English language learners' writing behaviours during literacy-enriched block play

Abstract

Despite the rising number of linguistically diverse students in countries where English is the primary medium of instruction in schools, there is a relative lack of research on how these students learn to write in English and respond to common classroom literacy practices. One practice found in early childhood classrooms is literacy-enriched play, but little research explores how young English language learners respond to this particular intervention. This exploratory study examines three linguistically diverse kindergarten students' use of writing materials in a literacy-enriched block centre in their classroom. Observational notes and writing samples produced by the students during block play were analyzed to determine the frequency and variety of their writing behaviours. The results indicated that all the students, regardless of language background, incorporated drawing and writing into their block play with similar frequency, although they sometimes used different writing strategies. These findings indicated that literacy-enriched centres can provide linguistically diverse students with meaningful opportunities to practice writing.

Keywords

English language learners literacy-enriched play emergent writing block play kindergarten children

Introduction

Since more and more English language learners (ELLs) are enrolling in schools in the United States and other countries where English has become the language of instruction in schools (NALDIC, 2015; NCELA, 2015; NSW Department of Education and Communities, 2012; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013; Statistics New Zealand, 2013), it is vital that teachers differentiate their instruction in order to fully support their ELL students' language and academic development (MacGillvray and Rueda, 2001). However, there are many gaps in the body of research that might inform educators about best practices for differentiating instruction for students of diverse language backgrounds. One of these gaps is the relative lack of research on ELLs' emergent writing development. While many studies concerning ELLs' literacy development have explored early reading, the topic of ELLs' emergent writing has remained relatively untouched (August and Shanahan, 2006; Soltero-González et al., 2012).

Another gap is the lack of research on how ELLs respond to common literacy instruction practices. One of these common practices is the inclusion of literacy-enriched play centres in early childhood classrooms. Over the past two decades, researchers in various international contexts have asserted that playing in these literacy-enriched environments can foster the growth of young children's emergent literacy skills (Burke, 2010; Hall and Robinson, 2013; McLachlan et al., 2006; Neuman and Roskos, 1990, 1992, 1993; Pickett, 1998; Snow et al., 2015; Wellhousen and Giles, 2005; Yelland et al., 2008). However, most of this literature focuses on how literacy-enriched play benefits monolingual English-speaking children's literacy development. Studies that do consider ELLs and literacy-enriched play focus either on teachers' attitudes toward the practice (Moon and Reifel, 2008; Saracho, 2001) or on ELLs' oral language development (Patè, 2009), not on their reading and writing behaviours during this type of play.

The purpose of this study was to address these gaps by investigating young ELLs' writing behaviours in the context of their kindergarten classroom's literacy-enriched block centre. Three students – one newcomer to the English language, one English-dominant bilingual speaker, and one monolingual English speaker (MES) – were observed as they interacted with writing materials during block play, and these interactions were analyzed in order to determine whether linguistic background made a difference in how much each participant responded to this type of play by being able to utilize and practice their emergent writing skills.

The importance of fostering children's emergent writing development

Although young children may not yet know how to write conventionally, practicing writing is an important way for them to develop a variety of literacy skills. Research has indicated that literacy skills develop simultaneously and that making gains in one skill can support the growth of the others, even when children are very young (Lonigan et al., 2009). When children engage in writing activities during both formal instruction and on their own time, they reinforce their skills in print awareness and alphabetic knowledge (Diamond et al., 2008). Print awareness is knowledge about the forms, conventions, and functions of written language and the understanding that print carries meaning (Justice and Ezell, 2004); this understanding of print helps children develop their writing skills and vice versa. As children begin to notice print around them in their classrooms, homes, and communities, they may be inspired to create writing in order to communicate ideas, thereby putting their understanding of print into practice (Mayer, 2007). Conversely, engaging in writing can make children more aware of the qualities of the print they encounter in daily life. As Clay (2001) pointed out, ‘writing is of critical importance for learning to read’, since children must pay very close attention to the properties of writing in order to mimic writing themselves (18).

A component of print awareness, alphabetic knowledge is the understanding that letters represent the speech sounds of a language (Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley, 1989); as with print awareness, alphabetic knowledge and writing can be mutually reinforcing. In order to develop this alphabetic knowledge, children must be aware of the spoken sounds of the English language (phonological awareness) and the visual characteristics of alphabet letters. Once children begin connecting letters to their sounds, they can use this knowledge to spell words phonetically (Read, 1971). Therefore, alphabetic knowledge is necessary for writing in the English language (Castles et al., 2009), and likewise, engaging in this type of writing helps children strengthen their alphabetic knowledge and practice previously unfamiliar letter–sound relationships (Dickinson et al., 2004).

However, children do not need a mature understanding of print or alphabetic knowledge to begin experimenting with writing. Before fully acquiring these skills, children can use drawings to ‘compose and share ideas, integrate meaning, and develop knowledge’ (Kissel et al., 2011: 428). Using drawings as symbols to convey meaning is therefore an important early step toward writing, another form of symbolic communication (Yang and Noel, 2006). In addition to pictures, children often mimic writing by creating scribbles or mock letters and assigning meaning to these marks (Treiman and Cassar, 1997). Then, as children learn more about print and the alphabet, they may start writing their names, copying words using conventional letter forms, and, eventually, attempt to spell words phonetically (McGill-Franzen et al., 2002).

