THE WRITE THING: INTERACTIVE WRITING IN KINDERGARTEN
Jeannette Suzanne Jentzen
B.A., University of Minnesota, Duluth, 2001
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Language and Literacy)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2010
THE WRITE THING: INTERACTIVE WRITING IN KINDERGARTEN
A Thesis
by
Jeannette Suzanne Jentzen
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Marcy Merrill, Ed.D
__________________________________, Second Reader
Kay Moore, Ed.D
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Jeannette Suzanne Jentzen
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Robert Pritchard
Department of Teacher Education
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
THE WRITE THING: INTERACTIVE WRITING IN KINDERGARTEN
by
Jeannette Suzanne Jentzen
Statement of Problem
Kindergarteners enter school with varying literacy skills based on prior
experiences and education. Teachers are accountable for meeting state standards
regardless of the kindergarten population’s cultural, linguistic, and developmental
diversity. Kindergarten teachers struggle with the responsibility to implement a
developmental approach to literacy within the guidelines of the state standards while
concurrently addressing the unique ways their young readers and writers learn. Given the
positive influence adult support has on young children’s learning, programs that
incorporate teacher support of students’ composition would be sufficient at developing
students’ writing literacy. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of
an interactive writing treatment for improving young students’ writing and orthographic
development.
iv
Sources of Data
Data was gathered from pre- and post-treatment writing samples. The twenty-two
students in the treatment group received traditional classroom instruction including
alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, and phonemic awareness instruction.
Additionally, the day began with a fifteen to twenty minute interactive writing lesson four
times per week. Included in each lesson was a five minute pre-writing routine. The
duration of the treatment was nine weeks with a two week mid-winter break after the
third week. The actual time for the treatment was seven weeks.
Conclusions Reached
Conclusions from examination of the data indicate that the participants developed
more sophisticated orthographic writing characteristics as an outcome of this treatment.
Most participants’ writing improved. Struggling students benefited most from the
interactive writing treatment.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Marcy Merrill, Ed.D
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I owe a special thank you to the people who supported me throughout the process of
writing this thesis. Both professional colleagues and personal friends have helped me
realize that this work is not a lone enterprise, for which I am sincerely grateful. Dr.
Merrill’s encouragement and expressions of confidence in my abilities were invaluable.
Dr. Moore’s patience and persistence contributed significantly to the final product. All of
the professors in the Language and Literacy department at California State University,
Sacramento provided the foundation for answering the inquiry.
My husband, James, has sacrificed both his time and resources to support my ability to
take advantage of the opportunities provided as a result of this education. My daughters,
Ginger and Helen, also sacrificed their free time to edit multiple drafts. The
encouragement I received from friends, even when I struggled to focus, was consistent
and steady through this entire project. Special thanks to Ann Sherman for her kind words
and sharp editorial skills. My co-workers, Nan Muzinich and Kelly Churchill, committed
their time to both this project and the classroom to ensure that I could achieve in both
arenas.
J.S.J.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….. 1
Background ....................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 2
Significance of the Study .................................................................................. 3
Limitations of the Study ……………………………………………………... 3
Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………….. 5
Organization of the Thesis ………………………………………………….... 8
2. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ........................................................... 9
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 9
Early Writing/Literacy Expectations .............................................................. 9
Research-Based Practices in Early Literacy …………………………………12
Children’s Writing Development ……………………………………………15
Stages of Spelling ……………………………………………………………19
Interactive Writing ………………………………………………………….. 23
Conclusion .......................................................................................................30
3. METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………………... 32
Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 32
Participants …………………………………………………………………. 32
Consent Form ……………………………………………………………….. 37
Treatment …………………………………………………………………… 37
Data Collection ……………………………………………………………... 45
vii
Page
Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………….. 48
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………. .52
4. RESULTS .................................................................................................……….54
Introduction ………………………………………………………………… .54
Results …………………………………………………………………….... 54
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………. 63
5.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………..... 65
Summary …………………………………………………………………… 65
Conclusions …………………………………………………………………. 65
Recommendations for Practice and Further Study …………………………..75
Appendix A. Consent to Participate in Research .......................................................79
Appendix B. Sample Interactive Writing Lesson ..................................................... 81
Appendix C. Characteristics of Emergent Spelling ………………………………. 83
Appendix D. Characteristics of Letter Name-Alphabetic Spelling ………………. 85
Appendix E. Characteristics of Student Writing ………………………………….. 87
Appendix F.
Changes in Writing Characteristics ………………………………… 89
Appendix G.
Incidence of Occurrence Based on Educator’s Journal ……………. 91
References ................................................................................................................... 95
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Topics of Instruction ……………………………………………….. 41
2.
Table 2 Analysis of Orthographic Change Data …………………………... 57
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Figure 1 Gender and Ethnicity of Participants …….……………………….. 33
2.
Figure 2 Percentage of Preschool Attendance …...………………………..... 34
3.
Figure 3 Participants’ Parental Education Level ……...……………………. 35
4.
Figure 4 Participants’ Parents Post High School Education ……………….. 36
5
Figure 5 Characteristics of Participants’ Spelling ………………………….. 55
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The California Standards for the English Language Arts and the National Council
of Teachers of English and International Reading Association together outlined content
standards for the English Language Arts based on the position that students must have the
opportunities and resources to develop the language skills required to participate fully as
productive members of society (Chin, 1996; California Department of Education, 1998).
Despite national referendums, local districts hold ultimate responsibility for meeting
standards which vary significantly from state to state. Therefore, it is difficult to measure
students’ achievement across the country, yet teachers must prepare students for the
necessities of literacy within a global environment. Students in the United States are
expected to demonstrate competence as measured by the standards of international
literacy.
Kindergarteners enter school with varying literacy skills based on prior
experiences and education. Teachers are accountable for meeting state standards
regardless of this kindergarten population’s cultural, linguistic, or developmental
diversity. To facilitate this need for a universal education, areas of questionable practices
should be replaced by sound teaching which prepares the students to meet national and
international demands (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). In short, some educators have the
standards drive the curriculum while other teachers make curricular decisions based on
the diverse needs of the students in the classroom. Interactive writing exemplifies a
2
teaching method for kindergarten classrooms which meets the writing standards while
benefiting diverse learners.
This chapter presents the background, the statement of the problem, significance
of the study, limitations of the research, and the definition of terms.
Statement of the Problem
This study was intended to document the changes an interactive writing program
would produce in a small Northern California elementary school’s kindergarten
population’s writing. Kindergarten teachers struggle with the professional responsibility
to implement a developmental approach to literacy within the guidelines of the standards
set for education, while still addressing the best ways to educate their young readers and
writers. Specifically, the question was: How does interactive writing promote young
children’s orthographic development? To further probe this question and endorse the
inquiry, the following three questions about orthography, instruction, and verification
were considered:
Question 1: On the orthographic writing developmental continuum, to what
degree did the students’ writing change from their pre-treatment writing sample to
their post-treatment writing sample?
Question 2: In what ways did instruction in interactive writing make a difference
in the students’ writing?
Question 3: How closely were the observations of the observers aligned with the
educator’s journal?
3
Significance of the Study
Research has demonstrated that literacy begins before children receive formal
education (Clay, 1975, 1998, 2001; Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Unlike the traditional
kindergarten approach which stresses either learning letters before writing or emphasizes
learning to read before learning to write, research recognized the value of an emergent
literacy approach in today’s kindergarten (Teale & Sulzby, 1986; Whitehurst & Lonigan,
1998). Acknowledging the legitimacy of children’s early literacy-related behaviors, the
emergent literacy approach suggests that literacy acquisition is best thought of as a
developmental continuum (Clay, 2001; Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Armed with this
information, California kindergarten teachers must still include the state-mandated
components of a balanced, comprehensive approach to their reading and writing
instruction (California Reading Task Force, 1995; California State Board of Education,
1999). Interactive writing is a research-based program that incorporates the instructional
techniques of both emergent literacy and the California teaching standards. Therefore, to
best respond to individual developmental needs within an educationally appropriate
curriculum, writing instruction using interactive writing is suggested for kindergarten.
Limitations of the Study
Every attempt was made to keep this study legitimate; however, limitations could
impact the outcome and the significance of the findings. Several limitations may affect
the results. The study was limited to a sample size of 22 students. As I am the teacher in
the classroom and the researcher of the study, bias may have affected the outcome. In
early teacher training, instructors place great emphasis on eliminating bias in the
4
classroom. However, in terms of this study, I know my students well and may suffer from
bias in that I saw their strengths and weaknesses in the classroom daily, and may have
catered to them, compromising some aspects of this study. With this awareness, I worked
to keep my judgments professional at all times.
Another limitation was time, both the length of the study and the length of the
school day. The treatment occurred for nine weeks with a two week school holiday
scheduled within this period. Continuation of interactive writing for a longer duration
should show greater growth of orthographic characteristics.
The kindergarten academic day at this site was half-day. While the whole group
interactive writing lesson fit within the schedule, separate time for individual writing with
adult assistance was difficult to plan. A review of the research revealed that individual
writing would best be accomplished with adult support. To address this and the time
issue, volunteer parents were invited to assist students at the literacy center during
learning centers. Often, though a schedule was cleared weeks before, the parent neglected
to come.
Another limitation on this study was prior educational experience of the
participants. The majority of the sample population entered kindergarten without much
experience using writing instruments. One way that children experience literacy
development is through a developmental preschool program. Not only were many
children in this study deprived of the advantage of a preschool program, but the majority
of these students’ parents had minimal college experiences.
5
Parents can provide another way for children to acquire literacy before entering
formal schooling. Parents who work full time often are stretched to meet even the basic
needs of their children and may have limited time to construct experiences for children’s
literacy development. The implication is that these working parents may not have in fact
spent time working with their children prior to their kindergarten year.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this research, the following definitions will be used:
Affix: a morpheme attached to a word stem to form a new word. The most common are
prefix, which attaches to the front of a word, and suffix, which attaches to the end of a
word.
Alliteration: repeating the same consonant sound at the beginning of two or more words
in close succession.
Alphabetic knowledge: knowledge of the name and sound of the letters of the alphabet.
Alphabetic principle: speech can be turned into print; print can be turned into speech; and
letters correspond to speech sounds.
Alphabet Linking Chart: a reference chart which illustrates alphabet letters written in
both upper and lower case, a corresponding picture, and the word that accompanies the
picture (McCarrier, Pinnell, & Fountas, 2000).
Concept of word: spoken words match written words while reading.
Concepts about print: knowledge about the conventions of print including letter, word,
letters make up words, words comprise sentences, and directionality (left to right in
English).
6
Decoding: the ability to translate the alphabet letters into sounds.
Differentiating instruction: varying instructional techniques to ensure that people with
differing abilities comprehend the lesson.
Digraphs: two letters together make a single sound such as ow in brown, or sh in shin.
Emergent literacy: The Literacy Dictionary defines emergent literacy as the
“development of the association of print with meaning that begins early in a child’s life
and continues until the child reaches the stage of conventional reading and writing”
(Harris & Hodges, 1995, p.70).
Grapheme: the letter(s) and letter combinations that represent a sound in writing.
Interactive writing: a collaborative writing instruction in which the teacher and students
actively dialogue, compose, and construct text. At times, based on instructional purpose,
the teacher chooses individual students to “share the pen.” The objective of interactive
writing is to teach children the writing skills, strategies, and conventions necessary to
become competent independent writers (McCarrier, Pinnell, & Fountas, 2000; Roth,
2009).
Inventive spelling; invented spelling: the non-conventional, temporary spelling children
write as they make approximations of letters to their corresponding letter sounds. An
example is skul iz Fon for school is fun.
Letter knowledge: knowing that letters are different from each other and that they have
different names and sounds.
Morpheme: the smallest meaningful unit in a language which can not be divided. A
morpheme may be a single word: cat; a word can be composed of two morphemes:
7
catwalk; a morpheme such as the s in cats both has its own meaning and adds meaning to
the word to which it is attached.
Onset-rime: the onset is the consonant(s) before the first vowel in a word. The rime is the
first vowel in a word and what follows. If a word begins with a vowel, it does not have an
onset.
Orthography: The correct way to use a writing system of a language including spelling,
spacing, capitalization, and punctuation. Spelling is recognized as only part of
orthography. However, for the purpose of this paper, and based on usage within research
sources cited, spelling and orthography will be used interchangeably.
Phoneme: the smallest unit of language; individual sounds. An example: bear /b/ /ā/ /r/
Phonemic awareness: the awareness that spoken language consists of a sequence of
phonemes (Yopp, & Yopp, 2000).
Phonetics: the study of the speech sounds that occur in languages, including the way
these sounds are articulated (Yopp, & Yopp, 2000).
Phonics: a way of teaching reading and spelling that stresses symbol-sound relationships
(in alphabetic orthographies) (Yopp, & Yopp, 2000).
Phonological awareness: as defined in The Literacy Dictionary, “phonological awareness
is awareness of the constituent sounds (phonemes) of words in learning to read and spell”
(Harris & Hodges, 1995, p.187).
Social constructivist theory: a theory proposed by Lev Vygotsky which proposes that
learning is constructed within a social environment.
8
Zone of proximal development: skills which are too difficult for a child to complete on
her own, but which can be accomplished with the guidance or encouragement of a more
skilled person (either a peer or adult) (Vygotsky, 1978).
Organization of the Thesis
Chapter One introduces parameters, limitations, methodology for the study.
Chapter Two presents a Review of the Literature regarding early writing/literacy
expectations, research-based practices in early literacy, children’s writing development,
stages of spelling, and interactive writing. Chapter Three will detail methodologies used
in the execution of the interactive writing treatment. Chapter Four reports on the data
derived from the study. Finally, Chapter Five shares implications from the study,
discussion and outcomes of the study, as well as makes conclusions and
recommendations for further study.
9
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
Introduction
This review of the relevant literature presents the topics of early writing/literacy
expectations, research-based practices, children’s writing development, stages of spelling,
and interactive writing. There are two primary goals for creating this review of literature.
