Kindergarten Writing
Running head: KINDERGARTEN WRITING & GRADE 1 LITERACY
On the Contribution of Kindergarten Writing to Grade 1 Literacy:
A Longitudinal Study in Hebrew
Evelyn Shatil and David L. Share
University of Haifa
Iris Levin
Tel-Aviv University
Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 2000, (1-21).
1
Kindergarten Writing
2
Abstract
This longitudinal study examined the relationship between kindergarten word writing and
Grade 1 literacy in a large sample of Israeli children. At kindergarten, a majority of children
produced writing which displayed most of the grapho-spatial characteristics of conventional
word-writing, although only one third of the children demonstrated a working knowledge of
the alphabetic principle. Kindergarten writing significantly predicted variance in all three
measures of Grade 1 literacy (decoding, spelling, and reading comprehension), even after
controlling for general intelligence. We also investigated the role of alphabetic skills and
socioliteracy variables in accounting for the predictive power of kindergarten writing.
Kindergarten alphabetic skills (phonemic awareness and knowledge of letter names), but not
socioliteracy factors (parental print exposure, parents’ reading to child, and Clay’s Concepts
about Print), explained all the variance contributed by kindergarten writing to Grade 1
decoding and spelling. In the case of reading comprehension, both alphabetic and socioliteracy
variables were able to account for the predictive power of kindergarten writing. As a precursor
of reading comprehension, kindergarten writing appears to reflect both domain-specific
alphabetic skills and broader socioliteracy factors underlying higher-order cognitive
competencies essential for comprehending text.
Kindergarten Writing
3
On the Contribution of Kindergarten Writing to Grade 1 Literacy:
A Longitudinal Study in Hebrew
Many kindergarten children spontaneously engage in writing prior to school entry
(Bissex, 1980; Durkin, 1966; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Read, 1971;1986). These written
productions are often classified into developmental scales with many features in common
across different languages and orthographies (Ferreiro, 1990; Gombert & Fayol, 1992; Levin,
Korat, & Amsterdamer, 1996; Pontecorvo & Zucchermaglio, 1990). Most scales include an
early form of writing, prior to letters, described as scribbles, pseudoletters or mock letters.
Next, writing appears as a string of random letters primarily consisting of the letters in the
child’s name but unrelated to the target utterance. Finally, writing is determined by lettersound associations often called invented or creative spelling (Morris & Perney, 1984; Read
1971;1986).
Although it is widely assumed that kindergarten writing lays the foundation for future
literacy as conventionally defined in school-based reading and writing, the research literature
on kindergarteners’ identification of environmental print shows that the connection between
kindergarten competencies and formal school-based literacy cannot be taken for granted. For
example, the observation that most kindergarten children are able to identify many labels,
logos and signs appearing in their everyday environment (Goodall, 1984; Harste, Burke, &
Woodward, 1982; Heibert, 1978; Kuby, Aldridge & Snyder, 1994; Masonheimer, Drum &
Ehri, 1984; McGee, Lomax, & Head, 1988) is often interpreted as a child’s essential first steps
toward literacy (e.g., Goodman & Goodman, 1979; Harste et al., 1982; Smith, 1976).
However, most studies of environment print (e.g. Goodall, 1984; Heibert, 1978; Kuby et al.,
1994; Masonheimer et al., 1984) have not found strong links between environmental print
reading and conventional word identification.
Kindergarten Writing
4
Similarly, in the case of writing, it cannot be assumed a priori that kindergarten writing
is a precursor of formal literacy. This issue can only be resolved empirically. Although only a
handful of studies have directly examined this issue, results consistently point to the
conclusion that early attempts at writing are not merely a developmental curiosity but
important precursors of mature literacy skills.
Morris and Perney (1984) examined the relationship between spelling at the beginning
of Grade 1 and both word recognition and reading comprehension at the end of Grade 1 in a
sample of 75 children. The spelling test was preceded by a sample item in which the teacher
modeled the sounding-out and spelling of a sample word (MAT). Children’s productions were
classified on a 5-point developmental scale from pre-phonetic random letters, partial phonetic,
fully phonetic, transitional, and orthographically correct spellings. Spelling at the beginning of
Grade 1 was found to correlate .68 with end-of-year word recognition and .61 with reading
comprehension. Ferroli and Shanahan (1987) also found a strong correlation between
performance on a spelling test administered in Kindergarten and Grade 1 reading ability (r =
.63) in a sample of 35 children. This result must be qualified, however, by the fact that
children in this study were trained to listen for letter names and prompted to spell the words
prior to the administration of the spelling test, hence scores obtained may possibly reflect a
specific training effect or even general responsiveness to formal instruction rather than the
children’s pre-existing ability to write. Mann, Tobin and Wilson (1987) correlated
performance on a spelling test administered midway through Kindergarten with word
identification and word attack a year later, midway through Grade 1 in a small sample of
children (n=29). The predictive value of the spelling test was compared to a non-linguistic
graphomotor test (the Harris Draw-a-Man Test). The phonological accuracy of spellings in
Kindergarten correlated .48 with first grade word identification and .59 with word attack.
Neither letter reversals nor Draw-a-Man performance correlated significantly with Grade 1
Kindergarten Writing
5
reading, suggesting that the association between kindergarten spelling and later reading is not
due to grapho-motor control, attention or motivation. A second study by Mann et al. sought to
shed light on the underlying abilities tapped by the invented spellings test. In addition to a test
of invented spelling, a battery of linguistic and non-linguistic measures were administered to
22 children midway through Kindergarten. Significant positive correlations were found
between the phonological accuracy of spellings and the tendency to classify spoken nonsense
syllables according to common phonemes (as opposed to overall featural similarity) (r = .45),
relative clause comprehension, but not between Kindergarten spellings and visual
classification, Draw-a-Man scores or letter reversals.
In a follow-up study, Mann (1993) examined the predictive validity of the
phonological accuracy of invented spellings at the end of the Kindergarten year in a larger
sample of 100 children, 79 of whom were retested on word identification and word attack one
year later in Grade 1. Kindergarten spelling performance correlated .58 and .54 with word
identification and word attack respectively.
These results are all consistent with the position that early writing is important for the
development of later reading ability, although this conclusion must be tempered by the fact
that some of these studies were conducted on relatively small and/or homogeneous samples,
while others included explicit training or demonstration that may have induced children to
adopt strategies that may not normally be employed.
The purpose of our study was twofold. First, we sought cross-linguistic confirmation
of the predictive relationship between kindergarten writing and later school literacy. Our
second aim was to elucidate the nature of this contribution in the light of current
conceptualizations of literacy development which suggest at least two alternative hypotheses
regarding the source of this relationship.