Literacy-enriched block play

A context in which children can develop their emergent writing skills is block play. While blocks and writing may not seem explicitly connected, many researchers have avowed the importance of these toys as a valuable resource for literacy learning. First, blocks are open-ended toys that encourage children to assign symbolic meaning to them (Wellhousen and Giles, 2005). For example, a child might use a block as a symbol for a car, or s/he might use a stack of blocks to represent a castle. This type of symbolic play mirrors writing because the latter act also requires an understanding of symbolic meaning – just as blocks represent objects and ideas during play, letters and words represent objects and ideas in print (Hall and Robinson, 2013). Therefore, when children engage in block play, they reinforce the understanding of symbolic representation that will be necessary as they learn more about literacy.

An additional connection between block play and writing is that both acts require narrative competence. When people write down ideas and stories, they create narratives in print form; many researchers have pointed out that children also create narratives when they talk and act out stories – either tales that they have heard or narratives of their own creation – during play (Kendrick, 2005). It has thus been suggested that engaging in symbolic play, such as block play, can positively impact the development of children's narrative competence, as the narrative competence that children acquire during play can be used later as they learn how to create written compositions (Eckler and Weininger, 1989). Also, on a more practical level, children can strengthen their fine motor skills, an essential requirement for manipulating writing utensils, simply by grasping and handling blocks as they play (Stroud, 1995).

Lastly, writing, like block play and other types of play, is a social process (Hall, 2000). When children play together, they interact with each other by sharing and building on each other's ideas, often learning from each other's previous knowledge by watching, listening, and talking. Writing, too, is an ‘interactive social activity’ (Datta, 2007: 134). The act of learning to write is highly social – in order to gain new knowledge about the conventions and functions of print, children must interact with others who possess this knowledge. Sharing writing experiences with peers and teachers can therefore positively benefit a child's writing development (Mayer, 2007). Additionally, as Dyson (2001) emphasized, children's emergent writing is a social tool, through which young learners relate and communicate with others around them. While children can share ideas verbally during play with their friends, they can also share ideas through writing.

To connect block play and literacy more overtly, many early childhood educators create literacy-enriched block centres in their classrooms. An early study on literacy-enriched play by Neuman and Roskos (1990) provided teachers with several suggestions for establishing these types of play centres. First, teachers can include an abundance of environmental print in classrooms by displaying labels, posters, and other forms of writing in children's play spaces. Then teachers can incorporate literacy props into these spaces. Such props include developmentally appropriate books, various types of paper (e.g. sticky notes, note cards, pads of lined paper, envelopes, cards, etc.), and writing utensils (e.g. pencils, pens, crayons, markers, etc.). When introducing these materials to play areas like the block centre, teachers should question their ‘appropriateness, authenticity, and utility’ (216–217). Will children be able to safely use the literacy props? Do children encounter the props in their daily lives? And do children know how these materials are used? The authors found that, when these criteria were followed, children's literacy behaviours during play increased.

Well before the aforementioned research on literacy-enriched play began, Vygotsky (1978) theorized that young children will engage in writing if writing is ‘necessary for something’ in their lives (117). In other words, when children are allowed to experiment with writing in child-centred, interesting, and personally relevant contexts (like a classroom play centre), it is assumed that they will naturally want to incorporate writing into their activities (Rybczynski and Troy, 1995). Giving children these opportunities to write without forcing them to conform to adult expectations can help them gain control of writing at their own pace and in personally meaningful ways (Yang and Noel, 2006). Furthermore, as previously mentioned, they can be inspired to write during block play by observing peers’ interaction with literacy materials or to learn more about the functions and conventions of print from adults’ modelling of writing behaviours (Teale and Sulzby, 1986; Yaden and Brassell, 2002).

Despite the presence of literature on symbolic block play, emergent literacy, and literacy-enriched play centres, few studies exist that explore these topics together or in relation to ELLs. Some studies have indeed examined block play and emergent writing (Neuman and Roskos, 1992; Pickett, 1998) and determined that children seem to be more motivated to engage in literacy behaviours – reading, writing, and handling literacy props – in literacy-enriched play environments, especially when teacher modelling is present. However, these studies only focused on monolingual English-speaking children and, for the most part, are at least two decades old.

Meanwhile, only two recent studies could be found that studied second language acquisition in literacy-enriched block play. Patè's (2009) qualitative examination of a dinosaur project in her preschool classroom at the American School of Milan in Italy sought to provide insight into ways that teachers can support ELLs’ oral language development and social interaction with monolingual English-speaking classmates. In order to analyze this topic, the author observed groups of students interacting in a literacy-enriched block centre as they created ‘dinosaur parks’ with unit blocks, plastic dinosaurs, crayons, markers, tape, scissors, and poster board. After each group completed their park, they presented the finished product and answered questions posed by their classmates. Patè found that this project did encourage the ELL students’ language production and social interaction with their peers. She further concluded that providing second language learners with play-based group tasks allowed them to experiment with language and develop linguistic skills in a low-anxiety environment. Although these findings shed light on an effective technique to support young ELLs in an English-language classroom, the author focused only on oral language development without considering ELLs’ writing activities or other literacy behaviours.

Snow et al. (2015) examined the writing behaviours of six kindergarteners in their classroom's literacy-enriched block centre. The participants included three ELLs from low SES backgrounds and three MESs. Their findings revealed that the children engaged in different types and frequencies of writing in literacy-enriched play centres. Based on their findings the authors suggest that although both ELLs and MESs benefited from the literacy-enriched play, teachers should not automatically assume that ELL students from similar linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds will respond to literacy-enriched play in the same ways.

