UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Using the language experience approach to introduce reading and writing to first and second language… Carrigan, Anthony 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 C37.pdf [ 4.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078280.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078280-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078280-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078280-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078280-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078280-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078280-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078280-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078280.ris

Full Text

USING THE LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE APPROACH TO INTRODUCE READING AND WRITING TO FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE GRADE ONE SCHOOL CHILDREN by ANTHONY CARRIGAN B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Language Education) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1987 <§) Anthony C a r r i g a n , 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date JtArte, l?$7* DE-6(3/81) i i . ABSTRACT This study provides empirical research on the Language Experience Approach (LEA) to introducing the reading and writing process to beginner, F i r s t Language (Li) and Second Language (L2) readers. This i s a worthwhile area of current research because LEA i s a precursor to Whole Language. In the province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Whole Language i s quickly becoming a very popular reading program. Whole Language incorporates a great deal of LEA i n theory and i n practice. Yet, while many researchers and educators have praised LEA and Whole Language i n general, with p a r t i c u l a r value for L2 students, l i t t l e empirical research on LEA exists. This study attempts to provide some of t h i s necessary empirical research. An experiment was designed with an independent variable and several dependent variables. The independent variable consisted of one treatment using LEA and another treatment not using LEA. The dependent variables measured growth i n reading and writing a b i l i t y , growth i n reading interest, and growth i n ESL acquisition. Three Grade One classrooms were involved. Two used a popular, basal reader program and the other used LEA. F i f t y percent or more of the students i n the three classes were L2 students. i i i . Five research hypotheses were formulated. They were: (a) reading a b i l i t y In the experimental group (LEA) would be greater than i n the control group (basal readers), (b) creative writing a b i l i t y i n the experimental group would be greater than' i n the control group, (c) reading i n t e r e s t i n the experimental group would be greater than i n the control group, (d) Second Language a c q u i s i t i o n would be greater with the L2 students i n the experimental group than with those i n the control group and, (e) L2 students i n the experimental group would perforin better i n reading and writing a b i l i t y and would have a greater increase i n reading than t h e i r L2 peers i n the control group. The experiment ran f o r seven months. During the course of the experiment, a formal c h e c k l i s t was used, i n periodic v i s i t s to the classrooms, to ensure the experimental group was using LEA and the control group was not. Pretests were given i n readiness, ESL a b i l i t y , s k i l l i n independent writing, and i n attitude towards reading. Posttests were given i n vocabulary growth, reading comprehension, ESL a b i l i t y , s k i l l i n independent writing, and attitude towards reading. The research hypotheses were designed i n the experiment as f i v e n u l l hypotheses. Rejection of these n u l l hypotheses occurred i f p < .05. ANCOVA were used as tests of signi f i c a n c e . Of the f i v e n u l l hypotheses, only the one f o r reading a b i l i t y was rejected. There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading a b i l i t y between the LEA and basal reader groups. The scores on the reading posttests favored the subjects using the basal readers. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n writing a b i l i t y , reading interest, and L2 a c q u i s i t i o n between the two groups and between the L2 subjects i n the two groups. The r e s u l t s indicate more empirical research i s urgently required. Before Whole Language, s i m i l a r i n philosophy and technique to LEA, i s h a s t i l y adopted i n B r i t i s h Columbia as the next, major Language Arts program, more empirical research i s needed to determine whether or not Whole Language i s i n fact, a superior program. V . USING THE LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE APPROACH TO INTRODUCE READING AND WRITING TO FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE GRADE ONE SCHOOL CHILDREN Table of Contents Chapter Page ABSTRACT i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x 1. INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem 1 Need f o r the Study 1 Purpose of the Study 6 De f i n i t i o n of Terms 7 Summary 9 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 10 Theory 10 LEA and the L2 Child 15 History and Related Research of LEA 19 Summary and Conclusions 25 3. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 27 Population and Sample Selection 28 Classroom Teacher Selection and Training 31 Instruments and Scoring Procedures 34 Procedures 49 Hypotheses .. 53 Data Analysis 54 Summary 55 4. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION. 57 The Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index Results 57 Table of Contents - continued v i . The Classroom Observation Checklist Results 58 Reading A b i l i t y 62 Writing A b i l i t y 67 Reading Interest 69 L2 Acquisition 72 Reading A b i l i t y , Writing A b i l i t y , and Reading Interest Between the L2 Subjects i n the Two Groups 74 Summary 76 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 79 Summary of Experiment 79 Answers to Research Questions 84 Implications and Discussion 88 Limitations of the Study 91 Suggestions for Further Research 91 REFERENCES 94 APPENDICES A Classroom Observation Checklist 102 B Data 103 v i i . LIST OF TABLES Number Page I. Research Design 28 II. Composition of the Sample 29 III. C r i t e r i a used for Defining LEA 35 IV. C r i t e r i a used f o r Determining the Presence of Basal Readers 40 V. Dependent Variables . 42 VI. Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s of Some Measures 43 VII. Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index: Table of Means . 57 VIII. Summary of A c t i v i t i e s Recorded during Classroom Observations 59 IX. Presence of LEA and Basal Readers during Classroom Observations 61 X. Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Vocabulary: Table of Means 63 XI. ANCOVA on Gates-MacGinitie Vocabulary by Group with Jansky 63 XII. Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Comprehension: Table of Means 64 XIII. ANCOVA on Gates-MacGinitie Comprehension by Group with Jansky 65 XIV. Basic Reading Inventory, Vocabulary and Comprehension: Table of Means 66 XV. T-units i n Posttest Writing Sample: Table of Means. 68 XVI. Pre- and Posttest Means fo r Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey 70 v i i i . L i s t of Tables - continued XVII. ANCOVA on Snoopy Pretest and Posttest by Group with Jansky 71 XVIII. Pre- and Posttest Means: IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test 72 XIX. ANCOVA on IDEA Pretest and Posttest by Group with Jansky 73 XX. Posttest Scores for L2 Subjects: Table of Means 74 XXI. ANCOVA on Posttests by Group with Jansky, for L2 Subjects 75 ix. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Two years of my academic l i f e have gone into t h i s and I'd l i k e to thank some of those who helped. Thank you to the s t a f f of Baker Elementary School, p a r t i c u l a r l y Lyonne DeBruin, Betty Anne Russell, Marg Siemens, and Hazel Smith. The teacher i s a v i t a l component of every educational methodology. Thank you Lee Gunderson f o r your valuable assistance. Thank you Rosita Tarn f o r your counsel. And thanks e s p e c i a l l y Janet, f o r your support and encouragement. 1. