Writing development: Predictors, profiles, and intervention

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which level and growth in children’s early language and literacy skills predict later writing achievement.

Method: Data were individually collected for 334 children as part of a larger study at four time points, approximately six months apart, beginning when children were 3- to 4-years old. At all timepoints, oral language, phonological awareness, and decoding skills were measured. At the fourth timepoint (when children were 5- to 6-years old), writing (namely transcription) was measured across a variety of subskills: name writing, letter writing, word writing, and sentence writing. A series of non-linear growth models were estimated, using FIML to account for missing data, and covarying family income, child age, race, and gender.

Results: Results indicated that the initial level (Timepoint 1) of most skills was significantly associated with later writing achievement across measures (Timepoint 4). Moreover, the growth rate of decoding skills significantly predicted children’s word and sentence writing, and the growth rate of oral language skills significantly predicted all four measures of children’s writing. Children’s growth in phonological awareness did not predict subsequent writing achievement.

Conclusions: Although children’s early language and literacy skill level is an important predictor, the rate at which children acquire these skills over time makes a unique contribution to their later writing success. In other words, how quickly children codify early skills matters to their subsequent writing ability.

Despite recent frameworks for understanding the skills and competencies that comprise early writing (e.g., Kaderavek, Cabell, & Justice, 2009; Puranik & Lonigan, 2014), limited research examines the profiles of emergent writers with attention to children’s composing and transcription (handwriting and spelling) skills.
Purpose: This study examined preschoolers early writing developmental profiles to 1) consider how children varied on foundational early writing skills, and 2) to better understand the competencies and processes that theoretically comprise early writing.

Method: A diverse sample of 427 preschoolers (age ranging from 40 – 74 months) were assessed on a variety of early writing assessments, including: name writing, letter writing, invented spelling, and bubble/narrative writing. Children’s writing samples were scored for the following features: handwriting quality and fluency, spelling, quality of discourse/ideas, cohesion, and planning, aligning with current conceptual understandings of writing (e.g., transcription, composing, and executive function [EF]; Berninger & Winn, 1996).

Results: Latent profile analysis in MPlus was used to determine writing profiles. Six profiles emerged from the data revealing distinctive qualities and skill levels across theoretical writing components – transcription, composing, and EF (e.g., Profile 1 – low transcription, low composing, low EF; Profile 3 – high transcription, high composing, high EF; Profile 5 – low transcription, mid/high composing, high planning; see Figure 1).

Conclusions: Results suggest variable performance across writing components leading to distinctive writing profiles across children. Further examination will lead to powerful implications for understanding development, impacting factors contributing to profile membership, and instruction.

Purpose: Instruction in early writing—an essential predictor of later reading (NELP, 2008)—can promote a range of literacy skills (Hall, Simpson, Guo, & Wang, 2015; Hofslundsengen, Hagtyet, & Gustafsson, 2016); however, quality instruction in early writing is rare in preschool (Bingham, Quin, & Gerde, 2017), Thus, our team developed the Improving Writing Resources and Instruction in Teaching Environments (iWRITE), an online professional development (PD) focused on enhancing language and literacy outcomes for young children through quality writing environments and supports. The intervention included access to eight online learning modules focused on early writing and an expert coach who provided individualized feedback on teacher-posted videos.

Methods: Fifty-four diverse Head Start teachers participated in a RCT evaluating the iWRITE PD with three pre-test and post-test assessments spanning seven months after intervention commencement.

Results: Results using linear latent growth curve analysis indicated that treatment teachers increased more rapidly on the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO) writing subscale over the course of the study (3.0 times faster, p<.001), leading to a higher score at post-test (d=1.4, p=.001). Similarly, treatment teachers increased more rapidly (2.3 times faster, p=.002) and had higher final scores (d=.9, p<.001) on the WRITE (Gerde, Bingham, & Pendergast, 2015) measure of classroom writing materials (6.4 points higher, p<.001). In addition, treatment teachers exhibited higher scores on the ELLCO total (d=.8, p=.05).

Conclusions: Findings highlight the iWRITE PD’s capacity to improve classroom-level writing environments and the broader literacy environment. Examination of the child writing and literacy outcomes is ongoing and will be presented.