The present study

Since there is a relative lack of recent research concerning ELLs' response to literacy-enriched play, this exploratory pilot study sought to shed light on how limited English proficiency might affect ELLs' emergent writing development and, by extension, their writing behaviours during literacy-enriched play. Several studies have indicated that less oral proficiency in English does not necessarily hinder young ELLs' emergent writing development in classrooms where English is the primary medium of instruction (Araujo, 2002; Lesaux et al., 2006). These findings support the theory that children can transfer linguistic knowledge from their first language (L1) to their second language (L2) (Dworin, 2003). For example, children who have learned in their L1 that print carries meaning and that letters correspond with certain sounds might apply these understandings to literacy learning in their L2 by recognizing these similarities between the two languages (Restrepo and Gray, 2007; Weber and Longhi-Chirlin, 2001).

Based on these findings that lower oral proficiency need not put ELLs at a disadvantage when learning to write in English, it was predicted that the ELL and monolingual English-speaking participants in this study would respond to a literacy-enriched block centre in similar ways by engaging in similar writing behaviours during play. The study was guided by the following questions:

What types of writing behaviours will three kindergarteners with diverse linguistic backgrounds demonstrate in their classroom's literacy-enriched block centre?

How often will these participants engage in writing behaviours during block play?

Methods

Setting

This study took place at The Oak School,¹ a small, private school in a large city in the south-central United States. Grades ranged from the play-based preschool (for students aged three to five) to eighth grade, with one class per grade and an average of 10 students per class. The children who attended the school were generally from high socioeconomic background. Due to the city's role as a centre for international business, many of the school's families came from overseas – particularly from Europe and South and East Asia – and there was at least one student learning English as a second language in each class.

The kindergarten class observed for the study consisted of 11 students (seven girls and four boys), and six of those students spoke or were exposed to a language other than English at home. English was the sole medium of instruction in the classroom, as the diversity of the languages spoken by the students and their families rendered bilingual instruction impractical, and the teachers were all MESs. However, languages other than English were welcomed at the school: ELL children often spoke in their home languages with their siblings and friends, and parents of ELL children often visited classrooms to share information about home countries, often bringing children's literature and other print materials in their native languages.

Whereas the early childhood classes at the school were play based, the kindergarten class focused more on structured academic activities, leaving two 30 min periods per week during which the students could choose their own play activities. An especially popular area during these free play periods was the block centre, where the four boys in the class played regularly. In addition to unit blocks, the teacher, Mrs M, placed miniature road signs on the centre's shelves, and students were allowed to bring over toys – such as cars, dice, and action figures – from other areas of the room to incorporate into their play. Mrs M had also included several English-language picture books about blocks and construction on the shelves, but she said that the students never touched them.

Participants

The study's three participants, all of whom came from high-income families, were selected using convenience sampling, as they were chosen from a class to which one of the authors had ready access for observation. However, the sampling was also purposive, since we intended to examine how the three participants who bring notably different language background and practices into a classroom use the literacy materials and engage in writing behaviours during block play. We also selected these participants because of their interest in block play and the significant amount of time they spent in the block centre during free play time. All of the children's parents and guardians signed and returned consent forms allowing their children to participate in the study, so all activities in the block centre were observed and recorded.

Jibril

Jibril, an ELL student, began attending The Oak School at the beginning of the second semester of pre-kindergarten, as he had recently come from Indonesia with his parents and seven-year-old brother. His mother worked for a major oil company, spoke highly proficient English, and had been transferred to the United States for one year. His father understood some English but spoke little. While still in Indonesia, Jibril and his brother received some English tutoring at home; when Jibril started school in the United States, his knowledge of English included most letter names (but no letter sounds), numbers up to 30, and a few key words (such as ‘restroom’ and ‘food’). The family continued to converse in Indonesian at home.

When Jibril's family came to visit the school for the first time, his mother described him as ‘shy’ and warned administrators that he would probably not want to interact with other children. As she expected, beginning school in the United States was not easy for Jibril – he cried and attempted to follow his father out the door every morning for the first two weeks of the semester. After a while, he came to school calmly and followed the class routine easily, but he did not talk and preferred to remain alone during free time. This silent period lasted for about two months. Eventually, however, Jibril began joining classmates in the block centre during afternoon playtime, and he gradually began to use his developing English skills with these friends. Meanwhile, he rarely spoke to his teacher and usually answered her questions by shaking or nodding his head, although he once asked her to come look at a block structure he had created.

Over the rest of the semester, Jibril began talking more frequently, and he seemed to enjoy interacting with his classmates, laughing and chatting animatedly with them, usually in the block centre, where they often created roads, buildings, and castles together. He also showed interest in drawing, playing with tactile materials (e.g. playdough, manipulatives), and writing his name. According to Mrs M, these interests continued in kindergarten, and Jibril, who was 5.6 years old when the study began, spent most of his free time in the block centre, occasionally moving to the writing centre to draw.

Alexander

Alexander, our bilingual participant, was born in the United Kingdom to an English father and a Danish mother. He was raised speaking both Danish and English, and he also learned a few phrases of Tagalog from a Filipina nanny. While in the three-year-olds’ class at The Oak School, Alexander displayed strong graphophonemic awareness and was developing typically in all areas. By the beginning of pre-kindergarten, he could distinguish all upper- and lowercase letters and their sounds, but he showed little interest in writing or drawing and usually only engaged in these activities when required by the teacher. He wrote his name by copying it from a nametag until the last few weeks of pre-kindergarten, complaining that ‘Alexander’ had too many letters.

