Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:307–315
DOI 10.1007/s10643-014-0655-4
Classroom Writing Environments and Children’s Early Writing
Skills: An Observational Study in Head Start Classrooms
Chenyi Zhang • Jinhee Hur • Karen E. Diamond •
Douglas Powell
Published online: 1 August 2014
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This study examined the classroom writing
environment in 31 Head Start classrooms, and explored the
relations between the writing environment, children’s
(N = 262) name-writing, and children’s letter knowledge
using pathway analysis. Our analyses showed that Head
Start classrooms provided opportunities (i.e., writing
materials and teachers’ facilitation) for children to develop
early writing skills, though many classrooms lacked writ-
ing props (e.g., letter and word cards) for guiding chil-
dren’s writing attempts. Teacher-child writing interactions
occurred at a low frequency. The writing environment had
a direct association with children’s name-writing skill, and
children’s name-writing skill was positively related to their
letter knowledge. Further discussion of the findings and
future directions for research are presented.
Keywords Classroom writing environment
Early
writing skill
Name writing skill
Letter knowledge

Early literacy development
C. Zhang (&)
Early Childhood Education, Georgia State University,
Atlanta, GA 30346, USA
e-mail: czhang15@gsu.edu
J. Hur
K. E. Diamond
D. Powell
Human Development and Family Studies, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
e-mail: hurj@purdue.edu
K. E. Diamond
e-mail: kdiamond@purdue.edu
D. Powell
e-mail: powelld@purdue.edu
Introduction
Recent research pays increasing attention to young chil-
dren’s development of early writing skills. Early writing
skills are significantly, concurrently related to other early
literacy skills such as letter sound and print knowledge
(Kendeou et al. 2009). Theory, particularly the perspective
articulated in the Simple View of Reading, links children’s
development of skilled reading to letter sound and print
knowledge (decoding) and language comprehension (Hoo-
ver and Gough 1990). Research provides evidence that letter
sound and print knowledge are important predictors of
children’s later development of literacy skills (National
Early Literacy Panel 2008). However, there is limited
knowledge about the environmental factors in preschool
classrooms that may influence children’s early writing skills.
The classroom writing environment is usually conceptual-
ized and examined as a part of the literacy environment.
Existing literature does not provide a detailed description of
the preschool writing environment separate from other
aspects of the classroom. Such a gap in the literature may
create obstacles for professionals and practitioners who wish
to identify effective strategies to specifically promote chil-
dren’s early writing skills. In this study, we conceptualized
the classroom writing environment as encompassing writing
materials which provide writing opportunities (e.g., stencils
and letter shapes), writing exposure (e.g., teachers’ dicta-
tions and children’s writing products), and teachers’ facili-
tation of children’s writing attempts (e.g., modeling writing
actions, writing with children). By observing the arrange-
ment of classroom writing materials and the writing-related
teacher-child interactions in Head Start classrooms across a
semester, we examined the relations between the classroom
writing environment, children’s early writing, and early
literacy skills.
123
308
From an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner and
Morris 2006), the preschool classroom is an important
context where children develop early literacy skills
(Dickinson and Tabors 2001). While a large number of
studies broadly focus on the relations between classroom
environment and children’s early language and reading
development (e.g., Grace et al. 2008), few studies have
specifically explored how elements of the classroom
environment are related to children’s writing skills. Exist-
ing teaching guidelines for practitioners broadly empha-
sizes the necessity of creating a literacy-enriched
classroom, including opportunities for children to explore
literacy materials and to participate in literacy-related
activities with their teachers (Copple and Bredekamp
2009). Writing environment is not specifically defined and
identified in these guidelines. This is problematic because
children’s writing development has unique characteristics
that need to be addressed differently from other early lit-
eracy skills such as vocabulary development. Many exist-
ing measures of the classroom environment (e.g., ECERS-
R, CLASS) use the similar broad scope to evaluate class-
room quality. As a consequence, a preschool classroom
that is rated as a high quality classroom may not neces-
sarily include a high quality writing environment. We have
a limited understanding of which elements in the classroom
environment are most important for children’s early writ-
ing development. This limitation results in unclear guide-
lines for preschool professionals and practitioners,
although professional associations advocate teaching stan-
dards that include creating a classroom environment that
fosters reading and writing (International Reading Asso-
ciation 2010).
To fill the gap in the existing literature and to examine
the relations between the preschool classroom writing
environment and children’s literacy skills (i.e., writing and
letter knowledge), we began by conceptualizing the writing
environment using constructivist and social-cultural
approaches (Aram and Levin 2012). Children’s active
engagement and practice in constructing their writing skills
are important forces in writing development (Neuman et al.
2000). The classroom writing environment should include
a variety of prompts, including environmental prints and
writing materials, to promote children’s self-initiated
writing attempts. Preschool teachers are frequently
encouraged to prepare a variety of writing materials (e.g.,
stencils, crayons and papers) that are colorful and attractive
to children, and to make these materials easy to see and
access (Neuman et al. 2000). Materials that attract chil-
dren’s interest in writing are important since young chil-
dren’s interest may influence the amount of time they are
engaged in writing activities (Rowe and Neitzel 2010),
even without teachers’ encouragement (e.g., Wayne et al.
