THE EFFECT OF WHOLE LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION ON THE WRITING DEVELOPMENT OF SPANISH-SPEAKING AND ENGLISH-SPEAKING KINDERGARTNERS

Yazmin Elizabeth Kuball Sabrina Peck

Camellia Avenue School, California State Los Angeles University, Northridge

Abstract

A year-long, case study investigated the comparative effects of Whole Language-based instruction upon the writing development of eight Spanish-speaking kindergarten children and of eight English-speaking kindergarten children. [What level of research ISN’T this?] Writing development was divided into three subsets of assessment: self-concept of students as writers, compositional literacy, and grapho-phonemic literacy. The study provided descriptive information to answer the following questions: (1) Will the use of Whole Language-based instruction have the same effects upon the writing development of Spanish-speaking kindergarten children as it will for English-speaking kindergarten children? (2) If the writing development of the Spanish group does differ from the writing development of the English group, to what extent does it differ? (3) In what areas of the writing development are the differences evident? Findings indicated that the writing skills of Spanish-speaking children in a Whole Language based program developed as well as the writing skills of the English-speaking children. This study refutes certain rationales used by schools to place Spanish speaking students in skill-based programs. [Does it? Did it make the proper comparison?]

Many Hispanic students are underachieving academically in large segments of the United States (Cummins, 1989; Goldenburg, 1987; Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, 1989; Ogbu & Matute-Bianche, 1990). Lack of school-valued language genres and cultural differences have been posited by many researchers, such as Pai (1990) and Heath (1990), as causes for the school failure of Spanish-speakers. [Does this exhaust the commonsense possibilities?] These supposed language genre deficiencies often underlie decisions by administrators to place Spanish-speaking children in skill-based programs.

The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education (1989) has stated that minority students are underachieving because they are being placed in skill-based programs which use synthetic methods. The Bilingual Education Office Categorical Support Program Division (1990) declares that minorities' school failure is due to the fact that they frequently receive a "watered-down version of the curriculum ... with a heavy dependence on the remedial drilling of basic skills ..."(p.2). Gursky (1991) pointed out that Spanish-speaking children in phonics-based programs begin to fall noticeably behind by the fourth grade. [What is missing here?] Although an abundance of research has shown that minority students do not succeed in skill-based classrooms, [Uhhhhhhh?] very little research has been directed towards the academic performance of minority students in Whole Language-based classrooms. Instead, research has been geared toward cultural and/or language deficiencies of minority students as means of rationalizing the academic failure of minority students in skill-based programs (Edelsky, 1986).

This year-long case study compared the writing skill of Spanish-speaking and English-speaking children receiving whole language instruction. This study is based on the following beliefs: (a) Spanish speaking children are not linguistically deficient; (b) Although the Spanish language is grapho-phonemically dependable, the effectiveness of synthetic approaches for teaching literacy skills is questionable; (c) Spanish-speaking children can be academically successful given the right learning environment, teaching strategies, and philosophy.

Background

Spanish-speaking children across the United States receive more skill-based instruction than do English-speaking children (Bilingual Education Office Categorical Support Program Division, 1990; Cummins, 1989; Diaz, Moll, & Mehan, 1990; Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, 1989; Perez, 1992; Thonis, 1989; Weaver & Padron, 1992). As a consequence, [Uhhhhhhhhh…?] these students are rarely asked to think critically and do not reach their full potential [Follows?] (Diaz, Moll, & Mehan, 1990; Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, 1989).

Literature on language minority children provides three rationales for the practice of placing Spanish speakers in skill-based programs. First, there is a structural inequality between the goods and services that public institutions offer to English speakers and Spanish speakers (Jimenez, 1994; Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, 1989; Ogbu & Matute-Bianche, 1990; Pucci, 1994). For instance, Pucci (1994) found that the public and school libraries did not provide Spanish and English speakers with the same resources. The second rationale is that Spanish-speaking children are linguistically different when comparing their language structures or discourse styles to those valued by schools (Heath, 1990; Pai, 1990). The third rationale is that Spanish-speaking children are perceived to need skill-based instruction to make up for the lack of value placed on reading in the home (Gursky, 1991). In addition, it is believed that skill-based phonics programs are ideal for languages with regular grapho-phonemic relationships such as Spanish (Thonis, 1989).

