Writing is a complex, integrative process that requires the coordination of skills from multiple domains: oral language, visual–motor integration, phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, print conventions, and executive control ^{[1][2][3][4][5]}[1,2,3,4,5]. A writer must first formulate the meaning or content of their intended message. They need to detect and sequence the phonemes comprising the words within their message and know the sounds and graphemes of the letters used to represent those phonemes. A writer needs fine motor skills sufficient to produce a reasonably legible written copy of these letters. They should also follow print conventions such as directionality, word spacing, capitalization, and punctuation. All of this must be done while dealing with working memory limitations. As a result, writing is a challenging task for young children that requires considerable self-regulation and effortful control ^[6][7][6,7]. Emergent writing, or the initial steps towards becoming a competent and conventional writer, is a key cognitive developmental process in early childhood that is also important for later school success. Despite its contribution to school readiness, emergent writing has received relatively little attention compared to other aspects of emergent literacy ^[8][9][8,9].

As early as ages two or three, children develop the first foundational concepts of print, i.e., that print is different from drawing and it carries meaning that (at least other) people can decipher ^[4][10][11][4,10,11]. Children’s own writing attempts follow a fairly reliable developmental progression. This starts as undifferentiated drawing or scribbling, followed by using letter-like forms, word-like units or random letter strings, then using a single letter to represent a word’s initial sound, and then increasingly sophisticated invented or phonemic spelling ^[11][12][11,12]. Children often learn to write their name by rote before producing other recognizable words, and may use different forms of emergent writing in different settings, e.g., sign their name carefully to a birthday card vs. using rows of scribble to represent a menu during dramatic play. Preschoolers also come to appreciate different functions and genres of print and can apply this knowledge in dramatic play [11]. Emergent writing acquisition shows similar patterns for mono- and dual language learners, across different languages, and even across writing systems ^[13][14][13,14].

Although authors use different terms, conceptual models of emergent writing include similar components ^[9][11][15][9,11,15]. Writing concepts comprise the general understanding of the functions of print, e.g., that writing is a distinct symbol system conveying meaning, and conventions of how print is organized on a page. Composition refers to the ideational content of children’s writing, i.e., how children determine and organize the message they wish to write. Transcription involves putting the message on paper. Many researchers further separate transcription into two domains, handwriting and spelling. Handwriting relates to the formation of written letters or marks that represent letters. Spelling encompasses children’s orthographic knowledge and application of the alphabetic principle, i.e., using letters to represent the sounds in words.

Many early literacy-related skills develop in a reciprocal manner [16]. This mutual reinforcement occurs between the components of early writing described above. For example, when children practice composition by generating meaningful texts in the context of dramatic play, they deepen their understanding of writing conventions ^[1][11][1,11]. Reciprocity is also seen across the main domains of early literacy, e.g., phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, and emergent reading and writing. While some degree of both phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge is needed to produce invented spelling, engaging in invented spelling focuses children’s attention on component sounds within spoken words and letter–sound correspondence, thus strengthening their appreciation of the alphabetic principle [17]. In another example of bidirectional influence, Diamond et al. (2008) found that children’s growth on name writing across the preschool year was associated with growth on print concepts and letter knowledge during the same time period.

Longitudinal studies show that emergent writing in the preschool period predicts more conventional literacy skills in early elementary school. Controlling for nonverbal IQ and a number of early literacy skills, Hand et al. found that early writing (and invented spelling in particular) predicted unique variance in decoding and reading comprehension when children were in kindergarten, and pseudo-word decoding in Grade 1 [18]. Using similar designs, kindergarten emergent writing has been found to predict Grade 1 reading [16], while written fine motor control in preschool predicted Grade 3 reading and math achievement [19]. Finally, the National Early Literacy Panel [20] determined that early name writing is one of the six best predictors of later decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling. Given the implications it holds for early school performance, emergent writing should be incorporated into the preschool curriculum and instruction.

