Effects of Writing Instruction on Kindergarten Students’ Writing Achievement: An Experimental Study

Jones, Cindy D.

doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.836466

Cited by 26 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further confounding is the myriad approaches to coding and analyzing writing data, with some research considering written complexity (e.g., Puranik & Lonigan, ), discourse (e.g., C.D. Jones, ), processes (e.g., Myhill & Jones, ), intentions (e.g., Schrader, ), or a combination (e.g., Rowe & Wilson, ). As approaches to coding are diverse, it is necessary to account for these differences.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Nature and Measurement of Children's Early Composing

Quinn

Bingham

2018

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Young children's writing development (i.e., writing occurring in preschool and kindergarten prior to the skilled, fluent writing associated with formal schooling) is an important predictor of later literacy achievement. Current policy movements, such as the Common Core State Standards, invoke increased composing demands, yet research has often focused on children's growing ability to transcribe (e.g., form letters, spell words) rather than their ability to compose text and generate ideas. The current study examined literature from the past 30 years to determine the prevailing operational definitions of early composing and the ways in which composing has been measured to date. Given inclusion criteria, the authors collected and coded articles to determine trends and prevailing approaches (n = 445). Findings revealed that various theoretical and conceptual frames influenced approaches to assessing children's composing, yielding little shared understanding of the nature and development of early composing. Findings also revealed that tasks used to measure children's early composing development have not always aligned with theoretical notions of early writing, nor have they been properly operationalized in psychometrically sound, valid, and reliable ways. Further, analyses of trends across time yielded insight into the evolving conceptualizations and prioritization of particular aspects of early composing, such as the focus on children's use of conventional encoding in a composing task context. Implications for practice are discussed in light of these findings.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Nature and Measurement of Children's Early Composing

Quinn

Bingham

2018

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Children come to understand that letters symbolize segments of speech via repeated interactions with supporting adults, such as family members and teachers (e.g., Robins & Treiman, ). In effective spelling support, adults guide children to separate words into their component sounds, connect each sound to its letter, and then independently write the letter (Hall, Simpson, Guo, & Wang, ; Jones, ; Levin & Aram, ). Building on the successful interactions between supportive adults and young children as they learn to spell, we examined how different digital supports within a spelling game could promote early literacy skills.…”

Section: Writing With Preschoolersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their early literacy skills reflect their understanding of the written language and predict reading and writing achievement (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008). Meaningful writing activities with preschoolers can promote children's early literacy skills (e.g., Gerde, Bingham, & Wasik, 2012;Jones, 2015;Suortti & Lipponen, 2016). Early writing includes composing, handwriting, and spelling (Kaderavek, Cabell, & Justice, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a Digital Spelling Game for Promoting Alphabetic Knowledge of Preschoolers: The Contribution of Auditory and Visual Supports

Elimelech

Aram

2019

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors developed a digital spelling game to promote children's early literacy skills. Based on the dual‐coding theory, the authors studied the benefits of auditory support alone versus auditory+visual support. Children played the game in three conditions: no support, hearing the whole word; auditory‐only support, hearing a word segmented; and auditory+visual support, hearing the word segmented together with seeing the highlighted position of the letters. The participants were 129 Hebrew‐speaking children (mean age = 5.7 years) from five preschools located in low–socioeconomic status neighborhoods. Children were randomly divided into one of the four groups (the three intervention conditions and a comparison group that did not play the game but watched electronic books). Children in each of the four groups participated in eight 20‐minute sessions over the course of one month (two sessions per week). Children's letter knowledge (letter names and sounds), phonological awareness (word segmentation), word spelling, and word decoding were assessed before and after the intervention. Children's visuomotor and oral skills were assessed and controlled for in the analyses. Generalized estimating equations regressions showed that the auditory+visual support and auditory‐only support groups scored higher on the posttest than the no‐support and comparison groups in letter knowledge, phonological awareness, word spelling, and word decoding. The no‐support group scored higher than the comparison group only in letter knowledge. The authors highlight ways for promoting children's understanding of the writing system and demonstrate the effectiveness of a computerized game adapted to the orthography in promoting basic early literacy skills.

show abstract

“…We think that preschoolers in general can benefit from this game, yet we chose to study its effectiveness with preschoolers from a lower socioeconomic status (SES). It is important to promote the early literacy of preschoolers from a lower SES because they generally show lower early literacy skills 2 Many times, they say the word to themselves slowly and write parts of it correctly and the rest with random letters (Aram, Abiri, & Elad, 2014;Jones, 2015;Levin & Bus, 2003;Treiman, 2017), for example, writing the letter F followed by few random letters for father. Gerde et al (2012) found that children initially write the letter that represents the first sound in the word (e.g., B for Bird), then they write both the first and last sound in the word (BD for Bird), and finally they represent the consonants of the middle (BRD for Bird).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%