DIXIGvlQwHnqiG8rcJw0vXZaYBz8-6PPcCTNPz9gudZ77WygmG6k2TikOAgZ7yAfNG2q4lhiBlIQ1BfvpvjhIzWPWNe5oRxXBYgApRx_39MHqliUicQO3cqJS1Qfpg0a8A0Kb9PlqNkQWYmrzkatbYcqgfKwfuUT92mgzeLtuy1WqWXdx
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187189984;5mx01aug.25;2025Aug11.03:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187189984-1">Young Children's Composing Processes: Idea Transformations in Verbalizations from Pre-Writing to Post-Writing </title> <p>Early writing includes both transcription skills (e.g., handwriting and spelling) and composing skills (e.g., the generation, manipulation, and translation of ideas into writing), yet early composing is not as well understood in academic research or by classroom educators. This study seeks to understand 1) how children retained or modified core idea units from pre-writing verbalizations to post-writing verbalizations and 2) how these transformations are related to other composing components, such as connection of ideas. Participants in this study included 133 children at the end of their prekindergarten year. Children completed two composing tasks related to planning a birthday party: an Invitation task and a List task, in which they were asked what they planned to write before writing and then what they had written after writing. Results indicate that most children's pre- and post-verbalizations were connected in meaning. While children overwhelmingly modified their core ideas on both tasks, more children retained ideas on the List task than the Invitation task. Children most often concurrently added and deleted ideas on both tasks, but did so less often when pre- and post-verbalizations were connected in meaning. Implications for supporting the complete writing process, from planning to review and revision, in classroom practices as well as further directions for research are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Early writing; Writing process; Composing; Preschool writers; Pre-writing practices; Reviewing written work</p> <p>From a young age, children begin to share ideas through marks on paper, including scribbling, drawing, and conventional letters (e.g., Rowe & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref1">32</reflink>]). As children explore marks on paper as a form of communication, preschool teachers have the opportunity to support their writing development and processes. Early writing includes both transcription skills (e.g., handwriting and spelling) and composing skills, which includes the generation, manipulation, and translation of ideas into writing. Writing instruction in the preschool years is predictive of later literacy skills, with quality instruction and adult engagement enhancing child literacy outcomes (Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]). Adult-child interactions support writing development by building foundational skills (Bingham & Gerde, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]; Quinn & Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref4">28</reflink>]; Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref5">31</reflink>]). Moreover, adult interactions that draw attention to preschooler's writing in authentic composing contexts build children's understanding of the alphabetic principle and other skills (Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref6">31</reflink>]). While early writing includes both transcription and composing, preschool teachers prioritize transcription in their instruction over composing (e.g., Bingham et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]; Mackenzie & Petriwskyj, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref8">20</reflink>]). This emphasis may underscore a notable misalignment between preschool writing standards, which emphasize handwriting, and kindergarten writing standards, which prioritize composing (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref9">38</reflink>]). Centering composing in early childhood writing instruction has also been connected to young children's development of agency as authors and generally a positive affect toward writing (Dyson, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]). Despite the critical role of composing in young children's writing development, compared to transcription, early composing is not as well understood in the academic research (Quinn & Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref12">27</reflink>]) or by classroom educators (Gerde et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref13">14</reflink>]), nor do teachers emphasize composing in instructional interactions (Bingham et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>To address this gap, this study examines young children's writing processes and how their ideas transformed from pre-writing to post-writing through their oral verbalizations on two composing tasks related to planning a birthday party. The broader study examines children's pre- and post-writing oral verbalizations as well as their written products in order to understand children's transcription levels (e.g., handwriting, spelling), connection of ideas (e.g., relationship between pre- and post-verbalizations), and discourse (e.g., quantity of ideas expressed; transformation of ideas from pre- to post-writing). Based on findings, we propose classroom instructional and assessment strategies for preschool teachers that leverage children's writings, drawings, and talk to foster a more comprehensive approach to early writing education.</p> <p>The following questions guide the current study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do children retain or modify core idea units from pre-writing oral verbalizations to post-writing verbalizations?</item> <p></p> <item> How are these transformations related to other components of composing, such as connection of ideas?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187189984-2">Children's Early Writing</hd> <p>Literacy encompasses an array of skills, including phonemic awareness, alphabetic knowledge, spelling, and idea generation, all of which interact and complement each other during reading and writing processes. Early writing includes print-based skills such as letter formation but also includes skills related to memory and executive functioning (Berninger & Win, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>]). Print-based skills such as transcription (e.g., handwriting, spelling) factor into children's writing development and abilities, while executive functioning skills, such as self-regulation, are important skills for managing cognitive processes during writing tasks (Graham & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]). Early writing skills emerge during the preschool years and develop over time, and children draw on these skills variably (Rowe & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]). Moreover, writing abilities may depend on the constraints or open-endedness of a task context (Quinn & Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study draws from both Puranik and Lonigan's ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref19">26</reflink>]) theoretical framework for early writing and Berninger and Winn's ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>]) Not-so-Simple View of Writing framework. Puranik and Lonigan's ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]) theoretical framework for early writing describes three strands of knowledge: (a) conceptual knowledge (e.g., understanding that marks on paper have meaning; understanding that English print follows left-to-right linearity), (b) procedural knowledge (e.g., letter identification, letter formation, spelling), and (c) generative knowledge (e.g., "writing beyond the single-word level" (p. 456). Children use their generative skills when composing via verbalizations, writing, or drawing. Berninger and Winn's ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]) Not-so-Simple View of Writing framework, intended for elementary-aged students but informative for understanding cognitive processes during early writing, includes transcription, text generation, executive functioning (e.g., goal setting, reviewing), and working memory. These relationships are important. For example, executive functioning and the competencies of reading/writing have been found to be interdependent (​​Pazeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]). In addition, working memory allows children to remember spelling forms during writing (Tanturier & Rapp, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref24">37</reflink>]) as well as write with fluency—producing text quickly and with few pauses (Kim, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref25">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Combining insights from both frameworks, we define early composing as "the process by which children draw from conceptual knowledge, transcription skills, generative skills, executive functioning, and working memory to create products that