At the beginning of the study, Alexander had just turned six years old. During his free time, Alexander typically selected the block centre, where he would remain as long as possible, creating elaborate roads and buildings with friends. If his playmates left to find another activity, Alexander often stayed in the block centre alone or tried to convince other classmates to join him. This penchant for block play continued through kindergarten.

Sam

Sam, who was 5.6 years old when the study began, started attending The Oak School at age three. Born in the United States, Sam came from an American family who spoke only English at home. Apart from a developmental inability to pronounce /l/, his speech, literacy, and fine motor development were typical. Unlike Jibril and Alexander, Sam had shown an early interest in writing – in pre-kindergarten, when his teacher took down anecdotal notes about his classmates, he would often sit next to her with his own pad and pencil and ‘write notes’ by scribbling and using phonetic spelling. Sam also enjoyed copying words on the white board and in his journal, and he was one of the first students in his class to learn to write his last name.

While he enjoyed playing in the block centre, Sam rarely spent all of his free time in pre-kindergarten playing there. He often left the blocks to engage in dramatic play, look at books, or play with other tactile materials. In kindergarten, Sam tended to start out every free period in the block centre and usually remained there, but he would sometimes leave to participate in other activities in the classroom.

Table 1 presents demographic information about the participants, including age at the beginning of the study, gender, ethnicity, language background, and time spent in preschool in the United States.

Table 1.

Participants' demographic information.

Name	Age	Gender	Ethnicity	Language status	Home language(s)	Attended preschool
Jibril	5.6	M	Asian (Indonesian)	ELL	Indonesian	0.5 years
Alexander	6.0	M	Caucasian (European)	Bilingual	Danish and English	2 years
Sam	5.6	M	Caucasian (American)	Monolingual English speaker	English	2 years

Procedures and measures

Literacy assessments

Before creating a literacy-enriched block centre and beginning observations of block play, one of the authors gathered information on the participants' alphabet knowledge, understanding of print concepts, familiarity with high-frequency words, and word writing abilities from Mrs M's beginning-of-the-year literacy assessments. These four areas were tested using an adaptation of Clay's (2002) Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OSELA). To assess the participants' alphabet knowledge, the teacher pointed to randomized letters on a page and asked the students to identify each letter's name and its corresponding sound(s). The teacher then tested the students' concepts of print by showing them a book and asking them questions about the difference between words and pictures, the layout of the text, the direction of print, the difference between letters and words, etc. Next, the teacher gauged the participants' knowledge of high-frequency words by having students read from a list of common sight words. Finally, the students were asked to write as many words as they could (including their name) from memory. The teacher also created anecdotal records about the students' writing abilities by observing their writing behaviours during class instruction and examining their writing products. The information from the assessments, anecdotal records, and writing samples served as a baseline for each participant and was later used by one of the authors to determine whether the participants demonstrated this same literacy knowledge when engaging in writing during block play.

Participants' literacy assessment results

When Mrs M conducted the beginning-of-the-year literacy assessment, all three of the participants could identify most (Jibril and Sam) or all (Alexander) upper- and lowercase letters and their corresponding sounds. All the participants could also identify at least 10 high-frequency words, and they were able to write three words from memory – I, a, and their own names. The three boys answered all of the questions on the print concepts assessment correctly, indicating that they could distinguish between print and pictures and letters and words. After consulting the anecdotal records that she had collected about their writing behaviours during formal instruction, Mrs M reported that Alexander seemed to prefer using invented spelling when writing during class, while Jibril and Sam usually copied words and only spelled phonetically with her encouragement.

Preparing the literacy-enriched block centre

In order to plan for the literacy-enriched play centre, one of the authors observed the participants playing with blocks for 30 min to ascertain the amount of time they spent in the centre, any literacy behaviours demonstrated, and the types of games they liked to play there. Jibril, Alexander, and Sam stated that they enjoyed playing Power Rangers™, Super Mario Bros.™, Lego®, and dinosaurs. Available English-language picture books pertaining to these interests were then placed in the block centre. Much research (Dörnyei, 2005; Golinkoff et al., 2006; Vygotsky, 1978) has indicated that children are motivated to engage in literacy and other learning activities when these activities are related to their interests. Therefore, it was assumed that including these particular books would motivate the participants to use them.

Completing the literacy enrichment process, several different types of paper and writing utensils were placed in the block centre according to suggestions made in previous research on literacy-enriched play (Neuman and Roskos, 1990; Schrader, 1991; Stroud, 1995). We provided paper products that children might encounter in daily life – sticky notes, note cards, small pads of lined paper, and pencils; the participants were invited to bring construction paper, markers, and crayons over from the writing centre if they wished. Although adult modelling of the uses of literacy materials during play has been recommended (Pickett, 1998), modelling in this case might have affected the students' spontaneous literacy behaviours. Therefore, the participants were made aware of the additions to the block centre and then allowed to use the materials as they wanted.

Observations

Once the block centre was equipped with literacy materials and the participants were made aware of their presence, one of the authors gathered information about their writing behaviours during block play. The three participants always chose to play in the block centre during nine half-hour observation sessions (a total of 270 min), which took place during their biweekly free play periods. Using field notes, the researcher documented how often the participants engaged in emergent writing behaviours while they played, and then recorded the participants' actions and transcribed their conversations. In the context of this study, writing behaviours were defined as drawing, scribbling (imitating writing), writing letters, writing one's own name, writing a word from memory, copying words, taking dictation from another person, and phonetic spelling (either spelling aloud or writing). Finally, photographs of their block structures and writing products were also taken during each observation session.

