Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Promoting high-leverage writing instruction through an early

childhood classroom daily routine (WPI): A professional development
model of early writing skills
Chenyi Zhang ∗ , Gary E. Bingham
Georgia State University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study presents an initial investigation of a professional development intervention model for pro-
Received 11 April 2017 moting preschool teachers’ high-leverage writing instruction through a modification of the “Morning
Received in revised form 13 May 2019 Meeting Time” (MMT) classroom routine. Using a quasi-experimental design, 14 teachers and 112 chil-
Accepted 2 June 2019
dren were assigned to intervention and comparison conditions. Intervention group teachers received a
Available online 3 July 2019
four-hour workshop and one in-classroom coaching session focused on modifying existing MMT routine
activities to implement interactive writing instruction. Results indicate that intervention group teach-
Keywords:
ers achieved high intervention implementation fidelity and significantly improved the quality of their
Early writing
Early literacy
writing instruction (Cohen’s d ranges from 1.22 to 2.36). Further, despite a relatively brief intervention
Writing instruction phrase (three months), intervention group children showed greater gains in name writing, letter writing,
Professional development and letter naming skills than comparison group children (Cohen’s d ranges from 1.28 to 1.59). Findings
Early childhood provide initial evidence for the merit of utilizing typically occurring classroom routines, such as Morning
Meeting, for embedding explicit teaching and writing opportunities for young children.
© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction development. Further, despite the importance of writing oppor-

Children’s writing development (e.g., name writing, letter
writing, and spelling) before they enter formal schooling, is con-
currently and longitudinally associated with pre-reading skills
(Kendeou, van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009; National Early
Literacy Panel, 2008), such as phonological awareness and letter
knowledge (Diamond, Gerde, & Powell, 2008; Dickinson, McCabe,
Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003), and predictive of
both later reading and writing achievement (Aram & Biron, 2004;
Hammill, 2004; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Shatil, Share, &
Levin, 2000). The reciprocal relationship between children’s early
writing and reading processes (e.g., Bloodgood, 1999; Clay, 2001;
Diamond et al., 2008; Morris, Bloodgood, Lomax, & Perney, 2003)
highlights the importance of children’s early writing experiences,
which serve as a context for using and developing a range of literacy
skills in meaningful ways (Diamond et al., 2008).
Although emerging evidence highlights the importance of chil-
dren’s writing skills to later achievement, less is known about
how children’s exposure to writing instruction supports writing
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: czhang15@gsu.edu (C. Zhang).
tunities in early childhood settings to children’s writing attempts
and learning of literacy skills (Gerde, Bingham, & Pendergast, 2015;
Guo, Justice, Kaderavek, & McGinty, 2012), recent research docu-
ments that preschool teachers’ writing instruction occurs relatively
infrequently and is, generally, of low quality (Bingham, Quinn,
& Gerde, 2017). Although writing instruction is often included
as a component of targeted literacy instruction in early literacy
professional development (PD) interventions that employ com-
prehensive language and literacy PD approaches (e.g., Landry,
Anthony, Swank, & Monseque-Bailey, 2009; Wasik & Hindman,
2011; Powell & Diamond, 2011), it is difficult to know how specific
instructional practices impact children’s writing development. One
recent approach to professional learning suggests the importance
of focusing on high-leverage teaching practices (HLTP)—a core set
of practices that have the greatest impact on children’s learning of
specific early skills (Ball, Sleep, Boerst, & Bass, 2009; Hlas & Hlas,
2012). An HLTP PD approach highlights certain core instructional
practices within a very specific purpose (e.g., interactive, shared
book reading to promote children’s language development). HLTP
PD designs should focus on accommodating teachers’ background
knowledge and experiences in a manner that facilititates that newly
introduced instructional practices fit within existing classroom
routines and are relatively easy for teachers to implement. Such

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.06.003
0885-2006/© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151
an approach increases the likelihood that teachers will enact prac-
tices with high fidelity (Ball et al., 2009). This study presents an
exploration of a PD intervention model developed within an HLTP
approach to promote the quality of teachers’ writing instruction
and, subsequently, children’s writing skills through the modifica-
tion of a large group Morning Meeting Time (MMT) routine. Given
consistent associations between children’s writing and pre-reading
skills (i.e., letter knowledge, print knowledge and phonological
awareness), we also explored whether the intervention may have
an impact on children’s pre-reading skills.
1.1. Promoting the quality of early writing instruction
Existing research on early childhood classrooms in the U.S. doc-
uments that children have access to a variety of writing materials,
which often include a classroom writing center (Gerde et al., 2015).
The availability of these items align with existing professional rec-
ommendations and teaching standards that encourage, or even
mandate, preschool classrooms to provide writing materials (e.g.,
Head Start performance standards, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2008) and to create a learning center where chil-
dren can practice writing (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Researchers
and professionals agree that providing and displaying attractive
writing materials in classrooms are necessary (Neuman, Copple, &
Bredekamp, 2000) for engaging children in writing activities (Rowe
& Neitzel, 2010) and encouraging children’s self-initiated writing
attempts (O’Leary, Cockburn, Powell, & Diamond, 2010).
Despite the prevalence of materials in classrooms, teachers
relatively infrequently engage in activities that actively support
children’s writing (Gerde et al., 2015; Zhang, Diamond, & Powell,
2015). Gerde et al.’s observational study demonstrates that very
few teachers model or scaffold writing regularly as part of their
daily routine, classroom teaching, or during children’s play. In addi-
tion, when teachers were observed modeling or scaffolding writing,
they often did so in ways that were implicit (i.e., they failed to
draw attention to their actions) or of relatively low quality (i.e., they
rarely scaffolded children in ways that produced an understanding
of writing processes). Few teachers prompted children to identify
the name and sound of letters when writing letters or spelling
words, which is an important instructional practice for building
children’s understanding of how letters work in written language.
Social-cultural theory suggests that adult support and guidance
are indispensable to children’s writing development (Vygotsky,
1978). The importance of adult guidance is demonstrated in stud-
ies documenting that children write more letters and spell longer
words with parents (DeBaryshe, Buell, & Binder, 1996) or teach-
ers’ help (Rieben, Ntamakiliro, Gonthier, & Fayol, 2005) than when
they write independently. Several home-based intervention stud-
ies (Levin & Aram, 2010), for example, demonstrate the importance
of parents’ clarification and explanation about writing conventions
(e.g., letter formation, word, and letter spacing) to children’s devel-
opment of handwriting and spelling skills.
Given the consistent associations between writing and pre-
reading skills (e.g., Molfese, Beswick, Molnar, & Jacobi-Vessels,
2006; Diamond et al., 2008), teachers’ effective writing instruc-
tion likely leads to children’s development of pre-reading skills in
addition to writing skills. In one of very few preschool writing inter-
vention studies, Aram and Biron (2004) document that children
who receive explicit small group writing support and instruction
evidenced significantly higher word writing and decoding skills
(i.e., phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and orthographic
awareness skills) than children receiving small group joint book
reading instruction or business as usual instruction. The small
group writing instruction focused on supporting children to write
their names, the names of friends, and familiar words while the
teacher provided letter-name and letter-sound correspondence
139
support. Taken together, the findings of these studies suggest that
children can learn important writing and pre-reading skills through
interactions with adults who draw attention to the process of
writing and support children in their emergent writing abilities.
However, given research documenting that teachers infrequently
model or scaffold writing in preschool classrooms, it is important to
develop PD intervention models for promoting the frequency and
quality of teachers’ writing instruction.
1.2. Developing a PD model within a high-leverage teaching
practice framework
A fundamental challenge in early childhood professional devel-
opment is improving the quality of teachers’ instructional practices
in ways that positively impact children’s development. This chal-
lenge is illustrated by findings from early reading first programs
as well as other language and literacy PD interventions that
have employed comprehensive approaches to increasing classroom
quality (Dickinson & Caswell, 2007; Landry et al., 2009; Powell &
Diamond, 2011). Comprehensive models often include intensive
workshops and/or coaching for teachers aimed at implementing
a full range of evidence-based literacy instruction of multiple, if
not all, early literacy domains (e.g., oral language, pre-reading, and
emergent writing). In many of these approaches, teachers imple-
ment various literacy and language instructional practices (e.g.,
book reading, phonological awareness instruction) across differ-
ent activity contexts either sequentially or simultaneously (e.g.,
Dickinson & Caswell, 2007; Jackson et al., 2007; Landry et al.,
2009; Powell & Diamond, 2011). Although valuable, comprehen-
sive approaches are considerably time-consuming and expensive
for delivery (e.g., Dickinson, Freiberg, & Barnes, 2011) and do not
necessarily improve children’s language and literacy skills signif-
icantly (Diamond, Justice, Siegler, & Snyder, 2013; Jackson et al.,
2007; Lonigan, Farver, Phillips, & Clancy-Menchetti, 2011).
Difficulty with producing consistent teacher and child out-
comes likely relates to multiple factors, including the fact that
some approaches ask teachers to implement too many prac-
tices (e.g., book reading, phonological awareness instruction, and
writing) or have limited focus on key practices that are easily
implemented by early childhood educators who often have little
time to plan instruction (Dickinson et al., 2011). Further, because
preschool teachers are often encouraged to provide support of all
domains of children’s development with the least instructional
time (Bustamante, Hindman, Champagne, & Wasik, 2018), time
and staffing constraints, are considerable barriers to PD as teachers
receive very little paid time for planning or professional develop-
ment (Powell, 2013). These factors are one reason that teachers
may vary significantly in their fidelity of intervention imple-
mentation across strategies that they are trained to implement
(e.g., Bingham, Culatta, & Hall-Kenyon, 2016; Powell, Diamond,
Burchinal, & Koehler, 2010). Research documents that teachers
may need considerable time to practice and effectively implement
newly introduced literacy instruction in ways that promote chil-
dren’s literacy and language skills (Landry, Anthony, Swank, &
Assel, 2011).
A recent approach emphasized for impactful professional devel-
opment projects is to focus on high-leverage teaching practices
(HLTP; Ball et al., 2009; Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald,
2009). Generally speaking, HLTPs are conceptualized as classroom
practices and teaching pedagogies that, based on existing empir-
ical studies, produce the greatest and most consistent impacts on
children’s learning and development when implemented properly
and frequently. These practices are fundamental to teacher’s class-
room instruction and beneficial to children’s learning both distally
and proximally, yet unlikely to be learned through teacher’s own
experience (Grossman et al., 2009). HLTPs should also address and
140 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151

Table 1
The list or high-leverage writing instruction.