2007). It is also a common belief among many Head Start
123
Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:307–315
teachers that setting up a classroom with a variety of
writing materials may promote children’s self-initiated
writing attempt and practice during play (O’Leary et al.
2010; Powell et al. 2008). As well, opportunities for chil-
dren’s writing should be accommodated within the class-
room. For example, a designated quiet writing center away
from distractions of motor and large group activity areas is
recommended (Copple and Bredekamp 2009).
The writing environment should also include teachers’
efforts to support children’s writing attempts (Dennis and
Votteler 2013). In a study conducted in homes, children
wrote longer recognizable letters and words with parents’
help than writing independently (DeBaryshe et al. 1996).
More recent studies with kindergarten children showed that
children who received teacher feedback as they practiced
writing performed better on spelling and word reading than
children who practiced writing alone (Rieben et al. 2005).
Existing literature provides limited knowledge regarding
preschool teachers’ support for children’s writing. Some
studies suggest that children may learn through observing
teachers’ writing, modeling and guidance (Graves 2003),
while others have not found a significant relation between
teachers’ support and young children’s growth of name
writing skills over a semester (Guo et al. 2012). Teachers’
support of writing was less responsive than their support of
children’s language learning in an early childhood profes-
sional development intervention (Dickinson and Caswell
2007). Classroom writing materials and teachers’ writing
supports are closely related. Teachers’ support of children’s
writing can be reflected in how they arrange, display and
use writing-related materials in the classroom for children
to practice writing. Therefore, in this study, the preschool
classroom writing environment includes the availability and
the arrangement of writing materials in the classroom, and
teachers’ support of children’s writing attempts.
Children’s early writing attempts reflect complex
development in early literacy skills that allows them to
analyze the alphabetic code to read letter combinations
(Gerde et al. 2012; Powell and Diamond 2012). In order to
write a letter or a word, a child needs to have print
knowledge to distinguish letters from other shapes, have
letter knowledge to know what letters or words s/he is
going to write, and have motor coordination skills to write
the letters or words (Son and Meisels 2006). It is not a
surprise that recent research consistently shows significant
correlations among children’s early writing skills and
decoding skills such as phonological awareness and print
knowledge (e.g., Aram and Biron 2004; Puranik and
Lonigan 2012; Welsch et al. 2003). We note, however, that
children’s writing, particularly name writing, also may
reflect rote learning and children do not need to know the
name of a letter before they write it (Drouin and Harmon
2009).
308
From an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner and
Morris 2006), the preschool classroom is an important
context where children develop early literacy skills
(Dickinson and Tabors 2001). While a large number of
studies broadly focus on the relations between classroom
environment and children’s early language and reading
development (e.g., Grace et al. 2008), few studies have
specifically explored how elements of the classroom
environment are related to children’s writing skills. Exist-
ing teaching guidelines for practitioners broadly empha-
sizes the necessity of creating a literacy-enriched
classroom, including opportunities for children to explore
literacy materials and to participate in literacy-related
activities with their teachers (Copple and Bredekamp
2009). Writing environment is not specifically defined and
identified in these guidelines. This is problematic because
children’s writing development has unique characteristics
that need to be addressed differently from other early lit-
eracy skills such as vocabulary development. Many exist-
ing measures of the classroom environment (e.g., ECERS-
R, CLASS) use the similar broad scope to evaluate class-
room quality. As a consequence, a preschool classroom
that is rated as a high quality classroom may not neces-
sarily include a high quality writing environment. We have
a limited understanding of which elements in the classroom
environment are most important for children’s early writ-
ing development. This limitation results in unclear guide-
lines for preschool professionals and practitioners,
although professional associations advocate teaching stan-
dards that include creating a classroom environment that
fosters reading and writing (International Reading Asso-
ciation 2010).
To fill the gap in the existing literature and to examine
the relations between the preschool classroom writing
environment and children’s literacy skills (i.e., writing and
letter knowledge), we began by conceptualizing the writing
environment using constructivist and social-cultural
approaches (Aram and Levin 2012). Children’s active
engagement and practice in constructing their writing skills
are important forces in writing development (Neuman et al.
2000). The classroom writing environment should include
a variety of prompts, including environmental prints and
writing materials, to promote children’s self-initiated
writing attempts. Preschool teachers are frequently
encouraged to prepare a variety of writing materials (e.g.,
stencils, crayons and papers) that are colorful and attractive
to children, and to make these materials easy to see and
access (Neuman et al. 2000). Materials that attract chil-
dren’s interest in writing are important since young chil-
dren’s interest may influence the amount of time they are
engaged in writing activities (Rowe and Neitzel 2010),
even without teachers’ encouragement (e.g., Wayne et al.