Kindergarten Writing
6
One model of literacy development emphasizes the role of socio-cultural variables in
the emergence of reading and writing skills. For example, movement into the early stages of
writing development is assumed to develop as a result of experience with adults’ scaffolding
and modeling in a variety of literate adult-child interactions such as storybook reading (Bus &
van IJzendoorn, 1995; Clay, 1985; Teale & Sulzby, 1989), and also as a result of acquiring a
sense of the function and purposes of print (Sulzby, Teale, & Kamberelis,1989). Thus,
kindergarten writing may reflect the effect of socio-cultural variables such as quality and
frequency of encounters with print, home-educational environment, and familial or communal
expectations. Because kindergarten writing is believed to develop as a result of
environmentally-driven spontaneous experimentation with print, it may be a form of social
behavior acquired through a variety of culturally meaningful interactions. According to this
view, kindergarten writing indirectly taps individual differences in pragmatic knowledge of
the functions, purposes and settings of print.
Alternatively, a cognitive information processing analysis suggests that the
contribution of kindergarten writing to Grade 1 reading and spelling may reflect the
operationalization of the alphabetic principle because writing involves two basic components;
isolating sounds and selecting corresponding graphemes. Thus, specific alphabetic skills such
as phonological awareness and knowledge of print-to-sound relationships may the source of
kindergarten writing's predictive power. Indeed, many researchers investigating the invented
spellings of kindergarten children have interpreted spellings as a reflection of phonemic
awareness (see, e.g., Chomsky, 1979; Mann, 1993; Mann et al., 1987; Morris & Perney, 1984;
Read, 1971;1986). Empirical support for this view can be found in Liberman, Rubin, Duques,
and Carlisle (1985) who reported that a phoneme segmentation task accounted for 67% of
invented spelling performance in a small group of Kindergarten children. The ability to write
letters to spoken phonemes (a measure of phoneme-grapheme correspondence knowledge)
Kindergarten Writing
7
accounted for an additional 20% of spelling variance. Mann (1993) also reported a strong
correlation (r = .52) between phoneme segmentation scores and invented spelling in
Kindergarten (n=100). More generally, an extensive research literature has demonstrated
strong associations between kindergarten letter knowledge, phonological awareness and early
reading (see Adams, 1990; Bryant & Bradley, 1985; Wagner & Torgesen, 1985), and
Kindergarten letter naming and phonological awareness have also been shown to be strong
predictors of Grade 1 writing ability (Berninger, 1992).
Finally, a third possibility is that neither socioliteracy nor alphabetic variables
separately suffice to explain the contribution of kindergarten writing to school-based literacy;
only in conjunction is a complete account possible. That is, the kindergarten foundations of
school-based literacy are laid only when specific alphabetic skills are engendered within
socially meaningful contexts of literacy. By this account, the contribution of kindergarten
writing to later literacy skills is explained as the joint product of both socioliteracy and
alphabetic variables.
We tested these hypotheses in a longitudinal study of a large representative sample of
Hebrew-speaking children. Some preliminary comments are, therefore, required regarding the
unique characteristics of Hebrew orthography (for further details, the reader is referred to
either Frost and Bentin (1992), Shimron, (1993), or Share and Levin, (1999).
Hebrew orthography is a primarily consonantal alphabet that exists in both pointed and
unpointed forms. Unpointed script is partly voweled by means of the so-called “mothers of
reading”; four consonantal letters (‫ )א ה ו י‬function both as vowels as well as consonants.
This system, however, is both inconsistent and incomplete (Levin, Ravid, & Rapaport, 1998).
Standard printed Hebrew appearing in today’s books, newspapers and magazines is unpointed.
Pointed Hebrew employs diacritical marks or points (nekudot) and is used in texts
intended for young children, in poetry and in sacred texts. In contrast to the mothers of
Kindergarten Writing
8
reading, the diacritical system provides a complete and virtually unambiguous representation
of the vowels by means of tiny dots and dashes appearing mostly under, but sometimes also
above and between the letters. Children learn to read in pointed Hebrew, which has nearperfect one-to-one grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence (Navon & Shimron, 1984).
Phoneme-to-grapheme relationships in both pointed and unpointed script, however, are
frequently variable, with a number of pairs of (once phonemically distinct) consonant letters
now representing the same phoneme. The vast majority of Hebrew words, therefore, contain
phonemes which could be spelled with alternate letters.
As the name square alphabet suggests, Hebrew letter architecture, relatively to the
Latin alphabet, is more uniformly block-like with more horizontal and vertical strokes and
fewer curves and diagonals. Not only are letters less distinctive, but word length and word
shape are also relatively uniform. The following is a typical line of pointed Hebrew script and
is read from right to left.
.‫דומים ל ְִמחָ ִטים‬
ִ
‫ עֵ ץ יער שֶ הֶ עָ לִים שֶ לו‬:‫א ֵֹרן‬
)Oren: Ets ya’ar she’haelim shelo domim limechatim.)
(Pine tree: A forest tree with leaves that resemble needles.)
Although most children attain proficiency in decoding pointed text within their first year at
school (Share & Levin, 1999), orthographically accurate spelling requires many years to
achieve mastery, with spelling errors evident even among literate adults, as in English.
To return to the primary goals of our study, we sought to confirm the longitudinal
relationship between kindergarten writing and Grade 1 literacy and also extend this finding
beyond the English language. We also hoped to shed light on some of the factors underlying
the relationship between kindergarten writing and in-school literacy.
Kindergarten Writing
9
Method
Participants
Three hundred and forty nine children attending 20 kindergartens in and around Haifa
participated in this study. These kindergartens were selected so as to represent a wide range of
socio-economic backgrounds. At the start of kindergarten testing, the total sample consisted of
173 boys and 176 girls, with a mean age of 6:0 years (sd: 4.2 months) and range 5:5 to 7:2
years. By the end of Grade 1, 32 children had either left the district or been retained in
kindergarten. This left a total of 317 children who, at this time, attended 14 Grade 1 classes in
five schools. Both Kindergarten and Grade 1 testing took place in the months of May and
June.
Measures
Measures of kindergarten writing, alphabetic skills, socioliteracy variables and general
ability were all administered individually at the end of the kindergarten school year. Testing
was carried out by personnel trained in the fields of education, testing and/or psychology.
Kindergarten and Grade 1 literacy instruction in Israel.
In Israeli kindergartens, children write their own names on their artwork and recognize
their names printed at fixed sites such as clothes’ hooks and personal lockers. Lists of letters
as well as magnetic letters, printed words and texts are displayed around the room. Children
are frequently read to from storybooks, view TV programs based on storybooks and
voluntarily browse in books. Games that are aimed at promoting phonological awareness
prevail, such as segmenting words into syllables, counting syllables and rhyming. Also
commonplace are work sheets training visual discrimination (including letter discrimination)
Kindergarten Writing
10
and letter copying. Invented spelling and grapho-phonemic awareness are encouraged in some
kindergartens, but not in all. Little is devoted to alphabet recitation or letter naming.