High-leverage writing instruction Targeted teaching practices in intervention Research evidence

• Interactive writing practices Through frequent writing attempts in a meaningful

Writing practices • Repeated writing practices context, children can develop awareness of being a writer
• Included both teacher-led (writing along with teachers’ (Clay, 1975; Rowe, 2008), understand the function of
writing) and child-led writing practices (children’s writing as a communication tool, and to practice writing
independent writing attempts) actions (Dennis & Votteler, 2013).

• Explanation of writing tools, e.g., “I am going to use my
Explanation of writing marker to write January on my whiteboard.”
processes • Explanation of writing as a form of communication, e.g.,
“Good morning class! Let’s write hello on our whiteboard
and show it to our friends to welcome them to school.”
• Explanation of writing tasks, e.g., “Friends, yesterday we
talked about trees. Let’s write the word tree together on
our whiteboard.”
• Modeling writing with explanation of print knowledge,
and decoding skills, e.g., “What’s the weather today?
Sunny. Good, I am going to write down Sunny here from
left to right with the first letter capitalized”
Children need frequent exposure to environmental print,
its function, and familiar words in order to develop
understanding of print and how it works (Pollo, Kessler, &
Treiman, 2009).
Teachers need to utilize environmental print in teaching
and frequently model writing to demonstrate the
formation of letters, how letters represent sounds and can
be used for spelling words, and learn writing conventions
(Dennis & Votteler, 2013).

Scaffolding with explicit • Supporting children’s writing attempts with explicit
decoding skills instruction focused on letter knowledge and/or phonemic
awareness (letter names of letter sound), e.g., “A letter to
your mom? Let’s write together. What is the first letter we
need to write? What letter makes the /m/ sound? Yes. How
about /a/ sound? Great! What is the last letter you hear?
Writing is cognitively challenging task that requires
children to coordinate different literacy skills, such as
letter knowledge and phonological awareness (Molfese
et al., 2011), in addition to necessary motor skills (Gerde,
Bingham et al., 2012) when completing a writing task (e.g.,
name writing, letter writing, and spelling).
Studies show that teachers’ explicit instruction
significantly impacts children’s learning of decoding skills,
which in turn may influence children’s early writing
development (Puranik, Lonigan, & Kim, 2011). As such,
teachers need to scaffold children’s writing attempts by
building children’s print knowledge, letter knowledge, and
phonemic awareness skills.