The first is to outline children’s developmental processes as they become writers. The
second goal is to give credence to the use of interactive writing in the kindergarten
setting. The review of literature serves to illustrate the connection between children’s
writing development and interactive writing. The anticipated outcome for this project will
be a demonstration that the interactive writing strategy follows children’s writing
development in a symbiotic fashion while simultaneously supporting expansion of
students’ writing attempts.
Early Writing/Literacy Expectations
Literacy development begins long before children enter kindergarten (Clay, 1975,
1998, 2001; Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Settings for literacy formation vary based on the
experiences and opportunities provided a child. One location where children acquire
literacy skills is preschool. Currently in California, preschool learning foundations are in
place to equip preschools with tools to build high-quality programs which strengthen
students’ school readiness. These foundations describe what all young children usually
learn with appropriate support (Child Development Division, 2008).
10
The support young children require in order to gain the skills essential for school
readiness varies for each child. High-quality preschools offer programs to meet
individual’s diverse needs through environments that foster active, playful exploration
and experimentation. The California language and literacy foundations set by the state
reflect current research and understanding of the knowledge that promotes children’s
language and literacy learning during the preschool years (Child Development Division,
2008). Within the range of abilities that preschool children will need to support learning,
the foundations focus on three segments, listening and speaking, reading, and writing.
The preschool writing foundation describes age-appropriate knowledge and skills
expected of older three-year-olds and older four-year-olds. Four-year-olds who are
making progress toward being ready for kindergarten demonstrate increased emergent
writing and writing-like behaviors including the following: hold a pencil or pen with
finger grasp to write; draw recognizable figures, letters or shapes; move hand to hold
paper in place while drawing or writing; draw a picture and write a label (label may not
be readable); write strings of symbols that look like letters or actual letters; and write first
name clearly with or without mistakes such as excluding letters and letter reversals (Child
Development Division, 2008).
The preschool language and literacy foundations are not intended to be the
standard for assessment. The foundations describe research-based learning and
development that would typically be expected with appropriate support. They are
intended to provide preschools with a resource to guide successful learning and
development in young children.
11
California preschools have identified foundations to support school readiness. A
child may or may not have reached the foundation goals before entering kindergarten. In
contrast, California public schools have standards by which children are measured. These
standards clarify expectations of both teacher performance and student outcomes.
Teachers should teach and students should know the developmentally appropriate
systematic reading and language arts skills which indicate age appropriate competence in
the language arts. Skills learned in kindergarten are foundational and requisite and
deficits in skills and knowledge must be addressed “responsively and responsibly”
(California Department of Education, 1999). If a foundation was not set in preschool,
then it must be in place at the end of kindergarten.
Currently in California, kindergarten standards are set higher than many parents
might expect. According to the state writing standards, a kindergartener is expected to
use letters and phonetically spelled words to write about experiences, write consonantvowel-consonant words, and move from left to right and from top to bottom when
writing. All of this is accomplished while independently writing upper and lower case
letters and attending to letter form and proper spacing (California Department of
Education, 1999). These skills require explicit knowledge in topics such as phonological
awareness, the alphabetic principle, and language structure.
All learning in California public schools is standards-based. In addition to the
writing standards, students must master other language arts goals. Subjects include
reading, listening and speaking, and written and oral language conventions. Some
specific concepts within these topics ensure that they will do the following: learn all 26
12
English letters and their corresponding sounds; understand concepts about print such as
parts of a book and directionality; write a sentence using pre-phonetic knowledge when
spelling; and read simple one-syllable and high frequency words (California Department
of Education, 1999). Not only must children achieve mastery in these language arts
subjects, but they are also simultaneously required to master skills in mathematics,
science, and social studies.
For kindergarten educators to implement an effective language arts program
within the guidelines of the Reading/Language Arts Framework for California Public
Schools (California State Board of Education, 1999), practices must include the four
components of a balanced, comprehensive approach to reading and writing identified by
the California Reading Task Force (1995). First, oral and written language must be
balanced within the language arts program. Second, needs of the emergent reader/writer
must be addressed through an explicit skills program including phonemic awareness,
phonics and decoding. Third, ongoing assessment must guide instruction. Finally, an
early intervention program must address needs of students at risk of failure.
Research-Based Practices in Early Literacy
Many research studies in the past several decades have focused on children’s
literacy development (California Department of Education, 1995; National Early Literacy
Panel, 2008; National Reading Panel, 2000; Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000;
Snow, Burns, & Griffin 1998). While the literacy umbrella covers both reading and
writing, reading has traditionally received the most attention. However, as Snow et al.
(1998) in the National Research Council (NRC) report took a broad view of literacy, in
13
which the Council regarded writing as an integral part of their discourse about reading,
they recognized that nearly all literacy activities share “the use of the products and
principles of the writing system to get at the meaning of a written text” (p.42). Simply
put, writing activities which extend children’s knowledge of letter names and sounds,
help them make phonemes concrete, and maintain their interest and active engagement
provides foundational knowledge necessary for fully developed literacy (Dickinson &
Neuman, 2006).
Although two major components are reading and writing, literacy has its
foundation in oral language (Sulzby, 1996). Research suggests that writing development
is a process that is constructed through an interrelationship between social interaction,
oral discourse, and written communication (Martinez & Teale, 1987; Neuman et al.,
2000; Snow et al., 1998; Sulzby & Teale in Barr, 1991). Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998)
noted that current research and theories suggest an emergent literacy approach to early
literacy in which “reading, writing, and oral language develop concurrently and
interdependently … from children’s exposure to interactions in the social contexts in
which literacy is a component” (p. 849). Moreover, social interactions with adults and
opportunities for independent explorations of written language are vital for early
development (Teale & Sulsby, 1986).
Contemporary literacy practices suggest that kindergarten instructors should
create literate environments with an emergent literacy focus (Whitehurst & Lonigan,
1998). The research agenda behind the authors’ work in emergent literacy is that literacy
acquisition is best thought of as a developmental continuum which extends throughout
14
early childhood. In contrast, “reading readiness,” refers to the child’s mastery of
prerequisite skills in preparation for attaining the point at which a person is ready to learn
to read (Teale & Sulsby, 1986). The emergent literacy perspective views children’s
literacy-related behaviors throughout the preschool period as legitimate and important
aspects of literacy (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Yaden, Rowe, and MacGillavray
recommend an emergent literacy approach to educate kindergarten children. Principal
characteristics of their emergent literacy design include the following: consider the
children as socially competent partners; permit writing experimentation in an
unthreatening environment; include adult- and peer-led dialogue about literacy; and
provide opportunities for children to practice their unconventional, yet emerging skills
(2000). Similarly, Clay acknowledges that children actively construct their learning
throughout the preschool years, individuals become literate at different times, and there
are many ways children get to the point of formal literacy instruction (1975, 1991, 1998).
Given that emergent literacy acknowledges children’s variable literacy levels, recognizes
the social aspect of learning, and encourages independent writing exploration, instruction
using the emergent literacy approach appears to promote research-supported
developmental writing practices.
Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998) have hypothesized that the skills necessary to
understand the components of emergent literacy can be grouped as two different
processes: “outside-in” and “inside-out” processes. Outside-in processes represent
children’s understanding of the context within which the text they are trying to write, or
read, occurs. The three components of outside-in processes are: language, conventions of
15
print, and emergent reading. Inside-out processes represent children’s knowledge of the
rules for translating the particular writing they are trying to read into sounds. Inside-out
processes include the following skills: linguistic awareness, phoneme-grapheme
correspondence, and emergent writing. A developmentally appropriate writing
curriculum which complements these emergent literacy research findings would 1)
integrate routine classroom practices with oral and written language, 2) incorporate
communication with adults, 3) include a reading component, and 4) involve students in
independent writing practice (Teale & Sulzby, 1998). Integrating developmentally
appropriate, student-centered practices with the Reading/Language Arts Framework for
California Public Schools (California State Board of Education, 1999) requires a
synthesis of the research with the standards. The interactive writing model effectively
brings research and the standards together. The teacher organizes instruction toward
students’ needs, uses assessment to adapt lessons toward individual goals, encourages
students to express themselves on paper, provides a wide exposure to print, and
constructs lessons that develop student concepts about the forms and functions of print
(Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000).
Children’s Writing Development
Emergent writing is mostly pretend writing. An illustration of pretend writing is
when a child scribbles some indecipherable marks on a paper and then asks an adult to
read what it says. The child is indicating an understanding that print has meaning, but she
doesn’t yet know how to write. Regardless of most children’s culture or where they live,
when adults promote, model, and incorporate it into play, this pretend writing occurs
16
spontaneously (Ferreiro, & Teberosky, 1982). Optimal literacy development occurs in an
environment that is physically, emotionally, socially, and cognitively suited to the child’s
changing needs. Therefore, adult guidance is necessary to support children’s writing
acquisition (Clay, 1998; McCarrier et al., 2000; Snow et al., 1998; Vygotsky, 1978). The
adult supports the child to work at the outer limits of his own abilities thus moving the
child forward to new knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978).
Although people comprise a range of developmental variations, both biological
and experiential, most children show interest in meaningful graphic representations such
as their name and environmental print within the first three years (Bloodgood, 1999;
Snow et al., 1998). From two to three years of age, children can create drawing-like
scribbles and forms that resemble letters. Adults play an important role in literacy
development at this age, often introducing and modeling letters and their related sounds
to children. For example, this may occur within the social act of reading books to
children.
Three- to four-year-old children show a rapid growth in literacy, as demonstrated
by their writing: scribbling, drawing letter-like forms, and formation of random strings of
letters (Snow et al., 1998). The title of Clay’s (1975) seminal work, What did I write?,
was uttered by a four year old. Examination of children’s early nonconventional writing
led Clay (1975) to determine that, even when their writing is scribbling and non-phonetic
letter strings, children appear to be exploring features of print, such as linearity and the
use of recursive features. Through their play and exploration, many three- and four-yearold children develop an abstract understanding about print.
17
Evidence of writing progress between the ages of four and six years old is
demonstrated by children’s beginning to “read” their unconventional writing consisting
of scribbles, drawings as orthographic representations, and non-phonetic letter strings
(Snow et al., 1998). The NRC report asserts that as soon as children know some letters of
the alphabet, they should be encouraged to write words or parts of words and use them to
write sentences. Writing supports identity and segmentation of speech sounds, letter
knowledge, and phonological awareness. Phonological awareness and letter knowledge
are essential skills for emergent readers and contribute to comprehension of prereading
activities (Snow et al., 1998).
Some five-year-olds begin to identify letter sounds and experiment with
phonetically-based invented spellings (Clay, 1975, 1979; Read, 1986; Sulzby in Teale &
Sulzby, 1986). Encouraging invented spelling can play an important role in promoting
knowledge of the alphabetic principle. Teachers and parents foster a positive attitude
about writing in general when they encourage children to experiment with spelling
(Coker, 2007; Read 1986). When allowed to use their increasing knowledge of letters,
sounds, and words, children invent creative text. As children continue to develop writing
skills, their awareness of “the right way” influences their writing as they insist on
conventional spellings (Clay, 1975). Classrooms that provide children with regular
opportunities to express themselves on paper, without feeling too constrained for correct
spelling and proper handwriting, also help children understand that writing has real
purpose (Graves, 2003; Neuman, et al., 2000). In addition, teachers can use students’
writing to gauge their level of spelling knowledge and tailor instruction to fit their needs.
18
Clay (1998) recognizes that by the time they enter school, most children have
explored some aspects of print, and that these first explorations may occur in writing
rather than reading. As they mature, children gain control of two types of knowledge that
support literacy: some understanding of the world; and control over oral language. School
literacy policies regarding writing may vary the focus of the writing program. Some
schools may encourage attempts to write messages; some schools begin with learning
letters; while others stress learning to read before learning to write.
Clay (1998, 1991, 2001) contends that the most practical approach to literacy
development is to guide children to learn reading and writing at the same time. The
interaction between composing and constructing a written message and reading it back
provides opportunities for realizing some of the fundamentals of language. Forming
letters calls awareness to forms and other important features of writing. Clay further
postulates that while a child explores writing, the eye and brain are directed to
characteristics such as constructing words, letter by letter, attending to spatial concepts,
and breaking down the writing task into its smallest segments while simultaneously
synthesizing them into words and sentences, and segmenting sounds to form words
(2001). Ehri and Roberts agree that learning to spell is linked to learning to read. They
found that early spelling requires that beginners know letters and phonemic segmentation
so that they can pull apart the sounds in words and represent them with plausible letters
(2006).
Coker concludes that for young children to develop into proficient writers, they
must learn to manage the many challenges of writing (2007). Moreover, teacher and adult
19
support can extend students’ understanding of the processes and purposes of writing.
However, teaching children how to write has a limiting effect on children’s writing
development. Children need to write every day; daily experimentation with writing helps
children to formulate and mold their notions of how writing works (Coker, 2007).
Working with word study and other language activities help to promote this
experimentation.
Stages of Spelling
Several researchers have examined and defined the stages of spelling and
orthographic knowledge (Bear, Invernizzi, & Templeton, 2000; Gentry, 1981;
Henderson, 1985; Henderson & Beers, 1980). While the name for each stage varies by
author, the stages track similar ages and developmental progress. Like oral language,
spelling evolves from simple to more complex behaviors. While Gentry (1981) asserts
that children’s writing moves through clearly defined linear stages, Clay (2001) would
argue that these stages are recursive.
Children in the earliest stage of orthographic knowledge range from one year to
seven years of age, and spell in an emergent (Bear, et al., 2000), preliterate (Henderson,
1985; Henderson & Beers, 1980), and deviant (Gentry, 1981) way. Emergent writing is a
pretend writing. Children experiment with print as they scribble or write in letter-like
forms. “Spelling” may range from random marks to legitimate letters having no
relationship to sound. This lack of correspondence to sound makes emergent spelling prephonetic (Bear et al., 2000).