Formal instruction in reading and writing begins on entry to school at the age of six to
seven years. Children learn to read pointed Hebrew which has near-perfect one-to-one lettersound correspondence. Decoding is usually mastered by the end of Grade 1 (see Share &
Levin, 1999) at which point the curriculum shifts from a learning-to-read to a reading-to-learn
mode. Most Israeli schools employ one of a number of structured basal series (often
supplemented with a variety of materials) which all tend to be phonics-oriented. (For further
details on reading instruction in Israel see Feitelson, 1989.)
Kindergarten Writing
Adopting the methodology previously employed by Levin and her colleagues (Levin et
al., 1996; Levin & Korat, 1993; Levin & Tolchinsky-Landsmann, 1989; TolchinskyLandsmann & Levin, 1985; 1987), we encouraged children to write three pairs of dictated
words as best as they could, with no demonstration or training provided. These pairs were
selected to evaluate the ability to represent various aspects of writing. The first pair ‘elephantant’ (pil-nemala) contrasted both size of referent and phonological length (Ferreiro &
Terebosky, 1979; Levin & Korat, 1993; Levin & Tolchinsky-Landsmann, 1989). The second
pair ‘to place - a dress’ (lasim-simla) involved two words composed of the same syllables
arranged in reverse order (Gombert & Fayol, 1992; Tolchinsky-Landsmann & Levin, 1987).
The third, ‘book - story’ (sefer-sipur) involved two derivations of the same (tri-consonantal)
root (Levin & Korat, 1993; Levin et al., 1996) . The writings produced were used to construct
a kindergarten developmental writing scale.
The Kindergarten Writing Scale
Kindergarten Writing
11
Fourteen children were absent on the day of testing or refused to write. Twenty-nine
additional children who drew instead of writing were excluded from the study as their motive
for drawing was unclear: Some children may prefer to draw rather than produce unsatisfactory
spellings while others may truly lack print-related knowledge. The spellings of the remaining
306 subjects were analyzed and classified according to a scale representing the major
psycholinguistic phases in the development of writing. This scale included three broad
categories; graphic-symbolic signs, random Hebrew letters and phonetic-consonantal
representations. For each main writing category finer subdivisions were identified, creating a
scale with a total of thirteen levels. The following is an abridged description of the scale. For
samples of children’s productions and for a more detailed account of this scale, see Levin et
al. (1996).
Category I: Graphic-symbolic Signs
The children in this general category produced two kinds of non-Hebrew signs:
pseudowriting and a combination of symbols from various graphic systems.
Pseudowriting (level 1). The children in this category produced unidentifiable signs
which were reminiscent of basic letter forms. Productions contained a limited number of
intersecting lines and angles per sign, linear arrangement of the signs and, in most cases, a
limited number of signs for each attempted spelling.
Mixed graphic-symbolic systems (level 2). The children in this group used
recognizable signs from various symbolic systems such as the number system and the Latin
alphabet as well as Hebrew letters.
Category II: Random Hebrew Letters
The children in this group produced identifiable Hebrew letters and only Hebrew
letters. These letters, however, did not match the sounds in the words. Category II spellings
were scored so as to reflect the diversity (low, medium, high) of a child’s repertoire of letters.
Kindergarten Writing
12
The child’s score was the number of different letters as a proportion of the total number of
letters s/he produced. The children in levels 3, 4 and 5 produced spellings in which up to
30% (level 3), 31% to 40% (level 4) and at least 41% (level 5) of the letters produced had
different identities.
Category III: Consonantal Representations
Category III productions matched at least part of the word’s consonantal structure.
However, because this ability varied widely, children in this category were assigned to one of
three different levels; elementary, intermediate and advanced consonantal representation. At
all three levels, either correct letters or homophonic equivalents were taken as acceptable
spellings. At the intermediate and advanced levels, there were some children who attempted to
represent vowel information as well. For these children, the scores assigned also reflected
competence at vowel representation (none, low, intermediate or advanced).
Elementary consonantal representation (level 6). Children in this group successfully
transcribed at least one third of the required consonant phonemes. The remaining letters
produced by these children appeared to be random letters unrelated to the remaining
consonantal phonemes in the words. There was no vowel representation in this group.
Intermediate consonantal representation (levels 7,8 and 9). Children in this group
successfully transcribed at least half of the required consonant phonemes. The remaining
consonants were for the most part phonetically close, i.e. /ts/ for /s/ or /b/ for /p/ and (much
less frequently) random letters. Children were assigned to levels 7, 8, and 9 according to their
ability to represent vowels; no representation, elementary or intermediate vowel representation
respectively.
Advanced consonantal representation (levels 10 to 13). These productions successfully
transcribed all of the required consonant phonemes. Children in this category were assigned to
one of four levels. Levels 10 to 13 referred to lack of vowel representation, elementary,
Kindergarten Writing
13
intermediate and advanced vowel representation respectively. No child in the sample
produced perfectly accurate spellings of all words.
Interjudge reliability was assessed by classification of 90 protocols by an independent
judge, following instruction in using the scale. These protocols were randomly selected by
taking approximately 25% of protocols from each category. The Pearson correlation between
our classification and that of the independent judge was .96 (p < .001) indicating high
reliability.
Kindergarten General Intelligence
To ensure that any relationship between kindergarten writing and Grade 1 literacy was
not simply a product of general intelligence, we also evaluated both verbal and non-verbal
intelligence.
Colored Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1986, Sets A and B). Parts A and B were
administered individually and scored as indicated in the author’s manual. Scores ranged from
1 to 23 (maximum = 24) with a mean of 9.8 (sd: 3.76).
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. (Israeli adaptation, Nevo & Solberg, 1979). This
test of receptive vocabulary was individually administered and scored as indicated in the test
manual. Raw scores ranged from 19 to 66, with a mean of 50 (sd: 6.98).
Kindergarten Alphabetic Variables
This set of measures included letter-naming knowledge and three subtests of
phonological awareness; initial consonant matching, phoneme blending and initial consonant
isolation.
Kindergarten Writing
14
Letter naming. The children were asked to name twelve printed letters. The raw
number of letters named correctly was employed as a measure of letter naming. Test-retest
reliability (3 weeks) was 0.82, n=34.
Initial consonant matching. The children heard ten consecutive pairs of common
mono-syllabic Hebrew words and were required to indicate whether the words started with the
same “sound” (initial phoneme). (e.g. /cor/ (cold) and /ken/ (yes); or /ben/ (son) and /gil/
(age)). Testing was preceded by two examples, one pair with matching consonants, the second
with non-matching consonants. Children were not required to name the initial phonemes only
to make a yes/no judgment. Each child was tested individually. One point was allocated for
each correct answer with a maximum possible score of 10. The mean was 6.0 (sd: 2.05). Testretest reliability (3 weeks) was .60, n=29.