incorporate teachers’ level of experience, expertise, and profes-
sional development learning needs in a manner that encourages
teacher participation and reciprocity. Attention to teachers’ back-
grounds (e.g., educational and work experiences) and classroom
characteristics (e.g., existing resources, curriculum and children’s
skills) are important when determining whether the practices
being delivered through PD can be learned by teachers and imple-
mented by them. Such factors are also important for encouraging
teachers’ personal reflection on the effectiveness of HLTPs in pro-
moting children’s skills and the impact of PD on their practices
(Zhang & Cook, 2019).
1.3. The Writing Promotion Intervention (WPI) model
The Writing Promotion Intervention (WPI) model was devel-
oped within an HLTP framework. The theory of change in this model
focuses on a core set of research-based HLTP writing instruction
practices that can be implemented during a typically occurring rou-
tine classroom activity (i.e., morning meeting). Teachers are more
likely to implement writing instruction regularly and with high
fidelity, if they find such practices easy and convenient to imple-
ment. Implementing such strategies should then, in turn, lead to
improvements in children’s writing. We explain the WPI model
in depth below as well as the research base that supports this
approach.
The WPI instructional model is centered on three core HLTPs
that research suggests are important to children’s writing develop-
ment: (a) offering interactive writing opportunities, (b) explaining
and demonstrating writing processes, and (c) scaffolding children’s
writing attempts with explicit literacy instruction. Early literacy
research highlights the importance of providing interactive and
engaging literacy activities to children (Gerde, Bingham, & Wasik,
2012; Ilgaz, Hassinger-Das, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2014; Zhang
& Quinn, 2018). Writing activities should be interactive so that chil-
dren may actively participate and initiate writing attempts, which
also enables teachers to evaluate and further support children’s
writing development. Teachers’ modeling and demonstration of
the writing process is considered an important strategy for help-
ing young children develop an understanding of writing language
(Clay, 2001). High-quality modeling involves teachers’ explana-
tion of, or attention to, the process of writing through the use
of think aloud, self-talk, or questioning that draws attention to
what teachers are doing in ways that promote children’s current
understanding of writing products and processes (Roskos, Tabors,
& Lenhart, 2009). In addition, given that writing is a complex
act (i.e., one must coordinate multiple developmental systems:
motor, language, orthographic, and cognitive), children may need
teachers’ supports when coordinating multiple literacy skills (e.g.,
letter name and sound correspondence, and print knowledge) to
complete a writing task (Cabell, Tortorelli, & Gerde, 2013; Piasta,
Purpura, & Wagner, 2010; Puranik & Lonigan, 2014). Although
research suggests that teachers provide support of handwriting
skills, such as hand-over-hand guidance of forming recognizable
letters (Gerde et al., 2015), they provide considerably less support
around other writing practices (Bingham et al., 2017). There-
fore, the scaffolding practices in our intervention focused on the
use of explicit literacy instruction to support children’s writing
attempts through helping them coordinate multiple literacy skills
(see Table 1).
The WPI model is centered on one activity context, Morning
Meeting Time (MMT), as the instructional routine in which teach-
ers implement the HLTP. During a typical preschool day, MMT
often serves as the very first teacher-led large group activity and
teachers often complete a set of routinized daily tasks during this
instructional routine (Bustamante et al., 2018), such as checking
attendance, talking about the date and weather, discussing the
daily schedule or reviewing the classroom theme or area/unit of
study (e.g., fall, farm animals, and transportation). Research demon-
strates that morning meeting practices are common in preschool
programs, particularly Head Start, and can be used as an inter-
 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151
vention context (Hindman & Wasik, 2012). For example, in their
study of 34 Head Start classrooms, Zhang, Diamond et al. (2015)
document that almost all classrooms had a routinized MMT large
group circle time before, or at a time separate from, large group
book reading. Importantly, the average length of the MMT (13 min)
was significantly longer than a typical large group book read-
ing activity (9 min), suggesting that teachers were spending more
time in these routinized practices instead of evidence-based strate-
gies such as shared book reading. Given research documenting
that teachers’ general literacy instruction is of relatively low qual-
ity (Justice, Mashburn, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008) and that teachers’
speech and literacy instruction varies across different classroom
activities and routines (Gest, Holland-Coviello, Welsh, Eicher-Catt,
& Gill, 2006), MMT appears to be an instructional context that could
be leveraged for meaningful and explicit writing experiences. This
assumption is bolstered by studies documenting that, in contrast
to book reading talk that tends to include relatively richer lan-
guage and content (as teachers focus on story structures, plots, and
oral language skills, see Neuman & Dwyer, 2009; Dickinson, Hofer,
Barnes, & Grifenhagen, 2014), teacher’s speech during MMT typi-
cally includes short and repetitive utterances that do not change
significantly over the semester (e.g., “What is the date today?” or
“What is the weather today?”) (Zhang, Diamond et al., 2015). With
such research in mind, the relatively low quality of MMT instruc-
tional activities offer a promising context for implementing writing
instruction because many teachers are familiar with activities that
could provide opportunities to include or embed literacy teaching
of early reading and writing skills, including letter writing (e.g.,
writing children’s names or letters from children’s names), phono-
logical awareness (e.g., clapping syllabus in children’s names), print
knowledge (e.g., pointing to the words of the month, and children’s
name cards), or spelling (e.g., writing messages or simple words
related to the curricular theme or topic of study).
Although little research has examined MMT as an instructional
context to promote early writing skills, teachers implementation
of a Morning Message routine, as part of MMT, has been docu-
mented by Hindman and Wasik (2012) as an activity context for
building children’s decoding related skills. In a pilot intervention
study, they trained 19 Head Start teachers to implement explicit lit-
eracy instruction using a Morning Message routine. Teachers were
trained to generate one or two sentences with children about a vari-
ety of topics (e.g., weather, special event, and holiday) and write
these sentences on a whiteboard. Teachers were also trained to
model writing in ways that provided explicit literacy instruction
(e.g., letter knowledge, print knowledge and letter-sound aware-
ness). Although this exploratory study did not have a comparison
group or a large sample size, a significant relation emerged between
teachers’ letter knowledge instruction during MMT and children’s
growth of letter knowledge across the year.
The WPI model has a more specific focus of infusing writing
instruction into MMT through the modification of existing morn-
ing routines based on teachers’ own preference and children’s
perceived interests. It is similar to the naturalistic instructional
approach used in intervention studies of children with spe-
cial needs, in which researchers embed teaching of target early
skills (e.g., communication skill) into typically occurring activities
(Snyder et al., 2015). The WPI model was implemented in large
group routine for all children in a classroom rather than small-
group or free-choice routines for individualized instruction because
(a) teachers spend considerable time in these settings during the
preschool day (Early, Iruka, Ritchie, & Barbarin, 2010) and (b) teach-
ers in this study had MMT as part of their daily schedule but not
small group instruction. Lastly, we provided a brief four-hour work-
shop to introduce HLTP writing instruction to teachers and guided
teachers to modify existing daily activities to infuse HLTP writing
instruction into MMT.
141
1.4. Research questions
As a first step toward building evidence of promise for this inter-
vention approach, this study aimed to promote children’s writing
skills by making modifications to teachers’ MMT practices. Two
research questions were addressed in this initial investigation: (1)
To what extent does guiding teachers to implement writing instruc-
tion during MMT lead to higher quality writing interactions in early
childhood classrooms? We hypothesized that MMT, as a typical
large group activity, could be used as a meaningful context for
promoting core practices of teachers’ writing instruction. (2) Does
infusing writing instruction into MMT promote children’s early
reading and writing skills? We hypothesized that MMT promotes
teacher–child writing interactions in ways that increase opportu-
nities for children to practice and explore writing skills. Children’s
writing experiences during MMT time will lead to improvements
in their early reading and writing skills.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Fourteen Pre-Kindergarten classrooms from four childcare cen-
ters in a southeastern urban area serving children from low-income
families (i.e., over 80% of enrolled children receive free meals) were
recruited for this study. Participating classrooms maintained a full-
day schedule. Each classroom had one lead teacher and an assistant
teacher. The 14 lead teachers (all female) and 112 children from
their classrooms (eight children per classroom) participated in this
study. The majority of teachers were African American (one Cau-
casian teacher), had experience working with young children (six
years average experience), and had a Bachelor’s degree in either
early childhood education (11 teachers) or from another discipline
(three teachers). Participating children were all African Ameri-
can and spoke English as their primary language. Eleven children
did not complete the post-intervention because they had stopped
attending the child care centers or because of sustained school
absence. Because the results of data analyses with and without
the missing children were the same, the distribution of missing
children was across both conditions and generally evenly dis-
tributed across classrooms, and no significant difference was found
between the 11 children and other children’s pre-intervention per-
formance, we report the results of data analyses on 101 children (55
girls, mean age = 55.45 months, SD = 3.62), who completed assess-
ments at both data points, for better interpretation of intervention
impacts.
2.2. Recruitment procedure
Ten childcare centers were identified for initial participation in
this study from a list of Georgia Pre-Kindergarten Programs where
over 50% of enrolled children received free meals. Center directors
of each center were contacted via emails and phone calls to explain
the research project. Four centers agreed to participate. Other cen-
ters who were contacted did not participate due to existing early
intervention projects already occurring in their programs. Upon
the directors’ agreement to participate in the study, researchers
visited each center and explained to teachers the study’s purpose
and procedures. All teachers (both lead and assistant teachers) in
the four centers consented to participate. After gaining teachers’
consent, researchers distributed a letter explaining the study and
parental permission forms to the parents of all children in target
classrooms. Among children whose parents agreed to participate,
we randomly selected eight children (four boys and four girls) per
classroom. After recruitment into the study, centers were assigned
142 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151
to treatment and comparison conditions as explained in more detail
below.
Centers were located around a large urban metro area in the
southeastern US and served children of diverse ethnic groups.
Consistent with Georgia PreK guidelines, all centers followed the
Georgia Early Learning and Development Standards (GELDS) and
used Work Sampling as their system for documenting children’s
learning and development. All classrooms also reported imple-
menting the Creative Curriculum. Among the four participating
centers, variation existed in classroom/building structure. Two cen-
ters were designed in a typical fashion in which each PreK class was
located in its own room (i.e., each classroom contained one PreK
class). The other two centers (with two classrooms in each center)
shared a more open concept floor plan, with classrooms sharing
a large open-space area, with individual classrooms partitioned
by child-height shelves. Although classrooms in this center were
separated into distinct areas, with each classroom having a desig-
nated space for large group and learning center activities, teachers
in these centers could easily see and observe each other during
teaching and learning activities. This design was taken into account
when assigning centers, rather than classrooms, to intervention and
comparison conditions.
2.3. Intervention procedure
2.3.1. Group assignment
Because the open concept floor plan of two centers made
the possibility of intervention contamination likely, we did not
assign teachers randomly to comparison or intervention condi-
tions. Rather, we assigned eight teachers and 64 children (mean
age 54.84 months, SD = 3.53, 32 girls) from two childcare centers
(six classrooms from a typical center and two classrooms from
open space sharing center) to the intervention group. Six teachers
(four classrooms from a typical center and two from an open space
sharing center) and 48 children from the two centers (mean age
56.24 months, SD = 3.67, 23 girls) were assigned to the comparison
group. Assignment of the open space sharing centers was random,
however, to condition. In this way, both comparison and interven-
tion groups had typical and space-sharing classrooms. Participating
teachers did not know to which group they would be assigned
to when they consented to participate in the research study. No
statistically significant group differences of children’s age, gender,
or teacher’s education level were detected before the intervention
implementation.
The intervention occurred in the spring of the PreK year and
lasted approximately three months (mid-January to late April).
The authors observed all classrooms two times: at the beginning
(pre-intervention) and the end of the Spring semester (post-
intervention). Classroom observations were arranged on typical
PreK days at a time arranged with the teachers. Based on the User
Guide Manual of selected observational measures (Smith, Brady, &
Anastasopoulos, 2008) and previously published research (Gerde
et al., 2015), each observation lasted a minimum of 90 min during
which the researchers observed MMT, a large group book reading,
and center time (i.e., free choice). Outside time was not observed
and was not counted within the total number of minutes of the
observation. The length of MMT was counted from the time all chil-
dren gathered at a large circle area until more than 50% of children
were dismissed from the group for other activities. If teachers con-
ducted MMT along with a read-aloud session, for coding purposes,
the moment teachers started to discuss the book was considered
as the end of the MMT. Children were assessed by trained research
assistants pre and post-intervention. Children were invited to com-
plete early language, reading, and writing assessments in a quiet
area adjacent to their classrooms (e.g., teachers’ lounge, multipur-
pose room, or staff offices).
The PD workshop was given to intervention group teachers
after pretest data collection (late January), while comparison group
teachers received typical professional development support from
their own centers. Fidelity observations occurred a month after
the PD workshop (late February). After the completion of post-
intervention data collection, comparison group teachers received
the same materials and training as teachers in the intervention
group.
2.3.2. The HLTP professional learning workshop
A four-hour long PD workshop, that identified the three HLTP
writing instructional approaches, was developed and delivered to
intervention teachers (see Table 1). The content of the workshop
covered: (a) an overview of early writing development and its
association with other early literacy skills, (b) information about
creating a print rich classroom environment, (c) the importance of
MMT as a writing instructional context, and (d) the demonstration
of HLTP writing instruction. Because participating classrooms did
not have many materials that could be used for interactive writing
activities during MMT (i.e., small whiteboards for both teachers and
children to write on), we provided a set of handheld lightweight
whiteboards and led a group discussion with teachers to iden-
tify the MMT routine activities that they felt most comfortable
modifying in order to most effectively use whiteboards for writ-
ing instruction. Using handheld whiteboards enabled teachers to
model and teach writing in an interactive way and provided oppor-
tunities for children to practice writing independently after they