However, skill-based instruction is not the most effective or favored method for language minority children (Kuball, 1995; Ribowsky, 1985, Passidomo, 1994). Cummins (1989) states [And, uhhhhhhhh?] that skill-based teachers' emphasis on "correctness of surface forms" is detrimental for language minority students. He also writes that the emphasis on drill and practice leads students to an attitude of learned helplessness. [Uh huuuuuuhhhhh?] Cazden (1986) observes that in skill-based teaching, children are drilled on components but are still unable to carry out the whole and complex task that the parts are said to constitute.

Whole Language methods are ideal for encouraging emergent literacy in English- speaking children (Clay, 1975; Freppon, 1988; Ribowsky, 1985). [Appeal to………] In Whole Language instruction, all language skills are seen as developmental, and not to be taught in isolation (Perez & Torres-Guzman, 1992). Whole Language teachers recognize that children who can write well usually read well too (Stone, 1991). [Duhhhhhhhh?] Just as skills are integrated, Whole Language instruction integrates the child's previous knowledge and instruction. [? Dancing is an integrated set of skills, too. But how it is TAUGHT, you bone-headed-rump fed clap-infected slut?] ] Cooperative learning is used extensively. Group projects, peer tutoring, group reading, and group writing activities are common components of Whole Language instruction (Waring-Chaffee, 1994). Several researchers have found that English-speaking children in a Whole Language classroom read and write significantly better than children receiving skill-based instruction (Burts et al., 1993; Freppon, 1988; Ribowsky, 1985). [Yeah yeah yeah. But does it….?]

Ribowsky's research indicated that there was a significant positive effect upon the emergent literacy of kindergarten children in a Whole Language classroom. [?] The Whole Language group, when compared to the skill-based group, demonstrated advances in the following areas: orthographic, semantic and syntactic interpretation of print, and the relationship between sound and symbol. Freppon was able to conclude that the literature-based group was more successful than the skill-based group in these areas: (a) Understanding the communicative purpose of reading; (b) understanding the reading process; and (c) using strategies including self monitoring.

Almost all research in the area of Whole Language has been conducted in middle and upper middle class mainstream classrooms. The research has proven Whole Language to be very successful with this group. The question is: Why has Whole Language not been evaluated with language minority students? A few studies have shown that language minority students can thrive and succeed in Whole Language classrooms (Cummins, 1989; Edelsky, 1986; White, 1989). Some studies showing that Whole Language methods are ideal for Spanish-speaking children.

Edelsky (1986) described the writings of Spanish-speaking children whose teachers used a number of Whole Language approaches. The children were first, second, and third graders. Edelsky discovered that many features of writing had been acquired by the children through means other than direct instruction. Furthermore, she found, despite phonics instruction, the children still used a variety of techniques for inventing spelling when encountering an unfamiliar word. Thus, they did not rely solely on generalizations from phonics lessons. Refuting yet another rationale that skills advocates use to place Spanish speakers in skill-based programs, Edelsky's data revealed no language deficiencies in language minority children. For example, when considering the language genre "label quest" there were no instances of children substituting "thing" or "cosa" for a noun that was required. In summary, Edelsky showed that Spanish-speaking children do not need skill-based programs. She found that Whole Language instruction: (1) integrated listening, speaking, reading and writing; (2) taught skills as part of a whole; and (3) allowed students to work together cooperatively. Such instruction benefited bilingual students in their language acquisition and writing.

Apart from Edelsky, very few researchers have examined the effects of Whole Language instruction on the writing development of Spanish-speaking children. Apparently, little research has been conducted on Spanish-speaking kindergartners. The purpose of this study is to provide descriptive information to answer the following questions: (1) Will the use of Whole Language-based instruction have the same effects upon the writing development of Spanish-speaking kindergarten children as it will upon the writing development of English-speaking kindergarten children? (2) If the writing development of the Spanish-speaking children does differ from the writing development of the English-speaking children, to what extent does it differ? (3) In what areas of the writing development are the differences evident?

Method

Subjects

At the school where the study was conducted, kindergarten students were randomly assigned by the administration to five different classrooms as they enrolled. The sixteen children who participated in this study were kindergarten students from two bilingual classes sharing the same classroom. Eight Spanish-speaking subjects, classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), were selected from the afternoon kindergarten class. There were four male and four female students with a mean age of 5.4 years in the Spanish group. The other eight subjects were native speakers of English and attended the morning kindergarten class. This group consisted of four male and four female students with a mean age of 5.2 years. One subject from the English-speaking group relocated mid-year; therefore, the remaining seven subjects were investigated. The Spanish group remained intact.