Phoneme blending. The children were required to blend two phonemes into a
monosyllabic word. There were two sets of stimuli, each containing five items. Each set was
preceded by an example. In the first set, each item included a vowel followed by a consonant.
(e.g. /o/ and /r/ produced the word /or/ (light)). In the second set, each item contained a
consonant followed by a vowel. For example, when blended, the sounds /l/ and /o/ produced
the word /lo/ (no). The total score was simply the number of correct responses on the two sets
of items. The mean was 4.3 (sd: 2.25). Test-retest reliability (3 weeks) was .66, n=34.
Initial consonant isolation. The child heard sixteen monosyllabic (CVC) pseudowords
(e.g. /mez/) and had to isolate the initial consonant (“beginning sound”) of each item. Prior to
the test items, two items were demonstrated. Test-retest reliability (3 weeks) was 0.73, n=29.
Kindergarten Socioliteracy Variables
This set included measures of parental print exposure, parent-child story reading, and
Clay's measure of a child’s concepts about print.
Kindergarten Writing
15
Parent print exposure. Hebrew versions of the Author Recognition Test and the
Magazine Recognition Test (Stanovich & West, 1989) were developed and administered to
the children’s mothers. These tests assess familiarity with particular authors and magazines.
Mothers received two lists; a list of 57 author names and another list of 57 magazine names.
Twenty nine of the items in the author list were fictitious and 28 were the names of real
authors. In the magazine list, 19 names were fictitious and 31 were real. The mothers were
asked to indicate which names in the lists were names of real authors and/or magazines. To
discourage guessing, the questionnaire explicitly stated that fictitious items had been inserted
in the lists. Mothers were asked to work unassisted. For each questionnaire a score was
obtained by subtracting the number of errors from the total number marked. A single parental
print-exposure score was then formed by averaging the scores from both questionnaires. The
mean score on this composite measure was 9.95 (sd: 5.42). Questionnaire return rate was
82%.
Parents read to child. Information about the extent to which a child was read to at
home during her/his last year of kindergarten, was obtained using a checklist question asking
the children’s mothers how often the child had been read to/heard stories from parents or
siblings while in kindergarten. Five response categories varied from many times (more than
once a day) to seldom (less than once a week).
Concepts about Print (SAND) (Clay, 1985). A Hebrew adaptation of this test (Wohl,
1986) required children to answer 16 questions on the functions and characteristics of print.
The questions tested knowledge of such concepts as page, line, word, letter, writing, drawing,
knowledge of book and text handling (for example, where one begins and ends reading a
book, a page, a line) as well as the direction in which reading proceeds (from right to left in
Hebrew). Two additional questions were developed which related to the child’s awareness of
the presence, shape and location of Hebrew diacritical marks. It should be remarked that no
Kindergarten Writing
16
item in this test tapped specific knowledge either of letter names or letter sounds. Test-retest
reliability (2 weeks) was 0.81; n=27.
Grade 1 Literacy Assessment
The children’s performance on a number of literacy measures was assessed at the end
of Grade 1 in a series of sessions each lasting approximately 30 minutes.
Untimed oral word reading. A list of 114 words printed in pointed Hebrew was
specially developed for this purpose. These items varied in degree of difficulty ranging from
short monomorphemic items (e.g., /kar/ (cold) ‫ קר‬to longer, multimorphemic words (e.g.,
(their song) ‫ָתם‬
ָ ‫מנגִ ינ‬, /manginatam/)(for further details, see Shatil, 1997). Scores ranged from
2 to 114, with a mean of 93.9 (sd: 25.98). Test-retest reliability (3 weeks) was .88, n=23.
Timed oral word reading. A list of 56 words was specially developed to measure the
number of words read in one minute. The words were arranged in clusters of four consecutive
items, each cluster varying in degree of morphemic complexity and length, but not exceeding
two syllables (e.g., monosyllabic; ‫( ָאב‬father) /av/, disyllabic; ‫בָ ָרד‬, (hail) /barad/). The spoken
forms of the words in the list were considered familiar to most Israeli first graders (no up-todate frequency tables exist in Hebrew). Scores were calculated by subtracting the number of
errors from the total number of words attempted in 60 seconds. Scores ranged from 1 to 54
words per minute, with a mean of 27.5 (sd: 12.61). Test-retest reliability (3 weeks) was .98
(n=24).
Kindergarten Writing
17
A single composite word reading measure was computed by averaging Z scores for the
timed and untimed word-reading measures. Composite scores ranged from -2.74 to 1.42 , with
a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of .87.
Grade 1 Reading Comprehension
Sentence comprehension. Twenty-one vocabulary (word meaning) and comprehension
questions were used to test the ability to understand factual, inferential and vocabulary
information in sentences. The test was collectively administered in three separate whole-class
sessions (seven sentences per session). All the questions were multiple-choice. (For example,
“Dan wore a woolen hat, a coat, a scarf and a pair of gloves. It was 1. in the spring 2. in the
summer 3. in the winter”). The sentence length varied from 3 to 36 words. One point was
allocated for each correct answer. Scores ranged from 2 to 21, with a mean of 18 (sd: 2.79).
Text comprehension: expository. A text dealing with bird migration was divided into
four passages that varied in length from 19 to 25 words. Each passage was followed by a set
of 5 to 7 true/false questions yielding a total of 24 questions. The children were tested
collectively in class, in four different sessions and were required to read the passage, the
questions, then circle the correct answer. Scores ranged from 7 to 24, with a mean of 18.3 (sd:
3.65).
Text comprehension: narrative. A story about a boy and his dog was divided into four
parts that varied in length from 44 to 49 words. Each part was followed by a set of 6
true/false questions, giving a total of 24 test items. The children were also required to read
two short passages, each followed by five multiple choice questions. One passage described a
birthday party and the other a "Feast of Lots" celebration. The administration and scoring
procedure were the same as for the expository text. Together there were a total of 34
questions. Scores ranged from 13 to 33, with a mean of 26.2 (sd: 4.31).
Kindergarten Writing
18
A composite reading comprehension score was formed by summing the children’s raw
scores. The minimum and maximum composite scores were 34 and 77, with a mean of 62.7
(sd: 9.02)
Grade 1 Spelling
Regular dictation. Children were required to spell 20 very common words (e.g., ‫ֶילֶד‬
child /yeled/) dictated by the experimenter. The test was collectively administered to whole
classes. The words were pronounced one at a time and each word was repeated twice. For
each child two scores were computed: a consonant score and a vowel score. Each word was
scored separately and one point was allotted for each complete and correct consonantal
letterstring (e.g. “y-l-d” for “yeled”). Each vowel phoneme sound, however, was scored
separately; three points were given for each correct vowel (either vowel letter or vowel
diacritic), two points for an incorrect vowel symbol but which correctly transcribed the vowel,
and zero for entirely incorrect vowels (symbols which corresponded to a sound other than the
target sound). Consonant scores ranged from 7 to 20 (maximum 20) with a mean of 15.0 (sd:
2.48). Vowel scores ranged from 46 to 90 (maximum 90), with a mean of 79.5 (sd: 6.91).