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Problem Second Language (L2) students are not learning to read well i n elementary school classrooms (Cummins, 1981). L2 researchers (Chapman, 1977! Deem & Marshall, 1980; Degler, 1979J Feeley, 1979; Moustafa, 1978; Rigg, 1977) suggest a Language Experience Approach (LEA) i s appropriate f o r L2 students' needs, interests, and a b i l i t i e s . Other educators (Buckner, M o r s i l l o & Semple, 1978; Hall, 1981? Lee & Allen, 1963; O'Donnell, 1968; Stauffer, 1980; Veatch, 1973) believe LEA i s a good means of developing reading i n t e r e s t and a b i l i t y i n a l l beginning readers. However, there i s very l i t t l e empirical research that a c t u a l l y measures the e f f e c t s of LEA on students' achievement. Furthermore, there i s no body of empirical research that measures the e f f e c t s of LEA on L2 students. Neither i s there any body of research that suggests a Language Experience Approach to reading and writing may improve the rate of L2 acq u i s i t i o n f o r L2 students. This study w i l l attempt to address t h i s problem by providing some of t h i s necessary empirical research. Need f o r the Study Canada, l i k e much of the rest of the Western world, i s 2. becoming more and more a member of the global v i l l a g e . The rate of immigration has remained generally consistent since World War II (Canada Year Book, 1985). However, the number of c i t i z e n s and immigrants having English or French as a second language (L2) remains a growing, important contributor to the Canadian mosaic. From 1976 to 1981 f o r example, the number of people using Indo-Pakistani languages as t h e i r f i r s t language (LI) has doubled, and the number of people using Chinese as t h e i r LI has r i s e n by 70% (Canada Year Book, 1985). Presently, 13.05% of Canada's population has a f i r s t language that i s neither English nor French (Canada Year Book, 1985). The amount of L2 children entering the Canadian school system also remains proportionally important and growing. According to Cummins (1981): During the past f i f t e e n years i n Canada, as i n many of the other western i n d u s t r i a l i z e d countries, there has been a dramatic increase i n the number of students whose home language (LI) i s other than that of the school (L2). More than 50 percent of the school population i n several Metro Toronto school systems do not have English as an LI, while i n the Vancouver school system the figure (at the elementary level) i s around 40 percent, (p. 1) 3. Clearly, L2 ac q u i s i t i o n i s of major Importance In the modern, Canadian school system. Gunderson (1985) notes L2 children are often placed i n regular classrooms where they are expected to learn to read and write English using the same materials as t h e i r LI peers. Gunderson (1985) found that 90% of elementary mainstream teachers i n B r i t i s h Columbia used basal readers to in s t r u c t t h e i r L2 students, while only 8% used a Language Experience Approach (LEA). These basal reading s e r i e s are major sources of l i t e r a t u r e and reading material i n B r i t i s h Columbia schools. The s e r i e s also provide decoding s k i l l s , vocabulary, grammar, and comprehension through workbooks and worksheets. The classroom teacher also uses the s e r i e s ' teacher's manual as a source of ideas and materials f o r writing a c t i v i t i e s . Basal reading series, i n short, are intended by the publishers to be the main sources of a c t i v i t i e s f o r reading and writing. Host L2 Canadian children entering the school system have very l i t t l e contact with English before entering school. As recent immigrants or, more l i k e l y , as Canadian c i t i z e n s born to recent immigrants or naturalized Canadians, the f i r s t language of these children i s often the f i r s t language of t h e i r parents. Their home environment and culture also usually remain, i n i t i a l l y at least, d i f f e r e n t from mainstream Canada. It i s even suggested by Cummins (1981) that L2 children continue to use t h e i r LI at home so that t h e i r 4. parents can help them In the reading a c q u i s i t i o n process. "Whether the language of the home Is the same or different, from the language of the school matters very l i t t l e i n comparison to the quality of the in t e r a c t i o n children experience with adults" (Cummins, 1981, p. 26). The basal readers use c u l t u r a l context and vocabulary that i s mostly foreign to the L2 students. Degler (1979) argues that basal readers make ce r t a i n assumptions that may not be true with L2 children such as: a l l children have cer t a i n background experiences such as a t r i p to a zoo, a l l children possess t y p i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s such as milk i s a nu t r i t i o u s drink, and a l l children ascribe to ce r t a i n values such as winning i s important. Degler believes when L2 children have very d i f f e r e n t values and concepts from the mainstream, comprehension of basal readers w i l l be inadequate. L2 children are thus, handicapped i n t h e i r attempt to acquire the s k i l l s of reading and writing through basal reading series. The r e s u l t i s that many L2 children continue to f a l l behind t h e i r LI peers and f a i l i n reading (Feeley, 1970). F a i l u r e often r e s u l t s i n a loss of int e r e s t i n reading and writing. Language development i n general, suffers. I f the aim of language educators i s to teach young L2 learners t h e i r second language while simultaneously introducing them to print, another method than the basal reader appears to be necessary. 5. In recent years, many educators (Heald-Taylor, 19867 Hudelson, 19847 Kawakami & Au, 1986) have offered suggestions of alternatives, such as Whole Language, to the basal readers. Typical of these alternatives i s the Language Experience Approach (LEA). Some scholars (Degler, 19797 Feeley, 19797 J e f f e r s & Sperber, 19807 Levenson, 19697 Houstafa & Penrose, 1985 7 Murphy, 1980) f e e l that LEA i s a good means of introducing a l l beginning readers and e s p e c i a l l y beginning L2 readers to the reading and writing processes. Unfortunately, while such educators endorse LEA as a reading and writing pedagogical scheme for LI and L2 students i t i s d i f f i c u l t to f i n d much evidence i n the research proving LEA i s a successful means of introducing LI and L2 children to the reading and writing processes. Buckner, M o r s i l l o and Semple (1980) sum up t h i s s i t u a t i o n , "Although much th e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e has been written concerning the method of teaching the Language Experience Approach, r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e technical research has been compiled to e s t a b l i s h i t s benefit over reading readiness" (p. 22). As there appears to be so l i t t l e research evidence on using LEA as a v a l i d method of developing an i n t e r e s t i n reading and writing and of teaching beginning readers, l e t alone beginning L2 readers, the reading and writing processes, there e x i s t s a pressing need f o r such research. This study begins to address t h i s need by providing such research. This study attempts to confirm the gut fe e l i n g s of so many educators that LEA i s a good, r e l i a b l e means of teaching reading and writing to beginning LI and L2 readers. Purpose of the Study The purpose of t h i s study i s to test the value of LEA as a means of introducing reading and writing to beginning L i and L2 readers. Five questions were asked i n t h i s experiment: "Will there be s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading a b i l i t y between Grade One, LI and L2 students on a LEA program and t h e i r peers on a program using a basal reading series?". " W i l l there be s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n creative writing • a b i l i t y between the students i n the two programs?" "Will there be s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading i n t e r e s t between the LI and L2 students i n the LEA program and those using the basal reading s e r i e s ? " "Will the L2 students on the LEA program acquire s i g n i f i c a n t l y more English than t h e i r L2 peers on the basal reading program?" "W i l l these s i g n i f i c a n t differences ex i s t i n reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , and reading i n t e r e s t between the L2 subjects i n the LEA program and the L2 subjects using the basal reading series?" To answer these questions the following n u l l hypotheses were made: 1. LI and L2 Grade One children on a LEA program w i l l show the same growth i n reading as t h e i r LI and L2 peers on a Language Arts program not using LEA. 2. LI and L2 Grade One children on a LEA program w i l l show the same growth i n creative writing as t h e i r LI and L2 peers on a Language Arts program not using LEA. 3. LI and L2 Grade One children on a LEA program w i l l show the same growth i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n reading as t h e i r LI and L2 peers on a Language Arts program not using LEA. 4. L2 Grade One children on a LEA program w i l l show the same improvement i n t h e i r L2 a c q u i s i t i o n as t h e i r L2 peers not using LEA. 5. L2 Grade One children on a LEA program w i l l have the same reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , and reading i n t e r e s t as t h e i r L2 peers not using LEA. These n u l l hypotheses were rejected i f pr o b a b i l i t y i s equal to or les s than . 