capture their ideas in print, drawing, or verbal language" (Quinn & Rohloff, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>], p. 2). Early composing, often reliant on transcription, includes generating, connecting, and transforming ideas (Quinn & Rohloff, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref27">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref28">30</reflink>]). Generating ideas during composing draws on divergent thinking skills; divergent thinking can be described as the number and uniqueness of ideas as well as the flexibility and elaboration of ideas, which entails following a line of thinking to expand or develop an initial idea (Runco & Acar, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]). Connection refers to children's intentions in their writing. Studies looking at connection have examined how children's plans for writing align with their written products (Siew & Nor, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>]), which requires children to produce conventional writing. Recent research focusing on connection has also examined how children's pre-writing verbalizations connect to their post-writing verbalizations (Quinn & Rohloff, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref31">30</reflink>]), and this approach is well-suited for working with children not yet using conventional orthography since it relies on their verbal composing skills. This study looks more closely at the transformation of children's ideas from pre-writing to post-writing verbalization—or how they retain, add, delete, and otherwise revise their ideas during the writing process from the planning to review stage.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-3">Children's Talk and Writing Development</hd> <p>Oral language is the use of spoken words to express ideas and emotions and includes several dimensions, including the sound system of language, the internal form of words, the arrangement of words in sentences, meaning, and the use of language in particular social context. Oral language plays an important role in children's writing development. For example, verbal composing is a central method for expressing ideas for young children, especially for those whose transcription skills have not fully reached conventional orthography (Dyson, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>]; Pazeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>]; Spencer & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref35">36</reflink>]) Through oral language, children generate ideas for writing, expand ideas, and modify ideas (Myhill & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]). Vygotsky ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref37">40</reflink>]) theorized children use talk—talking to themselves or talking to someone with more expertise—to monitor instructions or to guide themselves through a series of tasks. Moreover, sharing verbal compositions mediates problem solving by providing children opportunities to receive feedback and refine their ideas (Parr et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>]), including organizing thoughts and attuning to an audience. While oral language supports writing development, the relationship is bidirectional—preschoolers' oral language skills can predict early elementary writing, including spelling and composition (Cabell et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]). For example, children with Developmental Language Disorder experience greater challenges with writing, and particularly spelling (Buil-Legaz et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>]). While the competencies of oral language and reading/writing are interdependent, oral language and executive functioning are relatively independent (​​Pazeto et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref41">25</reflink>]). In other words, challenges with executive functioning may not necessarily predict difficulties in a child's oral language skills. However, executive functioning has been found to be inversely correlated with divergent thinking (Vaisarova & Carlson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref42">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children use various oral language strategies during writing experiences. Stagg Peterson and Friedriech ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref43">37</reflink>]) found in their study with kindergarteners and first graders that children's oral language strategies varied depending on if they were talking before or after drawing or writing. Before writing, children typically used language to solicit more information about the writing task or to help in text creation, whereas after writing, children often offered commentary on transcription and composition of their texts. This temporal distinction highlights the roles of talk at different stages of the writing process. In another study, Coates and Coates ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref44">8</reflink>]) describe the talk of three- to five-year-olds engaged in an open-ended drawing task in which they were asked to compose a subject of their choosing. Children's talk focused on subject matter, social companionship with peers, and with adults. These findings are reminiscent of Dyson's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref45">11</reflink>]) claim that the composing process is inherently social, and the creation and sharing of written texts can be playful, interactive spaces for young children in classrooms. Talk with adults involved discussion and facilitation of content, and the children's talk provided insights into their intentions behind their products (Coates & Coates, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>]). Talk plays a pivotal role in elucidating the writing process for preschoolers, and analyzing children's talk during writing provides a window into the cognitive and socioemotional aspects of early writing from ideation to the written product.</p> <p>Research on preschoolers' oral language and writing processes has largely focused on the relationship between what children say they wrote and what they transcribed, or the extent to which what children say they wrote matches our expectations for conventional writing. For example, in foundational work, Dyson ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref47">10</reflink>]) analyzed children's development from using talk to imbue their written graphics with meaning to understanding writing as a representation of talk. Others have explored the impact of direct instruction in oral language on the quality of narrative writing in early elementary students (Spencer & Peterson, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref48">36</reflink>]), and the parallel development of oral language and early writing in kindergartners (Kent et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref49">18</reflink>]). However, the relationship between pre- and post-writing oral verbalizations in children's composing practices has not been a focus of early literacy research. Our study aims to address this gap by analyzing children's oral verbalizations from pre-writing to post-writing on two different writing tasks. In examining how young children's ideas evolve during the writing process through their oral verbalizations, we contribute to the growing and much-need body of knowledge around preschool composing practices.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-4">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189984-5">Participants and Data Collection</hd> <p>Participants in this study included 133 children at the end of their prekindergarten year (<emph>M</emph> age in months = 60.52, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.97). Children whose writing is included in this study were participating in two larger studies in a large urban area in a southeastern U.S. state both of which were focused on online professional learning for teachers. IRB approval for the two larger studies was secured from the home institution of the studies' PI. As a part of the IRB process, consent was collected from children's parents or guardians. When collecting data, assent was secured from the children, and if a child suggested through verbal or body language that they did not want to participate, assessments were discontinued. Gender, race/ethnicity, and language status were collected through caregiver surveys and surveys were returned by all but one family. Among the sample, 51.51% were girls. Considering race and ethnicity, 63.9% were Black/African American, 12.0% were Hispanic/Latino/a/x/é, 8.3% were White, and 0.8% were Asian or Asian American, and 15.03% declined to answer. 