Data analysis

The collected data were analysed using both descriptive methods and frequency counts. The first research question (“What types of writing behaviours will three kindergarteners with diverse linguistic backgrounds demonstrate in their classroom s literacy-enriched block centre?”) focused closely on the writing the participants created while they played in the block centre. Field notes and photographs were examined in order to identify the types of writing (e.g. drawings, scribbles, letters, and words) the participants produced; the strategies they used to write (e.g. recalling high-frequency words, copying, taking dictation, and phonetic spelling); and whether each participant used the knowledge of print he had demonstrated on his formal literacy assessment and during class instruction. Frequency counts were then employed to analyse data pertaining to the second research question (‘How often will these participants engage in writing behaviours during block play?’).

Results

Preliminary observation

Before the literacy-enrichment process began, the participants were observed playing with the materials that the teacher had previously placed in the block centre. These materials included unit blocks, picture books about blocks and construction, miniature English-language wooden traffic signs, a box of toy cars, and a box of small dice. During this 30 min observation session, the three boys remained in the block centre while the other students played in other areas of the room. Speaking only in English together while they played, the participants built a road with the unit blocks, placed the miniature traffic signs around their creation, and played ‘Mario Kart™’, inspired by the car racing video game, by driving the toy cars all over the road. While they used all of the traffic signs in their building process, the participants did not seem to read the symbols or text on the signs or obey their directions. Due to this lack of attention to the signs during play, it seemed that the participants used them mainly for decoration. Also, as Mrs M had noted during her previous observations, the participants never used picture books in the block centre.

Use of literacy materials during block play

After more literacy materials were made available in the block centre, the participants all quickly began drawing pictures with pencils and using these pictures as characters or props for their block games, conveying meaning through the use of drawn symbols that helped them embody their stories. The boys often utilized note cards for their character drawings, which they subsequently used as action figures. When creating props, they often drew opponents or obstacles from their favourite video games, TV shows, and movies. As during the preliminary observation period, the boys spoke only English together as they played.

Alexander (Figure 1) draws Mario with a helicopter hat.

Figure 1.

Alexander's Mario drawing (on the pink card in the middle).

Alexander: That's Mario. He's flying over this [block]. He's in the clouds.

Jibril (Figure 2) describes a drawing that will become an opponent in a block structure.

Figure 2.

Jibril's ‘Angry Bird’.

Jibril: I’m gonna make a Angry Bird [from the video game ‘Angry Birds’]. [Draws.] Circle, eyes, mouth here! And wings.

Sam (Figure 3) draws a person on a note and places it next to a car.

Figure 3.

Sam's ‘A guy waiting for his car’.

Sam: That's just a guy. His car [for the Mario Kart game that the boys were playing] isn't ready yet, so he's waiting.

During the third observation session, as the literature advocating literacy-enriched play centres predicted, Jibril and Sam began writing during block play. While sitting next to a block castle they had built together, they started drawing stick figure people on two lined note pads, which they agreed would be guards for the castle. Jibril pointed to one of the stick figures, said, ‘This is you, Sam’, wrote Sam's name from memory above the figure, and, laughing, ripped up the paper. Sam then wrote Jibril's name from memory above one of his drawings and then ripped up his paper.

Later, Sam and Jibril also copied words from books. When Sam discovered the dinosaur book on the block shelves, he immediately sat down and began copying dinosaur names and facts onto note cards (Figure 4). He then decorated block structures with the cards, stating that he placed them there so everyone could see them. When it was time to clean up, Sam brought the dinosaur cards to Mrs M and asked her to read what they said. She encouraged him to look at the pictures in the book and sound out the initial letters of the dinosaur names, and he quickly realized what he had written using his knowledge of the words’ beginning letter sounds and dinosaur names. On another occasion, Sam brought a children's dictionary into the block centre, copied the word ‘MOUSe’, cut out the label, and placed it on a block structure, announcing to his friends that touching the label could turn someone into a mouse.

Figure 4.

Sam's dinosaur fact signs.

Jibril also began copying when he came across the Power Rangers book. He wrote ‘POWER RaNGERS’ on a red card (Figure 5(a)), placed the card on a block road, and stated that anything that touched the card would turn into the Red Power Ranger. Jibril also continued writing for the block centre at home. One day, a packet of stapled paper (Figure 5(b)) was found lying on top of the books on the shelves at the block centre. Another student announced that Jibril had created his own dinosaur book at home by copying words (such as ‘Dinosaur Book’ and ‘reptile’) from other books and then brought it to school for his friends to use in the block centre. When Jibril was asked if this statement was true, he nodded enthusiastically and proceeded to share the book with his friends.

Figure 5.

Jibril's Power Ranger label (a) and dinosaur book (b).

While Jibril and Sam spelled by copying from books and recalling each other's names from memory, Alexander ignored the books placed in the block centre altogether and instead utilized his phonetic spelling skills during the fifth observation session. After watching Sam copying dinosaur names and asking him about them, Alexander (Figure 6) wrote ‘VANSOReS’ (for ‘Venatosaurus’, a fictional dinosaur in the 2005 King Kong film) on a note card by verbally isolating the sounds in the name and marking down the corresponding letters. He then taped the card to a Y-switch block and pretended that the block was the dinosaur.