05. De f i n i t i o n of Terms F i r s t language (LI) i s a commonly accepted term to name the language f i r s t spoken i n childhood and s t i l l understood. It i s often the language used i n the home. LI also i s used to designate those children using as t h e i r f i r s t language, the language of i n s t r u c t i o n i n the 8-schools. In t h i s study, LI children are native speakers of English. Second language (L2) i s a commonly accepted term to name a language other than the f i r s t language. This second language i s usually the language not used f o r communication i n the home. The second language i s however, "the language of the wider community and i t s schools" (Cummins, 1981, preface). In t h i s study, English i s the second language. The range of a b i l i t y with English varies a great deal among the L2 subjects i n the study. However, i n a l l cases, a clea r d i s t i n c t i o n i s possible between those subjects who use English as t h e i r LI and those who use i t as t h e i r L2, as defined above. Grade One children i n t h i s study re f e r only to students entering Grade One from Kindergarten. Students repeating Grade One or students entering Grade One from outside of the school d i s t r i c t were not used i n the study. LEA (Language Experience Approach) i s defined i n t h i s experiment whenever s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a are found i n the classroom environment during Language Arts i n s t r u c t i o n by the regular classroom teacher. Concurrently, use of basal readers i s defined i n a s i m i l a r manner, involving s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a . 9. Summary This experiment w i l l provide needed, empirical research on using LEA to introduce the reading and writing processes to young, LI and L2 students. The experiment w i l l involve f i v e hypotheses. These hypotheses deal with reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , reading interest, and L2 ac q u i s i t i o n . 10. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A review of the pertinent l i t e r a t u r e f o r t h i s study must cover two areas: the theory and development of LEA as a teaching method f o r introducing young students to the reading and writing processes, and the use of LEA as a means of introducing reading and writing to young L2 students. As well, a cle a r d i s t i n c t i o n must be made between the theory of LEA and the actual research findings that favor using LEA i n a teaching s i t u a t i o n . As stated i n the problem at the beginning of Chapter One, there i s no body of empirical research that a c t u a l l y measures the e f f e c t s of LEA on students' achievement over a period of time, with reading and writing a b i l i t y and with reading interest. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e demonstrates the need for such research, and thus, the need f o r t h i s study. There appears to be l i t t l e actual research data available, and what there i s , i s mostly two decades old. Theory LEA i s the name of a s p e c i f i c pedagogical scheme f o r introducing reading and writing to beginning readers. As well as developing the s k i l l s of reading and writing, LEA, according to Kirkland (1980), also develops a love f o r 11. language and reading. LEA involves children's own expressions and stresses the in t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i s t e n i n g , speaking, reading, and writing (Hudelson, 1984; Kirkland, 1980; O'Donnell, 1968; Thorn & Braun, 1974; Wiesendanger & Birlem, 1979). Simply put, Veatch (1973) f e e l s most educators would describe LEA as an approach that involves the use of children's own language. Lee and Allen (1963) are more s p e c i f i c . They state LEA reguires cer t a i n central b e l i e f s , l i s t e d here sequentially: What the student thinks about he can ta l k about. What he can t a l k about can be expressed i n painting, writing, or some other form. Anything he writes can be read. He can read what he writes and what other people write. As he represents the sounds he makes through speech with symbols, he uses the same symbols ( l e t t e r s ) over and over. What he has to say and write i s as important to him as what other people have written f o r him to read. Host of the words he uses are the same ones which are used by other people who write f o r him to read. (pp. 5-8) Thorn and Braun (1974) f e e l a successful LEA program must include several important elements. Content and 12. methodology of the program must be determined by a knowledge of c h i l d development. The program must emphasize, "language as a t o o l of thinking and promote the development of each c h i l d as an independent thinker" (Thorn & Braun, 1974, p.354). It must be concerned with t o t a l language. Success i n reading and writing w i l l depend upon the student's o r a l language a b i l i t y . It must use children's own experiences as the c a t a l y s t f o r reading and writing. It should also provide opportunities for expanding those experiences and creating new ones i n order to further enlarge the student's language. H a l l (1981) further agrees, "Instruction i s b u i l t on children's e x i s t i n g l e v e l of language expression as speech i s encoded with written symbols and as they read the written record of t h e i r spoken thoughts" (p.141). The teacher i n a widely used LEA technique, "stimulates the student's e x i s t i n g language, writing the student's words verbatim, and then teaching the student to read his/her own words" (Houstafa & Penrose, 1985, p.640). The c h i l d grasps the meaning of writing and reading as he sees his/her own words encoded and then decoded. Kirkland (1980) defines LEA as consisting of 5 elements: teacher-pupil di c t a t i o n , key vocabulary, phonics, writing independently, and use of good l i t e r a t u r e . However, t h i s writer argues that as phonics are present i n most beginning reading programs, phonics are not unique to LEA and should not be used i n determining the presence of LEA. 13. Ha l l (1981) also believes the major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of LEA are: use of the whole language, the use of p u p i l -composed materials, and the i n t e r r e l a t i o n of a l l facets of communication. The c h i l d ' s own experiences and language are the basis of his/her reading materials. According to Stauffer (1980), "The experience-language-cognitive wealth that children bring with them to school at ages f i v e and s i x provides a sound, all-embracing foundation on which to construct and develop reading a b i l i t y " (p.17). Since each c h i l d has his/her own, unique, o r a l language, his/her reading program with LEA w i l l be an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d one. Stauffer (1980) argues that children's own experiences vary widely as do t h e i r maturity and so LEA approaches reading i n s t r u c t i o n on an i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l . Levenson (1969) believes, "The LEA values the language and thinking of each c h i l d based upon his own experiences. The teacher recognizes that each c h i l d brings to school a unique language personality" (p. 5). Each c h i l d reads his/her own work, in t e r e s t s and language. Recent findings continue to suggest children succeed i n reading and writing when the learning a c t i v i t i e s are child-centred and founded on theories of language a c q u i s i t i o n (Bissex, 1985; Goodman, 1985; King, 1985). LEA i s child-centred i n that the language they use i n t h e i r writing and reading a c t i v i t i e s comes from themselves. Recent research also assumes reading and writing are 14. Interconnected and f a c i l i t a t e each other's development (Blackburn, 1984 7 Eckhoff, 19837 Tierney, 1985). LEA uses the children's own o r a l discourses as sources of writing a c t i v i t i e s . These writing a c t i v i t i e s then form the bulk of the children's f i r s t reading materials. They are the reading materials of LEA. A classroom i n which LEA i s present i s an active, c h i l d -centred environment. LEA s t o r i e s according to Wiesendanger and Birlem (1979), need to be based on meaningful experiences and high inte r e s t a c t i v i t i e s . F i e l d t r i p s , classroom v i s i t s by members of the community, Show and T e l l , songs and j i n g l e s , classroom pets, and holidays and s p e c i a l occasions are just some of the impetuses f o r LEA s t o r i e s . LEA i s not l i m i t e d to producing student created writings. Other possible LEA a c t i v i t i e s suggested by Wiesendanger and Birlem (1979) include: c o l l e c t i n g phrases, completing open-ended sentences, categorizing words, making picture s t o r i e s , matching sentence parts, c o l l e c t i n g word packets, and using these word c o l l e c t i o n s f o r phonics i n s t r u c t i o n . Feeley (1983) adds to t h i s l i s t : making captions f o r pictures, f i l l i n g i n sentence s l o t s , record keeping involving the calendar and the weather, making story s t r i p s , and taping and l i s t e n i n g to LEA s t o r i e s at l i s t e n i n g centres. Houstafa and Penrose (1985) also recommend using the word card c o l l e c t i o n s to teach printing, s p e l l i n g , punctuation, alphabetizing, and sentence building. 