saw the teacher model writing. Teachers were encouraged to mod-
ify MMT to include both teacher-led and children-initiated writing
activities. For example, given that all teachers had a calendar time
routine, they were encouraged to write and model writing letters,
the name of the month, or the date on a big whiteboard, instead of
pointing to the printed calendar, and to prompt children to write
the same letters or words on their handheld whiteboards. Another
way that writing was embedded into already occurring MMT rou-
tines was to have teachers take attendance by asking children to
independently write their names (or initial letter(s)) on their hand-
held whiteboards. In addition to modeling writing, teachers were
trained to support children’s writing attempts by scaffolding and
encouraging them, and by accepting writing in any form the child
was able to produce (i.e., letters or letter-like shapes). During the
modeling and scaffolding process, teachers were encouraged to
draw attention to the shape of letters in addition to the sound(s)
that they make. For example, while writing the initial letter for the
month March as part of calendar time, teachers would guide chil-
dren to write individual and salient letters sounds while supporting
letter formation (“March begins with M. The M goes up and down,
up and down, like two mountains”).
2.3.3. Follow-up collaborative coaching session
In addition to a four-hour workshop and approximately one
month after the PD workshop, intervention teachers received a
collaborative coaching session which included an observation of
MMT (about 20 min), and one 15–20-min one-on-one “researcher-
teacher conversation” meeting. During the MMT observation, a
researcher completed a fidelity check-list of teachers’ writing
instruction. After the observation, the researcher briefly met with
teachers to provide feedback about their implementation of HLTP
practices during MMT. The meeting focused first on practices
that the teacher was implementing well and then on the teach-
ing practice that needed strengthening or tweaking to be more
effective. The researcher also answered teachers’ questions and
addressed any issues brought up by the teacher (e.g., challenges
with managing materials). This approach established a teaching
partnership between researchers and teachers and provided an
opportunity for teachers to receive individualized support and feel
 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151
successful in the changes they were making to their instruction.
Similar approaches are employed in other intervention studies and
have been suggested to be important to improving the quality of
teachers’ language and literacy practices (e.g., Buysse, Castro, &
Peisner-Feinberg, 2010).
2.4. Measures
2.4.1. Teachers’ writing instruction
Three classroom focused instructional measures were used to
assess writing instruction before and after the intervention. Two
of these observational measures evaluated the quality of class-
room writing experiences (e.g., (1) ELLCO; Smith et al., 2008 and
(2) WRITE, Gerde et al., 2015) while the third was a researcher
developed fidelity measure. ELLCO and WRITE have been used in
previous early literacy studies examining the quality of reading
and writing experiences in early childhood programs serving low-
income communities (e.g., Gerde et al., 2015; Powell et al., 2010).
The researchers conducted all classroom observations. High inter-
rater reliability of observational and child assessment measures
(k > 0.90) were achieved before pre- and post-intervention data col-
lection. Pre-intervention observation reliability was established in
a classroom that was not participating in the intervention study
and one classroom that was participating (i.e., classrooms were
double coded). One intervention classroom was also double coded
post-intervention to establish that strong inter rater reliability was
maintained across the course of the intervention. Because results
revealed strong agreement on the fidelity checklist and other mea-
sures, classrooms were then coded by only one observer.
2.4.2. Language and literacy classroom instruction and supports
The Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO;
Smith et al., 2008) assessed the global quality of language and liter-
acy focused supports and interactions occurring within classrooms.
Trained observers rated classroom literacy environments using 19
Likert-scale items (range 1–5) in five domains: classroom struc-
ture, curriculum, language environment, books and book reading,
and print and early writing. Since this study targeted teachers’ writ-
ing instruction, we only used three items from the Print and Early
Writing domain for the purpose of this study. The three items found
in this subscale include: early writing environment (i.e., the extent
to which classroom writing materials promote children’s aware-
ness of writing), support for children’s writing (i.e., the extent to
which teachers guide and support children’s writing attempts), and
environmental print (i.e., extent to which teachers use environ-
mental print to promote children’s print knowledge). According
to the ELLCO Users’ Guide. the coefficient alpha for the classroom
observation total score is 0.90, and 0.86 for the language and liter-
acy subscale. In this study, the three targeted items were strongly
and significantly related.
2.4.3. Writing resources and interactions
The Writing Resources and Interactions in Teaching Envi-
ronments (WRITE; Gerde et al., 2015), a 41-item check list
observational measure, was also used to assess the quality of partic-
ipating classrooms writing environments in three specific domains:
(a) classroom writing materials and environmental print, (b) teach-
ers’ writing instruction, and (c) child initiated independent writing
attempts. The classroom writing materials and environmental print
domain includes three sub-domains: availability of writing mate-
rials (six items), arrangement of writing materials (five items), and
environmental print (four items). The teachers’ writing instruc-
tion domain includes three sub-domains: explanation of writing
(four items), demonstration of writing (five items), and scaffold-
ing of writing (five items). The children’s writing attempts domain
is made up of three items focusing on children’s observed inde-
143
pendent writing attempts: child uses writing in play or activity,
child writes at writing center, and child writes letters, num-
bers, or words. During an observation, an observer checked the
items/materials that were present in a classroom or that were
observed during classroom routines/instruction. Because interven-
tion group teachers received handheld whiteboards and markers,
these writing materials were not counted as existing classroom
writing materials when coding writing materials available in class-
rooms. Further, because intervention group children were provided
with interactive writing activities, only children’s independent
writing attempts that occurred outside of MMT (e.g., free choice
time) were counted when observing the children’s independent
writing attempts domain.
To derive scores, trained research assistants first counted how
many items were observed in each sub-domain. Each sub-domain
was then issued a rating on a four-point scale: “0” if none of the
items were observed, “1” if less than 50% of items in a domain were
observed, “2” if more than 50% of items in a domain were observed,
and “3” if all items in a sub-domain were observed. Lastly, a score
of each domain was created by adding all sub-domain rating scores
together. For example, in order to generate the score of the domain
of writing instruction, the research assistants would count how
many strategies teachers were observed implementing for each of
the three sub-domains. When coding the sub-domains of “expla-
nation of writing process” (four items), a teacher would be given
“0” points if she did not explain the writing process. She would
receive “1” point if she used one of the four strategies, 2 points if
she used two out of four strategies, and “3” points if she used all
four strategies. Scores for the sub-domains of “demonstration of
writing” and “scaffolding of writing” were created with the same
approach. In the end, the scores from the three sub-domains were
summed to create a total writing instruction domain. In this study,
the ELLCO Print and Early Writing domain score was consistently
and significantly correlated with the WRITE writing instruction
domain score pre (r = 0.56, p < 0.05) and post-intervention (r = 0.68,
p < 0.01).
2.4.4. Fidelity checklist
In order to observe teachers’ implementation of writing activ-
ities and instruction from the PD workshop, an 8-item checklist
was developed (see Appendix A). Three items focused on teach-
ers’ implementation of whiteboard activities. Five additional items
focused on teachers’ implementation of specific teaching strate-
gies. During observations of intervention classrooms, these items
were checked as either present or not present. Ratio scores were
calculated to capture the extent to which teachers provided writ-
ing instruction based on the workshop training. High inter-rater
reliability (k > 0.90) was achieved between two researchers before
conducting fidelity observation.
2.5. Children’s writing skills
2.5.1. Children’s name-writing skills
To assess children’s name writing skill, children were given
a blank piece of paper and a marker and were asked to write
their first name. Children’s writing was coded by one research
assistant and one of the authors independently (Cohen’s k > 0.90)
with a coding scheme that ranged from “1” (scribbling) to “9” for
completely writing the first name with correct conventions (e.g.,
capitalized initial letter). This coding scheme was used previously
by Diamond et al. (2008) and found reliable with other existing
coding schemes of children’s name writing (Puranik, Schreiber,
Estabrook, & O’Donnell, 2014). Inter-rater reliability was checked
every 10 writing samples to maintain high inter-rater reliability.
144 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151
2.5.2. Letter writing
Children were given a blank piece of paper and were asked
to write 10 letters based on the dictation of the following letter
names: B, D, S, T, O, A, H, K, M, and C. The 10 letters selected for this
assessment were previously identified among the most familiar let-
ters known by young children (see Justice, Pence, Bowles, Ryan, &
Wiggins, 2006). This letter writing assessment has been employed
in previous studies of young children’s writing with high internal
consistency (c.f. ˛ = 0.93, Puranik & Lonigan, 2011). Children’s letter
writing samples were coded by two research assistants to count the
number of correctly written letters (possible range 1–10). In order
to give credit to children’s writing while accounting for variation in
children’s fine motor skill, research assistants gave credit to approx-
imations of children’s written letters and common deviations from
conventional forms (e.g., letter reversals). Children’s writing of both
upper and lower-case letters was accepted.
2.5.3. Invented spelling
Using a spelling task developed by Puranik and Lonigan (2011),
children were asked to write six CVC words (i.e., mat, bed, duck, cat,
fell, hen) to assess their word spelling skill (possible range 0–42).
For this task, each child was given a sheet of paper with five blank
lines. Research assistants asked the child to write, or attempt to
write each word on the blank line. Research assistants repeated the
word as necessary for the children. Two research assistants coded
children’s writing using a 7-point scale. Children were given “1” if
they did not write but verbally responded with random letters, 2
if they scribbled, 3 if they spelled a word with random letters, 4
if they wrote the correct initial or last letter of a word, 5 if they
correctly spelled both initial and last letter of a word, 6 if they cor-
rectly spelled both initial and last letter with an incorrect vowel
or used invented spelling, and 7 if they correctly spelled a word.
This spelling task evidenced high internal consistency (˛ = 0.96).
One research assistant and one of the authors coded all the chil-
dren’s writing samples. The inter-rater reliability of the coding
was checked before coding children’s writing samples and was
also checked every 10 writing samples to maintain high inter-rater
reliability, Cohen’s kappa > 0.90.
2.6. Children’s pre-reading skills
2.6.1. Phonological awareness
The Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL; Lonigan, Wagner,
Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2007) phonological awareness subtest was
used to assess children’s phonological awareness skills. The sub-
test includes two blending and two elision tasks. Children were
presented with a set of pictures as prompts first to guide them to
complete sound manipulation items, such as identifying the com-
ponents of compound words, creating a new compound word by
combining word sounds, or by taking sounds away (e.g., “Look at
these pictures. Now point to batman without bat.”). In subsequent
tasks, children were provided verbal prompts (e.g., “If you take
away bell from the word doorbell, what would you have?”) without
pictures to assist them. This subtest evidences good test-retest reli-
ability (r = 0.83) and high concurrent validity (i.e., blending r = 0.59
and elision r = 0.65) with the Comprehensive Test of Phonological
Processing (Lonigan et al., 2007). The test also demonstrates strong
psychometric properties when used with children from various
backgrounds (Webb, Patton-Terry, Bingham, Puranik, & Lederberg,
2018). A total score is generated by counting all correct answers
(range 0–26).
2.6.2. Letter and letter sound awareness
The Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS-PreK,
Invernizzi, Sullivan, Meier, & Swank, 2004) alphabet knowledge
subtest was used to evaluate children’s letter knowledge. Children
were shown a sheet with 26 uppercase letters presented in random
order and asked to identify the names of letters. Children were then
shown a sheet of randomly ordered uppercase letters and conso-
nant digraphs (i.e., ch, sh, th) and asked to produce the sound of
the letters and digraphs. The PALS-PreK has been used in a variety
of studies of children’s early literacy skills (e.g., Wasik & Hindman,
2011; Welsch, Sullivan, & Justice, 2003) and demonstrates strong
associations with other standardized early literacy assessments,
such as the Test of Early Reading Ability (r = 0.67, p < 0.01 Reid,
Hresko, & Hammill, 2001)
2.6.3. Print knowledge
Concepts About Print (CAP; Clay, 1985) was used to assess
children’s print knowledge. For this assessment, consistent with
procedures in previous studies (e.g., Welsch et al., 2003; Diamond
et al., 2008), the examiner showed a storybook to children and
asked children to identify the title of the book, the letter, the word,
and the direction of reading story text. Responses were scored as
correct or incorrect with six total points possible. The reliability
coefficients of this measure have ranged from 0.73 to 0.95 (Clay,
1985). This measure has also shown high correlations with pre-
reading skills in previous studies (e.g., Welsch et al., 2003).
2.7. Data analyses
The primary goals of data analyses were to detect intervention
impacts on both teachers’ instruction and children’s writing and
other early skills. Analyses are detailed for examining intervention
impacts for both groups below.
2.7.1. Teachers’ pre and post-intervention writing instruction
One-way ANOVA analyses revealed no significant group
differences between treatment and comparison teachers’ pre-
intervention writing instruction (i.e., ELLCO domain of writing
environment and WRITE scores, see Table 2). Hence, in order to
evaluate the intervention impact on teachers’ practices, repeated
measure ANOVAs (two time points x two groups) were calculated
using raw scores from teachers’ observational data.
2.7.2. Children’s skills pre- and post-intervention
Pre-intervention ANOVA analyses revealed that children in the
comparison group generally performed better than children in
the intervention group and did so significantly on name writing
and print knowledge tasks (see. Table 3). Although children in
the comparison group performed significantly better on the name
writing task, it is important to note that because of the ordinal
nature of the variable, such differences were minimal within an
instructional context, as children, on average, across both groups,
were using a few letters (but not letter like shapes) to write their
names (e.g., name writing scores of comparison (M = 7.85, SD, 1.69)
and intervention group children (M = 7.11, SD = 1.97)). Most chil-
dren’s performance on the name writing task, in both groups, was
distributed in the range between 6 to 8 before the intervention.
However, given such pre-intervention differences, we evaluated
the associations between the intervention and children’s writing
and literacy skills by conducting analyses on children’s change
scores of their pre- and post- assessment performance based on
What Works Clearinghouse standards (2017). In order to account
for the best method of estimating effects, we conducted data anal-
yses using both children’s raw change scores (i.e., subtracting
children’s pre-intervention scores from post-intervention scores)
and residual change scores (i.e., regressing their pre-intervention
scores to their post-intervention scores) separately. Analyses using
the two calculations of change scores yielded the same result.
Because residual change scores, in comparison to raw change
 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151 145