2007). It is also a common belief among many Head Start
123
Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:307–315
teachers that setting up a classroom with a variety of
writing materials may promote children’s self-initiated
writing attempt and practice during play (O’Leary et al.
2010; Powell et al. 2008). As well, opportunities for chil-
dren’s writing should be accommodated within the class-
room. For example, a designated quiet writing center away
from distractions of motor and large group activity areas is
recommended (Copple and Bredekamp 2009).
The writing environment should also include teachers’
efforts to support children’s writing attempts (Dennis and
Votteler 2013). In a study conducted in homes, children
wrote longer recognizable letters and words with parents’
help than writing independently (DeBaryshe et al. 1996).
More recent studies with kindergarten children showed that
children who received teacher feedback as they practiced
writing performed better on spelling and word reading than
children who practiced writing alone (Rieben et al. 2005).
Existing literature provides limited knowledge regarding
preschool teachers’ support for children’s writing. Some
studies suggest that children may learn through observing
teachers’ writing, modeling and guidance (Graves 2003),
while others have not found a significant relation between
teachers’ support and young children’s growth of name
writing skills over a semester (Guo et al. 2012). Teachers’
support of writing was less responsive than their support of
children’s language learning in an early childhood profes-
sional development intervention (Dickinson and Caswell
2007). Classroom writing materials and teachers’ writing
supports are closely related. Teachers’ support of children’s
writing can be reflected in how they arrange, display and
use writing-related materials in the classroom for children
to practice writing. Therefore, in this study, the preschool
classroom writing environment includes the availability and
the arrangement of writing materials in the classroom, and
teachers’ support of children’s writing attempts.
Children’s early writing attempts reflect complex
development in early literacy skills that allows them to
analyze the alphabetic code to read letter combinations
(Gerde et al. 2012; Powell and Diamond 2012). In order to
write a letter or a word, a child needs to have print
knowledge to distinguish letters from other shapes, have
letter knowledge to know what letters or words s/he is
going to write, and have motor coordination skills to write
the letters or words (Son and Meisels 2006). It is not a
surprise that recent research consistently shows significant
correlations among children’s early writing skills and
decoding skills such as phonological awareness and print
knowledge (e.g., Aram and Biron 2004; Puranik and
Lonigan 2012; Welsch et al. 2003). We note, however, that
children’s writing, particularly name writing, also may
reflect rote learning and children do not need to know the
name of a letter before they write it (Drouin and Harmon
2009).
Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:307–315
Children’s writing attempts also provide an avenue for
them to develop other literacy skills. Diamond et al. (2008)
found evidence that children’s writing development and
decoding skills development is bidirectional. In this study,
Head Start children’s name writing skill in the fall semester
significantly predicted their growth of letter knowledge in
spring semester. Studies have shown that children’s name
writing practice promotes their learning of the letters in
their names (Both-de Vries and Bus 2010). Through writ-
ing attempts, children gradually develop their understand-
ing that letters are meaningful symbols associated with
sounds (Treiman et al. 2007). They may become more
familiar with letters and print, presented in writing mate-
rials such as letter and word cards, by engaging in writing
activities (Clark and Kragler 2005). Teachers’ support of
writing may also play an indirect but important role in
promoting children’s other literacy skills. In an interven-
tion study comparing the effects of writing with feedback,
phonemic awareness training, and book reading, kinder-
garten children from the writing with feedback group
performed better not only on spelling, but also on phone-
mic awareness and learn-to-read tasks than did children in
the other groups (Sénéchal et al. 2012). Interactive writing
is also an effective strategy that promotes children’s letter
knowledge (Hall et al. 2013).
In this study, we investigated the relations between the
Head Start classroom writing environment and children’s
early writing development. We also examined the potential
indirect relation between the classroom writing environ-
ment and children’s letter knowledge through children’s
writing skills. This study aims to extend current literature
by (1) describing the components of the writing environ-
ment in Head Start classrooms, and (2) investigating the
significance of the pathway from the classroom writing
environment through children’s writing skills to children’s
letter knowledge.
Method
Participants
This study included 31 Head Start classrooms and 262
children (136 boys, 126 girls) in urban and rural areas of a
US Midwestern state. All the lead teachers and the children
in their classrooms voluntarily participated in a semester-
long longitudinal randomized controlled trial professional
development intervention study. There were two cohorts,
with teachers randomly assigned to intervention semester.
Children in this study came from the business-as-usual
control groups (Powell et al. 2010). Sixteen classrooms and
103 children participated in fall 2005, and 15 classrooms
and 159 children participated in fall 2006. Due to the
309
sampling criteria of the intervention study, all participating
children were at least 4 years old by the December of the
school year. On average, eight children per classroom
participated in the study (SD = 1.12, range from 6–10). A
majority of the lead teachers had a bachelor’s degree or
post-baccalaureate education (67.7 %) and others had an
associate’s degree or some college (32.3 %). The lead
teachers had an average of 8.45 years of preschool teaching
experience (SD = 7.86). Children’s average age was
53.57 months (SD = 5.59) at the time of the first assess-
ment. Children represented diverse ethnic/minority back-
grounds, including African American (54.6 %), Hispanic/
Latino (16 %), Caucasian (22.9 %), and others (6.5 %)
such as mixed race and Native American.