15. In summary, LEA serves as a means of introducing and developing early reading and writing. A central theme i n LEA i s that children approach reading and, i n general, learning i n a global context. A l l senses» eyes, ears, hands, nose, and mouth are involved i n a multisensory learning environment (Elenbaas, 19837 Levenson, 1969). F i n a l l y , the name of the method sums i t up: the language used i s that of the c h i l d ' s own experiences. LEA and the L2 Child Central to LEA i s the c h i l d ' s own morphology. The c h i l d ' s words are s p e c i a l to him/her and are more powerful than the often i n s i p i d , unnatural words found i n most basal readers (Ashton-Warner, 1963). Children's own words come from t h e i r own culture and environment. This has important consequences when teaching Second Language (L2) children to read. Hudelson (1984) believes, "children's ESL l i t e r a c y has been dominated by materials and procedures that have been created with the following perspective i n mind: that ESL reading and writing should be s t r i c t l y c o ntrolled so that errors do not occur" (p. 221-222). Hudelson argues that t r a d i t i o n a l ESL i n s t r u c t i o n sees a progression of development i n the language arts, with speaking and l i s t e n i n g coming before writing and reading. In quoting recent research i n L2 l i t e r a c y (reading and writing), Hudelson shows p r i n t 16. awareness ex i s t s with p r e l i t e r a t e L2 children. Furthermore, L2 children can use t h e i r own c u l t u r a l background or environment to successfully b u i l d meaning i n pr i n t . In general, Hudelson believes, "that simplication of vocabulary and syntax were l e s s important factors i n ESL readers' comprehension of a text than the c u l t u r a l contents of the passage being read" (1984, p. 227). Because a second language and a second culture are so removed from a basal reader series, i t would appear to be more appropriate to use LEA to teach L2, emergent readers the reading and writing processes. Degler (1979) believes that as LEA promotes the development of o r a l English, i t also ensures that reading becomes a meaningful a c t i v i t y . As Houstafa (1978) states, "It i s probably the perfect match between the language of the c h i l d and the lesson which makes the Language Experience approach so successful with the language d i f f e r e n t c h i l d " (p. 2). Because LEA i s child-centred and uses the c h i l d ' s own language, i t would seem to be an i d e a l program f o r emergent, L2 readers. These children often have very li m i t e d knowledge of and a b i l i t y with t h e i r second language. LEA allows them to take what L2 vocabulary and syntax they do possess and incorporate them into t h e i r writing and reading a c t i v i t i e s . The childr e n then have immediate access to the reading and writing processes regardless of t h e i r L2 a b i l i t y . Feeley (1977, 1979) believes LEA i s a valuable t o o l f o r 17. teaching Kindergarten and Grade One b i l i n g u a l children to read. She fe e l s , "LEA encourages learning the target language (English) through r e a l experiences and integrates aspects of o r a l language, l i s t e n i n g , reading and writing" (Feeley, 1979, p. 25). In work with Spanish L2 learners, Chapman (1977) f e e l s since, "most beginning readers are faced with l e x i c a l and semantic differences twixt t h e i r speech and print, but the native Spanish speaker i s also faced with syntactic differences" (p.152), LEA would be most useful as i t would use the student's own use of Spanish and English syntax. Another important consideration i s LEA also, "eliminates the problem of c u l t u r a l l y biased materials" (Deem & Marshall, 1980, p. 604). From a review of the recent l i t e r a t u r e of psycholinguists and developmental l i n g u i s t s . Murphy (1980) concludes, "Children cannot be subjected to reading ins t r u c t i o n , i n the sense of decoding words i n order to a r r i v e at meaning, u n t i l they have the l i n g u i s t i c proficiency to do so" (p.193). In a LEA setting, L2 children l i k e l y have a greater chance to succeed i n reading, f o r as Murphy (1980) believes: Surrounded by t h e i r words, the children come to read them. They have no d i f f i c u l t y with syntax they have not mastered because they are reading the syntax 18. they know. They are not confounded by content words they cannot grasp i n the second language because they are reading content words they themselves have produced, (p.194) Rigg (1977) sees another advantage of using LEA with L2 children. Since the language used i n the reading and writing processes i s the students' own language, the teacher i s presented with an ongoing record of progress i n L2 acquistion. LEA also has implications f o r the actual rate of L2 acqu i s i t i o n . Recent research i n Applied L i n g u i s t i c s suggests the context i n which L2 learning occurs i s connected to the rate of L2 learning. Language transfer i s f a c i l i t a t e d i n c e r t a i n discourse domains and contexts. Gass and Selinker (1983) believe, "there i s overwhelming evidence that language transfer i s indeed a r e a l and central phenomenon that must be considered i n any f u l l account of the second language a c q u i s i t i o n process" (p.7). Selinker and Douglas (1986) f e e l : . . . that even i n the domain of his l i f e story, which he controls, the learner fi n d s himself at times i n si t u a t i o n s which he does not control and where he i s at the edge of h i s c a p a b i l i t y . We would claim that i t i s prec i s e l y at such points that we can see IL learning 19. taking place, and perhaps see syntax development taking place, (p.16) Bartelt (1983) c a r r i e s the notion of the importance of learning i n context further by showing that transfer e f f e c t s from f i r s t language to second language, often depend upon emotional context. Such emotional context i s at the centre of most LEA a c t i v i t i e s . LEA s i t u a t i o n s are i d e a l f o r providing l i f e story content f o r the young L2 learner i n which his/her c a p a b i l i t y i s stretched i n t r y i n g to express h i s / h e r s e l f i n writing and reading i n the second language. Teaching reading and writing through LEA means using the children's contexts as the means of stimulating and capturing t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and increasing t h e i r desire to learn. Underlying LEA theory i s the very powerful notion of relevant, context driven i n s t r u c t i o n . History and Related Research of LEA In the early S i x t i e s , S y l v i a Ashton-Warner produced a much quoted book d e t a i l i n g her successes with teaching young, beginning readers using a natural, "organic" process (Ashton-Warner, 1963). She stated that the love of reading began with a c h i l d ' s own f i r s t words. The more time spent learning to read his/her own words, the stronger t h i s love of reading would become. Although she did not use the terminology. 20. Ashton-Warner was describing the Language Experience Approach to teaching beginning readers. Ashton-Warner's pupils were young Maoris, the indigenous people of New Zealand. From her observations, Ashton-Warner f e l t these children were not succeeding i n mastering the reading process because the materials they were working with were B r i t i s h preprimers and primers, materials that were c u l t u r a l l y and l i n g u s i t i c a l l y foreign to the young Maoris. Successful reading occurred when she used LEA with her pupils. Ashton-Warner (1963) stated that the love of reading began with a c h i l d ' s own f i r s t words. The more time spent learning to read his/her own words, the stronger t h i s love of reading would be. With t h i s b e l i e f , a c h i l d ' s key vocabulary i s b u i l t . This vocabulary consists of powerful, personal words f a m i l i a r to a l l children, but varying from culture to culture. The i n i t i a l reading program i n LEA i s b u i l t around these key words, words supplied by the children themselves. Ashton-Warner f e l t , " F i r s t words must have intense meaning for a c h i l d . . . They must be words organically t i e d up, organically born from the dynamic l i f e i t s e l f . " (Ashton-Warner, 1963, p.33). Ashton-Warner said her method was not new. In fact, according to Kirkland (198(9), LEA was promoted by Lamoreaux and Lee i n 1943 and revised and extended by other educators 21. ever since. However, during t h i s period, l i t t l e research has been done to back up the claims of LEA. What research has occurred has not always been conclusive. Stauffer's study i n 1965, using LI subjects, showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores i n reading, s p e l l i n g , decoding, writing, and creative writing but no difference i n attitudes towards reading. Stauffer (1966) concluded, "that children