6% of the sample were identified by their caregivers as English Language Learners. Students in the sample were largely typically developing without diagnosed special needs. However a small subset did receive speech and/or hearing services (<emph>n</emph> = 6). Children with special needs for whom the assessment battery was inappropriate were not included in the final sample. To collect data for this study, Quinn facilitated a two-hour training session for graduate research assistants to review and practice testing procedures. Data was collected from children whose caregivers consented for them to participate in the study in a quiet space in the school.</p> <p>Children completed two composing tasks related to planning a party: an Invitation task and a List task. The Invitation task, adapted from Skibbe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref50">35</reflink>]), framed the party context and then prompted children to compose an invitation to a party. Data collectors asked children in immediate succession what they planned to write, asked the children to write on provided paper, and then asked the children what they had written. In this study, we refer to children's oral output as verbalizations and their written output as writing. Sessions were not audio or video recorded, so data collectors recorded children's pre- and post-writing verbalizations word-for-word, making anecdotal notes on such things as self-talk or refusals. For consistency in data collection, children did not prepare for the tasks. Data collectors provided general encouragement (e.g., "Good writing!") but no other scaffolding in order to maintain consistency in administration. For the List task, children were prompted to write a list of things they would need for the party. List writing is familiar to children and commonly used for assessing compositions (e.g., Leyva et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref51">19</reflink>]; Quinn & Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref52">28</reflink>]; Zecker, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref53">42</reflink>]). In line with the Invitation task, on the List task, children were asked to plan their writing, write, and then review their writing with little scaffolding from the data collector.</p> <p>The List task and Invitation task each included 133 samples, but children refused to provide a pre- and/or post-verbalization for 7 samples for the Invitation task, and 13 samples for the List task and were therefore eliminated from analysis. As a result, the data corpus for this study included 126 samples of the Invitation task and 120 of the List task; each sample included pre- and post-writing verbalizations. Children's actual written products were not the focus of the current study; however, broadly speaking, children were largely engaging in scribbling, drawing, or writing letters and letter-like shapes when participating in these tasks (76.8% and 74.2% of the Invitation and List task responses, respectively). Relatively fewer children demonstrated any invented or estimated spelling (21.3% and 25.2%, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-6">Data Coding</hd> <p>The data corpus for both tasks was coded for connection and idea transformations.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-7">Connection of Ideas</hd> <p>In order to broadly understand how the children planned, enacted, and reviewed their writing, we examined the overarching connectedness in meaning between the pre- and post-verbalizations for each sample, which may provide an indirect window into working memory and executive functioning processes during writing. We categorically coded data as <emph>strong connection</emph>, <emph>some connection</emph>, and <emph>no connection</emph>. For strong connection, pre- and post-writing verbalizations closely matched semantically, such as when children repeated the same or nearly same statement before and after writing. For example, the pre-verbalization, "Come to my party," was repeated exactly as the post-verbalization and therefore coded as having <emph>strong connection</emph>. In addition, the pre-verbalization, "Birthday cake, balloons," and very similar post-verbalization, "balloons and birthday cake" was coded as having <emph>strong connection</emph>. When semantic connections of some sort were globally present, but not as clear, the sample was coded as having <emph>some connection</emph>. For example, the pre-verbalization, "Present and a balloon. Make sure you keep the things in your house," and the post-verbalization, "You need presents for your friends," was coded as having <emph>some connection</emph> since the concept of presents or gift giving was addressed in both statements, albeit in different manners, first as a stand-alone noun, and second as the object in an imperative statement. When the pre- and post-verbalizations reflected no clear semantic connection, the sample was coded as having <emph>no connection</emph>. For example, the pre-verbalization, "cake, balloons, but table," and post-verbalization, "Do you want to come to my party?" are related to the birthday party theme, but they are semantically different, with the first listing party supplies, and the second requesting attendance at the party. In other cases, the pre-verbalizations and post-verbalizations not only did not match semantically, but did not address the same theme. For example, the pre-verbalization, "candy, food, decorations, surprise," and post-verbalization, "D. Drew a kite," was coded as having <emph>no connection</emph>. In this case, the child listed birthday party supplies and then labeled a letter form and drawing that did not address the theme.</p> <p>Connection was coded by Rohloff and Quinn. First they coded a subset of the data (15% of the samples) from both the Invitation task and List task with moderate to strong reliability (<emph>k</emph>s > 0.86). The remainder of the data was divided between the coders and independently coded. To check for drift, coders compared an additional 20% of the data with 90% reliability. Differences were resolved through consensus. Ten final samples were double coded and with consistent coding across both coders.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-8">Idea Transformation: Core Idea Units</hd> <p>We used core idea units to analyze transformation in children's pre- and post-writing verbalizations in order to center meaning rather than syntax. We conceptualized a core idea unit to capture the main meaning of children's verbalizations. For example, when asked to share what they would write on an invitation to a birthday party, one child stated, "I want to invite Jonathan and Amani and Skye." In the post-writing verbalization, the child stated that they wrote: "I want to invite everyone to the party." In this instance, we determined the core idea of the prewriting verbalization was the child's desire to invite people to the party. Though the post-writing verbalization was slightly different—the list of names was generalized to "everyone"—the core idea remained intact. In addition, while the setting for the invitation was implied in the pre-verbalization but made explicit in the post-verbalization (e.g., the prepositional phrase "to the party"), the core idea remained the same.</p> <p>We conceptualized the core idea unit as a meaningful expression that included an explicit or implied subject and/or predicate presented in the form of a word, phrase, or sentence. Complete sentences with a clear subject and predicate that have one core idea unit include, "I want you to come to my party." and "I want a baby doll for my birthday." If the subject or predicate was not clear, the expression likewise included one core unit. For example, verbalizations such as the noun phrases "Ninja Turtles," or "dear friends," and the prepositional phrase "at the pool" were considered core idea units. In some cases, the core idea unit was represented by a single word, as in the expression "guys," or "cake." Pre- and post-verbalizations could also include multiple core idea units, although this was not the majority. For example, a verbalization such as, "This is a Power Ranger. This is a Ninja Turtle. This is a pizza." includes three core idea units. When coding a verbalization, each core idea unit was considered separately to determine types of transformation present in the verbalization.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-9">Two-Phase Coding Process for Idea Transformation</hd> <p>To examine how children's pre- to post-writing verbalizations transformed, we developed a two phase codebook using an open-coding process. As a first step, Rohloff and Ridley co-coded a subset of data to saturation in order to define the primary codes, <emph>retaining ideas</emph> and <emph>modifying ideas</emph>. To distinguish between ideas that were retained or modified, we first asked whether or not the core idea(s) changed from the pre- to post-verbalization; if the core idea unit in the post-verbalization was different, then we coded <emph>modifying ideas</emph>; if the post-verbalization core idea unit remained primarily the same, we coded <emph>retaining ideas</emph>. Illustrative examples of data coded as modified, retained, or both are included in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Illustrative examples of primary codes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Retained ideas only</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Modified ideas only</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Retained and modified ideas concurrently</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Pre</p></th><th align="left"><p>Post</p></th><th align="left"><p>Pre</p></th><th align="left"><p>Post</p></th><th align="left"><p>Pre</p></th><th align="left"><p>Post</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Sample Data</p></td><td align="left"><p>"A birthday cake. A present."