Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:233–242

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00990-0

Young Children’s Writing in Play‑Based Classrooms

Chelsey M. Bahlmann Bollinger1   · Joy K. Myers1

Published online: 15 October 2019

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
Few studies connect teachers’ intentionality with children’s writing in play-based contexts. Thus, the goal of this study (n = 5)
was to examine how the use of stations and intentional teaching encouraged writing in two preschool classrooms. Interviews
with the preschool director and classroom teachers as well as observations of the children helped our understanding of how
the teachers worked to naturally integrate writing into children’s play. Findings suggest learning stations that encourage
writing offered authentic and creative opportunities for composition, but must be scaffolded with intentional teaching in
order for children to continue to develop their writing skills.

Keywords  Early childhood education · Writing · Play · Learning stations

Owen is four years old. His big get up from the whiteboard table
brown eyes are fixed intently on and move onto another station
the blue dry erase marker he is for the few minutes they have left
holding in his right fist. He begins before morning meeting.
to draw on the large white board
that is duct taped to a table in his
preschool classroom. As he draws,
he explains that he is making a In the vignette above, readers can see that a young child’s
castle. His marker skates over journey through literacy is a “messy, noisy, and colorful pro-
the board as he draws a large cess” (Dyson 1986, pp. 407–408). If teachers are observant
rectangle. Joe, one of Owen’s
classmates, joins him at the table,
picks up a black marker, and
begins to mimic the shape Owen is
drawing. “What are we making?”
asks Joe. “Castles,” replied
Owen. They continue to work in
silence, each adding not windows
or doors to the castles, but eyes,
noses, and mouths. “Let’s add a
bridge,” Owen says. He draws
another rectangular shape with
multiple lines on it connecting the
two “face” castles (Fig. 1). Joe
takes his finger and erases part of
Owen’s bridge. At first Owen looks
upset, but Joe quickly adds, “The
people will fall into a deep blue
horrible place below.” “Ok,” says
Owen. Seeming satisfied, the two

* Chelsey M. Bahlmann Bollinger

bahlmacm@jmu.edu
1
James Madison University, MSC 6909 Memorial Hall, 395
South High Street, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA Fig. 1  “Face” castle story