i n the above average and average groups taught by a language experience approach w i l l make better progress than those taught by the basic reader approach" (p. 23). Some flaws, however, are present i n t h i s study. The subjects i n the experimental group were given intensive, e c l e c t i c exposure to the reading process, including intensive word attack t r a i n i n g , while the control group s t r i c t l y followed only the basal reader teacher's manual. This writer wonders i f what was r e a l l y being measured i n Stauffer's study was the qu a l i t y of a basal reader s e r i e s against very broad, intensive reading i n s t r u c t i o n that even included the use of the basal reader. O'Donnell and Raymond (1972) reported the findings of a 1967-68 study, very s i m i l a r to t h i s current study, comparing a LEA program to a basal reader program f o r developing readiness i n kindergarten. Again, the subjects were LI children. The experiment ran f o r s i x months and was followed by a battery of standardized tests. The 22. s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s favored LEA. The major r e s u l t s of t h i s study included: higher reading readiness s k i l l s , better discrimination of word forms (a s k i l l necessary f o r developing sight vocabulary), s l i g h t l y better knowledge of l e t t e r names, and greater readiness gains of children of below average i n t e l l i g e n c e . From these findings, O'Donnell and Raymond (1972) concluded that LEA provides many opportunities f o r stimulating readiness and allowing children to develop at t h e i r own pace according to his/her own degree of language development and cognitive maturity. This study did not however, measure the other p o s i t i v e features attributed to LEA such as greater enjoyment of reading and more creative, independent writing. A serious flaw i n O'Donnell'a study concerned the two teachers used i n the experiment. While there were 78 subjects i n the study, there were only two teachers involved i n the t o t a l amount of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r both the experimental and control groups. The teacher of the experimental group had taught for t h i r t y - f i v e years with nineteen years i n Kindergarten. The teacher f o r the control group, on the other hand, had only taught f o r s i x years i n Kindergarten. This very large difference i n teaching experience may have serious l y influenced the findings of the study. O'Donnell (1968) stated at the end of his study that more research into LEA, e s p e c i a l l y longitudinal research, was needed. 23. In 1970, the White House Conference on Children suggested using computers to f a c i l i t a t e LEA techniques. An evaluation of such a program involving the use of computers indicated greater reading interest. However, l i t t l e concrete evidence was presented, and the study could have been flawed with the inordinate amount of teaching assistance given to the students involved. Rigg (1977) reported that LEA was being used successfully with L2, beginning readers. However, t h i s researcher disagrees with Rigg's b e l i e f that LEA i s not f o r L2 students with very l i t t l e second language acq u i s i t i o n . Buckner, H o r s i l l o and Semple (1978) produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y favorable r e s u l t s f o r LEA students i n t h e i r study. Their research involved a follow-up of kindergarten, LI children from a LEA program and a t r a d i t i o n a l , readiness program. Both groups had been exposed to a f u l l year of basal readers i n Grade One, before they were tested. At the end of Grade One, these children were assessed f o r vocabulary and reading comprehension. The LEA children scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher. Recently, new reading programs and philosophies have arisen that although c a l l e d d i f f e r e n t names, such as Whole Language, Invented Spelling, and the Literacy Approach, remain i n the same vein as LEA. The Whole Language movement, i n p a r t i c u l a r , takes many of i t s ideas from LEA. Heald-Taylor (1986) sums up many of 24. the benefits of the Whole Language Approach f o r the L2 c h i l d : -youngsters can pa r t i c i p a t e i n a l l language a c t i v i t i e s regardless of t h e i r l e v e l of proficiency i n English, -mixed a b i l i t y groups can learn together, -learning strategies are child-centred, causing youngsters to continually experience and use language to think and to seek meaning. -development i n o r a l language, reading, and writing are t o t a l l y integrated and grow simultaneously. -rate of growth i s completely i n d i v i d u a l . -the student uses his/her developing English i n the reading and writing process r i g h t from the s t a r t . -students learn to speak, read, and write by being engaged i n the process. -Whole Language processes f a c i l i t a t e growth i n both f i r s t and second languages, (pp. 2-3) This l i s t of benefits sounds very s i m i l a r to the benefits expounded over the past several decades by proponents of LEA. Kawakami and Au (1986) report on another recent, innovative reading program that again appears to take many of i t s ideas from LEA. The Kamahameha Elementary Education Program (KEEP) works on the premise that what the young reader possesses i n background knowledge and brings to school with him/her i s extremely important i n a c t i v e l y involving 25. the c u l t u r a l minority c h i l d i n language arts lessons. With t h i s i n mind, reading lessons can be designed to be more e f f e c t i v e for L2 children. For example, lessons can begin with a discussion of a c u l t u r a l l y f a m i l i a r topic. Then the reading or writing a c t i v i t y can grow out of the discussion. The reading lessons are "oriented toward helping children draw relationships between text information and t h e i r own background experiences and knowledge" (Kawakami & Au, 1986, p. 72). This background knowledge i s very important i n providing understanding f o r the L2 c h i l d of what he/she i s reading. It i s argued i n fact, that, "what the reader brings to the text seems to be as important i n the process of constructing meaning as the wording of the text i t s e l f " (Kawakami & Au, 1986, p. 74). I f the L2 c h i l d understands what he/she i s reading, a major part of the reading process, reading comprehension, i s addressed. Summary and Conclusions The educators c i t e d i n t h i s review of the l i t e r a t u r e have a l l praised the value of LEA as a means of introducing the reading and writing processes to young children. Some have p a r t i c u l a r l y praised the worthiness of using LEA with L2 children. A great deal of attention has currently being given to new, innovative, language art s philosophies often l a b e l l e d as Whole Language. These philosophies are s i m i l a r to LEA and use many LEA techniques. 26. Unfortunately, while many educators f e e l LEA and s i m i l a r methods of i n s t r u c t i o n are valuable means of introducing reading and writing, very l i t t l e actual research i s c i t e d to back up t h e i r claims. This i s e s p e c i a l l y true when LEA i s suggested as a good method of teaching reading and writing to L2 students, or when i t i s suggested that LEA increases students' i n t e r e s t s i n reading and increases t h e i r creative a b i l i t y i n t h e i r independent writing. This study w i l l attempt to a l l e v i a t e t h i s s i t u a t i o n . By providing research data, the study w i l l address the need f o r empirical research i n using LEA with LI and L2 beginning readers and writers. t 27. CHAPTER 3 DESIGN AND PROCEDURES This study was designed to answer the following questions: "Wi l l there be s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading a b i l i t y between Grade One, LI and L2 students i n a LEA program and t h e i r peers i n a program using a basal reading series?" " W i l l there also be s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n independent writing a b i l i t y between the students i n the two programs?" "Will there also ex i s t s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading i n t e r e s t between the LI and L2 students i n the LEA program and those using the basal reading series?" "Will the L2 students i n the LEA program acquire s i g n i f i c a n t l y more English than t h e i r peers i n the basal reading program?" "Wil l the L2 students i n a LEA program have s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , and reading in t e r e s t than t h e i r L2 peers using the basal reading series?" To answer these questions an experimental research design was i n i t i a l l y developed i n a p i l o t study and l a t e r refined f o r t h i s study. An independent variable with two treatments, and several dependent variables were present. The independent variable was the u t i l i z a t i o n of LEA i n the teaching of Language Arts i n Grade One. Two treatment 28. groups were involved, the