20
Emergent spelling may be divided into three phases: early emergent, middle
emergent, and late emergent writing (Bear et al., 2000). Characteristics of early emergent
writing include large scribbles which are basically drawings with no designs that look
like letters. Middle emergent writing has progressed to letter-like forms which can
include numbers. At this step, the child demonstrates directionality, left to right in
English. Also during this period, the child’s name becomes important as a source for
letters (Bloodgood, 1999; Bear et al., 2000). Letters represent words, but there is no
sound-syllable correspondence between what is written and the sounds of the word. Late
emergent writing is signaled by some letter-sound matching and occasional initial
consonants to represent words, with some memorized words written repeatedly.
Throughout most of the emergent spelling stage, children do not know about letter-sound
correspondence, but begin to know the basic visual characteristics of writing - that
writing moves from left to right and top to bottom on the page (Bear et al., 2000).
After the emergent stage of spelling, children advance to the letter namealphabetic (Bear et al., 2000), letter name (Henderson, 1985; Henderson & Beers, 1980),
and pre-phonetic (Gentry, 1981) stage, which is usually between the ages of five and
nine. Letter name-alphabetic writing is the beginning of conventional writing. Children at
this stage have knowledge of the alphabetic principle: letters represent sounds, and words
can be segmented into sounds. Writing during this period is slow as children match letter
names to the sounds they are trying to write word by word and sound by sound (Bear et
al., 2000).
21
Letter name-alphabetic spelling can also be divided into three steps: early letter
name-alphabetic; middle letter name-alphabetic; and late letter name-alphabetic (Bear et
al., 2000). Children who write in the early letter name-alphabetic phase apply the
alphabetic principle mainly to beginning consonants, omitting vowels in syllables.
Transition to the middle letter name-alphabetic phase is signaled by writing most
beginning and ending consonants as well as attending to vowels and most stressed
syllables. Children who have advanced to the late letter name-alphabetic step write with
an awareness that syllables have vowels, which is the start of understanding the closed
syllable, the consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) unit. Writing at the end of this phase
includes some conventionally spelled high-frequency words and most initial consonant
digraphs and blends (Bear et al., 2000; Gentry, 1981).
As children move away from the literal application of letter names, usually
between the ages of six and twelve years of age, they begin to look at patterns or chunks
of letter sequences within words. Known as within word pattern (Bear et al., 2000;
Henderson, 1985), phonetic (Gentry, 1981), and vowel transition (Henderson and Beers,
1980), children in this stage pay closer attention to the vowel within syllables. At the
within word pattern stage of their writing development, children begin to think more
abstractly. This stage begins when children can correctly spell most single-syllable short
vowel words and moves through the more abstract patterns of spelling single-syllable
long vowel words including a consonant-vowel-vowel-consonant (CVVC) pattern as in
peak or pail; a consonant-vowel-consonant-silent e (CVCe) pattern as in game, pine; and
a consonant-vowel-vowel (CVV) pattern as in pay, pie (Bear et al., 2000).
22
Berninger et al. (1998) found that teaching multiple connections between spoken
and written words at the whole-word level and within-word level may facilitate transfer
of the alphabetic principle to other writing conditions. Teaching functional spelling units
of varying sizes, including whole word and onset-rime, as well as codes for component
letters (consonant and vowel blends), raised spelling achievement relative to age peers in
standardized spelling tests. They contend that training in both explicit phonological and
orthographic awareness and explicit phonological-orthographic connections should be
taught to achieve transfer to new words.
Once writers clearly and easily understand the differences between long and short
vowel patterns, they are able to move to the syllables and affixes (Bear et al., 2000),
syllable juncture (Henderson, 1985), transitional (Gentry, 1981) or vowel transition stage
(Henderson & Beers, 1980). Typically occurring around the ages of eight to eighteen, this
stage is typified by writers correctly applying the rules of spelling to include consonant
doubles, plurals, and affixes. Spelling within this stage begins to look more conventional
with most words spelled correctly (Bear et al., 2000).
The final stage of spelling development, the derivational relations spelling stage
(Bear et al., 2000), derivational constancies spelling stage (Henderson, 1985), or correct
spelling stage (Gentry, 1981), corresponds with the advanced stage of writing. This is the
stage in which writers attend to roots of words to determine their origin and proper
spelling. Common prefixes and suffixes are spelled and used correctly. Word study, in
tandem with reading and writing, fosters students’ vocabularies, which in turn enhances
children’s spelling (Bear et al., 2000).
23
To summarize, the stages of spelling define characteristics present in students’
writing, which when used with assessment, can guide instruction. Planning lessons at the
level a child uses, but confuses (Invernizzi, Abouzeid, & Gill, 1994), along with teacher
support, encourages student competence as they gain inner control over constructing
meaning from print (Clay, 1991). Permitting beginning readers to use invented spellings
offers another form of assessment which assists teachers to understand the sound system
of beginning readers prior to and during early reading instruction (Tangel & Blachman,
1995). An instructor uses the knowledge gained from the above assessments to construct
interactive writing lessons.
Interactive Writing
Interactive Writing’s Foundation
Interactive writing is born from the “organic teaching” (p.11) method developed
by Ashton-Warner (1963) which evolved into the language experience approach (Dixon,
& Nessel, 1983; Van Allen, 1969). Both Ashton-Warner’s “creative teaching” (p. 27)
method and the language experience approach view children’s experiences as routes to
developing their reading and writing. The premise of these two teaching methods is that
words important to children are words children can and will read.
Creative teaching like language experience uses a dictate and read style with the
teacher writing for the children the words they wish to express. The language experience
approach emphasizes individual rather than group compositions, while creative teaching
begins with individual writing and evolves into a group teaching technique. Essential
24
elements of each method include both teacher-student discussion as central to oral
language development, and student-generated material as key to reading comprehension.
McKenzie (1985) developed a writing process called “shared writing” in which
the teacher and students cooperatively composed text. Like language experience, the
teacher acts as scribe as the students dictate the text. Unlike language experience, shared
writing is a communal writing experience with all students participating. Shared writing
matches the language experience and creative teaching philosophies of student
involvement and investment. Therefore, students will learn to read and write more readily
if they are the authors of the text and if the text is meaningful to them.
Faculty from Ohio State University originated the term interactive writing in 1991
when they, along with teachers from Columbus, Ohio, expanded McKenzie’s shared
writing model to include student engagement in direct construction of text through
“sharing the pen” (McCarrier, Pinnell, & Fountas, 2000). Primarily intended for children
in preschool, kindergarten, and first grade, interactive writing was initially designed to
help children who had limited experiences in literacy understand how words work
(McCarrier et al., 2000).
McCarrier, Pinnell, and Fountas define interactive writing as “a dynamic,
collaborative literacy event in which children actively compose together, considering
appropriate words, phrases, organization of text, and layout. Individual children take over
and share the pen with the teacher at points selected by the teacher for instructional
value” (2000, p. xv). Interactive writing is based on what Clay (1991) calls a responsive
model of teaching in which the teacher provides the clearest examples of instruction in
25
response to the learner’s needs at that particular moment. Also, interactive writing
reflects Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the zone of proximal development. This theory
recommends that the teacher varies instruction to provide individual experiences that are
beyond the level that a student could accomplish independently thus advancing that
child’s learning. Instruction does not follow a specific sequence, but evolves from the
teacher’s understanding of the child’s strengths and needs. Furthermore, children learn to
write in a highly supported, social context that encourages risk taking (Button, Johnson,
& Furgerson, 1996) which is an example of the social constructivist approach to learning
(Vygotsky, 1978). Children have opportunities to solve, together in a group, problems
they will face when writing independently (Brotherton & Williams, 2002).
The teacher’s role is critical in helping children learn accurately (Clay, 1991).
McCarrier, Pinnell, and Fountas (2000) maintain that, due to their varied experiences
prior to entering school, children require individualized support to develop the necessary
skills and knowledge for literacy. While Clay (1991) explained that children actively
construct their own learning and literacy, and their ability grows as they gain inner
control over creating meaning from print, this growth does not take place without
support. Supportive instruction offers children an environment in which to develop in
language and literacy competence (Vygotsky, 1962). During an interactive writing
lesson, a group of children together compose text with the direct guidance and support of
their teacher (Brotherton & Williams, 2002).
26
Interactive Writing Lesson Plan
The basic interactive writing lesson follows the five part language experience
session as outlined by Dixon and Nessel (1983) nearly exactly, except in the interactive
writing lesson, the teacher gives the pen to the children at points that will advance their
understanding of writing. The five part language experience model is as follows: 1) The
teacher and students discuss the topic to be written about. 2) The student dictates the text
to the teacher who is the scribe. 3) The student reads and rereads the text, with help as
needed, until reading becomes fluent. 4) The teacher designs contextual lessons to
develop student’s reading or writing skills (lessons based on the writing the teacher has
created with the student). 5) The student’s reading confidence develops as reading skills
learned from rereading self-created text are transferred to reading text created by others.
Boroski (2004) has used the work of McCarrier, Pinnell and Fountas to develop
simplified steps to interactive writing instruction including: 1) negotiate a sentence, 2)
count the words on fingers, 3) recall the word to be written and stretch the word, 4) share
the pen, 5) point and read, 6) recall the entire sentence to be written, then go back to step
three to complete the writing activity. Interactive writing is not a mechanical process to
be followed in order to produce a text. While the product is important, the process has the
most value (McCarrier et al., 2000). As the class or small group collectively constructs
text, their participation in the writing allows all students to practice phonological
awareness, phonics skills, writing conventions, concepts of print, alphabetic knowledge
and the writing process.
27
Impact of Interactive Writing on Kindergarten Instruction
Most of the published material related to the topic of interactive writing is
instructive in nature (McCarrier et al., 2000; Swartz, Klein, & Shook, 2001; Tompkins &
Collom, 2003). However, a few significant studies support interactive writing as a useful
component of an effective kindergarten language arts program (Button, et al., 1996;
Craig, 2003; Roth, 2009; Sipe, 2001). Following the guidelines outlined by the California
Reading Task Force (1995), studies noted below provide evidence for the effectiveness of
addressing the four components determined to contribute to a balanced, comprehensive
kindergarten reading and writing program. These features include the following: a
balance between oral and written language; an explicit skills program including
phonemic awareness, phonics, and decoding; use of ongoing assessment to direct
instruction; and an early intervention program to support students at risk of failure.
Roth (2009) implemented a ten-minute a day interactive writing program to
determine the impact on first graders’ independent writing. Without increasing
instruction time, the students who participated in interactive writing made greater gains
than the students in the comparison group. Both groups were given the same writing
prompts. Although the students in the interactive writing group began the study at a lower
level than the students in the comparison group, they surpassed them by the end of the
year. Also, students who participated in interactive writing made greater gains on nine
out of ten of the components of the writing rubric, which included: ideas, organization,
word choice, capitalization, sentence fluency, spelling of high frequency words, spelling
28
of other words, capitalization, punctuation, and handwriting. Both groups scored equally
well in spacing skills.
In Roth’s study, though lessons were short, they encompassed the components of
balanced instruction. Discussions between the students and teacher were the foundation
of the constructing phase prior to writing. Provisions for differentiating instruction for
individual needs were based on continuous assessment. Direct instruction about
conventions, concepts of print, phoneme-grapheme correspondence, as well as types and
traits of writing was presented in an authentic context. The implications from this study,
including the relatively short period of time required each day to achieve these positive
results, makes this study important for anyone interested in implementing the interactive
writing method into a balanced literacy program. It should be noted, however, that Roth
was one of the initial instructors in the McCarrier et al. study. Her years of experience
applying the interactive writing method may contribute to an efficiency of instruction not
replicable by a novice teacher.
Craig’s (2003) sixteen week study found that kindergarteners who participated in
an adapted interactive writing treatment met or exceeded the performance of
kindergarteners in a skill-sequenced metalinguistic games treatment on word
identification, passage comprehension, and word reading development measures.
Together, the three components of this interactive writing treatment, text experience,
response to the text using interactive writing, and supplemental letter-sound instruction,
mirrors the California Reading Task Force guidelines.
29
Composing text constructed through conversation demonstrated a balanced
approach between oral and written language (Craig, 2003). Use of a responsive approach
to instruction, one in which teachers both facilitated conversations related to children’s
comments and questions and adapted the writing in response to children’s increased
sophistication, further supported oral and written language development. The letter-sound
patterns, selected from children’s spellings, and used for explicit instruction were chosen
as a result of assessment. Explicit phonemic awareness instruction was embedded in the
shared reading and writing activities employed in this treatment. Differentiating
instruction and scaffolding to accommodate children of varied skill levels centered
around four specific phonemic awareness skills: first sound identification, last sound
identification, sound segmentation, and sound deletion (Craig, 2003). Having met all the
objectives, Craig’s interactive writing study clearly follows the California Reading Task
Force guidelines for a balanced kindergarten writing program.
Sipe (2001) endorses interactive writing as one of four research-based writing
models for promoting invented spelling instruction. The study recognized interactive
writing as a successful model to advance spelling skills of students using explicit
instruction and teacher support, as the “expert other” (Vygotsky, 1962), to link new
spellings with words they already know. Within this model, the teacher’s active
involvement and scaffolding promoted students creativity and independence.
Button, Johnson, and Furgerson (1996) designed literacy activities for
kindergarteners, including interactive writing lessons, to demonstrate the effect
interactive writing had on children’s literacy learning. The interactive writing lessons
30
included direct teaching about language conventions, how words work, types of writing,
and concepts about print while providing opportunities to hear sounds within words.
Furgerson often focused the interactive writing lessons on a book read aloud in class.
Repeated readings, along with the interactive writing lesson, helped scaffold the
development and incorporation of the literacy processes of reading, writing, speaking,
listening, and thinking. Building on the knowledge students had about the sounds
represented by letters in their names, Furgerson began the school year using the
individual child’s writing ability as a basis for instruction. Individual students’ needs
were met and guided by ongoing assessment results. In May, student’s assessments
showed growth in all areas, with nearly all the students reading. Thirteen of seventeen
students were reading predictable text and all students had improved in their concept of
print knowledge. The most growth was in the children’s ability to hear sounds in words
where the mean increased from 9.8 in the fall to 29 in the spring. Increase in children’s
literacy is clearly demonstrated by this study; however, three factors should be noted
when considering these findings. First, the number of participants was only seventeen.