Homophone dictation. This test consisted of 20 heterographic homophones. For
example, /car/ spelled ‫ קר‬means ‘cold’ and /car/ spelled ‫ כר‬means ‘pillow’. Each target
word was spoken three times: first alone, then in a sentence, then finally alone. Scores were
computed by allocating one point for each correct target (homophonic) letter. Scores ranged
from 0 to 20 with a mean of 11.7 (sd: 3.05).
Orthographic choice. (After Olson, Kliegl, Davidson, & Foltz, 1985.) In this task,
children are required to select the correct spelling when presented with both the correct
spelling and an incorrect (homophonic) alternative. This test was given in a group setting with
all 20 items read aloud by the tester. Scores ranged from 4 to 20, with a mean of 17.4 ( sd:
2.49).
Kindergarten Writing
19
Homophone choice. The children were presented with 16 printed sentences each
containing both members of a homophone pair. Each of the two spellings appeared side by
side in the sentence and the child required to select the appropriate spelling. This test was also
administered to whole classes with the experimenter reading aloud each sentence in turn.
Scores ranged from 5 to 16, with a mean of 11.7 (sd: 2.55).
A single composite spelling score was computed by transforming the four measures
described above into Z-scores and then averaging. Composite scores ranged from -2.92 to
1.76, with a mean of 0.0 (sd: .76).
UPTOHERE
Results
The distribution of scores along the kindergarten writing scale is displayed in Table 1.
The data reveal that (with the possible exception of the 23 children who drew instead of
writing) kindergarten children are capable of producing word-like arrays of letters or letterlike shapes when requested to write. Moreover, the majority (76%) of the children produced
only forms which were clearly identifiable Hebrew letters. These findings are clear evidence
that most children entering school can differentiate between the writing system and other
graphic systems such as the numeric system (cf. Karmiloff-Smith & Tolchinsky-Landsmann,
1997). In addition, they know a good deal about the grapho-spatial characteristics of writing
such as the distinctive features of letters, the horizontal serial ordering of letters in a word, and
letter orientation. Table 1 demonstrates enormous variety in kindergarteners' writing. Some
children drew (see above) while others produced symbolic-graphic signs, random Hebrew
letters or readable, phonetically appropriate spellings: no one stage appears to be generally
representative of the whole sample. However, the fact that 71% of the children in the sample
are not reliably representing the sound structure of words when writing (the productions of
Kindergarten Writing
20
215 subjects were classified as graphic-symbolic or random letter strings – categories I and II)
suggests that for the majority of kindergarteners, writing is viewed at best as a sequential array
of letter shapes or, at worst, as a highly specialized form of drawing. This is an important
observation as it reflects the complexity inherent in the acquisition of alphabetic literacy:
fewer than one third of the children in the sample demonstrated a working knowledge of the
alphabetic principle as evident in Category III productions.
To examine the link between kindergarten writing and Grade 1 literacy, the
contribution of kindergarten writing was calculated after controlling for the variance
associated with general intelligence. Separate regression analyses were carried out with Grade
1 decoding, spelling and reading comprehension as the criterion variables. Both measures of
general intelligence, as assessed by the Raven and Peabody tests, were entered in a first step,
and kindergarten writing at the second step (see Table 2).
Table 2 shows that kindergarten writing is significantly correlated with all three Grade
1 literacy measures. Second, kindergarten writing contributes significant amounts of variance
(7%, 11% and 8%) to decoding, spelling and reading comprehension respectively, after the
variance due to general intelligence has been partialled out. Table 2 also shows that
kindergarten writing was more strongly related to Grade 1 decoding and spelling than was
intelligence.
These results are important in that they confirm and extend the English-language
findings indicating that children’s early attempts at writing are by no means inconsequential as
regards individual differences in later school literacy. Kindergartners with more advanced
knowledge of the writing system as witnessed in their writing become better spellers, decoders
and comprehenders in Grade 1.
Kindergarten Writing
21
Having confirmed that kindergarten writing is a significant precursor of Grade 1
literacy skills, even after controlling for general intelligence, we now turn to the second aim of
our study -- to elucidate the nature of this contribution.
Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for the kindergarten alphabetic and
socioliteracy variables as well as the concurrent correlations between these skills at
kindergarten and the predictive correlations with later Grade 1 literacy. Initial examination of
the predictive correlations (see lower panel of Table 3) reveals that, with minor exceptions,
school literacy skills correlate significantly with all the kindergarten variables. Grade 1
decoding appears to be related both to kindergarten alphabetic skills (mean r = .26) and to
socioliteracy variables (mean r = .19). Grade 1 spelling ability is also related to socioliteracy
and to alphabetic variables (mean correlations are .33 and .27 respectively). The relatively
large correlation between Grade 1 spelling and kindergarten letter naming (r = .48), suggests
that early letter knowledge may be particularly important to the acquisition of later spelling
ability. Reading comprehension is also significantly correlated with both socioliteracy
variables (mean r = .44) and alphabetic skills (mean r = .36). The concurrent correlations
between the alphabetic and socioliteracy variables at kindergarten show the variables within
each set to be weakly intercorrelated. For the purposes of testing competing hypotheses it is
important to note that these two sets of variables were not strongly correlated, and hence not
statistically redundant.
To test alternate hypotheses regarding the source of the predictive power of
kindergarten writing, we undertook a series of hierarchical (setwise) multiple regression
analyses with Grade 1 literacy measures as the criterion variables.1 As already indicated in
Table 2, kindergarten writing explained 7%, 11%, and 8% of the variance of decoding,
1
In hierarchical setwise regression, groups of variables are entered simultaneously in a single step to
determine the collective contribution of the set as a whole (see Cohen & Cohen, 1975).
Kindergarten Writing
22
spelling and reading comprehension respectively when entered at step 2 after general
intelligence. To determine to what extent these three variance contributions can be explained
by either socioliteracy or alphabetic variables, we then examined the contribution of
kindergarten writing at step 3 after entering the relevant set of socioliteracy or alphabetic
variables at step 2. If the contribution of kindergarten writing to Grade 1 literacy can be
attributed to socioliteracy variables, then kindergarten writing (step 3) should no longer
account for significant Grade 1 literacy variance once socioliteracy variables are partialled out
at step 2. Alternatively, if alphabetic skills alone explain why kindergarten writing predicts
Grade 1 reading and spelling, there should be no unique variance contributed (at step 3) by
kindergarten writing to Grade 1 literacy once alphabetic skills are partialled out at step 2. For
ease of comparison, we have included the “simple” variance contributions of kindergarten
writing (taken from Table 2) when entered at step 2 after general intelligence.