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"A birthday cake and a present."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Thank you for coming! They will write their names and phone number and address."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"The girl who has a pink dress on in <italic>Monster High</italic>"</p></td><td align="left"><p>"A balloon party. I want you to come to my party."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I want you to come to my party."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Explanation</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>The pre-verbalization includes two core idea units: birthday cake and present. Both core idea units are preserved in the post-verbalization.</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>The core idea units in the pre-verbalization and post-verbalization are different.</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>The pre-verbalization includes two core idea units. The first idea "a balloon party" is modified because it does not appear at all in the post-verbalization. The second idea "... come to my party" is preserved in the post-verbalization.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>After the primary codes were defined, Rohloff and Ridley coded each core idea unit for all remaining pre- and post-verbalizations as <emph>retaining ideas</emph> and/or <emph>modifying ideas</emph>. We compared codes and resolved all differences through consensus. These codes were not mutually exclusive at the level of the core idea unit.</p> <p>For phase two, Rohloff and Ridley co-coded a subset of the data to saturation in order to define the secondary codes for <emph>retaining ideas</emph> and <emph>modifying ideas.</emph> See description of secondary codes in Table 2. While in phase one, we determined <emph>if</emph> core ideas units were retained or modified from pre- to post-verbalizations, in this second phase, we determined <emph>how</emph> the core ideas units changed. For instances where the core idea unit was retained, we coded for grammatical and perspective shifts as well as expanding the idea without changing the core meaning or making the idea more concise or generalized. For instances where the core idea unit was modified, we coded for the addition of new idea units or culling idea units. Within the set of modified verbalizations, we also coded for instances of labeling writing conceptually (e.g., post-verbalization: "a list") or labeling letters or forms (e.g., post-verbalization: "a J, an A, a N, a I, and a Y and A and an I"). Secondary codes were not mutually exclusive.</p> <p>Table 2 Illustrative examples of secondary codes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Primary Code</p></th><th align="left"><p>Secondary Code</p></th><th align="left"><p>Description</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Sample Data</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Pre</p></th><th align="left"><p>Post</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>Retained</p></td><td align="left"><p>Retained ideas exactly</p></td><td align="left"><p>The core idea unit was retained exactly or almost exactly.</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I want a party"</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I want a party."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Grammatical or linguistic shift</p></td><td align="left"><p>A syntactical or morphological shift was made in the core idea unit.</p></td><td align="left"><p>"It's a Christmas party. Can you please come?"</p></td><td align="left"><p>"May you come to my Christmas party?"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Perspective changed</p></td><td align="left"><p>A change in the point of view occurs in the core idea unit.</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I'll write an invitation."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Alana's invitation."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Provided instances</p></td><td align="left"><p>Provided an instance of a more generalized noun in a core idea unit.</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Shoes."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Her high heels."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Generalized or made idea more concise</p></td><td align="left"><p>The core idea unit is generalized or made more concise, perhaps by deleting adjectives, adverbs, or prepositions.</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Birthday hats."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Hats."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Expanded idea</p></td><td align="left"><p>The core idea unit is expanded, perhaps through the addition of adjectives, adverbs, or prepositions.</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Ice cream."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Vanilla ice cream."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Modified</p></td><td align="left"><p>Added ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p>A new core idea unit is added to the verbalization.</p></td><td align="left"><p>"<italic>Frozen</italic>. Presents."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Have cake and presents and <italic>Frozen</italic>."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Deleted ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p>A core idea unit is deleted from the verbalization.</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Can you please come to my party?"</p></td><td align="left"><p>Core idea unit not present.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Labeled ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p>Labels or narrates the writing process rather than addressing meaning.</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Cake, monkey, lion, a train, eggs."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"K, S, T, E, and T, and that's my name."</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>After the secondary codes were defined, Rohloff and Ridley double-coded the remaining pre- and post-verbalizations using the secondary codes in Table 2 for <emph>retaining ideas</emph> and/or <emph>modifying ideas</emph>. We compared codes and resolved all differences through consensus.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-10">Results</hd> <p>Following data coding, frequency analysis and identification of co-occurrences were completed to determine how children retained or modified core semantic idea units from pre-verbalizations to post-verbalization and how these transformations related to the level of connection between what the children said they planned to write and what they said they wrote.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-11">Connection of Ideas Between Pre- and Post-Verbalizations</hd> <p>We determined that for the samples included in this analysis (Invitation task, <emph>n</emph> = 126; List task, <emph>n</emph> = 120), most children's pre- and post-verbalizations were connected in meaning (<emph>some connection</emph> or <emph>strong connection</emph>) on both the Invitation task (66%; <emph>n</emph> = 83) and List task (70%; <emph>n</emph> = 84). For example, on the List task, the pre-verbalization, "table, party, birthday cakes, birthday hat," had a <emph>strong connection</emph> to the post-verbalization, "party hat, birthday cake, birthday table," since several core ideas appear in both verbalizations either exactly or similarly. On the Invitation task, the pre-verbalization, "Nevin then come to my pool," had <emph>some connection</emph> to the post-verbalization, "Nevin and a cross," since the subject (i.e., Nevin) remains intact but other key ideas differ (e.g., pool and cross). Approximately one third of samples for both tasks were not connected as shown in Table 3. For example, on the Invitation task, the pre-verbalization, "Monster and dinosaur," bears <emph>no connection</emph> to the post-verbalization, "A king," since the nouns listed are not semantically related within the context of the birthday invitation task.