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

234
enough, they will be able to see literacy in all that children
do: talking, drawing, playing, building, and more (Dyson
1986; Horn and Giacobbe 2007). Within preschool class-
rooms, these unconventional literacy behaviors (Yaden et al.
1999) occur alongside more traditional literacy practices as
children learn to form letters, words, and sentences (Smith
2007; Whitmore et al. 2005). Bingham et al. (2017) state
that more research is needed in order to draw attention to
the ways in which early writing skills are supported and
promoted in early childhood classrooms. This paper answers
that call by exploring how teachers’ foster writing in a play-
based preschool.
Related Literature
In this section the researchers share the related literature
with the understanding that the amount of support chil-
dren receive during the preschool years at home varies
greatly from family to family. Realizing that these dif-
ferences have been found to have a considerable effect
on children’s overall literacy learning (Aram and Biron
2004) the researchers have decided to focus on the writing
support the children receive in their preschool classroom
settings.
Play‑Based Preschool Environments
The National Association for the Education of Young Chil-
dren (NAEYC) advocates that learning should be hands-on
and play-based. Play-based preschool classrooms offer mul-
tiple opportunities for children to problem solve, play, and
display creativity. In these classrooms, children may engage
in group play during stations (Wood 2014). Often these sta-
tions create social situations that require problem solving
because children must make decisions with their peers while
playing (Anderson et al. 2014). As children socialize with
others, they share their ideas, and develop the ability to col-
laborate, which is a form of literacy (Worthington and van
Oers 2017).
Preschool Writing Development
Various researchers have outlined the stages of young chil-
dren’s writing development from Sulzby and Teale (1985)
to Rowe and Wilson (2015). Often, the first stage includes
drawing and scribbling followed by top-to-bottom linear
strings and letter-like forms (Bear et al. 2012). For the pur-
poses of this paper, “writing” is considered to include all of
these forms. Writing development is often a concern because
it is related to later reading achievement (Hammill 2004).
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:233–242
However, the writing development of young children varies
tremendously. Research suggests two possible explanations:
children’s interests and teachers’ instruction.
Child Interest
Children’s interests and the family support they receive
(Rasinski and Padak 2009) may influence how they partici-
pate in writing activities (Rowe and Neitzel 2010). Evidence
suggests that children’s motivation and confidence in writing
increases when they have choice and can engage in playful
writing pedagogies (Kissel and Miller 2015; Mackenzie and
Petriwskyj 2017). Children in play-based preschools may
have more motivation to participate in writing activities that
go beyond name writing and letter recognition, which are
common in preschools, because their interests are put first
(Hanline 2010; Milburn et al. 2017). The physical environ-
ment, including easily available writing materials, can also
encourage children’s interest in writing (Gerde et al. 2012;
Roskos et al. 2003).
Teacher Approaches
The ways in which teachers approach young children’s writ-
ing appear to be important to children’s writing development
(Bodrova and Leong 2006; Fleer 2009; Gerde et al. 2015).
In play-based classrooms, the teaching of writing can be
spontaneously initiated either by the teacher or the child
(Biordi and Gardner 2014). If the teacher initiates the inter-
action, he or she may see an opportunity to encourage a
child to label his or her picture, or for example, make a sign
for an activity in which they are engaging during Dramatic
Play. Ray (2004) found that it was essential to provide an
on-going invitation for children to compose in any way they
choose. Supporting this notion, Pellegrini (1982), Wolf and
Grollman (1982) concluded that when observing language
in terms of narrative structure, children’s language is more
narrative-like when they are in dramatic play areas, espe-
cially when literacy materials are provided (Neuman and
Roskos 1992). Teachers can support children’s composing
processes by providing a listening ear, talking about authors’
and illustrators’ intentions within mentor texts, and discuss-
ing children’s own intentions and composing decisions (Ray
and Glover 2008).
In contrast, if a child initiates the need for instruction,
teachers must recognize the intentionality of the writer, the
intent to communicate a message, and to accept all forms of
writing (Puranik and Lonigan 2011). Despite who begins
the interaction, research clearly states that what children pay
attention to is determined both by what is in the environment
and what adults around them point out (Fleer 2009; Macken-
zie 2014). Identifying how children and teachers approach
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:233–242 235
and initiate writing interactions holds promise for under-
standing why children vary in their writing development.
Intentionality
Writing usually requires intentional teaching (Raban and
Scull 2013). When teachers are intentional with their instruc-
tion, they can expose children to early writing opportunities
that cover all three components of early writing (composing,
spelling, and forming letters) while at the same time scaf-
folding more unconventional literacy behaviors (Quinn et al.
2016). Both types of communication are important, because
if teachers can help young writers see drawing and writing
as a unified system for making meaning, children will create
texts that are more complex than those they can create with
words alone (Mackenzie 2011).
Teachers can also be intentional with the environment
they design for young writers. Powell and Diamond (2011)
found that the quality of the teacher’ practice and the envi-
ronment they prepare impacted children’s literacy devel-
opment and achievement. Intentionality is key to prepar-
ing children for more success in writing as they continue
in school where writing expectations increase (Mackenzie
and Petriwskyj 2017). However, Mackenzie and Petriwskyj
(2017) found that teacher’s approaches to writing varied
across settings despite children being of a similar age.
Despite the research noted above on play-based preschool
environments and children’s writing development, there are
few studies that connect teachers’ intentionality with chil-
dren’s writing in play-based contexts. Thus, the goal of this
study was to understand how writing was fostered in play-
based classrooms.
Conceptual Frame
This study was designed from a social constructivist per-
spective, believing that both knowledge and reality are
created through varying degrees of interaction with oth-
ers and with the world (Berger and Luckmann 1967). This
framework provides a lens to understand how “meanings are
constructed, reconstructed, and transformed through social
mediation” (Englert et al. 2006, p. 208). Since writing is a
social process (Bakhtin 1986; Lemke 2003), and language
is socially constructed and mediated (Devitt 2008; Vygotsky
1978), young children engage in learning through peer and
teacher interaction and support.
Therefore, this study systematically considered the social
entity of each preschool classroom as well as the experiences
of teachers and children. In addition, if young children’s lit-
eracy development is viewed from a sociocultural perspec-
tive, the diversity present in children’s meaning making, and
understand that meaning is constructed in many ways can be
appreciated (Harste et al. 1984; Siegel 2006). Therefore, we
considered the social contexts of the two classrooms as well
as the ways in which the preschool teachers made room for
social aspects of writing.
Methods
The researchers employed a collective case study design
(Stake 1995) with two preschool classrooms serving as the
individual case boundaries as they sought to examine how
writing was fostered in play-based preschool classrooms.
Context
The study took place at a preschool associated with a uni-
versity in the southeastern United States over a 12-week
period. The preschool’s philosophy, was: “children learn
best through project, play-based, and child-directed expe-
riences.” The preschool served a combination of children
whose parents were professors at the university or worked
nearby. It also provided care for children whose families
were considered to be “at risk” by the state.
Participants
The data presented in this paper focused on two 4-year-old
classrooms. Each classroom had a lead teacher, assistant
teacher, and between one and two teacher candidates to
assist with the 15 children in each classroom. In the Blue
classroom, the two teachers were Ms. Lucy (lead) and
Ms.Eve (assistant). In the Yellow classroom, the two teach-
ers were Ms. Dara (lead) and Ms. Erica (assistant). All four
teachers indicated in interviews that their years of working
with young children, and the play-based philosophy of the
preschool, shaped how they viewed the role of writing for
young children.
Prior to data collection, the researchers conferred with the
teachers about how they preferred they interact with the chil-
dren. Agreement was reached that it would it would be best,
as researchers, to be positioned as participant observers.
Data Sources
Pre- and post interviews, along with observation over a
12-month period assisted the investigation into what fac-
tors influence children’s writing in a play-based curriculum.
The 45-min interviews with each of the lead and assistant
teachers in the two classrooms as well as the preschool
director (n = 5) were conducted by each researcher using a
semi-structured interview protocol (Schensul et al. 1999).
Since interviews are particularly useful for pursuing in-depth
information around the topic, this methodology allowed the
13