Procedure
Participant recruitment adhered to the study’s research
protocol approved by Purdue University’s Institutional
Review Board. The study’s principal investigators made in-
person presentations of study purposes and procedures, and
distributed informed consent forms at teacher staff meet-
ings held in late spring semester prior to the start of data
collection in fall semester. Prior to the beginning of fall
semester, the principal investigators and other members of
the research team attended parent orientation meetings in
participating Head Start centers to describe the study pur-
poses and procedures regarding children’s participation.
Informed consent forms for child participation were dis-
tributed to interested parents and legal guardians with
children enrolled in classrooms led by teachers who con-
sented to participate in the study. Most parents and legal
guardians completed and returned the consent form during
the meeting and a small number returned the form directly
to Purdue in a postage-paid envelope provided by the
researchers. Research assistants who conducted child
assessments spent time in the classroom prior to inviting a
child to participate in assessment activities.
Trained research assistants conducted a structured
observation in each participating classroom twice during
each fall semester. Each observation period included a
large group time, small group time and indoor free play
time, in order to capture a complete image of the classroom
literacy learning environment on that day.
The first scheduled observation occurred at the begin-
ning of the school year (in early September), and the sec-
ond observation occurred near the end of the fall semester
(in early to mid-December). Research assistants assessed
the quality of the classroom literacy environment using the
Early Language and Literacy Observation Toolkit (ELL-
CO, Smith et al. 2001). Prior to beginning observations,
research assistants were trained using videotapes and live
observations in classrooms not participating in the study.
123
310
Inter-rater reliability on the ELLCO, prior to observing in
the Head Start classrooms was acceptable (Cohen’s
k [ .90). The average length of observation was 152 min
in fall (SD = 37.12; min = 90, max = 120 min) and
134 min in winter (SD = 27.54; min = 90, max = 190).
Children’s early literacy skills were assessed by a research
assistant twice a semester (at the beginning and the end of
the semester). The assessments were conducted in a quiet
environment typically adjacent to children’s classroom.
Measures
Classroom Writing Environment
The Early Language and Literacy Observation Toolkit, one
of the few existing measures specifically evaluating the
classroom literacy environment, was used. ELLCO is an
observational measure that includes various observational
rating items (i.e., check-list items and Likert rating scale)
for evaluating the quality of the early literacy learning
environment. Items include those related to the availability
of literacy materials throughout the day and around the
room, and teachers’ literacy instruction during classroom
activities (e.g., letter, sound, and vocabulary instruction).
Observations were completed using the entire ELLCO. For
the present study, only those items that pertain to the
writing environment were selected for data analyses.
Selected items include six items that assess the availability
and diversity of writing materials, and four items focused
on writing around the classroom (beyond the writing cen-
ter). A four-item rating scale was used to assess the fre-
quency of specific writing activities (e.g., an adult assisting
a child with writing). Scores on these 14 items were
summed to create a total writing environment score (pos-
sible maximum score = 20). A composite variable was
created by taking the sum of these 14 ELLCO items for the
data collected in fall (M = 7.81, SD = 3.87) and in winter
(M = 7.87, SD = 3.34). Internal consistency was good,
Cronbach’s a = .80 for both fall and winter data. This
approach was also employed in Dickinson and Caswell’s
(2007) professional development intervention study.
Children’s Writing
Children’s name-writing skills were assessed at the beginning
and end of the fall semester. Children were asked to write their
first names on a blank piece of paper. When children asked for
help, the research assistant encouraged the child to write ‘‘as
much as you can’’. Children’s writing was coded indepen-
dently by two research assistants (Cohen’s k [ .90) using
nine writing-form categories adapted from the work of
Bloodgood (1999) and Sulzby et al. (1989) and used previ-
ously by Diamond et al. (2008). Scores ranged from ‘‘1’’
123
Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:307–315
(refusal) to ‘‘9’’ for correctly writing the first name. The inter-
rater reliability was periodically checked; 25 % of children’s
writing samples were used for the reliability check and reli-
ability was maintained at Cohen’s k = .90.
Children’s Alphabet Knowledge
The letter naming assessment tool developed for use in
Head Start’s Family and Child Experience Survey was
employed for evaluating children’s alphabetic knowledge
in this study (FACES 2008). Twenty-six upper case letters
were printed in random order on three cards. Each child
was presented each of the cards, one at a time, and asked to
point to letters that they knew while telling the letter name.
The potential highest score is 26.