Figure 6.

Alexander's ‘Venatosaurus’ dinosaur sign.

As presented in Table 2, the participants demonstrated a total of six (Alexander) or seven (Jibril and Sam) writing behaviours in relation to block play across the entire study. Jibril engaged in drawing three times, wrote Sam's name from memory once, and copied words once during the free play period. He then drew and copied words once again when creating his dinosaur book; and although these writing behaviours occurred at home, they were considered to be part of block play since Jibril intended for the finished product to be used in the block centre. Alexander engaged in drawing five times and spelled phonetically once. Meanwhile, Sam drew four times, wrote Jibril's name from memory once, and copied words from books twice.

Table 2.

Types and frequencies of writing behaviours during block play throughout the study.

	Frequency of writing behaviour
Name	Drawing	Scribbling	Letters	Name writing	Word from memory	Copying	Dictation	Phonetic spelling	Total writing behaviours
Jibril	4	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	7
Alexander	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	6
Sam	4	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	7

Discussion

The three participants in this study interacted with writing materials very similarly during block play. At first, all of the participants experimented with drawing by creating pictures with the writing materials and using these drawings as action figures and accessories in their block games. These inventions displayed their understanding that marks on paper can symbolically represent objects or ideas, a key concept in print-based literacy practices (Yang and Noel, 2006) and can be used to present stories. Although there were no actual Super Mario, Power Ranger, or other action figure toys, the participants were not hampered by this limitation. The students were able to conjure toys that they wanted and then use them for their dramatic games by creating their own tangible characters that aligned with their stories. Jibril and Sam also exhibited similarities in their other writing behaviours, as they wrote each other's names from memory while playing a game together. They both chose to spell words on two occasions by copying, a strategy for which they had each indicated a preference during class writing instruction. Meanwhile, Alexander wrote using phonetic spelling, which, according to his teacher, was his preferred method of writing in class. However, despite the strong understanding of print and alphabetic knowledge that all of the participants displayed on their literacy assessments and during class instruction, they engaged in drawing much more often than spelling. It is therefore worth examining why Jibril, Alexander, and Sam favoured these other behaviours rather than using their more sophisticated writing skills.

One factor to consider is the position of play in their classroom. Due to curriculum standards, the kindergarteners only had two half-hour free play periods during the week. Perhaps, due to their efforts during instructional time, they had grown tired of writing and simply wanted to ‘just play’. Also, the nature of social play might have further affected their desire to write, as breaking away from talking and interacting with friends in order to spend time writing might have interrupted the flow of play and therefore seemed unappealing to the participants. Another explanation stems from the nature of the block centre before literacy enrichment. Perhaps the participants, when first confronted with the supply of literacy materials in their play area for the first time, did not know what to do with them, and it took time for them to determine the meaning and functions of the materials in relation to their block play.

Although the participants' writing behaviours did not reflect the full range of their demonstrated writing skills, the writing produced by the boys during block play is significant and consistent with existing research on ELLs' emergent writing development and literacy-enriched play. First, the results of this study supported previous studies' findings that lower English proficiency does not necessarily hinder young ELLs' emergent writing development (Araujo, 2002; Lesaux et al., 2006). Despite the differences in their language backgrounds, all of the participants in this study demonstrated similar print and alphabet knowledge on their literacy assessments, and all three also engaged in writing behaviours that reflected at least some of this knowledge during block play. Although Jibril had received minimal English tutoring and had spent only half a year in English-language preschool, he displayed the same alphabetic knowledge, understanding of print, and writing abilities as Sam, who had been exposed only to English since birth. Not only did these two students exhibit similar writing skills during class instruction and formal assessments, but they also engaged in similar writing behaviours and used the same spelling strategies during block play. Alexander, too, exhibited comparable understanding of print and writing abilities as his two classmates, and by using this knowledge to spell phonetically during block play, he indicated that his Danish language background did not negatively affect his ability to write in English.

This study's results were also consistent with research affirming the potential of literacy-enriched block play for young children's literacy development. Stroud (1995) asserted that supplying children with a variety of writing supplies during block play ‘will encourage and support young children's early attempts at writing’ by making literacy both accessible and meaningful to children (11). Studies by Neuman and Roskos (1992) and Pickett (1998) confirmed this assertion, and the three participants in this study demonstrated increased literacy activity after literacy enrichment, using paper and writing utensils in a variety of ways, from fashioning blank paper into props to using their emergent writing skills to spell words.

Finally, these findings were consistent with claims by many previous researchers that literacy is a social phenomenon. When playing in a literacy-enriched block centre, children can encounter writing as a social process by learning about writing from peers or by using writing to interact and communicate with others (Dyson, 2001; Mayer, 2007; Rybczynski and Troy, 1995; Snow et al., 2015). It is not clear that the participants in this study learned about writing from each other, since none of the boys were seen or heard to explicitly teach or model writing for each other while they played. However, they did seem to influence each other's writing in the block centre, as they all demonstrated the same types of writing behaviours while talking and interacting with each other. For example, Jibril and Sam wrote each other's names from memory while playing together, and Alexander decided to spell a dinosaur name phonetically after talking to Sam about the dinosaur words Sam had copied from a book. Although no overt peer teaching was observed, Jibril, Alexander, and Sam did use writing as a social tool to communicate with each other. Each time they drew, they explained their drawings to their friends, and they all then incorporated the drawings into their shared dramatic games. Later, when the participants began spelling, they imparted the meaning of their writing to their friends, and the creations were then used in conjunction with their block play. In all of these instances, the participants used their writing to interact or communicate with their friends, thereby demonstrating their understanding that communication is a function of print.