Table 4 shows that alphabetic skills successfully explain the entire contribution of
kindergarten writing to all three forms of Grade 1 literacy (decoding, spelling, and
comprehension). In each case, kindergarten writing no longer accounted for significant
variance in Grade 1 literacy measures after the contribution of alphabetic skills was included
at step 2. On the other hand, socioliteracy variables fully explained only the contribution to
reading comprehension. In the case of decoding and spelling, socioliteracy variables explained
only around one half of the variance due to kindergarten writing (decoding: 4.0%/7.6%,
spelling: 5.3%/11.0%). Overall, these findings suggest that the predictive power of the
kindergarten writing task can be accounted for most parsimoniously by the child's alphabetic
knowledge as reflected in phonological awareness and letter name knowledge rather than by
socioliteracy factors. In the case of reading comprehension, on the other hand, both
socioliteracy and alphabetic variables provided equally convincing explanations for the
contribution of kindergarten writing. (Obviously, no additional analyses were needed (i.e.,
Kindergarten Writing
23
combining alphabetic and socioliteracy variables at step 2) since no variance was left to be
explained).
Discussion
Examination of children’s written productions in Kindergarten revealed that most
children were capable of producing writing which exhibits most of the grapho-spatial
characteristics of conventional word-writing. A majority of this sample were even producing
well-formed Hebrew letters. Thus, a major conclusion of the present study regards the
cohort’s familiarity with the grapho-spatial aspects of writing as well as their ability to select
the appropriate system from among the various symbolic systems available. The ability of so
many children to draw a variety of Hebrew letters from memory implies that, by the end of
kindergarten, visual and motor-kinesthetic memory for domain-specific symbolic materials
appears to be well developed.
A second major finding is that although the majority of children in this sample used
letters or letter-like symbols when writing, most (approximately 70%) seemed unable to use
letters to represent the sounds of words (or were even unaware that letters represent sounds).
This suggests that the ability to segment words into phonemes, to recall the letters whose
names and/or sounds match these phonemes and to reproduce these letter shapes on paper
represents a formidable challenge for kindergarten children, indeed, one beyond the
capabilities of a majority of this group. It would appear that some form of explicit instruction,
whether formal or informal, is likely to be required before most children are able to
accomplish such a demanding task.
Two key findings emerged concerning the association between kindergarten writing
and Grade 1 decoding and spelling. Kindergarten writing successfully predicted the ability to
Kindergarten Writing
24
decode and to spell even after controlling for the contribution of general intelligence. In both
cases, the unique variance explained was by no means inconsequential (7% and 11%). As
such, kindergarten writing can be considered a bona fide precursor of later literacy
development and not merely a developmental curiosity. Second, when alphabetic skills were
entered after general intelligence, kindergarten writing no longer contributed significant
variance to either Grade 1 decoding or spelling. This constitutes strong support for the view
that the contribution of kindergarten writing to Grade 1 decoding and spelling can be
interpreted as a reflection of a child's working knowledge of the alphabetic principle, i.e.,
awareness of the phonological units represented by letters and the associations between these
spoken segments and the graphic symbols (Liberman et al., 1985; Mann, 1993; Mann et al.,
1987; Morris & Perney, 1984; Read, 1971; 1986). In contrast, when socioliteracy variables
were entered after general intelligence, they accounted for significant portions of the variance
contributed by kindergarten writing to Grade 1 decoding and spelling but left nearly half of
the original contribution unexplained. We conclude, therefore, that domain-specific alphabetic
knowledge rather than socioliteracy factors provides the best explanation for the predictive
power of kindergarten writing with regard to decoding and spelling.
Alphabetic skills also fully accounted for the contribution of kindergarten writing to
Grade 1 reading comprehension, but socioliteracy variables performed equally well. The latter
finding is consistent with the view that kindergarten writing taps not only domain-specific
alphabetic skills but also broader socioliteracy factors underlying higher-order linguistic and
cognitive competencies essential for comprehending text. Also consistent with this account is
the finding that IQ (assessed in this study by both verbal and non-verbal measures) contributed
substantial and significant variance to both Grade 1 spelling and comprehension (8.5% and
19%) but only marginal variance (2.5%, p = .03) to decoding. This suggests that the process of
spelling may demand a significant degree of monitoring and self-correction in the course of
Kindergarten Writing
25
ongoing, self-initiated comparison of a written production with an intended target string
(Lindamood, 1997). By this account, kindergarten writing may be tapping higher-order
cognitive processes that are essential for comprehending text and not solely specific
alphabetic knowledge. The fact that IQ has a negligible relationship with decoding skill
provides strong support for the modularity of word recognition (Seidenberg, 1985; Stanovich,
1990; 1991). Whereas decoding may be fully “encapsulated”, spelling may be less cognitively
autonomous.
This study also shed light on the connection between kindergarten phonemic
awareness and decoding. It appears that the association between the two may not be as strong
in Hebrew as it is in English (cf. Share et al. 1984; Stanovich et al. 1984). There are at least
two possible explanations for this result. First, we speculate that learning to decode pointed
Hebrew may require less sophisticated phoneme manipulation skills compared to English.
This is because pointed script is essentially a succession of a relatively limited number of
simple CV segments and almost entirely lacks the complex consonant blends common to
English (cf. Treiman, 1985) and which are likely to pose considerable demands on the ability
to blend phonemes. An alternative explanation argues that the high degree of symbol-sound
regularity in printed Hebrew accelerates acquisition of the code as in the case in other regular
orthographies such as Italian and German (see Cossu, 1999, and Wimmer, 1999). By the end
of Grade 1, when most Israeli children have mastered decoding, individual differences in
phonemic skills may be less influential (see Share and Levin, 1999). Consistent with this
account, Bentin, Hammer and Cahan (1991) found that the correlation between kindergarten
phonemic awareness and Grade 1 decoding in Hebrew was significantly greater in the middle
of Grade 1 (r = .55) than at the end of Grade 1 (r = .33).
Prominent among the socioliteracy variables was Clay’s Print Concepts measure
which correlated very strongly with reading comprehension (r = .58) . A similar coefficient (r
Kindergarten Writing
26
= .56) was obtained between the Print Concepts test and reading comprehension by Tunmer,
Herriman and Nesdale (1988). Moreover, using path analysis, Tunmer et al. (1988) found that
Print Concepts was the only measure with a significant path coefficient in the prediction of
reading comprehension. This task appears to be both a measure of the vocabulary of literacy
and also of conceptual knowledge about print conventions. It would be of interest to carry out
an experimental training study to determine whether teaching print concepts has a direct
causal connection to reading comprehension, or is more a proxy for broader social and
environmental factors underlying the acquisition of specific cognitive competencies.