Data Management
Preliminary analyses found no significant differences in the
classroom writing environment across the two cohorts in
either fall, F (1,29) = .82, p = .37, or winter,
F (1,29) = 2.84, p = .10 assessments. Therefore, data from
the two cohorts (i.e., 2005 and 2006) were combined for all
analyses. Paired t tests comparing fall and winter data showed
no significant change across the semester in the classroom
writing environment, t (30) = .47, p = .65. The correlation
between the classroom writing environment in fall and winter
was significant, r (30) = .67, p \ .001. No significant con-
current correlation was detected between the classroom
writing environment and children’s writing (fall: r = -.02,
p = .75, winter: r = .11, p = .11) or letter knowledge (fall:
r = -.12, p = .07, winter: r = -.08, p = .80) at the begin-
ning or at the end of the semester. Therefore, the fall and
winter writing environment scores were collapsed into a single
variable representing the classroom writing environment
across the semester (M = 7.67, SD = 3.19) for pathway
analysis purposes. Children’s name-writing assessment scores
in fall were regressed on their scores in winter to create
residual scores representing children’s growth of writing skills
and letter knowledge over the semester.
Results
The Classroom Writing Environment
We first examined components of the classroom writing
environment including the availability of writing materials
and observed teacher-child writing interactions during
classroom activities (see Table 1). The descriptive data
showed that most of the Head Start classrooms provided
basic writing materials at the beginning and the end of the
semester. For example, more than 90 % of classrooms
Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:307–315 311

Table 1 Components of the classroom writing environment (N = 31

classrooms)
Observation items Fall Winter
(percentage) (percentage)

Writing materials
Visible alphabet 71.0 51.6
Word cards 35.5 45.2
Writing templates 45.2 32.3
The variety of paper 93.5 93.5
The variety of writing tools 93.5 90.4
Designated writing area 61.3 45.2
Displayed teacher dictation 35.5 58.1
Displayed children’s writing 22.6 38.8
Writing tools in play area 22.6 25.8
Props in play area 22.6 19.4
Writing interactions
Observed writing action during play 35.5 35.5
Observed writing attempt 45.2 48.4 Fig. 1 Pathway model among writing environment, name-writing
Observed adult’s help 41.9 38.7 and letter knowledge. Note *p \ .05,  p \ .10
Observed adult’s modeling 38.7 48.4
course of the semester. Results showed that children made
provided a variety of paper (e.g., construction paper, lined significant gains in these two literacy skills across the
and unlined paper, and tracing paper), and a variety of semester: t (230) = 7.97, p \ .001, Cohen’s d = .28 for
writing tools (e.g., pens, pencils, crayons, and rubber writing skills (Fall: M = 5.88, SD = 8.29. Winter:
stamps). More than half of the classrooms had visible M = 8.34, SD = 9.10), and t (233) = 8.35, p \ .001,
alphabets (e.g., alphabet posters, and letter shapes) that Cohen’s d = .05 for letter-name knowledge (Fall:
were at children’s eye level. Many classrooms had a des- M = 5.43, SD = 1.65. Winter: M = 6.19, SD = 1.35). At
ignated area solely for writing activities (about 60 % of the beginning of the semester 54.3 % of children wrote at
classrooms in fall, and 45 % of classrooms in winter). least one recognizable letter during the writing assessment,
Writing props were primarily displayed in the writing area, while at the end of the semester more children (72.7 %)
and only about 20 % of the classroom included writing wrote at least one recognizable letter. Similarly, more chil-
props in other activity areas. dren (10 %) wrote their first name correctly at the end of the
Although basic writing materials, including paper and fall semester than at the beginning of the semester (4 %).
writing tools, were widely available, more advanced writing
prompts that may encourage and facilitate children’s writing Pathway Analysis
attempts were not present in many classrooms. For example,
\50 % of classrooms had writing templates such as alphabet A pathway model was used to test whether the classroom
stencils or word cards to help children form letters and words. writing environment influenced children’s growth of letter
Similarly, less than half of the classrooms displayed teach- knowledge (SD = 1.14) through children’s growth of early
ers’ dictation and children’s writing. The occurrence of writing skills (SD = 4.76). MPlus was used to test the
teachers’ facilitation of children’s attempts was generally model in order to control the cluster factor (i.e., children
low in frequency during observations across the semester. were nested within classroom). We examined the pathway
Children’s writing attempts and teachers’ writing facilitation from the writing environment through children’s writing
occurred in less than half of the classrooms. skills to children’s letter knowledge in order to examine the
potential indirect impact of the writing environment on
Children’s Writing and Letter Knowledge children’s letter knowledge (see Fig. 1). Having controlled
the nested factor of classroom, the pathway model showed
Significant concurrent correlations between children’s a good model fit, V2 = 1.11, p = .29, CFI = .098,
writing and letter knowledge were detected in Fall, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .02. The writing environment sig-
r (220) = .34, p \ .001, and in Winter, r (196) = .35, nificantly positively predicted children’s growth in writing
p \ .001. Paired t-tests were conducted to examine whether (writing residual scores), b = .05, SE = .03, p \ .05,
children’s writing and letter knowledge changed over the b = .14, SE = .07, p \ .05. Children’s writing residual

123
312
score, a measure of growth, positively predicted their letter
knowledge growth, measured by residual scores, b = .54,
SE = .30, p = .07, b = .13, SE = .08, p = .08. The
indirect effect of the writing environment on children’s
letter knowledge, however, was not significant, b = .02,
SE = .01, p = .16.