Conclusion

The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate whether three kindergarteners from different language backgrounds would respond similarly to a literacy-enriched block centre in their classroom. All of the participants in this study engaged in similar types and amounts of writing behaviours during block play; these similarities indicated that, despite their diverse experiences with the English language, they all responded similarly to the intervention. While none of the participants used the full range of writing skills that they had each displayed on literacy assessments, they did use the literacy-enriched block centre as a resource to exhibit their understanding of print and practice their writing skills. Also, while no explicit peer teaching was observed, all of the participants influenced each other's writing behaviours as they talked and played together. Therefore, it was shown that a literacy-enriched block centre can certainly be a valuable resource for students of different language backgrounds to experiment with writing and be motivated to explore print by interacting with their peers.

The results of this study yielded several implications for teachers of young ELLs. First, it is worth teachers' time to set up literacy-enriched block centres for linguistically diverse students, since ELL children might indeed enjoy these types of environments as much as or more than their monolingual English-speaking peers. The potential of literacy-enriched block play could be seen in this study, as all of the participants, regardless of linguistic background, took many opportunities to practice their emergent writing skills as they played. Furthermore, due to the mutually supportive social acts of play and literacy, teachers should encourage students of different language backgrounds to play in these literacy-enriched centres together. ELL and monolingual English-speaking children can expand their understanding of the process and functions of writing by watching each other and talking about their writing products during play, as this study's participants verified with their actions. Finally, it is probable that teachers' modelling of writing behaviours during block play – which has been shown to increase literacy behaviours amongst monolingual English-speaking students (Pickett, 1998) – could provide even greater support to ELLs' emergent writing development than peer modelling alone. Perhaps the participants in this study would have engaged in more spelling if their teacher had been able to show them different ways to use writing in the block centre.

Limitations and future research

Despite its encouraging results concerning ELL students, literacy, and block play, this exploratory study did have its limitations. To begin with, the sample size of participants, only three students, was small; while qualitative research can yield deep discoveries about the way individual children play and learn, it is also critical to perform quantitative studies with larger groups of participants in order to provide a broader view of the subject and to yield more generalizable results. Another limitation relates to gender – there were only four boys in this class in total, and they played almost exclusively with blocks during their free time, while the girls, representing the majority of the students, did not seem to be interested in block play. Therefore, future research should include studies of how linguistically diverse children of both genders engage in literacy-enriched block play. Finally, all of the participants in this study came from high socioeconomic backgrounds, and it is important to consider students of different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds when exploring ways to improve classroom practices. All in all, expanding research on this topic will provide scholars and educators with more information about the effectiveness of literacy-enriched play for young ELLs' literacy development.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Araujo

(2002) The literacy development of kindergarten English-language learners. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 16(2): 232–247.

August

Shanahan

(2006) Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Burke

(2010) Ready to Learn: Using Play to Build Literacy Skills in Young Learners, Markham, ON: Pembroke.

Byrne

Fielding-Barnsley

(1989) Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child's acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology 81(3): 313–321.

Castles

Coltheart

Wilson

et al. (2009) The genesis of reading ability: What helps children learn letter-sound correspondences? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 104: 68–88.

Clay

(2001) Change Over Time in Children's Literacy Development, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay

(2002) An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Datta

(2007) Bilingual writers: Aami ekta bhooiter golpo likhba (I want to write a ghost story). In: Datta

(ed.) Bilinguality and Literacy: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed. London, UK: Continuum, pp. 127–155.

Diamond

Gerde

Powell

(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.

10.

Dickinson

McCabe

Clark-Chiarelli

et al. (2004) Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness in low-income Spanish and English bilingual preschool children. Applied Psycholinguistics 25: 323–347.

11.

Dörnyei

(2005) Motivation and ‘self-motivation’. In: Dörnyei

(ed.) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 65–119.

12.

Dworin

(2003) Insights into biliteracy development: Toward a bidirectional theory of bilingual pedagogy. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 2(2): 171–186.

13.

Dyson

(2001) Writing and children's symbolic repertoires: Development unhinged. In: Neuman

Dickinson

(eds) Handbook of Early Literacy Research, New York, NY: Guilford, pp. 126–141.

14.

Eckler

Weininger

(1989) Structural parallels between pretend play and narratives. Developmental Psychology 25(5): 736–743.

15.

Golinkoff

Hirsh-Pasek

Singer

(2006) Why play = learning: A challenge for parents and educators. In: Singer

Golinkoff

Hirsh-Pasek

(eds) Play = Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children's Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–12.

16.

Hall

(2000) Literacy, play, and authentic experience. In: Roskos

Christie

(eds) Play and Literacy in Early Childhood, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 189–204.

17.

Hall

Robinson

(2013) Exploring Writing and Play in the Early Years, London, UK: David Fulton Publishers.

18.

Justice

Ezell

(2004) Print referencing: An emergent literacy enhancement strategy and its clinical applications. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 35(2): 185–193.

19.

Kendrick

(2005) Playing house: A ‘sideways’ glance at literacy and identity in early childhood. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 5(1): 5–28.

20.

Kissel

Hansen

Tower

et al. (2011) The influential interactions of pre-Kindergarten writers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 11: 425–452.