The present study clarifies the role of kindergarten writing in the development of
literacy. Kindergarten writing is indeed a precursor of later decoding and spelling ability, not
because of what the children seem to be doing when writing (producing arrays of letters and
letter shapes to convey socially and culturally appropriate messages), but because of the
usually covert, domain-specific knowledge about the relationships between letters and sounds
they bring or fail to bring to the task. As a precursor of reading comprehension, kindergarten
writing appears to reflect not only domain-specific alphabetic skills but also broader
socioliteracy factors underlying higher-order cognitive competencies essential for
comprehending text.
This study suggests that there is much to be gained by encouraging kindergarteners to
write (see also Levin, Ravid, & Rapaport, 1998; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). The cognitive
and communicative challenge of putting words down on paper seems to engage not only
higher-order conceptual and cognitive faculties important for later text comprehension (and,
no doubt, production too) but also appears to be an excellent vehicle for developing a child’s
working knowledge of the alphabetic principle.
Kindergarten Writing
27
References
Beers, J.W., & Henderson, E.H. (1977). A study of developing orthographic concepts
among first Grade children. Research in the Teaching of English, 11, 133-148.
Bus, A. G., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading
makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of
literacy. Review of Educational Research, 66, 1-21.
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd ed.). Auckland:
Heinemann Educational.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cossu, G. (1999). The acquisition of Italian orthography. In M. Harris and G. Hatano
(Eds.), Learning to read and write: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.10-33). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cunningham, A.E. & Stanovich, K.E. (1990). Assessing print exposure and
orthographic processing skills in children: A quick measure of reading experience. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 733-740.
Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early: Two longitudinal studies. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Feitelson, D. (1989). Reading education in Israel. In W. Ellis, and J. Hladcz (Eds.),
International Handbook of Reading Education. Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood: Praeger
Press.
Ferroli , L. & Shanahan, T. (1987). Kindergarten writing: Explaining the relationship
to first-Grade reading. In J.E. Readence & R.S. Baldwin (Eds.), Research in literacy: Merging
perspectives. (Thirty sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 93-99).
Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
Kindergarten Writing
28
Ferreiro, E. (1990). Literacy development: Psychogenesis. In Y.M. Goodman (Ed.),
How children construct literacy, IRA, Newark, Delaware.
Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Exeter, NH:
Heineman.
Frost, R. & Bentin, S. (1992). Reading consonants and guessing vowels: Visual word
recognition in Hebrew orthography. In R. Frost and L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, Phonology,
Morphology and Meaning. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
Gentry, G.R. (1978). Early writing strategies. Elementary School Journal, 79, 88-92.
Gentry, G.R. (1982). An analysis of developmental writing in GNYS AT WRK. The
Reading Teacher, 36, 192-200.
Gombert, J. E., & Fayol, M. (1992). Writing in preliterate children. Learning and
Instruction, 2, 23-41.
Levin, I. & Korat, O. (1993). Sensitivity to phonological, morphological and semantic
cues in early reading and writing in Hebrew. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 213-232.
Levin, I., Korat, O., & Amsterdamer, P. (1996). Emergent writing among Israeli
kindergartners: Cross-linguistic commonalities and Hebrew-specific issues. In G. Rijlaarsdam,
H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Current trends in writing research: Theories, models
and methodology (pp. 398-419). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Levin, I., Ravid, D., & Rapaport, S. (1998). Developing morphological awareness and
learning to write: A two-way street. In T. Nunes (Ed.), Integrating research and practice in
literacy. Kluwer.
Levin, I. & Tolchinsky-Landsmann, L. (1989). Becoming literate: Referential and
phonetic strategies in early reading and writing. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 12, 369-384.
Kindergarten Writing
29
Liberman, I.Y., Rubin, H., Duques, S., & Carlisle, J. (1985). Linguistic abilities and
spelling proficiency in Kindergarteners and adult poor spellers. In D. B. Gray and J. F.
Kavanagh (Eds.), Biobehavioral measures of dyslexia. (pp. 163-176). Parkton, MD: York
Press.
Liberman, I. Y, Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Reading and the
awareness of linguistic segments. Journal of Experimental child Psychology, 18, 201-212.
Lindamood, P., Bell, N. & Lindamood, P. (1997). Achieving competence in language
and literacy by training in phonemic awareness, concept imagery and comparator function. In
Hulme, C. & Snowling M. (Eds.), Dyslexia: Biology, cognition and intervention. London:
Whurr Publishers Ltd.
Mann, V.A. (1993). Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 26, 259-269.
Mann, V., Tobin, P., & Wilson, R. (1987). Measuring phonological awareness through
the invented spellings of kindergarten children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 365-391.
Morris, D. (1981). Concept of word: A developmental phenomenon in the beginning
reading and writing processes. Language Arts, 58, 659-668.
Morris, D., & Perney, J. (1984). Developmental writing as a predictor of first-Grade
reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 441-457.
Navon, D., & Shimron, Y. (1984). Reading Hebrew: How necessary is the graphemic
representation of vowels? In Leslie Henderson (Ed.), Orthographies and reading: Perspectives
from cognitive psychology, Neuropsychology and Linguistics. London, Hillsdale, New Jersey:
LEA Publishers.
Olson, R.K., Kliegl, R., Davidson, B.J., & Foltz, G. (1985). Individual and
developmental differences in reading disability. In D. Besner, T.G. Waller, and G.E.
Kindergarten Writing
30
Mackinnon (Eds.), Reading research : Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 5, pp.2-65). New
York: Academic Press.
Pontecorvo, C. , & Zucchermaglio, C. (1990). A passage to literacy: Learning in a
social context. In Y.M. Goodman (Ed.), How children construct literacy. IRA, Newark,
Delaware.
Raven, J.C., Court, J. H. & Raven J. (1986). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices
and vocabulary scales. Section 2: Coloured Progressive Matrices. London: Lewis.
Read, C. (1971). Pre-school children’s knowledge of English phonology. Harvard
Educational Review, 41, 1-34.
Richgels, D.J. (1995). Invented writing ability and printed word learning in
kindergarten. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 96-109.
Seidenberg, M.S. (1985). Lexicon as a module (commentary). The Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 31-32.
Share, D. L., Jorm, A.F., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual
differences in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324.
Share, D.L., & Levin, I. (1999). Learning to read and write in Hebrew. In M. Harris
and G. Hatano (Eds.), Learning to read and write: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.89-111.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shatil, E. (1997). Predicting reading ability: Evidence for cognitive modularity.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Haifa.
Shimron, J. (1993). The role of vowels in reading: A review of studies in English and
Hebrew. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 52-67.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington DC: National Research Council.