Second, this study did not have a control group to compare findings. Third, instruction
was not limited only to interactive writing. What this study showed was the procedures
employed while applying interactive writing, which allowed teachers to understand more
about interactive writing’s functional contribution to children’s literacy development.
Conclusion
These studies demonstrate interactive writing’s place within a balanced
kindergarten curriculum. It is clear that instruction using interactive writing benefits
31
kindergarten students writing development. However, there is room to learn more.
Additional research relating to interactive writing’s influence on students’ developmental
processes as they become writers, within the range of abilities present in the kindergarten
setting, would be of interest. The purpose of this study was to contribute to the body of
knowledge by discussing the developmental processes children experience as they
become writers as well as interactive writing’s role within a balanced literacy curriculum.
32
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
In this study, the 22 students in my half-day traditional school year kindergarten
classroom participated in an interactive writing treatment with the intention of monitoring
the treatment effects toward improvement in the students’ orthographic development.
Students’ concept of writing was developed through the use of interactive writing in the
classroom. Children must have opportunities to write, but unfortunately the majority of
these kindergartners had few writing experiences prior to this school year. This
interactive writing approach allowed the students to have a more developed bridge
between their limited home writing and their directed school writing experiences, thus
building a sense of meaningful purpose for each child’s writing.
This chapter describes the participants of the study, the sample population,
followed by a record of the parental consent. The daily application of the treatment is
then presented, along with a description of the procedures for data collection and
analysis. Finally, the chapter concludes with an overview of data to be analyzed in
Chapter 4.
Participants
This study included 22 five- and six-year-old kindergarteners from a small
northern California town who were members of my kindergarten class. Two children
from the sample were repeating kindergarten, and neither were in my class their first
33
year. All twenty-two students acquired family consent to participate in this study. An
example of this form is in Appendix A.
The class was composed of primarily English speaking White/Not Hispanic lowto middle-income students. Graph 1 illustrates that of the twenty-two students, twentyone spoke English, and one spoke primarily Vietnamese at home (Student Cumulative
Files, 2009-2010). These students were unevenly divided by gender, with 13 male and 9
female students.
Figure 1
Gender and Ethnicity of Participants
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Male
Female
White
Hispanic
Vietnamese
Chinese
Figure 1 indicates the percentage of students who attended preschool. Just under
two thirds of the students, 64 percent, attended at least one year of preschool before
entering kindergarten, while slightly more than one third, 36 percent, of the participants
34
did not attend preschool (Student Cumulative Files, 2009-2010). The only local preschool
offerings included State Preschool, Head Start, a preschool affiliated with the local Indian
Casino, and a private preschool.
Figure 2
Percentage of Preschool Attendance
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
State
Preschool
Head Start
Indian
Casino
Preschool
Private No Preschool
Preschool
Although approximately two thirds of the participants attended preschool, based
on teacher observations, many of these children entered kindergarten with minimal
beginner writing skills including proper pencil grip. There appears to be a tremendous
variation in the amount of writing instruction prior to kindergarten. While some
preschools may opt to include writing in their programs, this doesn’t seem to be the
norm, as the majority of students showed few writing skills.
Two students, or 9 percent, were considered socioeconomically disadvantaged
based on qualification for the free or reduced price meal subsidy for students of families
35
who earn less than $35,798 each year (based on a family of four) (Student Cumulative
Files, 2009-2010).
As of March 2010, seventy-three percent of the participants’ parents attended
some college or vocational school, as represented in Figure 3. Eighteen percent of
students’ parents were high school graduates, while parents of nine percent of the
participants had no high school degree (Student Cumulative Files, 2009-2010).
Figure 3
Participants’ Parental Education Level
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Post High
School
High School
Graduate
Not High
School
Graduate
Of all parents with post high school education, just over half, 56 percent, had
some college level education. The number of parents who earned college or graduate
degrees was just under half, 44 percent, of all parents with training after high school.
36
Figure 4
Participants’ Parents Post High School Education
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Some College
College
Graduate
Post
Graduate
Training
Through observations made from the beginning of the year, many of these
kindergarten students appeared to be inexperienced with the demands of writing
activities. One opportunity for monitoring student writing was to observe the students
signing their names upon entering the classroom on a daily basis. I observed some
children’s confusion as they tried to hold the pencil. For example, some children had
awkward pencil grips, with fisted grips or fingers overlapping (thumb on top of index
finger or index finger on top of thumb). Also, some children were reluctant to write,
unwilling to write even the first letter of their name.
The children seemed to lack exposure to both writing instruments and emergent
writing. While they appeared to understand that the stories I read to them had words, they
had not made the connection between the pictures and the words. So, when handed a
blank piece of paper and asked to write about an interesting topic such as how to dress on
37
Halloween, my most struggling students left the page blank. They did not even attempt to
draw.
Consent Form
Each child’s parent signed a participant consent form, shown in Appendix A,
which was sent home in the children’s school-to-home folders before assessments or
treatments took place. Because the researcher was also the teacher, parents were not
punished or rewarded for allowing their child to be included in the study and were
notified that their child would remain anonymous in the writing of the thesis. The consent
form briefly outlined the timeline for the treatment and the types and approximate times
pre- and post-assessments would be given to the children.
Treatment
The twenty-two students in the treatment group received traditional classroom
instruction including alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, and phonemic
awareness instruction. Additionally, the day began with a fifteen to twenty minute
interactive writing lesson four times per week. Included in each lesson was a five minute
pre-writing routine. The duration of the treatment was nine weeks with a two week midwinter break after the third week. The actual time for the treatment was seven weeks.
The basic interactive writing lesson plan used in this treatment combined several
authors’ lesson ideas (Button, Johnson, & Furgeson, 1996; McCarrier, Pinnell, &
Fountas, 2000; Setzer, 2005; Swartz, Klein, & Shook, 2001; Tompkins & Collom, 2004).
An adaptation for whole group instruction, the addition of whiteboard paddles, was
adopted after the first week (McCloskey, 2004).
38
Lesson Format
The lesson format, as illustrated in Appendix B, is an adapted whole group
version. To explain, some of the participants in this study were active children with social
tendencies that interfered with their engagement in lessons when presented at the carpet.
The carpet is in front of the teacher’s chair and easel. Children sit on the carpet when the
teacher gives direct instruction. Their response and attention to lessons was documented
by the teacher based on observations to be better suited to the one-on-one or small group
setting, preferably while seated at a table. While interactive writing lesson routines and
procedures were in place, reviewed before every lesson and followed by the majority of
the students seated together on the carpet, these few children switched into social mode.
To ensure engagement of all children, two modifications to the initially adopted
interactive writing approach were applied. The first modification to the lesson plan was in
response to further study into literacy’s foundation in oral language (Button, Johnson, &
Furgeson, 1996; Clay, 1991; McCarrier, Fountas, & Pinnell, 2000; Sulzby & Teale,
1991). Think-pair-share was incorporated into lessons whenever possible (Setzer, 2005).
Think-pair-share is a four part cooperative learning strategy credited to Professor Frank
Lyman and his associates, University of Maryland Howard County Southern Teacher
Education Center (1981). First, students listen as the teacher poses a question. Second,
the group formulates a response during thinking time. Third, students are prompted to
pair with a neighbor to discuss their answers. Finally, students are randomly called on to
share their responses with the whole group.
39
The second modification to the lesson plan was applied to meet sound teaching
objectives. To meet standards for active participation, evaluation of student learning, and
classroom management, I added the routine distribution of dry-erase whiteboard paddles
before the lesson began.
A three step pre-lesson warm-up preceded each interactive writing lesson. The
preparation routine, five minutes in length, began just after the morning bell rang. The
bell became the routine signaling the students to sit on the carpet. In order to teach letter
name recognition, the students sang the ABC Song while the teacher handed each child
an Alphabet Linking Chart (McCarrier et al., 2000) along with a whiteboard paddle and
cloth eraser. To model and assess, the teacher took her place beside the easel and pointed
to each written rule while the students read in unison.
The eleven step lesson began with the teacher introducing the topic for one
minute. Students took two minutes to brainstorm ideas with partners. When their names
were randomly chosen by the instructor, the students shared their ideas with the class.
Since the class collectively chose the text, more than one child might be picked to offer
text suggestions.
After negotiating the words, one minute was spent repeating the text, enunciating
each word, and counting the words in the sentence to build concept of word (Bear,
Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2000; McCarrier, Fountas, & Pinnell, 2000). The
teacher then wrote this text on a note card as a reminder of the agreed upon text. Prior to
calling on a student to write, if a word was phonetically regular (Swartz, et al., 2001),
thirty seconds were spent as the teacher stretched the word with a Slinky while the
40
students pretended to stretch their own Slinky in an imitation of the teacher’s exaggerated
elongation of the word. This promoted an attention to the individual sounds to develop
phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990; Ehri, Roberts, & Neuman, 2006; McCarrier, et al.,
2000; Tompkins & Collom, 2004; Yopp & Yopp, 2000).
Using random assignment to choose the writer, the instructor adjusted the writer’s
task based on ability to ensure success (McCarrier, et al., 2000; Swartz, et al., 2001;
Tompkins, & Collom, 2004). Tasks might include writing the first letter of the word,
writing the whole word, or writing the appropriate punctuation. For example, one student
started the treatment as a finger space holder, but ended the program writing the first
letter. The time for this writing varied based on the student’s confidence, aptitude, and
accuracy, but was usually between one to three minutes. This was the important part of
the project where success was measured not by quantity of words, but by quality of the
learning. Each stroke attempted was a potential lesson and could direct the experience. If
a student made a mistake, for example, used a capital letter in the middle of a word, “fix
it” tape or white address labels were used to cover the error with a reassurance that the
mistake was an opportunity for learning.
While the chosen writer was writing at the easel, the students sitting on the carpet
were actively participating in the lesson. They were instructed by the teacher to either use
the whiteboard paddles to write as much of the word as they knew, for example, writing
the first letter of the word. Alternatively, they might attend to a relevant topic such as the
use of students’ names for clues to writing, for example the name “James” helps to spell
the word “games.” Use of a magnetic writing board, a lightweight lap size writing
41
instrument, kept the teacher’s focus on the children (Swartz, et al., 2001). The magnetic
writing board allowed the teacher to face the children while writing.
Once the word was written, thirty seconds to one minute was spent reading or
rereading the text depending on whether the day’s lesson started a new writing project or
continued a project started on a previous day. The class repeated this process for as many
words as time and opportunities for learning would allow. The interactive writing session
always ended with one to three minutes of rereading the text.
Instructional Topics
Table 1
Topics of Instruction
Phonological/ Concepts of
Writing
Phonemic
Print
Conventions
Awareness
Rhyme
Directionality Spelling
Parts
of a
Letter
Heading
Environmental Alphabetic
Print
Knowledge
Sight Word
Chart
Onset
rime
Concepts of
Letter
Capitalization Greeting Name Chart
Alliteration
Concepts of
Word
Punctuation
Body
Syllables
Punctuation
Grammar
Closing
Phonemic
Blending
Reading
Concepts
Phonemic
Segmentation
Phonemic
Substitution
Partial
Letter-sound
Recognition
Blends and
Digraphs
Posters
Naming
Letters
Recognizing
Letters in
Print
42
Table 1 illustrates literacy applications of the interactive writing lessons used in
this study. While each of these topics is critical for a kindergartener’s language
acquisition, kindergarteners have more to learn under the subject phonemic awareness
than the subject alphabetic knowledge, as exemplified in this table.
Methodology used to implement and expand the interactive writing lessons was
taken from best practices from research and made to fit my particular student body of
kindergarteners. The following approach to writing development was chosen in
consideration of schedule and student attentiveness constraints as well as ability to
differentiate instruction.
Phonological processing including phonemic awareness, phoneme blending,
phoneme segmentation, and development of letter recognition was taught and practiced
daily. One of the most common strategies for phonological processing was phoneme
blending as demonstrated with Slinky-stretching words. Another regular phonemic
awareness strategy was the use of students’ names to learn letter names and sounds.
Students’ names lent themselves to first and last letter sound and name as well as onset
rime activities (Bloodgood, 1999; Stewart, 2004). Occasionally phonemic substitution
was taught as an extension of the onset rime activities. Phoneme segmentation was the
least practiced phonological processing strategy of those mentioned in this paper.
In addition to phonological processing, we also concentrated on parts of a letter as
a subject of interactive writing. These letters were addressed to either members of the
community or classmates. Letter writing was as much an individual assignment as a
whole group activity. A classroom Post Office was one area for letter writing practice
43
during assigned kindergarten centers. Students were assisted by the parent helper at the
Post Office. Each student received a Parts of a Letter Guide like the one used during the
whole class interactive writing lesson. The teacher did not expect students to master letter
format, but used letters as a means to entice them to write. Parent helpers were guided to
gently support students in letter writing, and to concentrate on student writing over letter
format.
Interactive writing lessons always included writing conventions, concepts of print,
environmental print, writing, and last, reading. Writing conventions include spelling,
capitalization, punctuation, and grammar. Supporting children in recognizing
conventional writing is one of the aims of interactive writing. Conventions were applied
where appropriate to the text. Grammar at this level focused on spacing between words.
Concepts of print include directionality, concept of letter and concept of word.
Every lesson included directionality either in the left to right construction of a word or
the left to right and wrap around of reading text that had been written. Teaching the
concept of letter was less frequent than teaching the concept of word.
Environmental print was included in most every lesson through the use of a
student names’ pocket chart, a sight word pocket chart, blends and digraphs posters, and
previous interactive writing text posted throughout the room. Students’ names were used
in nearly every lesson either as the source of the writing such as writing letters to the Star
Student or as a resource for letter names and sounds. Students enjoyed recalling aspects
of previous writing.