236
researchers to gain insight into how the director and the
teachers viewed writing in play-based preschool classrooms.
In order to capture their thoughts over a period of time, the
interviews occurred at the beginning and end of the study.
The researchers spent a total of 39 h in the preschool
classrooms observing children’s writing. Prolonged involve-
ment was important in developing rapport with the direc-
tor, teachers, and children. This relationship fostered an in-
depth and rich understanding of how the children engaged
in writing over a series of months. The observation protocol
allowed the researchers to note what children were com-
posing in the various areas of the room. Additional notes
taken by both researchers included room environment, use
of materials, teacher–child interactions, and tasks.
Data Analysis
Data analysis of the transcribed interviews and observations
occurred in three phases, following Miles et al. (2013) rec-
ommendations of data reduction, data display, and drawing
and verifying conclusions. During phase one, participants’
responses and the observation notes were open-coded by
both researchers and organized in a two-column chart which
included raw data in one column and researchers’ analysis of
that data in the other column. In phase two, the initial list of
codes was refined into common categories, such as interac-
tion with children, beliefs about writing, classroom design,
topics children wrote about etc., and a second table was cre-
ated using these categories and corresponding data. In phase
three, the researchers collapsed the categories, focusing for
this paper on classroom design.
Findings
Through the examination of observations and interviews it
was clear that the teachers made intentional choices about
the classroom environment in order to foster children’s writ-
ing development. Specifically, the teachers organized their
space to include permanent and temporary stations, many
of which housed specific materials that they added to match
children’s interests. The way the teachers chose to observe
or engage in instruction related to children’s writing while
they were at stations varied across the two preschool class-
rooms. This was also true when the teachers chose to include
a writing component that invited children to document, com-
municate, or write.
Dramatic Play Station
Dramatic Play was a permanent space in both classrooms.
In the Yellow classroom, a wooden puppet show stand was
one permanent feature, but the materials available in the sta-
tion changed several times throughout the year based on the
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:233–242
children’s interests. In the beginning of the year, this station
included a focus on trains since the children saw trains fre-
quently while playing outside. Dramatic Play then focused
on construction since the children expressed interest in the
hotel which was being built near the school. The teachers
brought in blueprints along with hammers, nails, and wood
for the children to build with. Other foci included a beauty
shop followed by an art museum. In terms of changing out
the materials in this station, Ms. Erica shared,
One of the biggest challenges I think is trying to stay
ahead of the game and making sure you are continu-
ously engaging the children – and knowing when to
taper off and start something new. We’re constantly on
our toes and listening to what they’re saying.
Ms. Erica, shared that she enjoyed allowing the children’s
interest to drive how they organized their classroom, but also
admitted that this was more work.
One example of how children’s writing was fostered at
this station was seen when Dramatic Play was a beauty shop.
A child put a cape on another child and pretended to cut
his hair. A girl said, “I know what we need,” and ran to get
paper, markers and a mini-clipboard from the Message sta-
tion. She took the materials to Ms. Dara and asked her to
make a sign. Ms. Dara wrote the word Style on the paper.
She read what she wrote to the children and then encouraged
them to add to the sign. The children wrote their names on
the sign and spent a few minutes decorating it (Fig. 2). One
of the girls directed the others to get “sticky tape” which was
easily accessible and located on a low shelf at the front of
the classroom. They hung their sign in Dramatic Play and
went back to pretending to cut and style each other’s hair.
This example highlights the often-spontaneous nature of
writing in a play-based classroom. The children generated
an authentic message, which they displayed for their class-
mates, in hopes that others might visit their beauty shop.
They clearly viewed Ms. Dara as an expert who could help
Fig. 2  Beauty shop “style” sign
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:233–242 237