Discussion
This study explored the relation among preschool class-
room writing environment, children’s writing skills and
letter knowledge. Although the writing environments in the
participating Head Start classrooms were relatively basic,
the quality of the preschool classroom writing environment
was significantly related to children’s growth in writing
skills over the course of a single fall semester. Interest-
ingly, children’s growth in name writing did not show a
significant association with their growth in letter knowl-
edge, though the correlation was strong and positive. The
writing environment did not have a significant indirect
effect on children’s letter knowledge through their name
writing development.
Writing Environment in Head Start Classrooms
Descriptive statistics showed several characteristics of the
writing environment in the Head Start classroom that are
consistent with findings from recent studies. The mean score
for the classroom writing environment was about 7.80 points
on a scale of zero to 20. This suggests that Head Start
classrooms provided some opportunities for children to
practice writing skills as recommended by researchers (e.g.,
Neuman et al. 2000). It may be that because each Head Start
center has to follow Head Start performance standards (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services 2008) that spe-
cifically mandates the presentation of literacy learning
materials (i.e., § 1304.21), all participating classrooms
included some writing prompts. This finding echoes Gerde
and Bingham’s (2012) recent observational study in 65
preschool classrooms. They found that while most preschool
classrooms had writing materials available for children and a
well-equipped writing center, writing materials were gen-
erally placed within the writing center only. In our study,
only about 23 % of classrooms had writing props in play
areas (e.g., dramatic play and science area).
The descriptive data also suggested that few changes
were made in the classroom writing environment over the
fall semester. This may reflect the unique characteristics of
the classroom writing environment. The amount and the
variety of writing-related materials available in a classroom
may be related to the budget of Head Start centers, which
may not change across a semester. Some classroom activity
123
Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:307–315
areas such as writing center may not be rearranged over a
semester. Teachers’ writing facilitation and teacher-child
writing interaction occurred at a low frequency during our
observations. It may be that many Head Start teachers
believe that teaching children social skills, such as fol-
lowing classroom rules and routines, is prerequisite to
teaching children literacy skills (O’Leary et al. 2010).
Teachers may place more emphasis on guiding children’s
behaviors rather than supporting writing attempts in the fall
semester when the data collection occurred.
Children’s name-writing and letter knowledge showed
significant growth over the fall semester. Similar to Diamond
and Baroody’s (2013) findings, in our study, about 75 % of
the children wrote at least one letter in their names at the end
of the semester, whereas only about 50 % of the children did
this at the beginning of the semester. Previous studies have
shown consistent concurrent correlations between children’s
name-writing skills and letter knowledge (Drouin and Har-
mon 2009; Puranik and Lonigan 2012), even for children with
special needs (Diamond and Baroody 2013) and children
from low-income families (Molfese et al. 2011). In this study,
we found the relation between children’s growth of name
writing skills and their growth of letter knowledge approa-
ched significance (b = .54, p = .08).
Writing Environment and Children’s Learning
Outcomes
This study examined the relations between the classroom
writing environment and children’s name-writing skill and
letter knowledge. The pathway analysis showed that the
classroom writing environment was significantly related to
children’s growth in name-writing skill over the semester. A
writing environment that contained more supports for writ-
ing, including writing materials and writing models (e.g.,
word cards, posters of teachers’ dictation) was associated
with children’s growth in name-writing performance. This
finding addresses the necessity for creating a rich writing
environment in a preschool classroom. In a classroom where
abundant writing materials and adults’ support are present,
children may have more opportunities to initiate writing
attempts, and receive feedback on writing.
No significant indirect relation, however, was found
between the classroom writing environment, measured by
writing materials and teachers’ facilitation of writing
attempts, and children’s letter-naming skills. One expla-
nation could be that some children may not necessarily
learn letter knowledge through name writing. Some chil-
dren are able to write their own names without correctly
recognizing the letters in their names (Drouin and Harmon
2009). These children may write their names as strings of
letters or by rote (Puranik et al. 2011) without a conceptual
understanding of the letters they have written.
Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:307–315
Another explanation is that teachers may play a medi-
ating role between the classroom writing environment and
children’s learning of letters as they talk with children
about letters and letter sounds as they help children to
write (Both-de Vries and Bus 2010). However, if teacher-
child writing interactions occur at a low frequency, there
would be fewer opportunities for teachers to use writing
activities to teach decoding skills. Recent studies also
showed that teachers’ facilitation of children’s writing is
sometimes implicit; they may only focus on modeling
writing without drawing children’s attention to the actual
process of writing (Gerde and Bingham 2012). Previous
intervention studies of children’s print knowledge devel-
opment have shown that children learn more about print
when adults actively interact with them and provide
explanations of prints such as letter and words in children’s
books, labels and posters than when children are simply
exposed to a print-enriched classroom (Neuman and Ros-
kos 1993). This may also be the case for children’s writing.