44
Writing and reading occurred at every interactive writing session. After the
second week of instruction, all students wrote using a whiteboard paddle. The students
used the whiteboard paddles for various exercises. One example: the teacher led mini
lessons based on the text while the assigned writer wrote at the easel. This may have
included the teacher instructing the students to write the first or last letter sound of the
word being written by the writer. The teacher used a magnetic writing board to instruct
individuals on letter formation, directionality, or lead the mini lesson. Reading the day’s
text completed every lesson.
Writing Practice
Classroom writing practice was designed to address the language and literacy
needs of this population. Since a large portion of the population was not offered a
preschool experience, I promoted a play-based literacy center to bridge the early literacy
practices often presented in the preschool setting with the demands of kindergarten.
Decisions for the addition of writing experiences were based on recommendations from
the National Research Council (NRC) report (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, p. 184)
which outlined guidelines for kindergarten play-based literacy development. These
guidelines included the following:





allocate enough time and space within the classroom for play
provide necessary materials
develop children’s background knowledge for the play setting
scaffold the rehearsals of dramatic retellings, and
guide the children’s attention and learning through modeling and interaction.
Our classroom Post Office offered one example of play-based literacy development
during both free exploration and structured centers. Another example of play-based
45
literacy development was the use of students’ names as a means to provide materials to
distinguish letter names and sounds. Given that Bloodgood (1999) concluded that names
were the most meaningful aspects of print for many 3-year-olds, and that 4- and 5-year
olds were comparable in their literacy growth, the names’ pocket chart was an integral
part of the introduction to interactive writing. Letter writing to the Star Student during
our interactive writing session modeled both letter construct and the use of students’
names to create our print. An adult volunteer at the literacy center helped guide the
children’s attention back to lessons introduced during the interactive writing session.
Data Collection
Qualitative information was gathered to examine the differences in writing and
orthographic development. Student writing samples were collected at both the beginning
and end of the treatment. The first writing sample was photocopied and set aside until
another teacher and I scored them the end of the treatment. Lesson plans, lesson
developments, and observations of student actions/reactions were recorded in an
educator’s journal. At three times during the treatment, the beginning, middle and end, a
third party observed and took notes on the interactive writing lesson to corroborate with
the educator’s journal observations and insights. The following sub-sections outline each
assessment used to ascertain student’s abilities.
First Writing Sample
The first writing sample was collected before the interactive writing treatment
began, photocopied, and stored at the home of my professor. Since the season was
Halloween, we read many books on the subject, and enthusiasm for costuming and trick-
46
or-treating flourished throughout the classroom. Students were directed to write about
how they were going to dress on Halloween. The question was, “What will you be for
Halloween?”
Students were given a blank sheet of kindergarten lined paper, which included
features we refer to as a “ground line,” “fence line,” and “sky line,” on which to write.
Most standard school days, student work was completed at adult-led centers wherein a
teacher or volunteer parent guided the students through the set activity. The exception
was on Fridays when the lesson was conducted whole group with students sitting at tables
and everyone completing the same task. Like a Friday lesson, the research writing sample
was a whole group event with my partner teacher present. Prior to the lesson, we decided
upon responses to any requests for support. Assistance would consist of one of the
following three agreed upon responses:
1. “Try your best.”
2. “Write about what you want to be on Halloween.”
3. “What sounds do you hear?”
Second Writing Sample
The second writing sample was collected at the end of the treatment. This writing
was a literature response. The Star Student was encouraged to bring a favorite book to
school which was read daily throughout the Star Student’s week. The Star Student book
selection was George Shrinks (Joyce, 1985). Student enthusiasm for this book was high
with much discussion about life as a little person. A six inch Mickey Mouse character,
the class mascot, was used as a visual reference for the children’s writing. Directions
47
were to write about what would happen to them if they were small like George or
Mickey. The question was, “What adventures would happen to you if you shrank?”
Students wrote on a similar blank sheet of kindergarten lined paper, with a
“ground line,” “fence line,” and “sky line,” except, unlike the paper for the first sample,
this paper had an illustration box. Like the first sample collection, the lesson was
conducted whole group, with students sitting at tables and all completing the same task.
My partner teacher was also present as in the first sample collection. Similar responses
were offered when students requested assistance.
1. “Try your best.”
2. “Write about what would happen if you shrank.”
3. “What sounds do you hear?”
Educator’s Journal
An educator’s journal was employed as a means of documenting the daily
developments related to the project including lesson plans, teacher observations, and
adaptations based on these observations. Lesson modifications also occurred due to
discoveries from the ongoing literature review. Activities and expectations including
challenges and successes in the execution of the interactive writing lessons and anecdotes
of students’ references or responses to the lessons were logged in the journal.
Observer’s Notes
On three occasions during the treatment, a third-party observed and took notes on
my methods using the interactive writing strategy. These observations and notes were
used to triangulate the journal annotations with classroom events. These third party
48
observations occurred at the beginning, middle and end of the treatment. During the nine
weeks of the treatment, three observations were made at intervals of roughly three weeks
each. A volunteer, a retired k-12 educator, completed the first and last observations,
while another kindergarten teacher conducted the second observation. The change in
observers was due to a death in the family of the retired teacher; therefore, another
observer filled in for her. Observers were instructed to write details related to the lesson
including classroom environment, teacher preparedness, teacher student interactions,
student attentiveness, and student actions. No rubric was given as it would have made
noting all behaviors difficult; however, consistent note taking was administered by both
observers.
Data Analysis
The important question posed by this research: how does interactive writing
promote orthographic development in young children’s writing?
The following three sub-questions guided the answer to the main question:
Question 1: On the orthographic writing developmental continuum, to what degree did
the students’ writing change from their pre-treatment writing sample to their posttreatment writing sample?
Using holistic assessment, changes in student writing from pre-treatment writing
to post-treatment writing were identified. To score the writing samples, I chose
definitions for the stages in spelling and orthographic knowledge that have been
researched, described and refined by Henderson (1981). Appendices B and C contain
Henderson’s noteworthy stages of orthographic writing characteristics. Invernizzi,
49
Abouzeid, & Gill (1994) defined each stage of students’ orthographic knowledge by three
functional levels; first, what students do correctly, second, what students “use but
confuse,” and last, what is absent in students’ spelling.
At the conclusion of the treatment, the initial writing sample was obtained from
the secure storage of the professor’s home and scored to align with the orthographic traits
of either emergent spelling or letter name-alphabetic spelling. The researcher and another
kindergarten teacher scored the writing samples using colored sticky notes. Both
educators are trained in the implementation of writing education, one at the elementary
level, the other at the college level. First, the researcher recorded on the sticky note the
stage on the orthographic developmental continuum as described by Bear et al. (2000),
folding in half and taping the note to ensure reliability. Second, the other teacher who
was unfamiliar with the students reviewed the writing samples and the orthographic
characteristics rubric, and scored the writing by recording the stage on the orthographic
developmental continuum on the blank surface of the sticky note. To assure inter-rater
reliability, the teacher was trained in scoring using characteristics of orthographic
development. After both teachers completed the holistic writing scoring, their
assessments of orthographic features were compared. Scoring discrepancies were
presented to a third scorer who had also been trained in scoring using characteristics of
orthographic development. The third scorer’s determination resolved the difference in
four cases.
50
The day after scoring the initial writing sample, the two scorers evaluated the final
writing. The same criteria and technique used to determine orthographic features in the
initial writing was implemented in the final writing evaluation.
Question 2: In what ways did instruction in interactive writing make a difference in the
students’ writing?
Prior to this treatment, the model for writing instruction was that of shared
writing. The teacher and students together negotiated the text, but the teacher acted as
scribe and model. Student writing consisted of letter practice and name writing. Students
were observers of writing rather than contributors to the process. Interactive writing
changed observers into participants. Constructing text with teacher support allowed each
individual to acquire more difficult writing skills than could be attained alone.
Consequently, the teacher considered zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978)
when selecting the writer’s task. Furthermore, the social aspect of text construction
encouraged group problem solving which translated into a positive model to carry into
independent writing (Brotherton & Williams, 2002; Vygotsky, 1978).
Examination of changes in participants’ writing between the pre- and posttreatment writing samples as well as analysis of the incidence of direct teaching and
student performance, as recorded in the educator’s journal, provided answers and
implications to this question.
A record of writing characteristics found in the participants’ initial writing
samples was compared with a record of writing characteristics found in the participants’
final writing samples. A paper was divided into three columns. Each student’s randomly
51
selected number was placed in the first column. The second and third columns were titled
pre-treatment writing and post-treatment writing respectively. Writing characteristics
present in each sample were recorded in the rows next to the student’s number. Some
characteristics, such as pretend writing and punctuation, appeared to occur more often.
Appendix F registers the counts in student writing between the first writing sample and
the second writing sample which shows differences in student writing.
The educator’s journal contained three sections. First, the lesson plan part of the
journal was divided into halves, the lesson plan was written on one side with checks on
the other half to confirm that the lesson was followed. A record of student involvement
was included with the checks. Below the lesson plan was a daily record of successes or
ways to improve the lesson. Finally, documentation of teacher observations outside of the
lesson including student actions and remarks completed the day’s journal entry.
Data from the educator’s journal was obtained using a series of steps. First, a copy
of Table 1 was color coded one color for each topic of instruction. Next, using the Table
1 color guide, each page of the educator’s journal was evaluated and color coded to
indicate incidence of instruction. Then, a separate piece of paper was divided in two and
used to record tallies of each instructional topic with teacher actions on one half and
student actions in the other half. Last, a fresh copy of Table 1 was used to record the
counts of each page.
Analysis of the data revealed patterns of teacher and student actions. The
following descriptions summarize those patterns which are used to classify information in
52
Appendix G:
 Incidence of direct instruction
 Student response to the interactive writing lessons –carryover from one lesson to
the next; recall of topic outside of interactive writing lesson
 Student synthesis of learning into writing practice – integration as demonstrated
by implementation
 Spontaneous student writing in reaction to the interactive writing sessions –
increase in incidence of unsolicited student writing initiation
Question 3: How closely were the observations of the observers aligned with the
educator’s journal?
I recorded frequent and detailed notes in the educator’s journal which included
lesson plans, a review of each lesson, and student response to instruction. Observer’s
notes were placed along side the educator’s journal and checked to ensure whether a
correlation or disconnect existed between the two sources.
Conclusion
Initial observations of my kindergarten students’ writing suggested that many of
them had little writing experience prior to the start of this study. Conversations I have had
with local teachers and principals indicate that writing instruction in kindergarten is at a
minimum. The students’ apparent lack of exposure and the trend to forego writing
instruction until first grade was an opportunity to introduce interactive writing into our
instruction design. Therefore, the aim of this project was twofold: first, to examine
kindergarteners’ success at writing through the use of an interactive writing treatment,
53
and second, to put into practice an interactive writing treatment in order to obtain
information which will contribute professional development to kindergarten teachers
based on my findings.
I examined three areas of interest in response to the project aims: first, student
writing development in the area of orthographic features; second, interactive writing’s
effect on the development of student writing; and finally, verification of the author’s
notes and claims through inspection by a third party. After scoring pre- and post-writing
samples from twenty-two kindergarten students, writing changes were analyzed based on
orthographic features. Evolution of student’s writing development was described using
the educator’s journal. Observer’s notes were compared with the educator’s journal. In
addition, careful records were kept of the material students were being taught so that this
approach could be replicated by others. Application of the outcomes will both direct my
teaching and provide information to address other teaching professionals about the use of
interactive writing. The results of this qualitative study will be presented in Chapter Four
and discussed in Chapter Five.
54
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Introduction
Twenty-two kindergarten students underwent a seven week interactive writing
treatment to determine the treatment’s effect on the student’s writing development. This
chapter investigates and reports the outcomes of this treatment using qualitative
measures. Spelling growth based on orthographic characteristics, as outlined in
Appendices C and D, is measured and analyzed. Changes in orthographic characteristics
shown in Figure 5 compare initial and final writing samples. Additional evaluation of
pre- and post-treatment writing samples, as shown in Appendix E, measures writing
change. Also in this chapter, I investigate the participants’ writing development as a
result of instruction in interactive writing and correlate instructor’s/observer’s remarks as
a reliable source on the teaching methods used.
Results
Data analysis will be presented in response to three secondary questions which
arise from the main question which is: How does interactive writing promote
orthographic writing in young children?
Question 1: On the orthographic writing developmental continuum, to what degree did
the students’ writing change from their pre-treatment writing sample to their posttreatment writing sample?
Findings indicate that kindergarteners’ orthographic development increased from
before the treatment to after the treatment as shown in their writing samples. Figure 5
55
identifies these results. Appendices C and D offer descriptions of Emergent Writing
characteristics and Letter Name-Alphabetic Writing characteristics respectively.
Figure 5
Characteristics of Participants’ Spelling
8
7
6
5
4
Initial Writing Sample
3
Final Writing Sample
2
1
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
Letters represent spelling characteristics due to space limitations. A key is listed
below:
 A – Early Emergent Writing
 D – Early Letter Name-Alphabetic
 B – Middle Emergent Writing
 E – Middle Letter Name-Alphabetic
 C – Late Emergent Writing
 F – Late Letter Name-Alphabetic
Figure 5 illustrates participants’ orthographic writing characteristics before and
after an interactive writing treatment. Comparison of student writing characteristics from
the pre-treatment writing sample to the post-treatment writing sample reveals that 90
percent of treatment participants began the treatment in the Emergent Writing stages.
56
The majority of the students, 73 percent, began the study writing in the Middle
and Late Emergent Writing stages. Two students, 9 percent, entered the study in the Early
Alphabetic Writing stage. The treatment ended with a greater number of students, 45
percent, in the Letter Name-Alphabetic stages than began the study.
Prior to the interactive writing treatment the initial writing sample revealed that
four students, or 18 percent of participants, wrote at an Early Emergent level. Eight
students began the interactive writing treatment demonstrating both Middle Emergent
Writing and Late Emergent Writing, each at 36 percent of the sample. Two students, 10
percent of the sample, wrote at an Early Letter Name-Alphabetic level at the start of the
treatment.