The study sample attended an elementary school in a large public school district located in the greater Los Angeles area. The school is situated in a low-income minority area. It is an overcrowded, year-round, multi-track school which also qualified for Chapter 1 funding. Ninety-three percent of its 1050 students are Spanish-speaking.

Teaching Strategies

For the English-speaking subjects, Whole Language instruction was provided in English by their regular morning classroom teacher. The first author, Yazmin Kuball, participated as instructor for the morning Spanish speakers, for one and a half hours, and as an observer for one hour. In the afternoon, the roles were reversed. For the Spanish-speaking subjects, Kuball, who was the regular classroom teacher, offered Whole Language instruction in Spanish while the morning teacher participated as an ESL teacher. Both the morning teacher and Kuball shared the same room environment and Whole Language philosophy. Both teachers used the same teaching strategies when teaching literacy skills. [?]

The kindergarten subjects of this study participated in a Whole Language environment on a daily basis - an environment in which age-appropriateness, natural development and experiential learning were the key elements. [OOoooooo, key elememts.] The classroom was non-threatening, child-centered and free from constant academic correction. [Invidious distinction.] The environment was informal, relaxed, supportive, and non-competitive. The children participated in all phases of their education from planning to self-directed lessons. Children learned through literature, not through workbook exercises. The classroom learning environment was set up to resemble a natural learning environment of a home in which younger children learn to speak, walk, and socialize.

The classroom was a print-rich environment in which skills were learned within context as part of a whole. For instance, the teachers modeled reading and writing on a daily basis. Recipes, songs, stories, and daily news were charted in front of the students. Child-dictated stories were transcribed by the morning teacher or the afternoon teacher/researcher. When charting, the teachers pointed out specific skills they wanted the students to focus on (i.e., sight words, grapho-phonemic relationships, syntax, etc.). Thus, skills were presented to the students in context. Fragmented instruction, in which skills are taught in isolation, was not offered.

Instruments

In this study, three instruments were used to assess the children's writing development. The first instrument developed for this study [?] was a student questionnaire, consisting of three closed-questions, was used to assess the children's self-concept as writers. The questions were: (1) Can you write your name? (2) Can you write a story? (3) Can you write a book? [WTF WTF WTF WTF.]

Content analysis [Bwwwaaaahahahahahaha] was conducted to measure the subjects. [“Billy has a 21 inch inseam.”] All "YES" answers were rated a "1" and "NO" answers were rated a "0". [Why not just Yes and No, and count them?] The self-concept of the Spanish group was compared to that of the English group by computing the percentage of subjects in each group who received rating of 0-1 and those who received rating of 2-3. Data were analyzed to determine whether or not differences occurred between the two groups. Children receiving a rating 0-1 were considered as having a self-concept of a non-writer, while children receiving a rating of 2-3 were considered as having a self-concept of a writer. [Any kid who said he could write a STORY or a BOOK is either a liar or a nut case!] In an attempt to identify any changes in self-concept which occurred during the year within and between both groups, questionnaire responses, gathered at the beginning of the year, were compared to questionnaire responses collected at the end of the year. [Big whoooooop! Before-after comparison of moronitude.]

The second instrument, used to assess the children's compositional literacy skills, was a modified version of the Lamme/Green Scale of Children's Development in Composition (Green, 1990). The Lamme/Green Scale defines four compositional stages through which children progress: (a) Compositional 0: The child writes a one word statement, (b) Compositional 1: The child writes simple messages and/or a list of ten or more words, (c) Compositional 2: The child writes a complete thought, a message of two or more sentences, or a list of short sentences, and (d) Compositional 3: The child writes a long story of four or more sentences with a plot, or a long letter that focuses on a single subject.

The writing samples collected were analyzed for compositional skills according to the four compositional stages. Each stage was rated on a scale of 1 to 4, 1 being the least advanced stage. The compositional skills of the Spanish speakers were compared to those of the English speakers by calculating the percentage of subjects of each group receiving a rating of 1-2 or 3-4. A rating of 1-2 indicated low compositional skills and a rating of 3-4 indicated advanced compositional skills. The writing samples, collected from each group in the beginning of the year, were compared to those collected at the end of the year. The progress in compositional skills within and between both groups, for that year, were determined. [What if one kid wrote four sentences (4) and another kid wrote 20 short sentences (3). Who is the more advanced writer?]