Table 2
The descriptive statistics of classroom observation (N = 14).

Variable (range) Comparison (n = 6) Intervention (n = 8) F d

M SD M SD

ELLCO writing environment (0–15) Pre-Int. 9.50 1.22 8.94 1.21 0.74 0.46
Post-Int. 9.75 0.69 12.19 1.49 13.70** 2.00
Writing material (0–9) Pre-Int. 6.17 1.94 6.13 2.10 0.01 0.05
Post-Int. 6.33 1.37 7.38 2.67 0.75 0.47
Writing instruction (0–9) Pre-Int. 5.33 3.08 3.50 3.07 1.22 0.60
Post-Int. 4.17 1.47 7.00 2.62 5.61* 1.28
Children’s writing attempts (0–3) Pre-Int. 2.00 1.10 0.75 1.04 4.76* 1.18
Post-Int. 1.00 0.89 0.75 1.03 0.22 0.25
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.

Table 3
Children’s gains in literacy and writing skills pre and post-intervention.

Variables (range) Growth Comparison (n = 46) Growth Intervention (n = 55) F d

t d M SD t d M SD

Name writing Pre-Int. 7.85 1.69 7.11 1.97 4.93* 0.46

(0–9) Post-Int. 7.98 1.57 8.29 1.08 1.39 0.24
.85 0.16 5.86** 1.59
Letter writing Pre-Int. 6.40 3.45 5.65 3.70 2.12 0.29
(0–8) Post-Int. 7.44 2.82 7.40 2.88 0.45 0.13
3.94** 1.14 6.12** 1.67
Spelling Pre-Int. 17.48 8.05 16.20 7.36 0.63 0.16
(0–42) Post-Int. 21.80 6.69 20.31 6.19 1.34- 0.23
**
3.87 0.74 4.70** 0.90
PA Pre-Int. 14.78 4.29 13.67 4.61 1.54 0.24
(0–26) Post-Int. 15.85 4.90 15.00 5.61 0.64 0.16
1.78† 0.52 2.17* 0.59
Letter naming Pre-Int. 18.33 8.66 16.24 9.46 2.72 0.33
(0–26) Post-Int. 19.85 7.99 19.80 7.05 0.05 0.04
**
2.86 0.84 4.69** 1.28
Letter sound Pre-Int. 8.33 8.20 8.38 8.08 0.04 0.13
(0–26) Post-Int. 10.52 8.00 11.09 7.60 0.06 0.15
3.20** 0.92 3.73** 1.02
Print knowledge (0–6) Pre-Int. 3.67 1.66 3.13 1.43 5.82* 0.48
Post-Int. 3.73 1.36 3.70 1.37 0.01 0.02
0.41 0.08 2.49* 0.68
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.