experimental group, using LEA, and the control group, not using LEA. The control group used a basal reader series. The dependent variables consisted of pretests and postests. Table I i l l u s t r a t e s the research design. Table I Research Design Group Experimental Control Classroom 1 Grade One class 2 Grade One classes Treatment LEA, with no basal readers present basal readers with no presence of LEA Dependent Variables reading achievement determined by a comparison of pretest and posttest scores independent writing a b i l i t y determined by a comparison of pretest and posttest scores reading i n t e r e s t determined by a comparison of pretest and posttest scores L2 a c q u i s i t i o n determined by a comparison of pretest and posttest scores L2 reading and writing a b i l i t y and reading i n t e r e s t determined by comparisons of scores on various pretests and posttests Population and Sample Selection The population f o r t h i s study i s a l l Canadian, LI and L2 children entering Grade One from Kindergarten. The sample for t h i s study consisted of f i f t y - s e v e n Grade One, LI and L2 29. students. At the beginning of the experiment, there were sixty-two subjects but three transferred out of the school and two went on extended vacations to India. Thirty of the subjects were L2 students. The remaining twenty-seven subjects were LI students. Twenty-five of the subjects were g i r l s and thirty-two were boys. The subjects were assigned to three Grade One classrooms. Two of the classrooms formed the control group, using a basal reading s e r i e s as the basis of language arts i n s t r u c t i o n . There were t h i r t y - n i n e students i n the control group, eighteen LI students, twenty-one L2 students, twenty boys, and nineteen g i r l s . The t h i r d classroom was the experimental group, using LEA as the basis of language arts i n s t r u c t i o n . In t h i s group, there were eighteen subjects, nine LI students, nine L2 students, twelve boys, and s i x g i r l s . Table II i l l u s t r a t e s the composition of the sample and i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n between the experimental and control groups. Table II Composition of the Sample Group: LI L2 Total Hale Female Total Control 18 21 39 20 19 39 Experimental 09 09 18 12 06 18 Totals 27 30 57 32 25 57 30. The en t i r e sample was enrolled i n one, large elementary school. The school was situated i n a low to middle socio-economic, urban neighbourhood, of a middle sized community with a population of about 20,000 inhabitants. The community was located i n central B r i t i s h Columbia. The LI subjects consisted, to a large degree, of single parent children, l i v i n g i n rental accommodations. Their f a m i l i e s tended to be transient, and during the course of t h i s study there was some movement of these f a m i l i e s out of the community. The L2 subjects were mostly Sikhs, although there were three Native Indian students and one Chinese student. Host of the L2 subjects were from two parent f a m i l i e s with established roots i n the l o c a l community. The ages of the subjects a l l f e l l within a range of one year. Students repeating Grade One were not included i n the sample. As well, students who had not completed Kindergarten i n the l o c a l , school d i s t r i c t were excluded from the sample. Thus, the subjects i n the sample were quite s i m i l a r i n a number of ways: they were the same age, they had not repeated Grade One, and they came from the same geographical area. The subjects were assigned to the three Grade One classrooms, according to t h e i r reading readiness a b i l i t y and t h e i r L2 a b i l i t y , determined lar g e l y from the r e s u l t s of the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index, given to the subjects while 31. they were s t i l l i n Kindergarten. The subjects were l i s t e d from highest to lowest according to t h e i r score on the screening index. They were then assigned to the three classrooms by taking the top three subjects from the l i s t and putting one subject into each classroom, then the bottom three subjects and putting one subject into each classroom, and so on. Although L2 a b i l i t y varied, the f a c t that a l l subjects had come from Kindergarten meant that they a l l had been exposed to at least one year of English i n s t r u c t i o n . One student who had recently arrived i n Canada, was not included i n the sample because of t h i s . The students were assigned on the basis of these two c r i t e r i a . Each classroom, thus, had a generally equal group of subjects based on reading readiness a b i l i t y and L2 a b i l i t y . By using analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) as the tests of significance, with the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index as the covariate, t h i s s e l e c t i o n process became acceptable for s t a t i s t i c a l purposes. Classroom Teacher Selection and Training Three Grade One classrooms, instead of two, were incorporated into the experiment, i n an attempt to ensure reading methods were being compared and not teacher performance. By having two classes forming the control 32. group, the extraneous variable of teacher performance was pa r t l y dealt with. The experiment did not simply consist of one teacher's a b i l i t y versus another's. Teacher performance as an extraneous variable was further minimized by the s i m i l a r i t y of the three teachers involved i n the experiment. They had worked i n the primary grades f o r approximately twenty years each. One of the teachers of the control group had taught Grade One classes fo r most of her teaching career. The other two teachers had each taught Grade One classes f o r the l a s t f i v e years. In addition, a l l three had been involved i n the previous year, i n the p i l o t study that had determined the f e a s i b i l i t y of t h i s experiment. From classroom observations and from interviews with fellow colleagues, a l l three were judged to be equally competent, enthusiastic teachers. While the three teachers were equally experienced and competent, each had her own philosophy of education, teaching sty l e , and classroom management techniques. The researcher was fortunate i n having i n place, teachers who believed strongly i n and had had practice with either LEA or basal readers. Teacher t r a i n i n g for the two control group teachers was minimal. They were encouraged to proceed with t h e i r normal method of language arts i n s t r u c t i o n . This consisted of r e l y i n g heavily upon the basal reading series, Ginn 720, as the chief source of i n s t r u c t i o n a l material. The teachers 33. were, however, made aware of what constituted LEA, i n order to avoid using LEA techinques as much as possible during the course of the experiment. The teacher of the experimental group was provided with much greater d i r e c t i o n . Although she was a strong proponent of LEA and had used some LEA techniques f o r a number of years, she was not t o t a l l y aware of what LEA meant and what i t involved. During the course of the p i l o t study and again, at the beginning of t h i s experiment, the researcher had ongoing consultation with t h i s teacher. C l a r i f i c a t i o n of what was meant by LEA and refinement of LEA techinques formed the bulk of the teacher t r a i n i n g . Textbooks and manuals on LEA were provided and discussed. De f i n i t i o n s and methodology were agreed upon. LEA in s t r u c t i o n was monitored and feedback was provided by the researcher. On several occasions during the beginning of the experiment, the researcher provided LEA lessons to the students i n the classroom. These lessons consisted mostly of writing down the students' s t o r i e s verbatim, as described by Moffett and Wagner (1976) and ensuring the students read t h e i r own s t o r i e s and shared them with t h e i r classmates. These s t o r i e s were then used i n extension a c t i v i t i e s involving grammar and decoding s k i l l s . When i t was c l e a r that the teacher of the experimental group was on track with LEA, she was l e f t on her own. At 34. regular i n t e r v a l s throughout the course of the experiment, her classroom, as well as the two classrooms i n the control group, were observed and i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s were recorded on a checklist. Instruments and Scoring Procedures The independent variable i n t h i s study consisted of two treatments: using LEA without basal readers present, or using basal readers without LEA present. A classroom observation c h e c k l i s t (see Appendix A) was developed to ensure both treatments were present, either i n the experimental group or i n the control group. This c h e c k l i s t was la r g e l y composed of the c r i t e r i a used to define the presence of LEA or the presence of basal readers. By recording the number of times each c r i t e r i o n was present during classroom observations, i t was possible to determine whether or not the