21.

Lesaux

Koda

Siegel

et al. (2006) Development of literacy. In: August

Shanahan

(eds) Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 75–122.

22.

Lonigan

Anthony

Phillips

et al. (2009) The nature of preschool phonological processing abilities and their relations to vocabulary, general cognitive abilities, and print knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology 101(2): 345–358.

23.

McGill-Franzen

Lanford

Adams

(2002) Learning to be literate: A comparison of five urban early childhood programs. Journal of Educational Psychology 94(3): 443–464.

24.

MacGillvray L and Rueda R (2001) Listening to inner city teachers of English language learners: Differentiating literacy instruction. Available at: http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/2001-05/0105McRued.htm (accessed 25 February 2016).

25.

McLachlan

Carvalho

de Lautour

et al. (2006) Literacy in early childhood settings in New Zealand: An examination of teachers' beliefs and practices. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 31(2): 31–41.

26.

Mayer

(2007) Research in review: Emerging knowledge about emergent writing. Young Children 62(1): 34–40.

27.

Moon

Reifel

(2008) Play and literacy learning in a diverse language pre-kindergarten classroom. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 9(1): 49–65.

28.

National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum (NALDIC) (2015) EAL pupils in schools. Available at: http://www.naldic.org.uk/research-and-information/eal-statistics/eal-pupils/ (accessed 28 February 2016).

29.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) (2015) Profiles of English learners (ELs). Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/fast-facts/pel.pdf (accessed 28 February 2016).

30.

Neuman

Roskos

(1990) Play, print, and purpose: Enriching play environments for literacy development. The Reading Teacher 44(3): 214–221.

31.

Neuman

Roskos

(1992) Literacy objects as cultural tools: Effects on children's literacy behaviors in play. Reading Research Quarterly 27(3): 202–225.

32.

Neuman

Roskos

(1993) Access to print for children of poverty: Differential effects of adult mediation and literacy-enriched play settings on environmental and functional print tasks. American Educational Research Journal 30: 95–122.

33.

NSW Department of Education and Communities (2012) Multicultural policies and services program report 2012. Available at: https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/how-we-operate/annual-reports/mpsp/mpspreport2012.pdf (accessed 25 February 2016).

34.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2013) Canadian-born English language learners. Available at: https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/CBS_CBELL.pdf (accessed 25 February 2016).

35.

Patè

(2009) Language and social development in a multilingual classroom: A dinosaur project enriched with block play. Journal of the National Association for the Education of Young Children 64(4): 12–19.

36.

Pickett

(1998) Literacy learning during block play. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 12(2): 225–230.

37.

Read

(1971) Pre-school children's knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review 41: 1–34.

38.

Restrepo

Gray

(2007) Optimizing literacy in English language learners. Seminars in Speech and Language 28(1): 25–34.

39.

Rybczynski

Troy

(1995) Literacy-enriched play centers: Trying them out in ‘the real world’. Childhood Education 72(1): 7–12.

40.

Saracho

(2001) Teachers' perceptions of their roles in promoting literacy in the context of play in a Spanish-speaking kindergarten. International Journal of Early Childhood 33(2): 18–31.

41.

Schrader

(1991) Symbolic play: A source of meaningful engagements with reading and writing. In: Christie

(ed.) Play and Early Literacy Development, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 189–213.

42.

Soltero-González

Escamilla

Hopewell

(2012) Changing teachers' perceptions of the writing abilities of emerging bilingual students: Towards a holistic bilingual perspective on writing assessment. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15(1): 71–94.

43.

Snow

Eslami

Park

(2015) Latino English language learners' writing during literacy-enriched block play. Reading Psychology 36(8): 741–784. .

44.

Statistics New Zealand (2013) Education and Pacific peoples in New Zealand. Available at: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/pacific_peoples/pacific-progress-education/schooling.aspx#bilingualism (accessed 25 February 2016).

45.

Stroud

(1995) Block play: Building a foundation for literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal 23(1): 9–13.

46.

Teale

Sulzby

(1986) Introduction: Emergent literacy. In: Teale

Sulzby

(eds) Emergent Literacy: Reading and Writing, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company, pp. vii–xxv.

47.

Treiman

Cassar

(1997) Spelling acquisition in English. In: Perfetti

Rieben

Fayol

(eds) Learning to Spell: Research, Theory, and Practice Across Languages, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 61–80.

48.

Vygotsky

(1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

49.

Weber

Longhi-Chirlin

(2001) Beginning in English: The growth of linguistic and literate abilities in Spanish-speaking first graders. Literacy Research and Instruction 41(1): 19–49.

50.

Wellhousen

Giles

(2005) Building literacy opportunities into children's block play: What every teacher should know. Childhood Education 82(2): 74–78.

51.

Yaden

Brassell

(2002) Enhancing emergent literacy with Spanish-speaking preschoolers in the inner city: Overcoming the odds. In: Roller

(ed.) Comprehensive Reading Instruction Across the Grade Levels: A Collection of Papers from the Reading Research 2001 Conference, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 20–39.

52.

Yang

Noel

(2006) The developmental characteristics of four- and five-year-old preschoolers' drawing: An analysis of scribbles, placement patterns, emergent writing, and name writing in archived spontaneous drawing samples. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 6: 145–162.

53.

Yelland

Lee

O'Rourke

(2008) Rethinking Learning in Early Childhood Education, London, UK: McGraw-Hill.