When the treatment ended, two students, 9 percent of participants, wrote at an
Early Emergent level. The same number of writers, five each, displayed Middle
Emergent Writing, Late Emergent Writing, and Early Letter Name-Alphabetic Writing
which is 23 percent of participants each. Four students, 18 percent of participants, wrote
at the Middle Letter Name-Alphabetic level, while one student, 4 percent of participants,
exhibited Late Letter Name-Alphabetic characteristics in writing.
57
Table 2
Analysis of Orthographic Change Data:
Change in
Score
Decreased by
1
Stayed the
same
Amount of
Change
Number of
Students
-1
2
0
7
Increased by 1
1
7
Increased by 2
2
2
Increased by 3
3
4
Based on comparison of orthographic characteristics from pre- and post-treatment
writing samples as illustrated in Appendix E and further clarified in Table 2, fifty-nine
percent of treatment participants increased at least one stage of orthographic knowledge
while participating in an interactive writing treatment. Fifty-four percent of students who
made gains in orthographic knowledge advanced one step. Fifteen percent of students
who made gains in orthographic knowledge increased two places from where they began.
Nearly one-third, or 31 percent, of students whose orthographic knowledge improved
while undergoing the interactive writing treatment, advanced three steps.
While these gains are impressive, it should be noted that almost one third, or 31
percent of all participants, demonstrated no change in orthographic characteristics, and
two students who participated in the study, or 9 percent of participants, displayed a
reduction in orthographic characteristics in their writing.
Question 2: In what ways did instruction in interactive writing make a difference in the
students’ writing?
58
Comparison between the pre-treatment and post-treatment writing samples is one
way to provide a response to this question. This assessment showed an increase in the use
of writing conventions and a decrease in pretend writing. Appendix F is a record of
writing characters found in the students’ initial and final writing samples. This data
shows that most students had already acquired directionality, left to right in English, prior
to the treatment. Fewer students used pretend writing after the interactive writing
treatment. The incidence of wrapping, returning to the left side of the paper when
reaching the end of a line, stayed the same, but the intent had changed which will be
discussed in chapter 5. Letter/sound match was another area of minimal accomplishment;
only one more student demonstrated this in the final writing sample.
The final writing samples revealed six characteristics not present in any of the
initial writing samples. The students’ awareness of spacing and punctuation was most
pronounced with fifteen students attempting spacing between words and eleven students
using punctuation – a period at the end of their writing. Six students’ final writing
samples began with a capital letter. Four students used digraphs and/or blends in their
final writing. Writing words became more prevalent for some students. At the end of the
treatment, six students wrote sight words while three students wrote complete English
words.
The patterns discovered in the coding of the educator’s journal are another way to
address Question 2. The tables in Appendix G detail how the four patterns that emerged
from the journal apply to the topics of instruction. These patterns are detailed in Chapter
59
3 and include direct instruction, student response to instruction, student synthesis of
learning, and spontaneous student writing.
Results from the tables in Appendix G show that instruction in interactive writing
exposed kindergarten students to the vocabulary and use of terms in the following areas:
phonemic awareness; concepts of print; writing conventions; parts of a letter;
environmental print; and alphabetic knowledge. Some practices were more likely applied
in most children’s writing than other practices. Alphabetic knowledge was applied by all
students in this study. Naming letters and recognizing letters in print was most often
associated with the students’ names. Elements of concepts of print were practiced often
by the majority of students. Students included directionality, concept of letter, concept of
word, and punctuation in their writing more often than reading concepts. Directionality
and punctuation were most commonly included in students’ writing with punctuation
occasionally over-generalized – placing a period after one’s name, for example.
Writing conventions were practiced daily, but spelling and punctuation were
generally including in students’ daily writing while capitalization and grammar were
occasionally left out of students’ writing. “Parts of a letter” was used daily as an
interactive writing lesson. Student letter writing included a greeting and body more often
than a closing. A heading was most often missing from these letters.
Environmental print in this classroom included a name chart, a sight word chart,
and blends and digraphs posters. These resources were used during the interactive writing
when appropriate. The name chart and sight word chart were incorporated into the
interactive writing lessons daily, with the blends and digraphs posters used on occasion.
60
Consequently, students used the name chart daily in their independent writing and the
blends and digraphs posters infrequently when writing independently.
The phonemic awareness concepts of rhyme, onset-rime, phonemic blending, and
partial letter-sound recognition were taught daily, but teaching did not transfer to student
application of all of these concepts. Students recognized letter sounds in the first letters of
classmates’ names, and mimicked phonemic blending with Slinkys, but never included
rhyme, although they occasionally considered onset-rime in their independent writing.
Syllables, phonemic segmentation, and phonemic substitution were often included in
interactive writing lessons, but the students never referred to them while writing.
Occasionally, interactive writing lessons included alliteration; however, the students in
the treatment never referred to alliteration during their independent writing.
All students in this study have made the transition from non-writer to writer,
confident that what they put on the paper makes sense to them. The letters on the paper
may not appear as words to the reader/observer, but when asked to read the writing, each
child will convey with assurance the thoughts those letters express. Prior to this study,
many students were willing to tell their stories, but unwilling to attempt to write them.
Many students can now direct a writer to use the conventions of writing correctly.
The students demonstrated the ability to identify norms in writing, such as beginning a
sentence with a capital letter, using a space between words, and ending a sentence with,
as they most often said, a period. Most students were concentrating on letter sounds
during independent writing. Consequently, although they capably identify writing norms
as a group, their individual writing lacks conventions. However, some students showed
61
confidence in their ability to formulate the language of their text and focus on
conventions when writing independently.
Several students were interested in writing details. They attempted to add colorful
language as a flourish to their writing in response to a teacher-led lesson on observing
details in a student’s photograph. In comparison with these few students, most students’
writing is straightforward with few details.
Most participants in this study can listen for and use much of the vocabulary of
writing and reading taught in this treatment, some of which encompasses rhyme,
blending, sweep, punctuation, capitalization, and sight word. They can attend to sounds
within words and focus on spelling patterns through the use of environmental print when
they refer to their names for similar sounds or write a blend or digraph because they
remember the poster on the wall. They explore their own ideas through writing when they
spontaneously reach for their journal, or choose to write a letter to a friend. Interactive
writing has made non-writers writers.
Question 3: How closely were the observations of the observers aligned with the
educator’s journal?
The educator’s journal and the observers’ notes were checked for similarities or
differences between both accounts. The educator’s journal was closely aligned with the
observer’s comments, except that the observers recognized student data missing from the
teacher’s journal including student enthusiasm for the project and classroom management
issues. These comments were used to address issues of engagement and instruction
differentiation.
62
The educator’s journal included comprehensive notes on lesson plans, an
evaluation of each lesson, and student synthesis of interactive writing instruction into
both the lessons presented during the session and assignments outside of the direct
instruction. Observers were directed to note facts associated with the lesson including
classroom environment, teacher preparedness, teacher student interactions, student
attentiveness, and student actions.
The first observation was rescheduled twice after a two day school closure due to
snow. The classroom environment was conducive to student learning. Students sat on the
carpet with space on the carpet for all to clearly see the writing on the easel. Charts and
auxiliary materials were within reach and used when necessary. The teacher was prepared
for the lesson of writing a letter to Santa. Teacher interactions with the students were
typically positive, yet there were many interruptions associated to redirecting students to
the writing task. Most students attended to the lesson and were eager to write their own
letters. Some students became discouraged due to consequences for their behavior (they
lost their sticker). Also, students were engaged at the beginning of the lesson, but the
lesson was too long - the teacher was trying to make up for time lost. Students sitting on
the rug became restless and fidgety. While the student at the easel was writing, the
students sitting on the rug were at first attentive to the teacher’s lesson, but lost interest
after ten minutes of a twenty minute lesson.
The second observation was conducted by another teacher and took place on the
scheduled day. Adjustments to the lesson’s routine, due to comments made from the first
observation were implemented. Whiteboard paddles had been introduced for whole class
63
participation. The teacher differentiated instruction for each student while the writer was
at the easel. She guided students in letter sound, direction, and formation. This lesson
lasted ten minutes and ended with one student exclaiming, “Aw!” because the session
was ending and she wanted to write.
The third observation was scheduled, then rescheduled due to personal
circumstances of the observer. The lesson as executed was aligned with the lesson plans
except the teacher was surprised by an unscheduled fire drill. Until the fire drill, the
students were attentive to the lesson: the whiteboard paddles offered great improvement
on attentiveness to the lesson. Again, however, the lesson was too long in the eyes of the
observer.
Conclusion
Information presented in this chapter illustrated differences in the participants’
writing from before introduction of interactive writing to the end of the interactive
writing treatment. Data from Figure 5 suggests that an interactive writing treatment
develops kindergarten students’ orthographic writing characteristics. A greater number of
students ended the treatment in the Letter Name-Alphabetic stages than the number that
had begun the treatment in the Letter Name-Alphabetic stages. Of the students who
demonstrated improvement in orthographic knowledge, nearly one third increased by
three steps. However, nearly one third of all students who participated in this interactive
writing treatment displayed no change in orthographic writing characteristics.
Orthographic characteristics of two of the participants were reduced by one step.
64
The educator’s journal identified areas of writing instruction that were not
addressed prior to enactment of interactive writing. Writing was taught minimally prior to
the interactive writing treatment. Student participation in interactive writing instruction
led to greater comprehension of writing and reading terms as well as the value of
understanding these terms in their own writing. These terms included punctuation,
capitalization, spelling, spacing between words, read the room, writing, and reading.
Expanded definitions of writing and reading, including picture drawing to tell a story and
pretend reading of a favorite book, resulted in both greater enthusiasm to attempt writing
and a willingness to read stories to classmates. An interactive writing treatment expanded
the participants’ concepts of writing and reading.
Data from the observer’s observations influenced lesson design and execution.
The teacher appeared to follow the lesson plans, but reaction to students’ misbehavior
posed an obstacle to lesson flow and led to longer sessions than was optimum. Addition
of whiteboard paddles for total participation reduced teacher/student interchanges and
resulted in engaged students even when not called upon to write at the easel.
Implications and discussion of the impact of interactive writing on kindergarten
writers will be presented in Chapter Five.
65
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Twenty-two kindergarten students participated in this study to determine the
effectiveness of an interactive writing treatment for improving their writing and
orthographic development. From this inquiry came the following question: How does
interactive writing promote orthographic development in young children? Students’
writing before the interactive writing treatment was compared to their writing after the
interactive writing treatment to note differences. Analysis of the data reinforces the
findings about interactive writing found in chapter two, the review of the literature. This
chapter, chapter five, contains the summary, conclusions, and recommendations for
practice and further research.
Conclusions
This study followed one class of kindergarteners through an interactive writing
treatment to determine what effect, if any, the interactive writing model would have on
their writing. Initially, the goal of this study was to determine the effectiveness of an
interactive writing program on a kindergarten population’s attempts at writing,
vocabulary development, and expression. It became apparent, after beginning the
treatment, that these aspirations were lofty and inappropriate for my population. Many of
the students were inexperienced writers starting at a level far below the standards to
facilitate this request.
66
Clay (1991) calls interactive writing a responsive model of teaching in which the
instructor provides the clearest example of instruction in response to the learner’s needs
at that particular stage in their literacy. Instructor flexibility is one reason why interactive
writing is appropriate for teaching kindergarten writing - it allows a teacher to be
attentive to the variable skill levels of a diverse population. If, for instance, members of
my population had been more advanced than my initial design, I would have adjusted my
teaching to address their particular writing needs while still facilitating the educational
requirements of the inexperienced writers.
Interpretation of the findings will be organized around the three questions that
helped direct the study.
Question 1: On the orthographic writing developmental continuum, to what degree did
the students’ writing change from their pre-treatment writing sample to their posttreatment writing sample?
As evidenced by research, learning to spell is intertwined with learning to read.
Children’s ability to detect and write the sounds in words requires knowledge of letters
and phonemic segmentation (Ehri, & Roberts, 2006). Additionally, the most practical
approach to literacy development is to guide children to learn reading and writing at the
same time (Clay 1991, 1998, 2001). Thus, it is not surprising to discover that the majority
of participants’ writing as demonstrated by orthographic character development increased
from before the treatment to after the treatment. This may be due to the structure of the
interactive writing lesson. Daily teacher-supported writing instruction reinforced
letter/sound acquisition. Using a Slinky to stretch letter sounds, supplied a visual
67
representation of letter sounds in words. The integration of whiteboards, used by the
students, promoted active participation while assisting the teacher’s daily assessments on
the lessons and student progress. Published text displayed on the walls filled the
environment with student-created print. The children showed pride in their displayed
work, which was doubly effective as a tool to consolidate reading and an enthusiasm for
literacy. Reading is an integral part of the interactive writing method (McCarrier, Pinnell,
& Fountas, 2000). The interactive writing lesson supports the understanding that what
children say can be written down. Rereading text after recording each word reinforces the
writing/reading connection. Therefore, it seems necessary for kindergarten teachers to
employ instructional methods that include both reading and writing, such as the ones
described in the interactive writing lesson, to promote orthographic character
development in students’ writing.
Orthographic characteristics increased measurably for a few students. The focus
of the overall writing assignment was probably within their zone of proximal
development (Vygotsky, 1978). Within the stages of orthographic knowledge, Invernizzi,
Abouzeid, & Gill (1994) call the zone of proximal development the ideas students use,
but confuse. This refers to the notion that students attempt to use a concept in word
knowledge, but are not consistent with applying the concept correctly each time. Then the
instruction that focuses on orthographic features and patterns used, but confused by a
student, would most benefit that student. Consequently, interactive writing instruction
should include a range of student involvement based on the teacher’s knowledge of each
individual’s strengths and needs.