</p> <p>Table 3 Connections pre- to post-verbalizations</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Invitation Task</p></th><th align="left"><p>List Task</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>No connection</p></td><td align="left"><p>34% (<italic>n</italic> = 43)</p></td><td align="left"><p>30% (<italic>n</italic> = 36)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Some connection</p></td><td align="left"><p>29% (<italic>n</italic> = 37)</p></td><td align="left"><p>39% (<italic>n</italic> = 47)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Strong connection</p></td><td align="left"><p>37% (<italic>n</italic> = 46)</p></td><td align="left"><p>31% (<italic>n</italic> = 37)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>100% <italic>(n</italic> = 126)</p></td><td align="left"><p>100% (<italic>n</italic> = 120)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187189984-12">Evidence of Modifying and/or Retaining Ideas from Pre- to Post-Verbalizations</hd> <p>Of the samples included in this analysis (Invitation task, <emph>n</emph> = 126; List task, <emph>n</emph> = 120), children overwhelmingly modified their ideas from pre- to post-verbalizations on both the Invitation task (72%; <emph>n</emph> = 91) and List Task (86%; <emph>n</emph> = 103). While children overwhelmingly modified their core ideas on both tasks, more children retained ideas on the List task (66%; <emph>n</emph> = 79) than the Invitation task (52%; <emph>n</emph> = 65). On the Invitation task, children were most likely to only modify ideas (48%; <emph>n</emph> = 61), as in the following example: the pre-verbalization, "Go to Family Dollar and get a necklace," was modified completely in the post-verbalization to "Jayda Happy Birthday. She's four." On the List task, children more often concurrently <emph>retained</emph> and <emph>modified</emph> ideas in their sample (52%; <emph>n</emph> = 62), as seen in the following instance: The pre-verbalization, "balloons, cupcakes, cake," was transformed in the post-verbalization to,"cake, cupcake, kitty, cat food." The core idea units "cupcakes" and "cake" were <emph>retained</emph> pre- to post-writing, and the post-verbalization was <emph>modified</emph> with the addition of "kitty" and "cat food" and the elimination of "balloons." See Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4 Transformation of ideas from pre- to post-verbalization across all samples</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Invitation Task</p></th><th align="left"><p>List Task</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Retained Idea(s) ONLY</p></td><td align="left"><p>28% (<italic>n</italic> = 35)</p></td><td align="left"><p>14% (<italic>n</italic> = 17)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Modified Idea(s) ONLY</p></td><td align="left"><p>48% (<italic>n</italic> = 61)</p></td><td align="left"><p>34% (<italic>n</italic> = 41)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Retained AND Modified Ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p>24% (<italic>n</italic> = 30)</p></td><td align="left"><p>52% (<italic>n</italic> = 62)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>100% (<italic>n</italic> = 126)</p></td><td align="left"><p>100% (<italic>n</italic> = 120)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187189984-13">How Ideas were Modified from Pre- to Post-Verbalizations</hd> <p>As addressed above, children tended to modify their ideas from pre- to post-verbalizations on both the Invitation task (72%; <emph>n</emph> = 91) and List Task (86%; <emph>n</emph> = 103), and how children modified ideas (e.g., deleted ideas, added ideas, labeled ideas) looked similar across both tasks. When children modified from pre- to post-verbalizations on the Invitation task (<emph>n</emph> = 91) and List task (<emph>n</emph> = 103), they most often concurrently added and deleted ideas on both tasks (Invitation task 77%; <emph>n</emph> = 70; List task 69%; <emph>n</emph> = 71). For example, on the Invitation task, the core idea unit in the pre-verbalization, "put in the mail," was deleted in the post-verbalization, which included a new idea: "yes girls, no boys." For the List task, the pre-verbalization, "cake, balloons, and cupcakes," was transformed to "cake, balloons, party bags"; in this case, "cupcakes" was deleted and "party bags" was added in the post-verbalization. Likewise, children rarely only added ideas on the Invitation task (8%; <emph>n</emph> = 7) and List task (9%; <emph>n</emph> = 9). See Table 5. In addition, children also modified ideas from pre- to post-verbalizations at similar rates on both tasks by labeling ideas (Invitation task 33%; <emph>n</emph> = 30 and List task 26%; <emph>n</emph> = 27).</p> <p>Table 5 Modification of ideas from pre- to post-verbalization</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Invitation Task</p></th><th align="left"><p>List Task</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Added Idea(s) ONLY</p></td><td align="left"><p>8% (<italic>n</italic> = 7)</p></td><td align="left"><p>9% (<italic>n</italic> = 9)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Deleted Idea(s) ONLY</p></td><td align="left"><p>15% (<italic>n</italic> = 14)</p></td><td align="left"><p>22% (<italic>n</italic> = 23)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Added and Deleted Ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p>77% (<italic>n</italic> = 70)</p></td><td align="left"><p>69% (<italic>n</italic> = 71)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>100% (<italic>n</italic> = 91)</p></td><td align="left"><p>100% (<italic>n</italic> = 103)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. Only samples in which children modified ideas are included</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-14">Relationship Between Modification and Connection of Ideas</hd> <p>When modifying ideas, a core idea could be deleted and replaced with an entirely new idea, resulting in a pre- and post-verbalization with no semantic or thematic relationships. For example, the pre-verbalization, "Cookies, ice cream, cup" is not connected in meaning to the post-verbalization, "Rainbow. I wanted a castle." Likewise, samples that included multiple core ideas could be altered significantly but still demonstrate a semantic or thematic relationship. For example, the pre-verbalization, "You are coming to my birthday. I'm going to have a jumpy house," is different, yet connected in meaning to the post-verbalization, "I am going to have a big birthday." To better understand how children modified ideas while preserving meaning from pre- to post-verbalizations, we examined a subset of samples that were coded for <emph>modifying ideas</emph> and concurrently coded for either <emph>some connection</emph> or <emph>strong connection</emph>. See Table 6. For this subset of data (Invitation task, <emph>n</emph> = 48; List task, <emph>n</emph> = 67), the trends in how children modified ideas changed compared to the overall trends (which included samples with no connection). The percentages of samples with connections and coded as <emph>added ideas only</emph> or <emph>deleted ideas only</emph> remained similar to samples overall. However, the percentage of children who <emph>concurrently added and deleted ideas</emph> dropped somewhat when ideas were connected (Invitation task 62.5%, <emph>n</emph> = 30; List task 53%, <emph>n</emph> = 36) compared to the overall sample (Invitation task 77%, <emph>n</emph> = 70; List task 69%, <emph>n</emph> = 71).</p> <p>Table 6 Modification of ideas for samples with some or strong connections</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Invitation Task</p></th><th align="left"><p>List Task</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Added Idea(s) ONLY</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.5% (<italic>n</italic> = 7)</p></td><td align="left"><p>13% (<italic>n</italic> = 9)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Deleted Idea(s) ONLY</p></td><td align="left"><p>23% (<italic>n =</italic> 11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>33% (<italic>n</italic> = 22)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Added and Deleted Ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p>62.5% (<italic>n</italic> = 30)</p></td><td align="left"><p>54% (<italic>n</italic> = 36)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>100% (<italic>n</italic> = 48)</p></td><td align="left"><p>100% (<italic>n</italic> = 67)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. Only samples with some or strong connection and in which children made modifications are included</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-15">How Ideas were Retained from Pre- to Post-Verbalizations</hd> <p>On the Invitation task and List task all samples where core ideas were <emph>retained</emph> from pre- to post-verbalization were also concurrently coded as <emph>some connection</emph> or <emph>strong connection</emph>. We looked more closely at the subset of samples that were coded as <emph>retained ideas</emph> and <emph>some connection</emph> or <emph>strong connection</emph> for the Invitation task (<emph>n</emph> = 65) and List task (<emph>n</emph> = 79) and found task differences in how children retained ideas. Core ideas could be retained exactly, but the core ideas could also be retained but altered slightly through grammatical shifts, perspective changes, use of instances, generalizations, and expansions. Children were much more likely to retain a core idea exactly on the List task (73%; <emph>n</emph> = 58) than the Invitation task (40%; <emph>n</emph> = 26). In addition, children were slightly more likely to modify an idea by consolidating or generalizing an idea on the Invitation task (18%; <emph>n</emph> = 12) than List task (9%; <emph>n</emph> = 7). Also, they were more likely to provide instances on the Invitation task (14%; <emph>n</emph> = 9) than List task (4%; <emph>n</emph> = 3). Aside from these task differences, how children retained ideas looked similar across tasks. See Table 7.