Teachers may need to provide active and explicit instruc-
tion that not only involves utilizing writing materials to
practice writing, but also demonstrates the connection
between writing, letter and letter-sound skills (Sénéchal
et al. 2012), if writing activities are used to promote
children’s decoding skills.
Limitations and Future Research
There are some limitations that need to be acknowledged in
this study. First, our pathway analyses are correlational.
We cannot conclude that there is a causal impact of the
classroom writing environment on children’s early writing
development from these data. Second, we encountered
challenges in measurement. The measure of the classroom
literacy environment that we used in this study (i.e.,
ELLCO) is aimed at evaluating global quality. Although
the selected items we used for the analyses showed
acceptable reliability, we could only provide a snapshot of
the classroom writing environment. Some important types
of teachers’ facilitation, such as teachers’ feedback on
children’s writing attempts, were not captured. Gerde and
Bingham (2012) have developed an observational measure
for capturing the writing environment, environmental print,
teachers’ writing instruction, and children’s writing
attempts and this may be a useful tool in future research
examining the quality of the classroom writing environ-
ment. In this study, we assessed children’s name-writing
skill as an early writing development outcome. Letter
writing skill, which may reflect another link between
writing and letter knowledge, was not assessed. Future
research may need to include a systematic writing assess-
ment in order to explore the relations between the writing
environment and children’s early writing skills.
313
Third, we did not collect data on individual children’s
writing interactions with their teachers. More systematic
investigation of teachers’ writing instruction is needed.
Gerde et al. (2012) provided a set of research-based
teaching guidelines for promoting children’s writing
development in early childhood classrooms. Future studies
may develop professional training that specifically pro-
motes research-based writing instruction in classroom.
Finally, although our sample of children was substantial,
data came from a modest number of Head Start classrooms.
With a larger sample of classrooms, future studies may be
able to explore relations among different components of
the writing environment and between these components
and children’s developing literacy skills.
Conclusions
The present study conceptualized the classroom writing
environment as including both writing materials, and
teachers’ facilitation of children’s writing attempts. Over-
all, most of the Head Start classrooms arranged a writing
environment for children’s writing development. But many
classrooms only offered basic writing prompts (e.g., pens
and papers) rather than more advanced prompts that pro-
vide writing guidance (e.g., word cards). Observed teacher-
child writing interactions and teachers’ writing facilitation
were low in frequency. Pathway analysis showed signifi-
cant relations between the writing environment and chil-
dren’s growth in name-writing, and the relation between
children’s growth in name-writing skill and their growth in
letter knowledge approached significance. The non-signif-
icant relation between the writing environment and chil-
dren’s letter knowledge suggests a need for more research
that examines how teachers’ instruction may mediate
relations between the literacy environment and children’s
development.
References
Aram, D., & Biron, S. (2004). Joint storybook reading and joint
writing interventions among low SES preschoolers: Differential
contributions to early literacy. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 19, 588–610. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.10.003.
Aram, D., & Levin, I. (2012). Home support of children in writing
process: Contributions to early literacy. In S.B. Neuman, & D.
K., Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy (Vol. 3,
pp. 189–199). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing
and literacy acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34,
342–367.
Both-de Vries, A. C., & Bus, A. G. (2010). The proper name as
starting point for basic reading skills. Reading and Writing, 23,
173–187.
123
314
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, S. (2006). The bioecological model of
human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology (6th edition). Volume One:
Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793-823). NY:
Wiley.
Clark, P., & Kragler, S. (2005). The impact of including writing
materials in early childhood classrooms on the early literacy
development of children from low-income families. Early Child
Development and Care, 175, 285–301.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally
appropriate practice in early childhood programs (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children.
DeBaryshe, B. D., Buell, M. J., & Binder, J. C. (1996). What a parent
brings to the table: Young children writing with and without
parental assistance. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 71–90.
Dennis, L. R., & Votteler, N. K. (2013). Preschool teachers and
children’s emergent writing: Supporting diverse learners. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 41, 439–446.
Diamond, K., & Baroody, A. (2013). Associations among name
writing and alphabetic skills in prekindergarten and kindergarten
children at risk of school failure. Journal of Early Intervention,
35, 20–39. doi:10.1177/1053815113499611.
Diamond, K., Gerde, H. K., & Powell, D. R. (2008). Development in
early literacy skills during the pre-kindergarten year in Head
Start: Relations between growth in children’s writing and
understanding of letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
23, 467–478.
Dickinson, K., & Caswell, L. (2007). Building support for language
and early literacy in preschool classrooms through in-service
professional development: Effects of the Literacy Environment
Enrichment Program (LEEP). Early Childhood Research Quar-
terly, 22, 243–260. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.03.001.
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy with
language: Young child learning at home and at school.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Drouin, M., & Harmon, J. (2009). Name writing and letter knowledge
in preschoolers: Incongruities in skills and the usefulness of
name writing as a developmental indicator. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 24, 263–270. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.05.