them create their message, but after that brief assistance, heart of play-based learning is essentially this, children
they took control of composing by adding to the sign, and organically choosing to engage in learning opportunities
deciding where and how to hang it up. during play.

Sistine Chapel Station Gross Motor Station

At the Sistine Chapel station, children could lay on The Blue classroom had a station called the Gross Motor
their backs, with pillows under their heads, and draw station. Ms. Lucy described this station as “very obstacle
on the paper taped underneath the table using markers. coursey.” At this permanent station there were large plas-
The teachers in the Yellow classroom created this sta- tic yoga blocks, toys to stand and balance on, large mats,
tion to mimic the way Michelangelo painted the Sistine various balls of a variety of textures, suction cup toys, and
Chapel ceiling. This station was not a permanent one, and several other toys that encouraged body movement. Accord-
because of its unique features, it was often very popular ing to both teachers, this was the station that encouraged the
with all the children, not just those typically motivated most writing.
to write. A common topic discussed during play in this classroom
In both classrooms, as a scaffold for some of the was superheroes. One day, three children were pretending to
children to learn how to write their names, the teachers be superheroes and as they played, Ms. Lucy grabbed a piece
printed each child’s name on a rock which they could of paper and some markers and began creating a storyboard
carry with them to the stations. Many examples of chil- in front of the boys in a shared writing-type fashion. As the
dren engaging in interest driven writing were seen at sev- children described the story that they were acting out, she
eral of the stations during observations, however at the quickly drew illustrations and wrote simple sentences below
Sistine Chapel the children had a nontraditional way to her illustrations as the boys observed (Fig. 3).
compose since they laid on the floor. The teachers said Ms. Lucy reviewed the story with the children orally,
that it gave the children a new “way” to write. before adding the next section so that when the story was
One child in particular, Jacob, who tended to avoid finished, the children were able to read the story they created
many of the stations that had writing opportunities, loved together. This example illustrates Ms. Lucy’s belief, which
the Sistine Chapel. He was still learning how to write his she articulated in an interview, that she and her co-teacher
name in February when he was observed carrying his are truly,
rock with him to that station. Jacob laid on the floor and
facilitators of learning… being able to observe that in
picked up the rock with his left hand and a marker with
which they’re interested and trying to build upon those
his right. He looked at the rock and then wrote the letter
intrinsic motivational pieces so that we can integrate
‘J,’ then looked at the rock again and wrote the letter ‘A’
those academic skills… we don’t have a paced agenda.
and so on until he had composed his entire name. Jacob
We know the foundational skills that we would like to
was not done yet and added some other letters and draw-
develop this year, but we try not to push that.
ings before he untaped the paper and took it to Ms. Erica.
He announced proudly, “I wrote my name!”
For Jacob, and other children who did not typically
engage in writing during stations, it was not about the
materials, since paper and markers were available at mul-
tiple locations. Instead, what the teachers believe drove
his interest in writing was how the station was arranged
which allowed Jacob to practice writing his name, and
other letters of the alphabet, on his own without prompt-
ing from the teacher. The teachers felt that since there
was only space for one child under the table, and not a
teacher, Jacob felt “safe” to draw or write there compared
to the other stations.
Ms. Dara shared in her final interview that they still
have some children who don’t write their names but she
said, “They will get there. They have had so much expo-
sure to their name in this classroom, but they are just
not ready to write, but they are at least seeing value to
writing.” According to the teachers at the preschool, the Fig. 3  Superhero writing in the gross motor station