68
Many students increased one stage in orthographic knowledge. These students
began the treatment at different stages of spelling. Mini-lessons, also known as teaching
points (Swartz, Klein, & Shook, 2002), probably account for this development. Letter
work is an example of a mini-lesson; students receive direct instruction to develop their
connection of a letter sound to the letter symbol. While the writer was at the easel, the
teacher assessed needs of the students seated at the carpet by viewing their responses on
the whiteboard paddles. Student confusion or misunderstanding was addressed
immediately and in context to the overall lesson.
Examination of orthographic writing results from the initial to the final writing
sample caused me to inquire about the seven students who showed no change in
development of orthographic characteristics and the two students whose scores decreased
in orthographic development. I was interested in knowing where on the orthographic
writing developmental continuum students placed at the onset of this study. In addition, I
wondered if the treatment failed these students or if the data would give insight into a
more positive result. Further inspection of individual results showed that of the students
whose scores did not change, one of these students began the treatment writing at the
Early Letter Name-Alphabetic stage. Four of these students began the study writing at the
Late Emergent stage. The last two students began the treatment writing at the Middle
Emergent stage. Given that these students fall within the age range of emergent spelling,
from one to seven years of age, and most of these non-advancing students began the
treatment near the top of the emergent scale, it appears that they are developing
appropriate writing skills. Perhaps a seven week writing program was not long enough to
69
bring about measurable writing improvement in these students. Since the interactive
writing treatment did not end when the treatment ended, evaluation of student progress at
the end of the year may yield greater advances in orthographic development.
The two students whose orthographic writing characteristics decreased both began
the treatment writing at the Middle Emergent level and wrote at the Early Emergent level
when the treatment ended. Prior to implementing the interactive writing treatment, the
teacher had been addressing the educational needs of these two students. Evaluation
outside of the interactive writing program indicated areas of concern. Review of daily
assessments showed that at the time of the last writing sample, neither student had
mastered alphabetic knowledge as measured by singing the ABC song or accurately
naming random letters. Furthermore, both had a limited knowledge of letter sounds. One
student knew seven letter sounds and the other student knew zero letter sounds. Further
assessment revealed each child’s specific areas of deficit which were being addressed
with a direct instruction one-on-one intervention program. The implication is that these
two students may have performed poorly on the assessment due to their needs in other
areas. As writing is developmental, it also may be that these students need more time in
learning this way of writing, and that perhaps they are neither ready nor are able at this
point to master this process.
Research confirms that adults play a major role in children’s literacy acquisition
(Clay, 1998; McCarrier et al., 2000; Snow et al., 1998; Vygotsky, 1978). Inclusion of
adult-supported play-based literacy centers may have played an additional role in
furthering participants’ orthographic writing characteristics. Martinez and Teale state that
70
the presence of an adult in the writing center has the greatest impact on the children’s
writing (1987). The adult encourages the children to think about what they want to say
before they write and to work out writing problems. The adult facilitator serves as an
audience, provides feedback for the children’s writing, and records the writing for the
children whose writing can not be easily read (Martinez & Teale, 1987). For the sake of
this program and in consideration of the population served, I permitted some preschool
standards to guide an area that would have otherwise been free-exploration. Yaden et al.
in Kamil (2000) wrote that the addition of themed literacy materials increases the amount
of literacy-related activities children engage in during play (Morrow & Rand, 1991).
Writing development requires practice, and many of the participants began kindergarten
with minimal exposure to generating their own writing. Vygotsky (1978) asserted that
children develop higher psychological processes within the social environment when an
adult or “more literate other” plays an active role in the social construct. Adult modeling
and interaction to guide the children’s attention and learning through daily writing
practice, as outlined in the preschool standards, extended the lessons from the interactive
writing session into the students’ own writing (Child Development Division, 2008;
California Department of Education, 1999; McCarrier et al., 2000; Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998; Teale, & Martinez, 1987).
Conclusions from examination of the data indicate that the participants developed
more sophisticated orthographic writing characteristics as an outcome of this treatment.
Not only did most participants’ writing improve, but many students’ writing improved
significantly. Struggling students benefited most from the interactive writing treatment.
71
Each student who started the treatment writing at the Early Emergent writing level
advanced at least one level with one student advancing three levels.
As for the two students whose orthographic writing characteristics decreased,
both experienced an opportunity to explore their own thoughts on paper and were
exposed to the writing process.
Question 2: In what ways did instruction in interactive writing make a difference in the
student’s writing?
McCarrier, et al., contends that writing is a complex process, and interactive
writing is an effective way to support children as they become writers. Through the act of
collaboratively composing text, children learn the fundamentals of writing. During the
interactive writing experience, children learn to consider appropriate words, phrases,
organization of text, and layout (2000). Swartz, et al. (2002) remind us that beginning
writers need to learn the characteristics and functions of the printed word, and more
importantly, that each concept associated with writing needs to be taught (explicitly).
When the teacher chooses a child to “share the pen,” this decision is based on what the
teacher knows to be that child’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).
Measurable differences in student writing between the initial and final writing
sample are illustrated in Appendix F. A notable comparison between the initial and final
writing sample was that more than half of the participants used pretend writing in the
initial sample, but only one child wrote with pretend features in the final sample. This
seems logical since 91 percent of participants’ initial writing was located within the
emergent writing spelling stages. One reason for this improvement could be daily
72
instruction connecting letters together to make words, words which the children devised
themselves. Brotherton, & Williams accept that interactive writing provides children with
a balance of explicit instruction and contextual participation in meaningful writing
activities (2002).
Another notable outcome revealed in the initial assessment for this treatment was
that most participants apparently learned directionality, left to right in English, prior to
entering school. Perhaps this relates to the notion that children are exposed to this at an
early age through watching adults read stories. The children observe the adult’s eyes
sweep across the page in the direction of the print. At the end of the treatment, all but two
children demonstrated directionality in the final assessment. Repeated reading of the text
during the interactive writing sessions may have helped to reinforce this important
concept of print.
Some other interesting information emerged from the final data analysis. As noted
in the Appendix F results, the incidence of wrapping, returning to the left side of the
paper when reaching the end of a line, called return sweep by Swartz, et al. (2002), stayed
the same between the initial writing sample and the final writing sample. This may
accord support to the students’ developing concepts about print. The examples from the
initial writing sample which demonstrated wrapping were strings of letters which filled
the page. No pages in the second sample were full of letters. Only five of the final writing
samples were more than one line long. Therefore, these were the only examples of
wrapping. This does not necessarily mean that the children who wrote on only one line do
73
not recognize and use the concept of wrapping. Mastery of this concept may be related to
the reduction of students’ pretend writing.
Data from Appendix F indicates that interactive writing appears to be a good
instructional tool for instruction in writing conventions such as spacing between words
and punctuation. More than half of the participants demonstrated some knowledge of
these two concepts in their final writing sample. The frequency that spaces and
punctuation occur in writing causes them to be part of the daily writing dialogue. Explicit
teaching and guidance toward an attention to concrete examples reinforces what the
teacher wants the students to comprehend (McCarrier et al., 2000).
As illustrated in Appendix F, some of the students’ final writing samples included
awareness of sight words and norms in conventional writing, for example, sentences
begin with a capital letter. Six of the twenty-two children practiced these skills. These
students were ready to transfer the daily explicit instruction of these concepts to their
writing. While they were letter-name alphabetic spellers and regarded each sound letter
by letter as they wrote, they had progressed in their attention to print to include in their
writing sight words and the convention of capitalization (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, &
Johnston, 2000)
Research indicates that writing requires a level of phonological awareness, most
notably blending and segmenting (Adams, 1990). Daily interactive writing instruction
included the use of a Slinky to blend the sounds of the words as they were written.
Students’ names were used as a source for first letter sounds, onset-rime, and rhyme
74
(Bloodgood, 1999; Snow et al., 1998). This instruction led to some students
demonstrating more conventional spelling in their final writing sample.
Question 3: How closely were the observations of the observers aligned with the
educator’s journal?
The educator’s journal and observer’s notes were closely aligned except in the
area of student engagement during the lesson. The first observer noted teacher redirection of student misbehavior on occasions that were missing in the educator’s journal.
The educator’s journal focused on academic goals with student engagement during and
after the interactive writing session discussed in the notes. The teacher paid attention to
enthusiasm for the process or understanding of the product rather than the number of
times she interrupted the lesson to redirect a student. The first observer’s notes made
clear that some students were not involved in either the process or the product. This
revelation caused the teacher to offer her students whiteboard paddles before each
interactive writing session from that time forward. Student engagement increased as
noted by both the teacher and the second and third observers.
Research suggests that writing development is a process that is constructed
through an interrelationship between social interaction, oral discourse, and written
communication (Martinez & Teale, 1987; Neuman et al., 2000; Snow et al., 1998; Sulzby
& Teale in Barr, 1991). The observer’s notes showed the interplay between the
participants and the process. Interactive writing provides scaffolding at the point along
the developmental continuum when children begin to recognize the difference between
their quasi-writing and the print they encounter daily. At this stage, when a child states, ‘I
75
can’t write,’ the message is ‘I am sophisticated enough to recognize that my writing
doesn’t look like the writing I see in books or around me in my environment.’
What I realized through this project was that regardless of the education the
children bring to kindergarten, my duty to meet the standards and spark each child’s
interest in writing requires a program that deals with each student as an individual while
simultaneously addressing the reality of growing class sizes. Interactive writing seems to
be suitable for all populations of kindergarten writers.
Recommendations for Practice and Further Study
This study demonstrated only a portion of the potential effect of interactive
writing on kindergarteners’ writing development. This small population responded
positively to the interactive writing treatment. Therefore, it would be interesting to see
the results of this treatment on a larger population. Also, since the instructor targets the
interactive writing lesson to the needs of the population being served, the implication is
that interactive writing lends itself to student understanding of wider writing subjects.
As in Craig’s (2003) study, further research with small group sizes may have
positive effects. Dividing the groups into small classes of four or five children with
common strengths and learning goals could be an intervention for the two students whose
orthographic development decreased during my interactive writing treatment. Similarly,
small group sizes would help to accurately document the progress of students who started
the program at a more advanced stage. Comparing the school’s mandated intervention
program with small group interactive writing groups would be another fascinating
expansion of this study. Research from Yaden, Rowe, and MacGillavray (2000) suggests
76
that kindergarten children designated at-risk respond very positively to emergent literacy
programs. The features of emergent literacy are shared with interactive writing and
include the following: consider the children as socially competent partners; permit
experimentation in a non-threatening environment; include adult- and peer- lead dialogue
about literacy; and provide opportunities for children to practice their unconventional, yet
emerging skills (Yaden et al., 2000). Since ongoing assessment informs teachers’
decisions, use of Henderson’s (1981) stages of spelling and orthographic knowledge
throughout the treatment could provide data to guide small group lessons throughout the
program.
The extent of the effect of the play-based literacy center on participants’ writing
development is another area which could yield interesting results on effective instruction
in further study. With the strict adherence to standards in the current kindergarten
classroom, and considering the time constraints of a half-day program, play is never
mentioned within the framework of the English Language Arts Content Standards for
Kindergarten (California Department of Education, 1998). Based on the range of abilities
displayed by students within this program, an assumption that students enter school ready
for the demands of kindergarten is false. One can not assume that all children have
received the benefits of prior experiences either in a developmentally appropriate
preschool or other setting. Further study into whether play would benefit this population
could help both teachers to coordinate lessons for children who display a use for playbased academic development, and policy makers to legislate standards that serve well the
needs of the population.
77
While the results are encouraging for teacher practice and student writing development,
further and more extensive research is needed to determine the impact of interactive writing
instruction on development of orthographic characteristics.
78
APPENDICES
79
APPENDIX A
Consent to Participate in Research
80
October 14, 2009
Consent to Participate in Research
As your child’s teacher, I am asking that you allow me to work with your child on
research supported writing instruction. I am interested in discovering if interactive
writing will help your kindergarten child more than a different way to teach writing. I
have every reason to believe it the best way to teach writing to kindergarteners, and am
looking forward to finding this out this year. Since I am getting my Master’s Degree in
Language and Literacy at California State University, Sacramento, I hoped you would
allow your child to be included in the study. He or she will not do anything different in
the classroom if you decide not to allow him/her to be part of the study, but if you sign
this form, I will be able to use your child’s writings to see what kind of writing changes
occur from the beginning of the year until the end. I would be delighted to share these
results with you at the end of the year if you would like me to do so.
Your child’s participation is quite simple. At the beginning of the school year a writing
assessment will be administered to each child in the classroom. Writing will then be
taught using an interactive method involving all students in the writing process. In
February, another writing assessment will be given.
Your child’s name will be kept anonymous in the reporting and analysis of this research.
I request children’s initials for organizational purposes and will assign each child a
number for confidentiality purposes.
If you choose to consent to your child’s participation please return this form by October
26, 2009. Should you have any question or are interested in the results of this research
study please email me at jjentzen@amadorcoe.k12.ca.us, or phone my advisor, Dr. Marcy
Merrill at (916) 278-5524 at CSUS.
______ Yes, my child _____________________________ may participate in this
research project.
______ No, my child _____________________________ may not participate in this
research project.
_____________________________________
Signature of Parent/ Guardian
Date
____________________
81
APPENDIX B
Sample Interactive Writing Lesson
82
Interactive Writing Lesson
Date________1/19/2010_____
Lesson preparation routine:
1.
Sing ABC Song while handing out ABC Linking Charts. Signals start of lesson
2.
Teacher distributes whiteboard paddles and cloth erasers.
3.
Review Rules/Procedures/Expectations of interactive writing lesson
Lesson:
1.
Teacher introduces topic: Write a letter to this week’s Star Student
2.
Students pair to formulate text.
3.
Share. Teacher randomly chooses student as speaker for the pair. Repeat until text is agreed upon
4.
Class agrees on text: Dear G., You will always be our friend.
5.
Repeat the text; enunciating each word; counting the words in each sentence. Teacher and students in
unison show number of words with fingers.
6.
Teacher writes on a note card exact wording as agreed upon.
7.