scores, eliminate potential outliers based on linear regression mod-
eling (Cronbach & Furby, 1970), we present findings from analyses
using residual change scores. In order to accommodate the nested
structure of the data (i.e., children were nested within each teach-
ers’ classroom), we then conducted hierarchical linear modeling
(HLM) to examine the intervention impact on children’s pre- and
post-intervention changes in assessments. The model we estimated
was:
Child Residual Scoreij =  00 +  01 ∗Groupj +  02 ∗Pre-ELLCO2j
+  03 ∗Pre-WRITE j
+  10 ∗Child GENDERij +  20 ∗Child AGE ij + u0j + r ij
In this model, children’s residual change score (level-1 variable)
served as an outcome variable explained by teachers’ group assign-
ment (i.e., intervention vs. comparison), pre-intervention teachers’
ELLCO and WRITE scores (level-2 variables), and children’s age and
gender (level-1 variables). In this way, we controlled for child-level
variables that may have contributed to performance (e.g., age and
gender) as well as the nature of pre-intervention classroom writ-
ing environments (e.g., ELLCO and WRITE scores). In the model, i
represents each individual child and j represents each individual
classroom. The coefficient  01 suggests the group difference due
to the intervention. In the model i represents each individual child
and j represents each individual classroom.
3. Results
Observations demonstrated that all participating classrooms
had a MMT routine before the intervention began. The aver-
age length of these MMT routines was approximately 16 min,
Intervention group, M = 15.12 min, SD = 7.55, Range 5–26 min, Com-
parison group, M = 18.8 min, SD = 4.76, Range 7–25 min. The length
of MMT increased during the intervention for treatment class-
rooms, but this change was not statistically significant, 21 min after
the intervention, Intervention group, M = 21.87 min, SD = 10.82,
Range 8–40 min, Comparison group, M = 19.00 min, SD = 5.51, Range
11–30 min. It is notable, however, that one teacher from the inter-
vention group, during the post-intervention observation, had a very
long MMT time (40 min). This teacher included a book picture walk
as part of MMT that was related to her curricular theme, which
added considerable time to how long children were on the carpet.
For most teachers, however, MMT routines evidenced the same
daily routine activities pre and post-intervention (i.e., calendar,
weather, counting who was present). Hence, findings suggest that
the WPI intervention, generally, only slightly modified the structure
of teachers’ existing morning routine without altering the general
activities that teachers typically focused on during MMT.
146 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151
Fig. 1. Changes in teachers’ writing instruction pre- and post-intervention.
Note: The possible range of WRITE writing instruction domain is 0–9, and the possible range of ELLCO writing environment domain is 0–15.
3.1. Changes of teachers’ instruction pre- and post-intervention
Descriptive statistics of teachers’ writing instruction (e.g., ELLCO
Print and Early Writing domain and three domains of the WRITE)
and comparison results between groups are presented in Table 2.
The global quality of classroom writing experiences (i.e., ELLCO
Print and Early Writing domain) and the quality of teachers’ writing
instruction (i.e., WRITE writing instruction domain) were generally
low. Despite the presence of relatively abundant writing materials
(i.e., WRITE writing material domain), large variation in writing
instruction was evident among classrooms in both conditions.
One-way ANOVAs were conducted to compare the two groups of
teachers’ pre- and post-intervention on writing instruction vari-
ables (see Table 2). Although pre-intervention results revealed
more frequent child independent writing attempts in comparison
classrooms than intervention classrooms, no significant pre-
intervention differences between groups on writing instruction
variables were detected. In contrast, post-intervention compar-
isons suggested that intervention classroom teachers provided
significantly higher quality writing instruction than comparison
group teachers.
We conducted repeated-measure ANOVAs to further investi-
gate the associations between the WPI intervention and teachers’
writing instruction. In the model comparing group performance on
the ELLCO writing environment domain, both time F (1,12) = 26.01,
p < 0.001, d = 2.75 and time x group interactions F (1,12) = 19.11,
p < 0.00, d = 2.36 were statistically significant with large effect size
(Sawilowsky, 2009). These results suggest that, although teachers,
overall, provided significantly better quality writing environment
at the end of the spring semester, intervention group teachers
provided significantly higher quality writing instruction than com-
parison teachers after the intervention (see Fig. 1). In the model
comparing teachers’ WRITE writing instruction domain scores, the
time x group (i.e., intervention vs. comparison group) interaction
was statistically significant with a large effect size, F (1,12) = 5.13,
p = 0.04, d = 1.22. However, time and group differences were not
significantly different. This result suggests that intervention group
teachers provided significantly more writing instruction than com-
parison teachers at the post-intervention time point (see Fig. 1).
Classroom writing materials (i.e., WRITE writing material
domain) and children’s independent writing attempts outside
of MMT (WRITE independent child writing domain during free
play time) did not change significantly during the intervention.
Descriptive statistics demonstrate that while children’s indepen-
dent writing attempts in the intervention classrooms remained
the same across the intervention period, children’s independent
writing in comparison classrooms had a noticeable decrease from
winter to spring, t (5) = −2.24, p = 0.08, d = 1.21.
Examination of fidelity data revealed that all eight intervention
group teachers successfully implemented instruction consistent
with the WPI PD model. Intervention teachers implemented 62.5%
(five out of eight fidelity items) to 100% of targeted core teach-
ing practices. All the teachers incorporated whiteboard writing
activities into MMT (i.e., teachers wrote on the large whiteboard
and children used handheld whiteboards to complete some rou-
tinized activities), modeled writing for children, and were observed
prompting children to write with letter names. Six of the eight
teachers were observed drawing attention to the ways that letters
are formed and prompting children’s writing with letter sounds.
Five of the eight teachers encouraged children to talk about their
writing (e.g., “What did you write?” or “What is this letter?”). As
a group, teachers implemented close to 90% of targeted writing
instruction practices, demonstrating relatively high fidelity to the
WPI intervention approach (see Appendix A).
3.2. Changes of children’s skills pre- and post-intervention
Descriptive statistics, the results of paired T-test by time, and
ANOVAs between groups are presented in Table 3. Generally speak-
ing, comparison group children outperformed intervention group
children in all assessment tasks pre-intervention, with statistically
significant differences detected on name writing, and print knowl-
edge tasks with large effect size. Despite initial group differences,
paired T-tests comparisons of children’s pre- and post-intervention
assessment scores showed that intervention group children’s per-
formance in all the assessment tasks improved significantly across
the intervention phrase with large effect size. Although compari-
son group children also demonstrated improvements in some early
literacy skills, children’s name writing and print knowledge scores
did not significantly change. Notably, an examination of children’s
performance post-intervention revealed that the significant pre-
intervention advantages of comparison group children in writing
and print knowledge tasks disappeared.
 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151
To investigate associations between the WPI intervention and
children’s growth in early reading and writing skills, we con-
ducted HLM analyses to examine the differences of children’s
residual scores of writing and pre-reading assessments between
intervention and comparison group children. Results demon-
strate that pre-intervention classroom writing environment and
teachers’ writing instruction were not significantly related to chil-
dren’s residual scores, nor was children’s age and gender. In
contrast, a significant intervention effect was found, as interven-
tion group children achieved significantly more gains in name
writing,  01 = 0.64, SE = 0.22, t (10) = 2.88, p = 0.03, letter writ-
ing,  01 = 0.65, SE = 0.28, t (10) = 2.29, p = 0.03, and letter naming,
 01 = 1.17, SE = 0.50, t (10) = 2.34, p = 0.02 than comparison group
children. No significant differences were detected in children’s
residual change scores on other early reading (e.g., phonological
awareness) or writing (e.g., invented spelling) tasks.
4. Discussion
Given the relatively low quality of writing instruction in
preschool classrooms (Bingham et al., 2017; Gerde et al., 2015) and
because early writing skills are predictors of later reading and writ-
ing outcomes, it is important to identify instructional approaches
that preschool teachers can implement frequently and with fidelity
as part of their typical day. In this exploratory study, we developed a
PD intervention model for guiding teachers to infuse high-leverage
writing instruction into their existing classroom MMT routine.
Through relatively brief professional development experiences (i.e.,
a four-hour workshop and a 35–40 min follow up session), imple-
mentation of the WPI intervention showed significant associations
with improvements in teachers’ writing instruction and children’s
writing skills growth. We discuss research findings in relation to
how focusing on writing during MMT may help teachers leverage
routinized instruction in ways that support children’s early writing
skills.
4.1. Infusing high-leverage teaching practice into classroom
routines
Analyses revealed significant associations between intervention
implementation and teachers’ writing instruction as evaluated by
both global (ELLCO) and domain-specific (WRITE) observational
measures. As we hypothesized, intervention teachers provided
more explicit instruction on writing processes, modeling of writing
actions, and scaffolding children’s writing. These types of writing
experiences rarely occur in preschool classrooms, especially those
serving children from low income backgrounds (i.e., Head Start pro-
grams, Bingham et al., 2017; Gerde et al., 2015). Teachers writing
supports preintervention are largely consistent with Gerde et al.
(2015) study suggesting that teachers, on average, scaffold chil-
dren’s writing attempts approximately three times during a typical
preschool morning. The writing environments of classrooms in this
study (as evidenced by the presence of writing materials and envi-
ronmental print), however, were slightly higher than in Gerde et al.
Because the quality of classroom writing environments and writing
instructional supports are significant, and independent, predictors
of children’s writing skill (see Gerde et al., 2015), findings from this
study illustrate the importance of providing guidance to preschool
teachers in ways that encourage them to use classroom materials to
model writing processes and scaffold children’s writing attempts.
Fidelity observations demonstrated that intervention teach-
ers implemented almost all teaching strategies introduced in the
PD workshop. All teachers started modeling writing processes
and scaffolding children’s writing attempts with attention to let-
ter names. Fewer teachers, however, scaffolded children’s writing
147
attempts with letter-sound support or instruction. One reason for
this finding may relate to the level of early reading and writing
skills in intervention classrooms. It is possible that because some
children in these classrooms had limited letter-sound knowledge