treatments were being followed by the classroom teachers. Scoring of items on the ch e c k l i s t involved counting t h e i r occurrences and determining a percentage f o r the amount of times they were present during classroom v i s i t s . The s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a on the checklist, used to define LEA f o r t h i s experiment, were the following, l i s t e d i n Table I I I : (a) speaking opportunities are present, (b) l i s t e n i n g opportunities are present, (c) students' i n t e r e s t s i n i t i a t e lessons, (d) meaningful experiences or high i n t e r e s t 35. a c t i v i t i e s i n i t i a t e writing and reading, (e) students i n i t i a t e o r a l discussion, (f) seatwork i s based on student i n i t i a t e d o r a l discussion, (g) vocabulary comes from students, (h) students' own s t o r i e s are used as worksheets, (i) students read t h e i r own written work, (j) students read t h e i r peers' written work, and (k) i n creative writing, students reproduce t h e i r own thoughts. TABLE III C r i t e r i a used f o r Defining LEA speaking opportunities present l i s t e n i n g opportunities present students' i n t e r e s t s i n i t i a t e lessons meaningful experiences or high i n t e r e s t a c t i v i t i e s i n i t i a t e writing and reading student i n i t i a t e d o r a l discussion seatwork based on student i n i t i a t e d o r a l discussion vocabulary comes from students students' own s t o r i e s used as worksheets students read own written work students read peers' written work creative writing: students reproduce own thoughts a) b) c) d) e) f) g> h) i ) J> k) Explanations of the c r i t e r i a used to define LEA i n t h i s experiment are provided below: 1. Speaking opportunities are present i f they occur throughout the school day beyond the structured formality of teacher directed, o r a l discussion. Students are provided with many opportunities to talk to t h e i r teacher and to t h e i r peers about what in t e r e s t s them (Stauffer, 1980). Such opportunities include established times throughout the day 36. for sharing each other's written work and established areas i n the classroom where students can read and t a l k to each other (Hall, 1981). 2. Listening opportunities are present i f the same conditions necessary for speaking opportunities are available. Children are be able to hear t h e i r teacher and t h e i r peers t a l k about subjects and themes that are of r e a l i n t e r e s t to them (Feeley, 1983). The more o r a l discussion present i n a classroom, the more l i k e l y speaking and l i s t e n i n g s k i l l s are developing. As Thorn and Braun (1974) suggest, reading and writing s k i l l s are intertwined with speaking and l i s t e n i n g s k i l l s . Improved speaking and l i s t e n i n g s k i l l s should r e s u l t i n improved reading and writing s k i l l s . 3. Students' i n t e r e s t s i n i t i a t e lessons when they are given the opportunity to provide the source of Language Arts a c t i v i t i e s and lessons. The teacher i s w i l l i n g to adapt the lesson or d a i l y teaching objective to accommodate the i n t e r e s t s of the students on that p a r t i c u l a r day. 4. Meaningful or high inte r e s t experiences i n i t i a t e writing and reading a c t i v i t i e s when the teacher ensures such experiences are present at the beginning of the lesson. Then the a c t i v i t i e s that follow are d i r e c t l y related to the i n i t i a l experiences (Wiesendanger & Birlem, 1979). 5. Student i n i t i a t e d o r a l discussion occurs i f either the students i n i t i a t e the discussion on which the reading and 37. writing lesson of the day w i l l be based, or, i f i n the course of the teacher directed discussion, students are able to f u l l y express t h e i r own thoughts on the subject. The vocabulary used during these discussions comes c h i e f l y from the students. Classroom discussions, Ashton-Warner (1963) fe e l s , are more dynamic when the students use the vocabulary and language that i s t h e i r own, that they bring with them, into school. 6. Seatwork based on student i n i t i a t e d o r a l discussion i s present i f the learning a c t i v i t i e s incorporate ideas o r i g i n a t i n g from the previous o r a l discussion. 7. Vocabulary comes from the students when the vocabulary the students use i n t h e i r writing and reading a c t i v i t i e s consists of t h e i r or t h e i r peers' own words. Word banks can be present. These word banks should, according to Hoffett and Wagner (1976), consist of cards on which the students have dictated to the teacher words that i n t e r e s t them. The students use these word cards i n t h e i r writing a c t i v i t i e s and they share them with t h e i r peers. 6. Students use t h e i r own s t o r i e s as worksheets i f they use t h e i r s t o r i e s i n various learning a c t i v i t i e s . Such a c t i v i t i e s , Houstafa and Penrose (1985) suggest, can include phonics exercises, alphabetizing, sequencing, and categorizing. These a c t i v i t i e s are present i n most language arts programs but the difference here i s that the students' own vocabulary i s used. 38. 9. Students read t h e i r own written work when the major source of reading materials i s t h e i r own written work. The process of accumulating knowledge of printed vocabulary occurs when the students' own spoken vocabulary i s transcribed by the teacher into p r i n t (Rigg, 1977). This printed vocabulary should consist of the most exciting, powerful words avai l a b l e : the students' own words (Ashton-Warner, 1963). 10. Students read the written work of t h e i r peers when they are allowed to share t h e i r s t o r i e s during the writing a c t i v i t y . This sharing can be done i n d i v i d u a l l y between two or more students or with the class as a whole. Students can also read charts, c l a s s booklets, captioned pictures or anything else created by t h e i r peers. 11. In creative writing, students reproduce t h e i r own thoughts when t h e i r own thoughts are incorporated into t h e i r writing. One means of accomplishing t h i s i s described by Moffett and Wagner (1976): The student dictates something he has to say to a l i t e r a t e person who writes down the words verbatim so that the learner can see how his o r a l words look written down. If he watches his scribe write, and i f he or the scribe reads back his own words as they follow the writing together, t h i s can be an e f f e c t i v e way f o r the speaker to learn sound-spelling correspondences, 39. e s p e c i a l l y since the personal content makes f o r very high inte r e s t and close attention . . . t h i s provides the learner with a l i t e r a t e person who can mediate between the learner's o r a l knowledge and the strangeness of written language so that he can learn to translate between media himself. (p. 204) The extent of what i s dictated can range from a few words at the beginning of t h i s study, to much longer passages of several sentences by the end of the study. H a l l (1981) suggests that sometimes the class dictates a story together and sees i t reproduced by the teacher on chart paper or on the blackboard, while other times, small groups d i c t a t e s t o r i e s to the teacher to be l a t e r shared with the class. Host often, however, students can dic t a t e t h e i r s t o r i e s i n d i v i d u a l l y to t h e i r teacher. The s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a on the checklist, used to define the presence of basal readers f o r t h i s experiment, were the following, l i s t e d i n Table IV: (a) students read from basal readers, (b) students' seatwork i s based on basal readers, (c) teacher-made or publisher worksheets are used, (d) vocabulary comes from the teacher or from the basal reader, and (e) creative writing a c t i v i t i e s are heavily structured by the teacher. f 40. Table IV C r i t e r i a used f o r Determining the Presence of Basal Readers a) students read from basal readers b) seatwork i s based on basal readers c) teacher made or publisher worksheets are used d) vocabulary comes from the teacher or the basal reader e) creative writing a c t i v i t i e s are heavily structured by the teacher 1. Students read from t h e i r basal readers i f they do so independently or i n groups. This includes o r a l reading a c t i v i t i e s involving basal readers. Also included, i f the vocabulary comes d i r e c t l y from the basal readers, are wall charts that the students read. 2. Seatwork based on basal readers are a l l i n d i v i d u a l , student a c t i v i t i e s occurring during Language Arts lessons i n which the vocabulary and the exercises can be traced d i r e c t l y to basal readers. 3. Teacher made or publisher worksheets re f e r to a l l worksheets taken from the basal reader ser i e s or developed by the classroom teacher but related d i r e c t l y to learning a c t i v i t i e s suggested i n the scope and sequence of the basal reader manuals. 