Slinky-stretch each word prior to student writing. Using a Slinky and voice, continuously stretch each
letter sound in each word.
8.
Student writes exact word as negotiated. Randomly chosen student (ensure that student will be
successful - based on ability): student may be a space holder, write a letter, write part of a word, write
a whole word, or write several words.
9.
“Fix it” or “Boo boo” tape: White address labels are placed over mistakes with reassurance that
mistakes are part of the process.
10. Students on the carpet are engaged in writing/Teacher instructs on relevant topic: first letter sound
corresponding with student’s name; analogy; direct to previous writing/environmental print…
11. Read the text. Teacher and students re-read the text; ensure that students construct conventional text.
12. Repeat the process from number 7.
13. Close session: Reread the day’s text
83
APPENDIX C
Characteristics of Emergent Spelling
84
Characteristics of Emergent Spelling
What Students Do
Correctly
What They Use
but Confuse
What is Absent
Early
Emergent
 Write on the page
 Hold the writing
implement
 Drawing and
scribbling for
writing
 Sound-symbol
correspondence
 Directionality
Middle
Emergent
 Horizontal
movement across
page
 Clear distinction
between writing
and drawing
 Lines and dots for
writing
 Letter-like forms
 Letters, numbers,  Sound-symbol
and letter-like
correspondence
forms
 Writing may wrap
from right to left
at the end of a
line
Late Emergent
V for elevator
D for down
 Consistent
directionality
 Some letter sound
match
 Substitutions of
letter which
sound, feel, and
look alike: B/p,
D/b
Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston (2000)
 Complete soundsymbol
correspondence
 Consistent
spacing between
words
85
APPENDIX D
Characteristics of Letter Name-Alphabetic Spelling
86
Characteristics of Letter Name-Alphabetic Spelling
What They Use
but Confuse
 Letters based on
point of
articulation: J,JRF
for drive
 Often long vowels
by letter name
What is Absent
Early Letter
NameAlphabetic
B, BD for bed
S, SHP for ship
Y, for when
L, LP for lump
U for you
R for are
FT for float
What Students Do
Correctly
 Represent most
salient sounds,
usually beginning
consonants
 Directionality
 Most letters of the
alphabet
 Clear letter-sound
correspondences
 Partial spelling of
consonant blends
and digraphs
Middle Letter
NameAlphabetic
BAD for bed
SEP or SHP for
ship
FOT for float
LOP for lump
 Most beginning
and ending
consonants
 Clear letter-sound
correspondences
 Frequently
occurring short
vowel words
 Substitutions of
letter name
closest in point of
articulation for
short vowels
 Some consonant
blends and
digraphs
 Preconsonantal
nasals: LOP for
lump
Late Letter
NameAlphabetic
lump spelled
correctly
FLOT for float
BAKR for baker
PLAS for place
BRIT for bright
 All of the above
 Substitutions of
plus:
common patterns
for low-frequency
 Regular Short
short vowels:
vowel patterns
COT for caught
 Most consonants
blends and
digraphs
 Preconsonantal
nasals
 Some common
long vowel
words: time, name
Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston (2000)
 Consistency on
beginning and end
of syllables
 Some spacing
between words
 Vowels in
syllables
 Most long vowel
markers or silent
vowels
 Vowels in
unstressed
syllables
87
APPENDIX E
Characteristics of Student Writing
88
Characteristics of Student Writing
Student
Pretest
1 Middle Emergent
Posttest
Middle Letter NameAlphabetic
2 Late Emergent
Late Letter Name-Alphabetic
3
3 Late Emergent
Late Emergent
0
4 Middle Emergent
Early Emergent
-1
5 Middle Emergent
Middle Emergent
0
6 Late Emergent
Late Emergent
Early Letter NameAlphabetic
Early Letter NameAlphabetic
Middle Letter NameAlphabetic
0
10 Late Emergent
Late Emergent
0
11 Early Emergent
Middle Emergent
1
12 Late Emergent
0
13 Late Emergent
Early Letter Name14 Alphabetic
Late Emergent
Early Letter NameAlphabetic
Early Letter NameAlphabetic
15 Early Emergent
Middle Emergent
1
16 Middle Emergent
0
17 Middle Emergent
Early Letter Name18 Alphabetic
Middle Emergent
Early Letter NameAlphabetic
Middle Letter NameAlphabetic
19 Middle Emergent
Early Emergent
20 Early Emergent
Middle Emergent
1
21 Middle Emergent
Late Emergent
Middle Letter NameAlphabetic
1
7 Late Emergent
8 Early Emergent
9 Late Emergent
22 Middle Emergent
Comparison
3
1
3
2
1
0
2
1
-1
3
89
APPENDIX F
Changes in Writing Characteristics
90
Changes in Writing Characteristics
13
20
19
5
5
4
3
15
0
11
0
6
0
4
0
6
0
3
0
First
Digraphs
Sight English
Spacing Punctuation Letter and
Words Words
Capital Blends
Pre-treatment
Writing
1
Writing
Letter/
Characteristic Pretend
Direction Wrapping Sound
Writing
Match
Post- treatment
Writing
91
APPENDIX G
Incidence of Occurrence based on Educator’s Journal
92
Daily
Occasionally
Often
Never
Often
Often
Phonemic
Substitution
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Partial LetterSound
Recognition
(Name as a source
for letters and
sounds)
Phonemic Awareness
Often
Daily
Never
Never
Phonemic
Segmentation
Occasionally
Often
Often
Never
Phonemic
Blending
Daily
Occasionally
Never
Daily
Syllables
Daily
Daily
Never
Never
Alliteration
Direct
Instruction
Often
Occasionally
Never
Onset-rime
Student
Response
Never
Occasionally
Rhyme
Synthesis
Never
Focus
Spontaneous
93
Concepts of Print
Focus
Directionality
Concepts
of
Word
Daily
Punctuation
Reading
Concepts
Daily
Concepts
of
Letter
Daily
Direct
Instruction
Student
Response
Synthesis
Spontaneous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Often
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Often
Often
Writing Conventions
Focus
Direct
Instruction
Student
Response
Synthesis
Spontaneous
Spelling Capitalization Punctuation Grammar
(spacing between words)
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Occasionally
Occasionally
Daily
Daily
Occasionally
Occasionally
Parts of a Letter
Focus
Direct
Instruction
Student
Response
Synthesis
Spontaneous
Heading
Daily
Greeting
Daily
Body
Daily
Closing
Daily
Often
Daily
Daily
Often
Occasionally
Never
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Occasionally
Occasionally
94
Environmental Print
Focus
Direct
Instruction
Student
Response
Synthesis
Spontaneous
Sight Word Name Chart Blends and Digraphs
Chart
Posters
Daily
Daily
Occasionally
Daily
Daily
Occasionally
Often
Often
Daily
Daily
Infrequently
Infrequently
Alphabetic Knowledge
Focus
Direct
Instruction
Student
Response
Synthesis
Spontaneous
Naming Letters Recognizing Letters In Print
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Definition of terms:
The terms Daily, Often, Occasionally, Infrequently, and Never, have the same
meaning in all areas, but encompass different populations.
Terms under the heading Direct Instruction, represent the teacher’s actions.
Terms under the heading Student Response, represent the students’ actions during the
interactive writing treatment.
Terms under the headings Synthesis and Spontaneous, represent the majority of
students’ actions outside of the interactive writing treatment.
The term Spelling has a broad definition here. Emergent spelling including invented
spelling is appropriately considered spelling for this population.
95
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1994). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Ashton-Warner, S. (1986). Teacher. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Barr, R. (1991). Handbook of reading research. New York, NY: Longman.
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2000). Words their way:
Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Brooks, A., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L.,
Graham, S. (1998). Early intervention for spelling problems: Teaching functional
spelling units of varying size with a multiple-connections framework. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(4), 587-605.
Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). What's in a name? Children's name writing and literacy
acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 342-367.
Boroski, L. (2004). An introduction to interactive writing. In G. E. Tompkins & S.
Collom (Authors), Sharing the pen: Interactive writing with young children (pp.
1-4). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Brotherton, S., & Williams, C. (2002). Interactive writing instruction in a first grade title
1 literacy program. Journal of Reading Education, 27(3), 8-19.
Button, K., Johnson, M. J., & Furgerson, P. (1996). Interactive writing in a primary
classroom. The Reading Teacher, 49(6), 446-454.
96
California Department of Education. (1995). Every child a reader: The report of the
California Reading Task Force . Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Education.
California Department of Education. (1998). English-language arts content standards for
California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Education.
California State Board of Education. (1999). Reading/language arts framework for
California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Education.
Child Development Division. (2008). California preschool learning foundations (Vol. 1).
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Chin, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? beginning writing behaviour. London: Heinemann
Educational.
Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in children's literacy development. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
97
Coker, D. (2007). Writing instruction for young children: Methods targeting the multiple
demands that writers face. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 101-117). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Cowen, J. E. (2003). A balanced approach to beginning reading instruction: A synthesis
of six major U.S. research studies. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Craig, S. A. (2003). The effects of an adapted interactive writing intervention on
kindergarten children's phonological awareness, spelling, and early reading
development. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 438-440.
Cramer, R. L. (1978). Children's writing and language growth. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Cramer, R. L. (2001). Creative power: The nature and nurture of children's writing. New
York, NY: Longman.
Dickinson, D. K., & Neuman, S. B. (2006). Handbook of early literacy research. (Vol.
2). New York, NY: Guilford.
Dixon, C. N., & Nessel, D. D. (1983). Language experience approach to reading (and
writing): Language-experience reading for second language learners. Hayward,
CA: Alemany Press.
Ehri, L. C., Roberts, T., & Neuman, S. B. (2006). The roots of learning to read and write:
Acquisition of letters and phonemic awareness. In D. K. Dickinson (Ed.),
Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 113-131). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
98
Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Exeter, NH: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Gentry, J. R. (1981). Learning to spell developmentally. The Reading Teacher, 34(4),
378-381.
Graves, D. H. (2003). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading
and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Henderson, E. H. (1981). Learning to read and spell: The child's knowledge of words.
DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.
Henderson, E. H. (1985). Teaching spelling. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Henderson, E. H., & Beers, J. W. (1980). Developmental and cognitive aspects of
learning to spell: A reflection of word knowledge. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Invernizzi, M., Abouzeid, M., & Gill, J. T. (1994). Using student's invented spellings as a
guide for spelling instruction that emphasizes word study. The Elementary School
Journal, 95(2), 155-167.
Joyce, W. (1985). George shrinks. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of
reading research. (Vol. 3). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence. Erlbaum Associates.
99
Lyman, F. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: Inclusion of all students. In A.
S. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming Digest (pp. 109-113). College Park, MD:
University of Maryland College of Education.
Martinez, M., & Teale, W. H. (1987). The ins and outs of a kindergarten writing
program. The Reading Teacher, 40(4), 444-451.
McCarrier, A., Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2000). Interactive writing: How language
and literacy come together, K-2. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McCloskey, S. (2004). Grouping options to support student success. In G. E. Tompkins
& S. Collom (Authors), Sharing the pen: Interactive writing with young children
(pp. 9-13). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
McKenzie, M. G. (1985). Shared writing: Apprenticeship in writing. Language Matters,
1(2), 1-5.
Morrow, L. M., & Rand, M. K. (1991). Promoting literacy during play by designing early
childhood classroom environments. The Reading Teacher, 44(6), 396-402.
National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected "R": The need for a writing
revolution (Rep.). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national
early literacy panel: A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and
implications of intervention. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
100
National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read : An evidence-based assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. (2000). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
Neuman, S. B., Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to read and write:
Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Washington, D.C.:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Read, C. (1986). Children's creative spelling. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Robinson, V. B., Ross, G., & Neal, H. C. (2000). Emergent literacy in kindergarten: A
review of the research and related suggested activities and learning strategies.
San Mateo, CA: California Kindergarten Association.
Roth, K. (2009). Interactive writing: Investigating the effectiveness of a dynamic
approach to writing instruction for first graders (Unpublished master's thesis).
Harvard University. doi: UMI 3357300
Setzer, M. L. (2005). The role of interactive writing instruction in developing writing and
phonological awareness in kindergarten (Unpublished master's thesis). California
State University, Sacramento.
Sipe, L. R. (2001). Invention, convention, and intervention: Invented spelling and the
teacher's role. The Reading Teacher, 55(3), 264-273.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
101
Spiegel, D. L. (1992). Blending whole language and systematic direct instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 46(1), 38-44.
Standards for the English language arts. (1996). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Stewart, C. (2004). Building on every child's favorite word. In G. E. Tompkins & S.
Collom (Authors), Sharing the pen: Interactive writing with young children (pp.
14-17). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Sulzby E.(1996). Roles of oral and written language as children approach conventional
literacy. In C. Pontecorvo, M. Orsolini, B. Burge, & L. Resnick (Eds.), Children's
Early Text Construction (pp. 25-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. H. (1991). Handbook of reading research. (Vol. 2, pp. 727-757)
(R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson, Eds.). New York, NY:
Longman.
Swartz, S. L., Klein, A. F., & Shook, R. E. (2002). Interactive writing & interactive
editing: Making connections between writing and reading. Carlsbad, CA:
Dominie Press.
Tangel, D. M., & Blachman, B. A. (1995). Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on
invented spelling of first-grade children: A one-year follow-up. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 27(2), 153-185.
102
Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research
literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the
subgroups. (2000). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Pub.
Tompkins, G. E., & Collom, S. (2004). Sharing the pen: Interactive writing with young
children. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Van Allen, R. (1969, September 29). Language experiences which promote reading.
Speech presented at Early childhood lecture series in Eastern Michigan
University, Ypsilanti, MI.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy.
Child Development, 69(3), 848-872.
Yaden, D. B., Rowe, D. W., & MacGillivray, L. (2000). Emergent literacy: A matter
(polyphony) of perspectives. In M. L. Kamil (Ed.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. 3, pp. 425-454). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2000). Supporting phonemic awareness development in the
classroom.