Kindergarten Writing
31
Solberg, S., & Nevo, B. (1979). Preliminary steps towards an Israeli standardization of
the Peabody Test. Megamot, 3, 407-413 [in Hebrew].
Stage, S.A., & Wagner, R.K. (1992). Development of young children's phonological
and orthographic knowledge as revealed by their spellings. Developmental Psychology, 28,
287-296.
Stanovich, K.E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence
led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7-29.
Stanovich, K.E. (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill:
Cognitive resources, automaticity and modularity. Developmental Review, 10, 72-100.
Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A. E. & Cramer, B. B. (1984). Assessing phonological
awareness children in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 175-190.
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing.
Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402-433.
Sulzby, E., Teale, W. H. & Kamberelis, G. (1989).Emergent writing in the classroom:
Home and school connections. In D.S. Strickland & L.M. Morrow (Eds.) Emerging literacy:
Young children learn to read and write. IRA, Newark, Delaware.
Teale, W. H. & Sulzby, E. (1989). Emergent literacy: New perspectives. In D.S.
Strickland & L.M. Morrow (Eds.) Emerging literacy: Young children learn to read and write.
IRA, Newark, Delaware.
Teberosky, A. (1990). The language young children write: Reflections on a learning
situation. In Y.M. Goodman (Ed.), How children construct literacy, IRA, Newark, Delaware.
Tolchinsky-Landsmann, L. & Levin, I. (1985). Writing in kindergarteners: An age
related analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 319-339.
Kindergarten Writing
32
Tolchinsky-Landsmann, L. & Levin, I. (1987). Writing in four to six year olds:
Representation of semantic and phonological similarities and differences. Journal of Child
Language, 14, 127-144.
Treiman, R. (1985). Onsets and rimes as units of spoken syllables: Evidence from
children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39, 161-181.
Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L. & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and
beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134-158.
Wimmer, H.,.Landerl, K., & Frith, U. (1999). Learning to read German: Normal and
impaired acquisition. In M. Harris and G. Hatano (Eds.), Learning to read and write: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp.34-50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wohl, A. (1986). A Hebrew Adaptation of Concepts of Print.
Zifcak, M. (1981). Phonological awareness and reading acquisition. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 6, 117-126.
Kindergarten Writing
Table 1. Frequency distribution of scores for the kindergarten writing task
Categories and Levels
Level
Frequency
Percent in
Cumulative
Count
sample
percent
I. Symbolic-graphic signs
Pseudowriting
1
34
11
11
Mixed graphic-symbolic
2
35
11.5
22.5
Low letter repertoire
3
47
15.5
38
Medium letter repertoire
4
48
16
54
High letter repertoire
5
51
17
71
6
28
9
80
No vowel representation
7
16
5
85
Elementary vowel representation
8
15
5
90
Intermediate vowel representation
9
6
2
92
No vowel representation
10
6
2
94
Elementary vowel representation
11
6
2
96
Intermediate vowel representation
12
7
2
98
Advanced vowel representation
13
7
2
100
306
100
100
II. Random letters
III. Consonantal representation
Elementary consonantal representation
No vowel representation
Intermediate consonantal presentation
Advanced consonantal representation
Total
33
Kindergarten Writing
Table 2: Contribution of kindergarten writing to Grade 1 literacy
Grade 1 Decoding
Step
Simple r
Cumulative R2
R2 change
Signif. of R2
change
1. IQ (Raven & Peabody)
2. Kindergarten writing
.30**
(n=306)
(n=278)
.025
.025
p=.03
.095
.07
p<.0001
Cumulative R2
R2 change
Signif. of R2
Spelling
Step
change
1. IQ (Raven & Peabody)
2. Kindergarten writing
.41**
(n=306)
(n=275)
.085
.085
p<.0001
.195
.11
p<.0001
Cumulative R2
R2 change
Signif. of R2
Reading comprehension
Step
change
1. IQ (Raven & Peabody)
2. Kindergarten writing
.42**
(n=306)
(n=280)
** p < 0.001
.19
.19
p<.0001
.27
.08
p<.0001
34
Kindergarten Writing
35
Table 3. Correlations between kindergarten variables (alphabetic and socioliteracy) and Grade 1
literacy measures.
Kindergarten Measures
Alphabetic skills
1.Letter naming
(M=48.3%), (sd=29.9)
2.Initial consonant matching
(M=62.3%), (sd=20.5)
3.Phonemic blending
(M=47.7%), (sd=22.5)
4.Initial consonant isolation
(M=69.6%), (sd=30.4)
Socioliteracy measures
5.Parent print exposure
(M=9.95), (sd=5.42)
6.Parents read to child
(M=3.8), (sd=1.05)
7.Concepts about Print
(M=10.66), (sd=3.69)
Grade 1 literacy skills
Decoding
Spelling
Reading comprehension
** = p < 0.001, * = p < .01.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.48**
.31**
.24**
.20**
.38**
.23**
.43**
.32**
.31**
.11 ns
.26**
.16*
.13 ns
.02 ns
.23**
.44**
.42**
.37**
.19**
.45**
.30**
.37**
.48**
.50**
.29**
.35**
.41**
.29**
.27**
.34**
.10 ns
.24**
.28**
.18**
.34**
.47**
.17*
.11 ns
.28**
.22**
.35**
.58**
Kindergarten Writing
Table 4: The contribution of kindergarten writing to Grade 1 literacy after controlling for
socioliteracy and alphabetic skills.
Socioliteracy hypothesis
Step
Variables
entered
Alphabetic skills hypothesis
R2
Change
Sig. of
R2
change
Step
Variables
entered
R2
change
Sig. of
R2 change
Decoding
Step 1
Step 2
IQ
Socioliteracy
variables
.031
.054
.02
.00
Step 1
Step 2
IQ
Alphabetic
skills
.031
.161
.02
.00
Step 3
Kindergarten
writing
.040
.00
Step 3
Kindergarten
Writing
.000
.88
Step 2
Kindergarten
writing
.076
.00
Step 2
Kindergarten
writing
.076
.00
IQ
Alphabetic
skills
Kindergarten
writing
.012
.188
.00
.00
.009
.08
Spelling
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 2
IQ
Socioliteracy
variables
Kindergarten
writing
.012
.078
.00
.00
Step 1
Step 2
.053
.00
Step 3
Kindergarten
writing
.110
.00
Step 2
Kindergarten
writing
.110
.00
IQ
Socioliteracy
variables
Kindergarten
Writing
.210
.212
.00
.00
Step 1
Step 2
.210
.160
.00
.00
.008
.06
Step 3
IQ
Alphabetic
skills
Kindergarten
Writing
.002
.38
Kindergarten
writing
.078
.00
Step 2
Kindergarten
writing
.078
.00
Comprehension
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 2
36