(i.e., pre-phonological writers, Polo et al., 2009) that teachers per-
ceived scaffolding writing attempts with letter names (rather than
sounds) as more appropriate for children in a whole group setting.
The significant association between intervention implementa-
tion and changes in teachers’ writing instruction demonstrates
promise of an HLTP focused PD approach. Because delivering con-
tent to early childhood educators is often challenging given time
and staffing constraints (Whitebrook & Sakai, 2003), an HLTP
approach may prove more effective for many early childhood
educators who have little time for planning or professional devel-
opment (Powell, 2013). This approach is important to note in light
of comprehensive early literacy PD approaches aimed at improv-
ing the totality of the literacy teaching through extensive training in
PD workshops and onsite/online coaching (e.g., Wasik & Hindman,
2011; Powell et al., 2010). Many existing early literacy PD inter-
vention models follow this rationale in design and implementation
with intensive supports for teachers across multiple literacy and
language skills (see Dickinson & Caswell, 2007; Landry et al., 2006;
Powell et al., 2010; Wasik & Hindman, 2011). Compared to such
approaches, the WPI model provided substantially shorter PD but
demonstrated significant associations with the quality of teachers’
writing instruction. In addition to the specific focus of evidence-
based instruction, the flexibility of the WPI model may have also
supported teachers’ classroom instruction. The intervention was
developed to fit within teachers’ existing classroom routines with
the implementation of the intervention focused on one specific
activity context (i.e., MMT). This intentional design may have
assisted teachers in implementing instructional practices in a way
that provided the least amount of interference to existing teaching
responsibilities or daily schedules.
Evidence of MMT routine as an appropriate context in which
to implement early writing and reading instruction also appears
to be supported by the high fidelity of intervention implementa-
tion. Because MMT typically occurs daily in preschool classrooms
(Bustamante et al., 2018; Zhang, Diamond et al., 2015), it offers an
opportunity to teach early skills that can be promoted by repeated
explicit instruction, frequent exposure, and interactive practices.
Another unique feature of MMT is that teachers often implement
routines that can involve a meaningful use of environmental print
to complete certain routinized activities. Although teachers appear
to need training to intentionally use environmental print to teach
literacy skills (e.g., Justice, Kaderavek, Fan, Sofka, & Hunt, 2009),
the high fidelity of intervention implementation from this study
and previous research (Wasik & Hindman, 2011) demonstrate that
teachers may find the implementation of evidence-based literacy
or writing instruction during regularly occurring MMT routines
less challenging and more convenient to implement than learning
new practices or incorporating new routines into their day. Fur-
ther, because instructional quality during MMT is generally low
(see Bustamante et al., 2018), it is important to support teachers
in instructional practices that provide engaging MMT experiences
that enhance children’s learning.
Importantly, findings from this study revealed that the WPI
writing intervention approach, which focused primarily on MMT,
did not translate to changes in the availability of classroom writ-
ing materials or more frequent displays of independent children’s
writing attempts outside of MMT. This finding is not particularly
unusual given information suggesting that preschool teachers set
up learning centers with various types of materials at the beginning
of the semester based on curriculum or early learning standards
and then make few substantive changes to the prevalence of
writing materials in learning centers generally or in the writing
148 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151
center specifically (Bingham et al., 2017; Gerde, Bingham et al.,
2012). Although we provided intervention group teachers hand-
held whiteboards, we did not introduce small group or free-choice
writing activities using these materials outside of MMT. As a result,
teachers did not appear to make them available during other times
of the day. Future work should address ways in which teachers
can generalize practices learned within this framework to other
instructional opportunities that are provided in early childhood
settings.
It is important to note that in order to preserve the objec-
tive of MMT as a welcoming time for children in the classroom
(i.e., a time to build community) we did not completely modify
MMT during the intervention. Rather, we encouraged teachers to
make decisions about which routine tasks they might modify to
implement HLTP writing instruction practices based on their own
preferences and perceptions of children’s interests and skills. In
this way, teachers’ experience and existing knowledge of classroom
teaching were acknowledged and valued (see. Zhang and Cook,
2019). As evidenced by high adherence to HLTP practices during the
intervention, the modification of existing routine activities during
MMT rather than replacing these practices with a new set of MMT
activities may have helped teachers implement the project with
fidelity. Although this modification did not significantly increase
the length of morning meeting in intervention classrooms more
than comparison classrooms, the fact that one intervention group
teacher almost doubled her morning meeting time in length, to
include writing activities and engage in a “picture walk” of a story-
book related to her curricular theme, is of concern. Because teachers
may feel the need to squeeze in many instructional opportunities
into MMT, it is essential that future MMT work emphasizes the
importance of capitalizing on existing routinized practices in ways
that increase children’s exposure to writing interactions but does
not significantly increase children’s large group carpet time.
4.2. Associations between intervention implementation and
children’s writing
Although children in the WPI intervention group performed sig-
nificantly lower on writing assessments and print knowledge than
comparison group children at the beginning of this study, they
made significant gains over the intervention on name writing, let-
ter writing, and letter naming, but not print knowledge. The lack
of evidence of improvement on print knowledge likely relates to
limited teacher practices to support this skill. Although research
documents the importance of practices that draw attention to print
during storybook reading (e.g., pointing to the story text to demon-
strate how print works; Justice et al., 2009; McGinty et al., 2011),
teachers in this study were more likely to spend time on letter
knowledge skills and less likely to focus on how print works. For
example, teachers in this study were much more likely to talk about
the names of letters and their shape than to draw attention to how
print communicates a messages or moves from left to right. In
addition, an examination of children’s performance on the print
awareness assessment illustrates some possible challenges with
the measure. Children’s performance suggests a potential ceiling
effect on the print knowledge assessment as many children appear
to have mastered basic print knowledge skills, such as understand-
ing that words rather than pictures tell a story and how one reads
from left to right, by the end of the PreK year. Importantly, given
existing literature about the reciprocal relations between children’s
early reading and writing processes (e.g., Bloodgood, 1999; Clay,
2001; Diamond et al., 2008; Morris et al., 2003; Puranik & Lonigan,
2011), exposure to early writing experiences should contribute
to children’s understanding of print, letter knowledge, and letter-
sound awareness indirectly through children’s improved writing
skills.
Despite significant gains in name writing and letter writing
skills, HLM analyses did not detect direct significant associations
between the WPI approach and children’s letter sound, phono-
logical awareness, or invented spelling skills. These insignificant
intervention impacts are likely a function of teachers’ limited focus
on letter-sound correspondence skills during MMT instruction and
a relatively limited focus on invented spelling strategies during
the PD workshop. Teachers may have been more comfortable sup-
porting children’s writing attempts by prompting children’s letter
knowledge skills (e.g., “We want to write the first letter in the word
Mom. Let’s write the letter ‘m.’) than drawing attention to the letter-
sound associations and print (e.g., “What sound do you hear in the
word mom? Mom has the /m/, /m/ sound. What letter makes the
/m/ sound? Can you write letter M?”). We noticed more frequent
explicit instruction of letter name than letter sound skills during
fidelity and post-intervention observations. Because linking letter
names to print may be cognitively easier for children in writing
(Zhang, Diamond, & Powell, 2017), teachers may have decided to
focus on these skills to ensure that all children were able to suc-
cessfully complete the task within a large group context. Attention
to phonological awareness skills, including rhyming, blending or
segmenting, or syllables, also occurred infrequently and was not a
strong focus of the intervention.
Secondly, because invented spelling skills are just emerging dur-
ing the preschool years (e.g., Invernizzi & Hayes, 2004; Puranik &
Lonigan, 2014), it is not emphasized in many preschool/PreK teach-
ing standards or curriculum (i.e., GELDS, Georgia Department of
Early Care and Learning, 2010). Instruction of invented spelling
was not highlighted in the PD workshop. Although teachers were
encouraged to model spelling words (e.g., writing theme/unit
words or calendar words), children were not expected to perform
spelling independently given their emerging pre-reading and writ-
ing skills. This may also explain why teachers’ explicit instruction
of phonological awareness rarely occurred in our intervention. The
majority of invented spelling interventions typically focus on chil-
dren in kindergarten, focus on explicit instruction of phonemic
awareness skills, and include frequent structured teaching sessions
in small group contexts, which allows teachers to individualize
instruction in ways that more directly scaffold children’s individual
spelling skills (see Ouellette, Sénéchal, & Haley, 2013).
Our findings are generally consistent with Aram and Biron’s
(2004) results demonstrating how exposing children to inten-
tional writing opportunities can increase children’s early writing
skills in comparison to children receiving book reading or typical
instruction. Aram and Biron (2004) documented positive impacts
from their small group instruction intervention on children’s word
writing and pre-reading skills (i.e., phonological awareness, letter
knowledge and orthographic awareness skills). An important dis-
tinction between our study and Aram and Biron’s (2004) is that their
intervention used a university research assistant and small group
instruction (i.e., four to six children), while we targeted an exist-
ing classroom whole group routine where teachers could imbed
writing opportunities. Differences in intervention approach, mea-
surement of children’s early reading and writing skills, and the
intensity of the intervention (their intervention was approximately
twice as long) likely lead to our finding fewer early reading out-
comes from our study. Given the relatively limited research on
approaches to supporting children’s early writing development in
early childhood classrooms, information from both studies demon-
strates how including explicit, yet meaningful, opportunities to
interact with print can build children’s emergent writing skills.
4.3. Feasibility of HLTP model
The HLTP model greatly relies on the researcher-teacher
partnership and collaboration due to its practice-based nature.
 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151 149