13

238
These data sources showed the teachers valued the impor-
tance of observation during play. Ms. Lucy wanted the chil-
dren to understand that the story they were acting out could
be communicated through words and pictures, and then
shared with others when displayed.
Message Station
In the Yellow classroom, the children often composed notes
to their parents at the Message station. Situated at a small
table, with space for only one child at a time, this station
had paper, markers, pencils, mini clipboards, stickers, and
several books about mail delivery and the post office. Close
by, there was a real mailbox for the children to “mail” letters
to their families. In the hallway between the two classrooms,
there was a family message area where parents could write
and mail letters to their children. Ms. Erica described how
the teachers “delivered” mail to the children saying things
like, “Mom wrote you a note, would you like to write a note
back to Mom?” What children wrote to their parents, often at
the Message station, was not always a note. If a child did not
like writing or did not feel comfortable writing, the teachers
encouraged the children to draw a picture and add words or
letters to their drawing.
In their interviews, the teachers discussed the range of
children’s writing skills. Ms. Dara described how some
children, “can form every uppercase letter, every lowercase
letter, will copy names, copy words, and write their own
name.” However, the teachers noted that some of the chil-
dren still gripped markers and chalk using their fists. Ms.
Dara added,
We never make a child or force them to sit and write
but anywhere there’s opportunities, you know, if they
want to write a note to Mom because they’re missing
her, we can talk about grip and how to form letters or
things like that so just kind of organically.
The philosophy of writing instruction shared by the teach-
ers in both classrooms was, “it’s kind of fluid, meeting them
where they are.”
During one observation, Markus wrote his name using
markers at the Message station. He wanted help spelling the
word pumpkin. One of the researchers noticed he was trying
to sound out the word, but following the philosophy of the
teachers in the Yellow classroom, she waited until he specifi-
cally asked for help spelling the word. She then assisted as
he thought of the sounds in the word while pointing to the
alphabet letters on the wall. With only minimal assistance,
Markus was able to use invented spelling to write pumpkin
(Fig. 4). Markus then folded his letter and wrote “Mom” on
the outside before putting it in the mailbox.
In her final interview, Ms. Emily noted that, “This year I
think the students are a lot more focused on, ‘I have to spell
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:233–242
Fig. 4  Pumpkin writing mail
it right, the letter has to look right.’” She contrasted this to
other years when she felt the children were making more
developmentally appropriate choices about writing, saying,
“it was more representational.” In this classroom context,
teachers really wanted to downplay the children’s focus on
spelling words correctly.
Art Station
The Blue classroom had an art station that was a permanent
station, but the materials available to the children varied
depending on children’s interests. There was an easel for
painting, a table for drawing, and a shelf with a drying rack
that housed various art materials. Ms. Lucy explained that
at this station,
we’ll do a “drive by”… we’ll pull something and put
it out on the table and see what happens and see if
they’re interested and what they’ll do with it. Some-
times we provoke thought by playing ourselves and
we’ll just sit there and do something and someone will
come up and be like “what are you doing over here?”
On one particular day, the teachers set out colorful tape
and paper. Lionel was working at this station along with a
researcher who was drawing and observing. Lionel began
using the colored tape to fasten two pieces of paper together
(Fig. 5). He drew pictures of two figures, what he described
as “evil twins.” Each twin and his respective house were
drawn on separate sheets of paper. While observing, author
1 asked Lionel, “How will people know what is happening in
your book?” After looking up and pausing for a moment, he
added “vs” with a crayon for versus in the center to indicate
the evil twins were fighting each other and the words “no”
on both of the twins’ pictures to indicate neither twin would
allow each other into their home. During this interaction
Lionel was very focused on creating his story during the
entire time. When it was time to clean up Lionel tucked his
story in his cubby to take home because he was so proud of
his work.
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:233–242 239
Fig. 5  Evil twins story
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to understand how writing
was fostered in two play-based preschool classrooms. The
data revealed that, (1) the teachers made intentional choices
about the organization of their classrooms to include per-
manent and temporary stations, (2) the children composed
different types of writing based on the available materials
at the stations or how they were set up, such as the Sistine
Chapel, and (3) the teachers intentionally chose to observe
or engage in writing instruction, and encouraged other adults
in the room to do the same. These findings warrant further
discussion.
Value of Stations
In both classrooms, the teachers chose to use stations as a
way to structure the space in which the children engaged
during indoor play in the morning and afternoon. The sta-
tions highlighted are just a few of the permanent and tem-
porary stations in the two classrooms and are aligned with
the teachers’ philosophy of play-based education. As the
children engaged in playful writing pedagogies (Mackenzie
and Petriwskyj 2017), the teachers believed their motivation
and confidence to write would increase.
The children in this study engaged in group play during
stations which fostered writing (Wood 2014). This was seen
when they made the sign for their beauty shop in Dramatic
Play and the workout plan in Gross Motor. The stations
also created social situations that required problem solving
(Anderson et al. 2014) and helped develop their ability to
collaborate when writing (Worthington and van Oers 2017).
An example of this appears in the opening vignette when
Owen and Joe worked together to create the face castles.
Evidence also suggests that the physical environment, for
example the Sistine Chapel station, can encourage some
children’s interest in writing (Gerde et al. 2012). The teach-
ers truly valued stations as an instructional tool to encourage
authentic writing.
Composing in Stations
The writing samples collected in both preschool class-
rooms showed a variety of developmental stages. This is
not uncommon when examining the writing of young chil-
dren (Graves 1989; Schickedanz 1999). The researchers
noticed some children’s writing consisted of single letters
of the alphabet, while other children were writing words
with accompanying illustrations, such as when Markus used
invented spelling to write pumpkin. While the variety of
developmental levels is typical in classrooms, the children’s
choice of writing topic in preschool classrooms is not as well
studied. Research suggests that choice in writing topic in all
classrooms is important (Kissel and Miller 2015). In this
study, through the play-based stations, students chose topics
in which they engaged.
Composing encourages children to think about what they
want to write, make choices about which words or letters
to use, and recognize that they are communicating through
their writing. Best practices for authentic writing include
allowing children choice in topic as they compose their
pieces (Graham et al. 2007). This is based on the under-
standing that writing opportunities should center around an
intrinsic motivation in children to engage in writing.
The Challenge of Intentionality
Children in the play-based preschool classrooms under
observation, had many opportunities for authentic writing
experiences. However, even with two experienced teach-
ers in each classroom, and often a teacher candidate, it
was impossible to take advantage of every opportunity for
intentional teaching. For example, as the opening vignette
illustrated, if a teacher would have overhead Owen and Joe’s
conversation, perhaps the children’s writing development
could have been further supported. However, the reality is
that preschool teachers are very busy just managing class-
rooms filled with young children. According to Pelatti et al.
(2014), preschool children may not engage in any writing
despite the intentional design of curriculum based on chil-
dren’s interests. In addition, because children can choose
which stations to spend time at in a play-based classroom,
it can be especially difficult for teachers to be intentional in
supporting their writing.
13