</p> <p>Table 7 Retention of ideas from pre- to post-verbalization</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Invitation Task</p></th><th align="left"><p>List Task</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Retained Exactly</p></td><td align="left"><p>40% (<italic>n</italic> = 26)</p></td><td align="left"><p>73% (<italic>n</italic> = 58)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Grammatical or Linguistic Shift</p></td><td align="left"><p>15% (<italic>n</italic> = 10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>13% (<italic>n</italic> = 10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Perspective Change</p></td><td align="left"><p>9% (<italic>n</italic> = 6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>8% (<italic>n</italic> = 6)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Provided Instances</p></td><td align="left"><p>14% (<italic>n</italic> = 9)</p></td><td align="left"><p>4% (<italic>n</italic> = 3)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Consolidated or Generalized Idea</p></td><td align="left"><p>18% (<italic>n</italic> = 12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>9% (<italic>n</italic> = 7)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Expanded Idea</p></td><td align="left"><p>18% (<italic>n</italic> = 12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>18% (<italic>n</italic> = 14)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. Only samples in which children retained ideas are included (Invitation <emph>n</emph> = 65; List <emph>n</emph> = 79). All samples were concurrently coded as <emph>some connection</emph> or <emph>strong connection</emph>. These secondary codes are not mutually exclusive</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Results from this study are important because they challenge conventional approaches to young children's writing development, and particularly revision. Revision appears in many literacy standards in the later age bands (National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref54">23</reflink>]; Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref55">38</reflink>]), but the preschool children in this study overwhelmingly modified their core semantic ideas on both the List and Invitation tasks, indicating that even young children engage in revision from the planning to review stage of the writing process. Our results suggest the positive potential of providing instruction in planning, reviewing, and revising writing for even preschool children.</p> <p>The reason why children modified ideas from the planning to review stage of writing is not so clear, given that the writing processes in preschoolers tend to be an obscured, black box process. It is possible that the creative process of writing sparks spontaneous generation of new ideas that take the place of prior ideas. However, these modifications might also be reflective of children's self-regulation–the ability to manage their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in order to complete a task. Interestingly, children demonstrate less developed self-regulation than adults, and self-regulation has been found to be inversely correlated with divergent thinking, such as the number of ideas generated in creative thinking tasks (Vaisarova & Carlson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]). Therefore, the preponderance of the modification of ideas from pre- to post-writing may reflect this developmental characteristic of children.</p> <p>Working memory may have impacted children's performance on the List and Invitation tasks as well. The chunks an adult can hold in memory depends on the type of content; adults can typically hold no more than seven numerals and five words in working memory, though the capacity limit might be even smaller (Miller, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref57">21</reflink>]; Cowan, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref58">9</reflink>]), while preschool age children can typically hold half as many chunks in working memory (Gathercole, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref59">13</reflink>]). Interestingly, there emerged a task difference for retaining ideas from pre- to post-verbalization, with more children retaining ideas on the List task than the Invitation task, and in fact, more children retained ideas exactly on the List task than the Invitation task, as opposed to slight shifts in retained ideas, such as changing perspective or grammatical structure. On one hand, task differences are not surprising, given that task contexts can constrain or scaffold children's writing (Bus et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]; Quinn & Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref61">28</reflink>]). When considering the results, it might be that the nature of the differing tasks—generating a list of short nouns versus composing a request in presumably sentence form—reflected differing load demands on working memory, which is constrained by time and content. Cognitive load may contribute to how children hold onto ideas throughout the entire writing process, from planning to review. The invitation task required children to use longer and more complex language structures to convey their ideas, possibly taxing working memory. On the List task, children's core idea units tended to be shorter (e.g., "Balloons.") compared to the Invitation task (e.g., "Bring some candy."), which tended to include more phrases and complete sentences. The lengthier idea units created when composing a request to attend a party may be more difficult to hold in working memory, and therefore more often forgotten and then replaced during the writing process.</p> <p>Additionally, findings indicate that most children's pre- and post-writing verbalizations were connected in meaning, even if ideas were altered during the writing process. For these children, retaining and modifying ideas while adhering to a consistent or related meaning across the writing process from the planning to review stage may reflect children's awareness of their own thought processes. This metacognitive awareness of writing processes may help even young children plan for writing, monitor their progress, and revise and review their writing.</p> <p>When we examined only the subset of pre- and post-verbalizations with <emph>some connection</emph> or <emph>strong connection</emph>, these results changed to reflect a striking drop in the co-occurrence of deletion and addition—In other words, these children less often swapped out ideas completely. These children perhaps were able to hold more ideas in working memory, and therefore may have focused more on refining ideas rather than generating numerous and/or new ideas. For example, they may delete irrelevant details (e.g., as in the invitation "Hey we're having a party. Would you like to come?" that transformed to "Hey guys, want to come to my party?") or add essential information to ensure coherence and clarity in their communication (e.g., a list that transformed from "balloons" pre-writing to "We need balloons for our birthday, decorations, birthday cake" post-writing). This pattern of our results suggest that these children have control over their writing process and may regulate their own thinking in terms of writing process.</p> <p>While this study provides insight into children's writing process at one point in time, it is limited by its small sample size which may limit generalizability. Moreover, the age range from three to five-years of age encompasses varying developmental levels related to literacy, working memory, and executive functioning, which were not easily accounted for in the findings. Future work should more closely examine relationships between these developmental levels and children's writing processes. Moreover, future research should examine young children's writing processes longitudinally.