Observation of teachers’ existing instructional practices and class- us to provide stronger evidence for generalizing the findings to a
room routines enables researchers to understand and identify larger population.
specific areas of practice that will be the most malleable to change
(Zhang and Cook, 2019). Focusing on a few core teaching practices
5.1. Future research
may accommodate the challenge that many teachers have in early
care settings to find adequate time and staffing for professional
Although promising, some issues should be addressed in future
learning opportunities (Whitebrook & Sakai, 2003). In addition, it
writing intervention work to enhance intervention effects. First,
may help work around the fact that teachers have little time for
given variability in some teaching practices encountered in this
planning or implementing new learning activities (Powell, 2013).
intervention study, additional attention should be given to ways
However, because this model involves individualized support and
that teachers might use various scaffolding strategies that are
collaborative problem solving, a high researcher to teacher ratio
attuned to children’s developing early writing and reading skills.
may be necessary to ensure successful implementation of this PD
For example, teachers should model and support writing letters
model. In this study, the researcher to teacher ratio was roughly one
with attention to the letter name and sound, particularly if children
researcher to six teachers. Given the needs of frequent classroom
have limited letter sound awareness knowledge. Including more
observations and on-site coaching, more professional mentors are
information about which letters and sounds are acquired more eas-
needed when working with a larger group of teachers.
ily (see Justice et al., 2006) would help teachers plan more effective
This HLTP intervention, as illustrated by the WPI model, does
instruction for children in their class. In this way, children could be
not aim to change existing classroom dynamics by extending the
better supported in their letter knowledge skills while being chal-
amount of time children sit on the carpet or at the table for learning.
lenged to consider letter-sound associations (Cabell et al., 2013).
In contrast, this approach integrates teachers’ existing knowledge
These types of supports will likely benefit children’s early reading
and teaching preference into PD and promotes the evidence-based
and writing skills, particularly their invented spelling skills that
core practices beneficial to both teachers (i.e., personal profes-
showed little improvement in the current study.
sional development) and children (i.e., growth in early skills). Thus,
Second, future research is needed to examine ways in which
implementation of the HLTP intervention should consider teach-
to increase children’s interest and motivation for writing activ-
ers’ existing teaching responsibilities and children’s developmental
ities outside of MMT. Although intervention teachers suggested
stages. Further, sufficient time should be provided to teachers to
that children were more motivated to write and interested in writ-
help them implement practices. Asking teachers to implement mul-
ing activities after the WPI intervention, classroom observations
tiple interventions targeting different developmental skills within
revealed little change in the prevalence or nature of children’s
a short period of time may create challenges for teachers to suc-
individual writing attempts in other classroom contexts (i.e., free
cessfully learn and practice new strategies.
choice/center time). Given research documenting that even very
young children demonstrate a unique interest in writing experi-
ences (Rowe & Neitzel, 2010), attention to how children’s interest
5. Limitations
or motivation in writing may be impacted by changes in teachers’
writing practices is an important area of future research. Attend-
As an initial investigation of the WPI approach, we utilized a
ing to ways in which teachers might embed additional writing
quasi-experimental design, which limits our ability to causally infer
opportunities in other classroom experiences is important to their
about program impacts (Shadish & Luellen, 2005). To explore the
emergent writing skills (Zhang & Quinn, 2018).
feasibility and effectiveness of a PD model with a new theoreti-
Finally, future research should investigate differentiated sup-
cal framework (i.e., HLTP), we only implemented the intervention
port that teachers may need in order to implement HLTP writing
in four childcare centers. While this study included teachers and
practices within their classrooms. Although there was little vari-
children from diverse background, the small sample size of teach-
ation in teachers’ educational backgrounds in our sample, it is
ers and their placement in certain early childhood sites (i.e., open
possible that teachers with varying educational backgrounds and
concept floor plans) made it difficult to conduct a randomized
expertise may differ in their need for more intensive support in
comparison trial (RCT) intervention study. Despite attempts to
order to identify and then implement HLTP practices effectively.
maximize the equality of intervention and comparison condi-
Because the HLTP framework we employed allowed teachers to
tions in relation to study participants, and a random assignment
tailor instructional practices to existing routines, variation in teach-
of an open floor concept center into treatment and comparison
ers’ experiences, beliefs about children’s writing development, and
conditions, children in intervention and comparison conditions sig-
educational backgrounds may have played a role in how they
nificantly differed at the onset of this study on name writing and
implemented instruction. Additional attention should be given in
print knowledge skills. Although we applied regression adjustment
future research to the level of support that teachers require to
(i.e., residual of children’s growth in writing and literacy skills)
implement HLTP writing practices in a manner that is both faithful
in data analyses, the pre-intervention group differences limit our
to the intervention and that evidences strong instructional quali-
ability to draw causal inferences. Center level differences in chil-
ties.
dren’s skills at the beginning of this study may have influenced
classroom dynamics and the results of our study, including teach-
ers’ implementation of certain WPI instructional strategies (i.e., 6. Conclusion
letter-sound instruction). Due to these limitations, caution should
be taken when interpreting these results and generalizing to other The WPI writing intervention model is one of few PD inter-
settings. A larger sample size and RCT design would allow for a ventions focusing on preschool teachers’ writing instruction. By
stronger evaluation of relations among specific types of teach- embedding writing instruction in a typically occurring classroom
ers’ writing instruction and children’s writing and literacy skills. context (Morning Meeting), and providing a workshop with a spe-
A larger scale study would also allow us to further investigate cific focus on teaching, the WPI intervention successfully promoted
teacher- or child-level factors that may have impacted or mod- teachers’ writing instruction and children’s name writing, letter
erated results. In addition, because children in this study were writing, and letter naming. Although a small-scale study, results
primarily from lower-income communities in an urban area, addi- demonstrate the promise of utilizing Morning Meeting time for the
tional research in more diverse early learning settings may enable explicit teaching of early writing and reading skills.
150 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151
Acknowledgements
This research project is supported by National Academy of Edu-
cation/Spencer Foundation Post-doctoral Fellowship, 2016.
Appendix A.
Intervention Fidelity Check-List
Writing routine activities:
1. Did the teacher use the whiteboard to complete daily tasks?
2. Did children use whiteboards to complete daily tasks?
3. Were writing interactions routinized during the morning meet-
ing?
Writing instruction:
4. Did the teacher model the writing process for children?
5. Did the teacher explain letter formation when writing or
prompting children to write?
6. Did the teacher explain letter names when writing or prompting
children to write?
7. Did the teacher explain letter sounds/phonological awareness
when writing or prompting children to write?
8. Did the teacher encourage children to talk about or share their
writing?
Note: Each item is rated as absent (0) or present (1)
References
Aram, D. (2010). Writing with young children: A comparison of parental and
maternal guidance. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 4–19. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01429.x
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.
2004.10.003
Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of
practice and the practice of development in teacher education. The Elementary
School Journal, 109, 458–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/596996
Bingham, G. E., Culatta, B., & Hall-Kenyon, K. M. (2016). Examining the impacts of
systematic and engaging early literacy (SEEL): Attention to teacher practices
and classroom effects across kindergarten. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 30, 494–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2016.1216021
Bingham, G. E., Quinn, M., & Gerde, H. K. (2017). Examining early childhood
teachers’ writing practices: Associations between pedagogical supports and
children’s writing skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 39, 35–46. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.01.002
Bloodgood, W. J. (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy
acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 342–367.
Bustamante, A. S., Hindman, A. H., Champagne, C. R., & Wasik, B. A. (2018). Circle
time revisited: How do preschool classrooms use this part of the day? The
Elementary School Journal, 118, 610–631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/697473
Buysse, V., Castro, D. C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2010). Effects of a professional
development program on classroom practices and outcomes for latino dual
language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 94–206. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.001
Cabell, S. Q., Tortorelli, L. S., & Gerde, H. K. (2013). How do I write . . .? Scaffolding
preschoolers’ early writing skills. The Reading Teacher, 66, 650–659. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1173
Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Beginning writing behaviour. Auckland, NZ:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure “change” or should we.
Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80.
DeBaryshe, B., Buell, M., & Binder, J. (1996). What a parent brings to the table:
Young children writing with and without parental assistance. Journal of
Literacy Research, 28, 71–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10862969609547911
Dennis, L. R., & Votteler, N. K. (2013). Preschool teachers and children’s emergent
writing: Supporting diverse learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41,
439–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0563-4
Diamond, K. E., 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.05.
002
Diamond, K. E., Justice, L. M., Siegler, R. S., & Snyder, P. A. (2013). Synthesis of IES
research on early intervention and early childhood education. (NCSER 2013–3001)
This report is available on the IES website at http://ies.ed.gov/. Washington,
DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Dickinson, D. 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. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 22, 243–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.03.
001
Dickinson, D. K., Freiberg, J. B., & Barnes, E. M. (2011). Why are so few interventions
really effective? A call for fine-grained research methodology. In S. B. Neuman,
& D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3) (pp.
337–357). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Poe, M. D.
(2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The
interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print
knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 465–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.465
Dickinson, D. K., Hofer, K. G., Barnes, E. M., & Grifenhagen, J. B. (2014). Examining
teachers’ language in head start classrooms from a systemic linguistics
approach. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 231–244. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.006
Early, D. M., Iruka, I. U., Ritchie, S., Barbarin, O. A., et al. (2010). How do
pre-kindergarteners spend their time? Gender, ethnicity, and income as
predictors of experiences in prekindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 25, 177–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.
003
Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning. (2010). Georgia early learning and
development standards Retrieved from. http://www.gelds.decal.ga.gov/search.
aspx
Gerde, H. K., Bingham, G. E., & Pendergast, M. L. (2015). Reliability and validity of
the writing resources and interactions in teaching environments (WRITE) for
preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 34–46. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.008
Gerde, H., Bingham, G., & Wasik, B. (2012). Writing in early childhood classrooms:
Guidance for best practices. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 351–359.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0531-z
Gest, S. D., Holland-Coviello, R., Welsh, J. A., Eicher-Catt, D. L., & Gill, S. (2006).
Language development subcontexts in Head Start classrooms: Distinctive
patterns of teacher talk during free play, mealtime, and book reading. Early
Education and Development, 17, 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15566935eed1702 5
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. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01467.x
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching,
re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15, 273–289. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
Hammill, D. D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Exceptional
Children, 70, 453–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000405
Hindman, A. H., & Wasik, B. A. (2012). Morning message time: An exploratory
study in head start. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 275–283. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s10643-011-0459-8
Hlas, A., & Hlas, C. (2012). A review of high-leverage teaching practices: Making
connections between mathematics and foreign language. Foreign Language
Annual, 45, 76–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01180.x
Ilgaz, H., Hassinger-Das, B., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2014). Language for
reading. In P. Brooks, V. Kempe, & G. J. Golson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Invernizzi, M., & Hayes, L. (2004). Developmental-spelling research: A systematic
imperative. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 216–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1598/RRQ.39.2.4
Invernizzi, M., Sullivan, A., Meier, J., & Swank, L. (2004). Phonological awareness
literacy screening for prekindergarten (PALS-Pre-K). Charlottesville, VA:
University of Virginia.
Jackson, R., McCoy, A., Pistorino, C., Wilkinson, A., Burghardt, J., Clark, M., et al.
(2007). National evaluation of early reading first: Final report. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences; U. S.
Government Printing Office.
Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J. N., Fan, X., Sofka, A., & Hunt, A. (2009). Accelerating
preschoolers’ early literacy development through classroom-based
teacher–child storybook reading and explicit print referencing. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Service in Schools, 40, 67–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/
0161-1461(2008/07-0098)
Justice, L. M., Pence, K., Bowles, R. B., Ryan, B., & Wiggins, A. (2006). An
investigation of four hypotheses concerning the order by which 4-year-old
children learn the alphabet letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21,
374–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.010
 C. Zhang, G.E. Bingham / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 (2019) 138–151
Justice, M. L., Mashburn, J. A., Hamre, B., & Pianta, C. R. (2008). Quality of language
and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving low-income pupils.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 51–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecresq.2007.09.004
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015956
Landry, S. H., Anthony, J. L., Swank, P. R., & Monseque-Bailey, P. (2009).
Effectiveness of comprehensive professional development for teachers of
at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 448–465. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013842
Landry, S. H., Anthony, J. L., Swank, P. R., & Assel, M. (2011). An experimental study
evaluating professional development activities within a state funded
pre-kindergarten program. Reading and Writing, 24, 970–1010. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s11145-010-9243-1
Levin, I., & Aram, D. (2010). Mother-child joint writing and storybook reading and
their effects on kindergartners’ literacy: An intervention study. Reading and
Writing, 25, 217–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9254-y
Lonigan, C. J., Farver, J. M., Phillips, B. M., & Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2011). Promoting
the development of preschool children’s emergent literacy skills: A
randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional
development models. Reading and Writing, 24, 305–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s11145-009-9214-6
Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2007). Test of preschool
early literacy (TOPEL). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Molfese, V., Beswick, J., Jacobi-Vessels, J., Armstrong, N., Culver, B., White, J., et al.
(2011). Evidence of alphabetic knowledge in writing: Connections to letter and
word identification skills in preschool and kindergarten. Reading and Writing,
24, 133–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9265-8
Molfese, V. J., Beswick, J., Molnar, A., & Jacobi-Vessels, J. (2006). Alphabetic skills in
preschool: A preliminary study of letter naming and letter writing.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 5–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15326942dn2901 2
Morris, D., Bloodgood, J. W., Lomax, R. G., & Perney, J. (2003). Developmental steps
in learning to read: A longitudinal study in kindergarten and first grade.
Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 302–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.38.3.1
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the
national early literacy panel. Washington, D.C: National Institute for Literacy.
Neuman, S. B., Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to read and write:
Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Neuman, S. B., & Dwyer, J. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in
Pre-K. The Reading Teacher, 62, 384–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.5.2
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 Education Journal, 38, 187–195. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10643-010-0394-0
Ouellette, G., Sénéchal, M., & Haley, A. (2013). Guiding children’s invented
spellings: A gateway into literacy learning. Journal of Experimental Education,
81(2), 261–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.699903
Piasta, S. B., Purpura, D. J., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Fostering alphabet knowledge
development: A comparison of two instructional approaches. Reading and
Writing, 23, 607–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9174-x
Pollo, T. C., Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2009). Statistical patterns in children’s early
writing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 410–426. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.07.003
Powell, D. R. (2013). The Head Start program. In J. Roopnarine, & J. Johnson (Eds.),
Approaches to early childhood education (6th ed, Vol. 3, pp. 61–78). Columbus,
OH: Merrill/Pearson.
Powell, D., & Diamond, K. (2011). Improving outcomes of coaching-based
professional development interventions. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson
(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3) (pp. 295–307). New York:
Guilford.
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(2), 299–312. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/a0017763
Puranik, C. S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). From scribbles to scrabble: Preschool
children’s developing knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing,
24(5), 567–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9220-8
Puranik, C. S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Emergent writing in preschoolers: Preliminary
evidence for a theoretical framework. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 453–467.
151
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.
2011.03.002
Puranik, C. S., Schreiber, M., Estabrook, E., & O’Donnell, E. (2014). Comparison of
name-writing rubrics: Is there a gold standard? Assessment for Effective
Intervention, 40, 16–23.
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (2001). Test of early reading ability. Ann
Arbor, MI: Academic Therapy Publication.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902 3
Roskos, K. A., Tabors, P. O., & Lenhart, L. A. (2009). Oral language and early literacy in
preschool. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rowe, D. W. (2008). Social contracts for writing: Negotiating shared
understandings about text in the preschool years. Reading Research Quarterly,
43, 66–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.1.5
Rowe, D., & Neitzel, C. (2010). Interest and agency in 2- and 3-year-olds’
participation in emergent writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 169–195.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.2
Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied
Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/
1257035100
Shadish, W. R., & Luellen, J. K. (2005). Quasi-experimental design. In J. L. Green, G.
Camilli, P. B. Elmore, A. Skukauskaiti, & E. Grace (Eds.), Handbook of
Complementary Methods in Education Research (pp. 539–550). The American
Educational Research Association. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (2008). Head Start program performance standards. Retrieved from
https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/45-cfr-chap-xiii
Shatil, E., Share, D. C., & Levin, I. (2000). On the contribution of kindergarten
writing to grade one literacy: A longitudinal study in Hebrew. Applied
Psycholinguisics, 21, 1–21.
Smith, M. W., Brady, J. P., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2008). Early language and literacy
classroom observation Pre-K tool. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Snyder, P. A., Rakap, S., Hemmeter, M. L., McLaughlin, T. W., Sandall, S., & McLean,
M. E. (2015). Naturalistic instructional approaches in early learning: A
systematic review. Journal of Early Intervention, 37, 69–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1053815115595461
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain,
& M. Cole (Eds.), Mind and society (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2011). The Morning Message in early childhood
classrooms: Guidelines for best practices. Early Childhood Education Journal,
39(183-), 189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-011-0463-z
Webb, M. L., Patton-Terry, N., Bingham, G. E., Puranik, C. S., & Lederberg, A. R.
(2018). Factorial validity and measurement invariance of the test of preschool
early literacy-phonological awareness test among deaf and hard-of-hearing
children and hearing children. Ear and Hearing, 39, 278–292. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1097/AUD.0000000000000485
Welsch, J. G., Sullivan, A., & Justice, L. M. (2003). That’s my letter! What
preschoolers’ names writing representation tell us about emergent literacy
knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 757–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1207/s15548430jlr3502 4
Whitebrook, M., & Sakai, L. (2003). Turnover begets turnover: An examination of
job and occupational instability among child care center staff. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 18, 273–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-
2006(03)00040-1
Zhang, C., & Claire Cook, J. (2019). A reflective professional development
intervention model of early writing instruction. Journal of Early Childhood
Teacher Education, 40, 117–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2018.
1536903
Zhang, C., Diamond, K., & Powell, D. (2015). Examining the content of Head Start
teachers’ literacy instruction within two activity contexts during large-group
circle time. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29, 323–337. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1042124
Zhang, C., Diamond, K., & Powell, D. (2017). Do children learn letter knowledge
from name-writing: Examining the relation between children’s writing skills
and letter knowledge. Early Child Development and Care, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/03004430.2017.1343311
Zhang, C., & Quinn, M. (2018). Promoting early writing skills through Morning
meeting Routines: Guidelines for best practices. Early Childhood Education
Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0886-2