240
Another challenge to the preschool teachers’ intentional-
ity were their personal feelings about their role in support-
ing young writers. The teachers in the Yellow classroom
saw themselves more as observers and stressed the need to
provide space for writing if that was the child’s choice. The
teachers in the Blue classroom were also observers of writ-
ing, but Ms. Eve admitted that sometimes they “provoked”
writing. There are currently institutional and political initia-
tives that want to replace play in preschool with formal lit-
eracy instruction (Bergen 2006). The researchers do not see
that as the answer, since Quinn et al. (2016) and others point
out, when teachers are intentional with their instruction, they
can expose children to many early writing opportunities. Yet,
it is important to note that teachers’ beliefs about writing
instruction influenced not only how they interacted with the
children, but also impacted the interactions of the research-
ers. Although the teachers conveyed a consistent message,
remaining true to the play-based curriculum model and
allowing children’s writing to evolve organically (Anderson
et al. 2014), the researchers wonder if there is an opportunity
to meet in the middle.
Implications
This study has implications for teacher educators and pre-
school teachers. Teacher educators must continue to support
teacher candidates’ understanding of the role of play in pre-
school classrooms and provide opportunities for candidates
to understand and experience how intentionality shapes the
experiences children have specific to writing. One way to
accomplish this goal is to provide teacher candidates with
experience in both play-based and teacher-directed class-
rooms, so they can better understand how writing is nurtured
in both types of environments.
Further, the idea of modeling conversations specific to
writing with young children are also necessary to help can-
didates understand the ways prompting children during play
can encourage writing.
Preschool teachers may benefit from professional devel-
opment related to intentional teaching and incorporating
more opportunities for writing into their classroom routines.
However, researchers must commit to spending time in pre-
school classrooms in order to better understand the reality
of those contexts. Both writing and teaching preschool aged
children in general is complex, regardless of the context.
Agreeing with others such as Hall et al. (2015) and Mac-
kenzie and Petriwskyj (2017) more research on this topic is
desperately needed.
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:233–242
Future Research
Although this study was limited by the small sample size
and the number of hours the researchers were able to spend
in the two preschool classrooms, it is clear that the observa-
tions in the classrooms as well as the interviews with the
teachers, painted a more accurate picture of the way writing
was fostered in a play-based preschool. Although the focus
of this study did not include the relationship between writ-
ing development and family literacy, future studies within
this context could examine if or how the teachers specifi-
cally worked to support “all” students considering the varied
backgrounds and home lives. In addition, examining how
writing is encouraged from the perspective of children would
expand the lens to include a population, children, whose
voices are often overlooked in research.
Conclusion
Research on how children learn to write often blurs into
discussions about how teachers should help children learn to
write (Dyson 1995). The teachers in this study believed that
the best way to support children’s writing was through creat-
ing engaging stations based on children’s interests. Offering
children authentic and creative opportunities to write, rather
than using worksheets and applying academic pressure, was
something each teacher valued. The researchers support
research that states decisions should be made by individual
preschool teachers on a child by child basis because no two
paths to literacy look the same (Dyson 1990; Whitmore et al.
2005). However, it is clear that the level of adult support and
the quality of materials in the classrooms shaped children’s
motivation to write. Educators at all levels must critically
reflect on their own ideas of what writing can look like in
early childhood classrooms and work together to develop
deeper understandings so no one feels “forced” to write.
Compliance with Ethical Standards 
Informed Consent  Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Anderson, G. T., Spainhower, A. R., & Sharp, A. C. (2014). “Where do
the bears go?” The value of child-directed play. Young Children,
69(2), 8–14.
Aram, D., & Biron, S. (2004). Joint storybook reading and joint writ-
ing interventions among low SES preschoolers: Differential
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:233–242 241
contributions to early literacy. Early Childhood Research Quar-
terly, 19(4), 588–610.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press.
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2012).
Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spell-
ing instruction (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Bergen, D. (2006). Reconciling play and assessment standards: How
to leave no child behind. In D. P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.),
Play from birth to twelve: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings
(2nd ed., pp. 233–240). New York, NY: Routledge.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of real-
ity: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Bingham, G. E., Quinn, M. F., & Gerde, H. K. (2017). Examining
early childhood teachers’ writing practices: Associations between
pedagogical supports and children’s writing skills. Early Child-
hood Research Quarterly, 39, 35–46.
Biordi, L., & Gardner, N. (2014). Play and write: An early literacy
approach. Practically Primary, 19(1), 6–9.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2006). Vygotskian perspectives on teach-