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-17">Implications</hd> <p>Findings from this study have implications for understanding children's writing processes as well as how educators can support young writers' development. First, our results speak to the similarities and differences in children's writing processes for different composing tasks. Whether creating a birthday party invitation or generating a list of items needed for a birthday party, we observed a high degree of connection between children's pre- and post-verbalizations. Additionally, there were no clear task differences in how children modified ideas, and across tasks, children tended to both add and delete ideas, sometimes concurrently. When we analyzed how children retained ideas, we observed more task differences; specifically, ideas were less likely to be retained exactly on List task, while on the Invitation task, ideas were more often consolidated or generalized from pre- to post-writing. These task-specific and more general characteristics of young children's revisions speak to how teachers can scaffold early composing practices for children depending on the nature and demands of the task at hand. For example, these data speak to the potential for facilitating children's idea development when composing through specific teacher moves, such as eliciting additional details from children (i.e., child offers "car," teacher queries "what kind of car?"); encouraging the inclusion of specific examples (i.e., child shares "toy," teacher asks "what toy are you thinking about? A Ninja Turtle?"); and/or prompting greater syntactic complexity (i.e., child writes "friends," teacher prompts "what would you like to do with your friends? Invite them to the party?"). In this study, children retained and modified their ideas without adult prompting; adult scaffolding for composing holds potential for supporting children in developing their writing further.</p> <p>Additionally, this study sheds light on the role of revision in early composing practices. Almost all children in this study engaged in idea transformation from pre-writing to post-writing, indicating children's inclination to revise their writing. Additionally, many samples included multiple transformation types which underscores the multifacetedness and complexity of early writing processes. Based on these results, we speculate that the writing process—children putting their ideas into words and drawings on paper—was an integral part to their revisions; said differently, the written text was not only the object of children's revisions, but also a space through which children realized what revisions they wanted for a given composing task. Educators can foster children's composing development with planning, reviewing, and revising in cognitively and developmentally appropriate ways, and—perhaps just as importantly— in ways that foster young children's love of writing.</p> <p>Finally, findings from this study contribute to addressing the gap in early childhood research on children's composing practices beyond transcription. Because this study drew on pre- and post-writing verbalizations, insight from this study is not limited to or by the participating children's command of written symbols. Rather, we were able to observe the creative ways children generated and organized their ideas for their planned writing, and how they evaluated their work post-writing—whether as a reflective of their initial draft or as a product transformed through the writing process. Given the dearth of research on early composing practices and the parallel deprioritization of composing in early writing instruction standards, our findings underscore the need for increased focus to this topic in classrooms as well as the academy.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>In this study, we examined how young children's ideas transformed from pre-writing to post-writing through their verbalizations on two different but related writing tasks. While the proposed birthday party resided only in the imaginaries of study participants, the care with which emergent writers crafted and revised their invitations and party supply lists speak to the breadth of children's composing capabilities. If this fictitious (but relatable) prompt could elicit such intentional writing—in both the retention and modification of their ideas—we see great potential impact through thoughtful scaffolding by early childhood educators on young children's composing. While playful writing about favorite childhood topics like birthdays and party planning may not always seem to 'fit' into scripted or mandated curricula, perhaps we as researchers and teachers consider together other intentional writing tasks through which we can instruct and study young children's growth as budding authors and meaning-makers.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-19">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189984-20">Competing interests</hd> <p>There are no competing interests for this article.</p> <hd id="AN0187189984-21">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187189984-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref15" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger, V. W, & Winn, W. D. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing Research (pp. 96–114). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bingham GE, Gerde HK. Designing writing EXPERIENCES: Guiding principles for early writing development. Literacy Today. 2024; 41; 3: 56-57</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref7" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bingham, G. E, Gerde, H. K, Pikus, A. E, Rohloff, R, Quinn, M. F, Bowles, R. P, & Zhang, X. Y. (2022). Examining teachers' early writing knowledge and practices. Reading and Writing, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10299-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</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; 4: 35-46. 10.1086/681130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref40" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Buil LL, Suárez CP, Santamarina RL, Martínez GC, Rodríguez FJ, Cuetos F. Spelling problems after early oral language difficulties. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 2023; 58; 3: 756-764. 10.1111/1460-6984.12819</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref60" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bus, A. G, Both-de Vries, A. C, de Jong, M. T, Sulzby, E, de Jong, W, & de Jong, E. (2001). Conceptualizations underlying emergent readers' story writing. Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref39" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cabell SQ, Gerde HK, Hwang H, Bowles R, Skibbe L, Piasta SB, Justice LM. Rate of growth of preschool-age children's oral language and decoding skills predicts beginning writing ability. Early Education and Development. 2022; 33; 7: 1198-1221. 10.1080/10409289.2021.1952390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref44" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Coates E, Coates A. Young children talking and drawing. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2006; 14; 3: 221-241. 10.1080/09669760600879961</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref58" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cowan N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2001; 24; 1: 87-185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson AH. The role of oral language in early writing processes. Research in the Teaching of English. 1983; 17; 1: 1-30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson, A. H. (1988). Drawing, talking and writing: Rethinking writing development. Center for the Study of Writing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson AH. This isn't my real writing: The fate of children's agency in too-tight curricula. Theory into Practice. 2020; 59; 2: 119-127. 10.1080/00405841.2019.1702390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gathercole SE, Pickering SJ, Ambridge B, Wearing H. The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology. 2004; 40; 2: 177-190. 10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177</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. 10.1080/10901027.2019.1593899</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S. Creating a classroom vision for teaching writing. The Reading Teacher. 2022; 75; 4: 475-484. 10.1002/trtr.2064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Harris R. The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist. 2000; 35; 1: 3-12. 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2</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: 115-134. 10.1080/19388071.2014.991883</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kent, S, Wanzek, J, Petscher, Y, Al Otaiba, S, & Kim, Y. S. (2014). Writing fluency and quality in kindergarten and first grade: The role of attention, reading, transcription, and oral language. Reading and writing, 27, 1163–1188.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leyva D, Reese E, Wiser M. Early understanding of the functions of print: Parent–child Interaction and preschoolers' notating skills. First Language. 