001.
Gerde, H. K., & Bingham, G. E. (2012). An examination of materials
and interaction supports for children’s writing in preschool
classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the
Society for the Scientific Study of Reading. Montreal, Quebec.
Gerde, H. K., Bingham, G. E., & Wasik, B. A. (2012). Writing in
early childhood classrooms: Guidance for best practices. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 40, 351–359. doi:10.1007/
s10643-012-0531-z.
Grace, C., Bordelon, D., Cooper, P., Kazelskis, R., Reeves, C., &
Thames, D. G. (2008). Impact of professional development on
the literacy environments of preschool classrooms. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 23, 52–81.
Graves, D. (2003). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Ports-
mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Guo, Y., Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J. N., & McGinty, A. (2012). The
literacy environment of preschool classrooms: Contributions to
children’s emergent literacy growth. Journal of Research in
Reading, 35, 308–327. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01467.x.
Hall, A. H., Toland, M. D., Grisham-Brown, J., & Graham, S. (2013).
Exploring interactive writing as an effective practice for
increasing Head Start students’ alphabet knowledge skills. Early
Childhood Education Journal. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0594-5.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading.
Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160.
123
Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:307–315
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009).
Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school:
The independent contributions of oral language and decoding
skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778.
Molfese, V. J., Beswick, J. L., Jacobi-Vessels, J. L., Armstrong, N. E.,
Culver, R. L., White, J. M., et al. (2011). Evidence of alphabetic
knowledge in writing: Connections to letter and word identifi-
cation skills in preschool and kindergarten. Reading and Writing,
24, 133–150. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-926508.
National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). (2008). Developing early
literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Wash-
ington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for children
of poverty: Differential effects of adult mediation and literacy-
enriched play settings on environmental and functional print
tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 95–122.
Neuman, S. B., Roskos, K., & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to
read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for
young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
O’Leary, P. M., Cockburn, M. K., Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E.
(2010). Head Start teachers’ views of phonological awareness
and vocabulary knowledge instruction. Early Childhood Educa-
tion Journal, 38, 187–195. doi:10.1007/s10643-010-0394-0.
Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2012). Promoting literacy and
language development. In R. C. Pianta, W. S. Barnett, L.
M. Justice, & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of early
childhood education (pp. 194–216). New York: Guilford.
Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Bojczyk, K. E., & Gerde, H. K.
(2008). Head Start teachers’ perspectives on early literacy.
Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 422–460.
Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Koehler, M. J.
(2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development
intervention on Head Start teachers and children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102, 299–312.
Puranik, C. S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2012). Name-writing proficiency,
not length of name, is associated with preschool children’s
emergent literacy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
27, 284–294. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.09.03.
Puranik, C. S., Lonigan, C. J., & Kim, Y.-S. (2011). Contributions of
emergent literacy skills to name writing, letter writing and
spelling in preschool children. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 26, 465–474. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.03.002.
Rieben, L., Ntamakiliro, L., Gonthier, B., & Fayol, M. (2005). Effects
of various early writing practices on reading and spelling.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 145–166.
Rowe, D. W., & Neitzel, C. (2010). Interest and agency in 2- and
3-year-olds’ participation in emergent writing. Reading
Research Quarterly, 45, 169–195. doi:10.1598/PRQ.45.2.2.
Sénéchal, M., Ouellette, G., Pagan, S., & Lever, R. (2012). The role of
invented spelling on learning to read in low-phoneme awareness
kindergartners: a randomized-control-trial study. Reading and
Writing, 25, 917–934. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9310-2.
Smith, M. W., Dickinson, D. K., Sangeorge, A., & Anastasopoulos, L.
(2001). User’s guide to the early language and literacy classroom
observation toolkit, research edition. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Son, S., & Meisels, S. J. (2006). The relationship of young children’s
motor skills to later reading and math achievement. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 52, 755–778.
Sulzby, E., Barnhart, J., & Hieshima, J. (1989). Technical Report No.
20: Forms of writing and rereading from writing: A preliminary
report. www.writingproject.org/Resources/techreports.html.
Treiman, R., Cohen, J., Mulqueeny, K., Kessler, B., & Schechtman, S.
(2007). Young children’s knowledge about printed names. Child
Development, 78, 1458–1471.
Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:307–315
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008). § 1304.21
Education and early childhood development. Head Start Perfor-
mance Standards and Other Regulations. http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.
gov/hslc/standards/Head%20Start%20Requirements/1304/1304.
21%20Education%20and%20early%20childhood%20develop
ment..htm.
Wayne, A., DiCarlo, C. F., Burts, D. C., & Benedict, J. (2007).
Increasing the literacy behaviors of preschool children through
315
environmental modification and teacher mediation. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 22, 5–16.
Welsch, J. G., Sullivan, A., & Justice, L. M. (2003). That’s my letter!
What preschoolers’ name writing representations tell us about
emergent literacy knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 35,
757–776. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3520_4.
123