ing and learning early literacy. In D. Dickinson & S. Neuman
(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 243–256).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Devitt, A. (2008). Writing genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Dyson, A. H. (1986). Transitions and tensions: Interrelationships
between the drawing, talking, and dictating of young children.
Research in the Teaching of English, 20(4), 379–409.
Dyson, A. H. (1990). Talking up a writing community: The role of talk
in learning to write. In S. Hynds & D. L. Rubin (Eds.), Perspec-
tives on talk and learning (pp. 99–114). Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Dyson, A. H. (1995). Writing children: Reinventing the development of
childhood literacy. Written Communication, 12(1), 4–46.
Englert, C. S., Mariage, T., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of socio-
cultural theory in writing instruction research. In C. MacArthur,
S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research
(pp. 208–221). New York, NY: Guilford.
Fleer, M. (2009). Supporting scientific conceptual consciousness or
learning in a roundabout way’ in play-based contexts. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 1069–1089.
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 Child-
hood Research Quarterly, 31, 34–46.
Gerde, H. K., Bingham, G. E., & Wasik, B. A. (2012). Writing in early
childhood classrooms: Guidance for best practices. Early Child-
hood Education Journal, 40, 351–359.
Graham, S., Fitzgerald, J., & MacArthur, C. A. (Eds.). (2007). Best
practices in writing instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Graves, D. H. (1989). Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. In D.
S. Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Emerging literacy: Young
children learn to read and write. International Reading Associa-
tion: Newark.
Hall, A. H., Simpson, A., Guo, Y., & Wang, S. (2015). Examining
the effects of preschool writing instruction on emergent literacy
skills: A systematic review of the literature. Literacy Research and
Instruction, 54(2), 115–134.
Hammill, D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Excep-
tional Children, 70, 453–468.
Hanline, M. F. (2010). Developing a preschool play-based curriculum.
International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education,
46(3), 289–305.
Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A., & Burke, C. L. (1984). Examining
our assumptions: A transactional view of literacy and learning.
Research in the Teaching of English, 18(1), 84–108.
Horn, M., & Giacobbe, M. E. (2007). Talking, drawing, writing: Les-
sons for our youngest writers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Kissel, B. T., & Miller, E. T. (2015). Reclaiming power in the writ-
ers’ workshop: Defending curricula, countering narratives, and
changing identities in prekindergarten classrooms. The Reading
Teacher, 69(1), 77–86.
Lemke, J. L. (2003). Modeling change: The dynamics of place, time,
and identity. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Ethnography
in Education Forum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Mackenzie, N. (2011). From drawing to writing: What happens when
you shift teaching priorities in the first six months of school?
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(3), 322–340.
Mackenzie, N. M. (2014). Teaching early writers: Teachers’ responses
to a young child’s writing sample. Australian Journal of Language
and Literacy, 37(3), 182–191.
Mackenzie, N. M., & Petriwskyj, A. (2017). Understanding and sup-
porting young writers: Opening the school gate. Australasian
Journal of Early Childhood, 42(2), 78–87.
Milburn, T. F., Hipfner-Boucher, K., Weitzman, E., Greenberg, J., Pel-
letier, J., & Girolmetto, L. (2017). Cognitive, linguistic, and print-
related predictors of preschool children’s word spelling and name
writing. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(1), 111–136.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1992). Literacy objects as cultural tools:
Effects on children’s literacy behaviors in play. Reading Research
Quarterly, 27, 203–225.
Pelatti, C. Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., & O’Connell, A. (2014).
Language and literacy learning opportunities in early childhood
classrooms: Children’s typical experiences and within classroom
variability. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 445–456.
Pellegrini, A. D. (1982). The construction of cohesive text by pre-
schoolers in two play contexts. Discourse Processes, 5, 101–108.
Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2011). Improving the outcomes
of coaching-based PD interventions. In S. B. Neuman & D. K.
Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3,
pp. 295–307). Guildford: New York, NY.
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.
Quinn, M. F., Gerde, H. K., & Bingham, G. E. (2016). Help me where
I am: Scaffolding writing in preschool classrooms. The Reading
Teacher, 70(3), 353–357.
Raban, B., & Scull, J. (2013). Young learners: Defining literacy in
the early years, a contested space. Australasian Journal of Early
Childhood, 38(1), 100–106.
Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2009). Write soon! The Reading Teacher,
62, 618–620.
Ray, K. W. (2004). Why Cauley writes well: A close look at what a dif-
ference good teaching can make. Language Arts, 82(2), 100–109.
Ray, K. W., & Glover, M. (2008). Already ready: Nurturing writers in
preschool and kindergarten. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Roskos, K. A., Christie, J. F., & Richgels, D. J. (2003). The essentials
of early literacy instruction. Young Children, 58(2), 52–60.
Rowe, D. W., & Neitzel, C. (2010). Interest and agency in 2 and 3-year
olds’ participation in emergent writing. Reading Research Quar-
terly, 45(2), 169–195.
Rowe, D. W., & Wilson, S. J. (2015). The development of a descrip-
tive measure of early childhood writing: Results from the Write
Start! Writing Assessment. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(2),
245–292.
13