2012; 32; 3: 301-323. 10.1177/0142723711410793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mackenzie NM, Petriwskyj A. Understanding and supporting young writers: Opening the school gate. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2017; 42; 2: 78-87. 10.23965/ajec.42.2.10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 1956; 63: 81-97</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myhill D. How talk becomes text: Investigating the concept of oral rehearsal in early years' classrooms. British Journal of Educational Studies. 2009; 57; 3: 265-284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Authors.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parr, J, Jesson, R, & McNaughton, S. (2009). Agency and platform: The relationship between talk and writing. In R. Beard, J. Riley, D. Myhill, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The sage handbook of writing development (pp. 246–259). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pazeto TDCB, Seabra AG, Dias NM. Executive functions, oral language and writing in preschool children: Development and correlations. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto). 2014; 24; 58: 213-222</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. 10.1002/rrq.79</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, M. F, & Bingham, G. E. (2019). The nature and measurement of children's early composing. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 213–235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn MF, Bingham GE. Examining early composing: Children's differential writing performance based on task context and scoring conceptualization. Early Education and Development. 2022; 33; 1: 139-163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, M. F, & Rohloff, R. (2023). Not just handwriting and spelling: Assessing early composing skills. YC: Young Children, 78(1), 24–32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, M. F, & Rohloff, R. (2024). Understanding young children's composition across three key components: Transcription, connection, and discourse. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2024.2326139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe DW, Piestrzynski P, Hadd AR, Reiter JW. Writing as a path to the alphabetic principle: How preschoolers learn that their own writing represents speech. Reading Research Quarterly. 2024; 59; 1: 32-56. 10.1002/rrq.526</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe DW, Wilson S. 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> Runco M, Acar S. Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal. 2012; 24; 1: 66-75. 10.1080/10400419.2012.652929</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siew SK, Nor MBM. Supporting preschool children's early writing with self-regulated learning strategies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education. 2019; 13; 2: 69-93</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skibbe LE, Bindman SW, Hindman AH, Aram D, Morrison FJ. Longitudinal relations between parental writing support and preschoolers' language and literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly. 2013; 48; 4: 387-401. 10.1002/rrq.55</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spencer TD, Petersen DB. Bridging oral and written language: An oral narrative language intervention study with writing outcomes. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. 2018; 49; 3: 569-581. 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stagg Peterson, S, & Friedrich, N. (2022). Viewing young children's drawing, talking, and writing through a language as context lens: implications for literacy assessment. International Journal of Early Years Education, 30(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1956439 Tainturier, M.-J, & Rapp, B. (2003). Is a single graphemic buffer used in reading and spelling? Aphasiology, 17(6–7), 537–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030344000021.</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. 2021; 57; 2: 729-752. 10.1002/rrq.436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaisarova, J, & Carlson, S. M. (2021). When a spoon is not a spoon: Examining the role of executive function in young children's divergent thinking. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2021.100161</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press; John Wiley and Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young-Suk Grace Kim. Writing fluency: Its relations with Language, Cognitive, and transcription skills, and writing Quality using Longitudinal Data from Kindergarten to Grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2024; 116; 4: 590-607</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zecker LB. Different texts, different emergent writing forms. Language Arts. 1999; 76; 6: 483-449</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Rebecca Rohloff; Jackie Ridley; Margaret F. Quinn and Xiao Zhang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref59"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1479591
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Young Children's Composing Processes: Idea Transformations in Verbalizations from Pre-Writing to Post-Writing
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rebecca+Rohloff%22">Rebecca Rohloff</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4548-4996">0000-0003-4548-4996</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jackie+Ridley%22">Jackie Ridley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Margaret+F%2E+Quinn%22">Margaret F. Quinn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xiao+Zhang%22">Xiao Zhang</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):1961-1971.
– 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: 11
– 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="%22Childrens+Writing%22">Childrens Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Processes%22">Writing Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Concept+Formation%22">Concept Formation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prewriting%22">Prewriting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Verbal+Communication%22">Verbal Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Revision+%28Written+Composition%29%22">Revision (Written Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Strategies%22">Writing Strategies</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01800-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Early writing includes both transcription skills (e.g., handwriting and spelling) and composing skills (e.g., the generation, manipulation, and translation of ideas into writing), yet early composing is not as well understood in academic research or by classroom educators. This study seeks to understand 1) how children retained or modified core idea units from pre-writing verbalizations to post-writing verbalizations and 2) how these transformations are related to other composing components, such as connection of ideas. Participants in this study included 133 children at the end of their prekindergarten year. Children completed two composing tasks related to planning a birthday party: an Invitation task and a List task, in which they were asked what they planned to write before writing and then what they had written after writing. Results indicate that most children's pre- and post-verbalizations were connected in meaning. While children overwhelmingly modified their core ideas on both tasks, more children retained ideas on the List task than the Invitation task. Children most often concurrently added and deleted ideas on both tasks, but did so less often when pre- and post-verbalizations were connected in meaning. Implications for supporting the complete writing process, from planning to review and revision, in classroom practices as well as further directions for research are discussed.
– 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: EJ1479591
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1479591
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01800-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 1961
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Concept Formation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prewriting
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Verbal Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Revision (Written Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Strategies
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Young Children's Composing Processes: Idea Transformations in Verbalizations from Pre-Writing to Post-Writing
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rebecca Rohloff
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jackie Ridley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Margaret F. Quinn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xiao Zhang
    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