2.2. Effective Emergent Writing Pedagogy

Effective emergent writing instruction combines the general principles of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) with science-based understanding of early writing development. Within the DAP framework, early childhood educators are encouraged to view development as a holistic process and integrate learning across developmental domains and content areas. Teachers should appreciate and capitalize on the extent to which learning occurs in everyday, playful contexts. They can promote children’s motivation and agency by building on what is familiar and interesting, and use supports and scaffolding to challenge children to perform just a little above their current level of competence ^[21][22][21,22]. Consistent with the DAP focus on integration, implications from the research literature include the need to address all components of emergent writing and provide a solid foundation in the inter-related domains of emergent literacy, namely, oral language, alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, and concepts of print. Professional guidance for teachers often presents the writing-rich environment as a sine qua non of good practice. Teachers are urged to have a well-stocked writing center with diverse writing materials, to have writing tools and props in all areas of the room, and to include environmental print that reflects classroom routines or themes and highlights children’s own writing ^[23][24][23,24]. Many authors also emphasize the need to support children’s meaning making and composing, especially when writing is embedded in child-led play ^[11][25][11,25]. Almost all stress that writing should be used for authentic purposes that children can understand and enjoy, such as creating a recipe to use while pretending to cook or signing in to use the classroom computer (e.g., Bingham et al., 2018). Advice on specific teaching strategies includes (a) modeling writing for children, and while doing so, drawing attention to the process of composition, transcription, and/or revision; (b) shared writing where teachers and children work on a piece together; (c) accepting all writing attempts and encouraging children to read back what they wrote; and (d) providing sensitive scaffolding ^{[11][24][25][26][27]}[11,24,25,26,27].

2.3. Emergent Writing in Preschool Classrooms

Studies of emergent writing instruction in preschool classrooms raise concerns about the typical quality of classroom practices. First, there is considerable room for improvement in terms of environmental support. Almost all classrooms contain environmental print, such as classroom labels or alphabet posters; however, only about one half post children’s own writing, and fewer show evidence of engagement in meaningful writing, such as center sign-in sheets, child-made books, or child-made classroom signs ^[28][29][30][28,29,30]. Almost all classrooms have basic writing supplies, e.g., paper, pencils, and crayons, but only about one third stock more diverse materials such as envelopes and letter stencils ^[29][30][29,30]. The majority of classrooms have a dedicated writing center, but most often, writing materials are found only there, missing opportunities to engage children in writing in other contexts, such as science, math, or dramatic play ^[28][29][30][28,29,30]. Time devoted to emergent writing is limited. Writing centers are open for about one hour per day [28] and children engage in writing activities for about 2–6 min per observation period, which typically are of 1.5–3.5 h duration ^[29][31][32][29,31,32]. Writing represents about 2% of individual children’s classroom time and 10% of the total time they spend in any literacy activity [32]. Often, only one to three children per classroom are seen writing, and the absence of any writing activity is common (30–55% of classrooms) ^[29][32][29,32]. Teacher–child writing interactions, beliefs, and knowledge have also been examined. In marked contrast to their practices involving read-alouds, teachers in one study reported that they never or rarely plan writing activities in advance and only about one third wrote with a group of children two or more times per week [33]. A series of studies from another research collaborative (with potentially overlapping samples) found that classroom practices are often imbalanced and unsophisticated. Teachers’ support strategies focused heavily on handwriting (58%) with less attention to spelling (36%) and minimal attention to composition (7%) [8]. The lion’s share of the time (87%), these teachers provided low-level supports that were repetitive or rote in nature and did not serve to expand children’s knowledge, e.g., telling children to sign their artwork, or providing letters to trace. An earlier analysis from the same team found that 21% of teachers provided no scaffolding of children’s writing attempts [28]. Why might scholarswe see this gap between recommended pedagogical practice and actual classroom experience? Teachers may have insufficient conceptual knowledge of emergent writing. They may feel pressure to focus on conventional school readiness, even if this contradicts their beliefs about developmentally appropriate practice. They may also lack a rich repertoire of writing activities, or find it difficult to scaffold and individualize either writing instruction in particular or learning interactions in general. It is important to address these deficiencies, as what teachers know and do has consequences for children’s development. Teachers with broader and more sophisticated knowledge about emergent writing devote more classroom time to this subject, engage children in more writing-related talk, and offer higher-quality support [31]. Environmental and interactive supports, in turn, predict growth in children’s writing over the school year ^[28][30][28,30].