242
Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential
ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and question-
naires (Vol. 2). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Schickedanz, J. (1999). Much more than the ABCs: The early stages of
reading and writing. Washington, D.C.: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Siegel, M. (2006). Rereading the signs: Multimodal transformations
in the field of literacy education. Language Arts, 84(1), 65–77.
Smith, P. K. (2007). Pretend play and children’s cognitive and literacy
development: Sources of evidence and some lessons from the past.
In K. Roskos & J. Christie (Eds.), Play and literacy in early child-
hood: Research from multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 3–19).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. (1985). Writing development in early child-
hood. Educational Horizons, 64, 8–12.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher men-
tal process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitmore, K. F., Martens, P., Goodman, Y., & Owocki, G. (2005).
Remembering critical lessons in early literacy research: A trans-
actional perspective. Language Arts, 82(5), 296–307.
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:233–242
Wolf, D., & Grollman, S. (1982). Ways of playing. In D. Pepler & K.
Rubin (Eds.), The play of children (pp. 46–63). Basel: Karger.
Wood, E. A. (2014). Free choice and free play in early childhood edu-
cation: Troubling the discourse. International Journal of Early
Years Education, 22(1), 4–18.
Worthington, M., & van Oers, B. (2017). Children’s social literacies:
Meaning making and the emergence of graphical signs and texts
in presence. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(2), 147–175.
Yaden, D. B., Rowe, D. W., & MacGillivray, L. (1999). Emergent lit-
eracy: A polyphony of perspectives. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for
the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University of
Michigan.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.