4. Vocabulary that comes from the basal reader or from the teacher includes a l l words found i n the basal reader s e r i e s or given i n t e n t i o n a l l y to the students by the teacher, and excludes words that the students suggest. This vocabulary forms the basis of discussion and seatwork during 41. the Language Arts lessons. 5. Any creative writing undertaken by the students i s heavily structured i f the teacher allows only writing that follows s p e c i f i c teacher guidelines such as length, format, and theme. Two other items included i n the classroom c h e c k l i s t were students on task and teacher on task. These two items were added, i n order to deal with the extraneous variable of teacher performance, to formally record each teacher's degree of classroom management. The dependent variables used i n t h i s experiment, consisting of the following pretests and posttests, were: 1. Growth i n reading as measured by a comparison of pretest scores obtained from the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index with posttest scores obtained from the Gates-HacGinitie Reading Tests, Canadian Edition, and an i n d i v i d u a l reading assessment, taken from the Basic Reading Inventory, Second Edition. 2. Growth i n independent writing as measured by a comparison of the number of t-units found i n pretest and posttest creative writing samples. 3. Growth i n reading i n t e r e s t as measured by a comparison of pretest and posttest scores on the Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey. 4. L2 a c q u i s i t i o n as measured by a comparison of the pretest and posttest scores obtained on the IDEA Oral 42. Language Proficiency Test. 5. The reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , and amount of reading i n t e r e s t of L2 subjects as measured by a comparison of the scores obtained on the above measures of reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , and reading interest. Table V l i s t s the pretests and posttests used i n t h i s experiment. Table V Dependent Variables Pretests Posttests Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Canadian Edition Basic Reading Inventory, Second Edition Creative Writing Sample Creative Writing Sample Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test The Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index, "provides valuable information concerning the re l a t i o n s h i p between a wide range of perceptual-cognitive t e s t s and subsequent reading achievement" (Wallbrown, Wallbrown, Engin & Blaha, 1975, p. 140). These authors found the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index, administered i n Kindergarten, had a good c o r r e l a t i o n with reading achievement i n the early primary grades. 43. Rothenberg, Lehman and Hackman (1979) also f e e l t h i s index i s an acceptable measure of reading readiness. During the p i l o t study, done i n the previous year, the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index was found to have had greater r e l i a b i l i t y than other instruments, i n measuring pretest, cognitive and reading a b i l i t i e s . It was found to have had a better c o r r e l a t i o n with the Gates-HacGinitie Reading Tests than did the Raven Progressive Matrices or the Metropolitan Readiness Tests. The Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index, because of i t s good c o r r e l a t i o n with the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, was thus, employed as the reading a b i l i t y pretest i n t h i s experiment. It was also u t i l i z e d as the covariate i n the ANCOVA used i n t h i s experiment. The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s of those measures, that were employed i n the p i l o t study, are given i n Table VI. Table VI Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s of Some Measures Jansky Raven Metro. Gates Jansky 1. 00 . 2199 . 4866 . 6291 Raven . 2199 1. 00 . 4770 . 3047 Metro. . 4866 . 4770 1. 00 . 5549 Gates .6291 . 3047 . 5549 1. 00 The Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index measures four areas 44. of cognitive and language development. These areas are o r a l language, pattern matching, pattern memory, and visual-motor organization (Mitchell, 1985). From the combined r e s u l t s of the subtests i n the screening index, predictions can be made on the reading readiness of the participants. These combined scores were thus used to determine the pre-treatment, readiness l e v e l s of the subjects i n t h i s experiment. The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Canadian Edition, and the Basic Reading Inventory, Second Edition, were the posttests used to determine reading a b i l i t y . They were given to the subjects immediately a f t e r the treatment had ended. Both measures helped to determine the vocabulary l e v e l s and the comprehension l e v e l s of the subjects. The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Canadian Edition, are according to Dreher (1985) worthwhile t e s t s measuring reading progress. Pflaum (1985) believes they have s i m i l a r strengths and weaknesses as the American Edition. The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Canadian Edition, are standardized tests, intended f o r various grade lev e l s , used to determine reading achievement through measurement of vocabulary and comprehension growth. The p a r t i c u l a r tests i n t h i s experiment were Primary A, designed f o r use i n the spring, with Grade One students. The vocabulary test consisted of a number of items i n which the subject had to pick one of four words that best described a p a r t i c u l a r i l l u s t r a t i o n . The comprehension test had a s i m i l a r 45. composition, i n which the subject had to pick the most appropriate sentence to go with each i l l u s t r a t i o n . The Basic Reading Inventory, Second Edition, was also used as a post treatment measure to determine reading a b i l i t y . According to Plessas (1985), t h i s inventory, "can be a useful t o o l to assess reading performance" (p. 12(9). The Basic Reading Inventory, Second Edition, i s an in d i v i d u a l i z e d reading assessment, measuring a b i l i t y with vocabulary i n context, and with reading comprehension. Informal reading inventories are taken, as Hudelson (1984) describes, by t o t a l l i n g the number of o r a l reading errors i n a graded passage, to determine whether or not a student i s able to read c e r t a i n material. A graded passage was taken from the Basic Reading Inventory and given, i n d i v i d u a l l y , to the students. Each student read the passage o r a l l y . A l l errors were recorded and t o t a l l e d . The number of errors were then subtracted from 100, to determine the percentage of words read correctly. The students were then asked comprehension questions on the passage they had read. Again, wrong answers were recorded, assigned a value, and subtracted from 100, to determine the percentage of correct, comprehension answers. In t h i s experiment, the subjects were a l l given the same, single passage to read, and a l l scores were determined from how well they read and understood that passage. The Basic Reading Inventory was given i n addition to the 46. standardized Gates-MacGinitie tests because the researcher f e l t i t was necessary as a counterbalance. The Gates-MacGinitie tests use a format and a vocabulary that are very f a m i l i a r to students who are taught to read using basal readers. Students on a basal reading s e r i e s are exposed to many, formalized exercises and tests. The researcher f e l t by using only a standardized test, the students i n the experimental group might be put at an unfair disadvantage. These students used t h e i r own words as reading vocabulary and were never given formal tests. The informal, i n d i v i d u a l nature of the reading inventory, thus, was intended to a l l e v i a t e t h i s s i t u a t i o n . Writing samples were used to measure growth i n creative writing a b i l i t y . They were c o l l e c t e d from the subjects as pretests and posttests. Growth i n creative writing i s defined i n t h i s experiment, as the difference i n the number of t-units present between the pretest and posttest writing samples. T-units are minimal c l a u s a l units (Hunt, 1965). Such units must contain a subject and a predicate. An example of such a minimal clause i s : the boy went. The Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey was used to determine the subjects' growth i n reading interest. It, too, was given as a pretest and as a posttest. This survey was developed by Campbell (1966) of the Livonia Public Schools System, Michigan. In a study on d i f f e r e n t reading i n s t r u c t i o n a l 47. methods, Campbell used t h i s survey to argue i t was possible to c o l l e c t accurate information about reading interest. From an examination of the data collected, Campbell, Housner and Slobodian (1967) believe, "a measure of i n t e r e s t i n reading can s i g n i f i c a n t l y predict a subsequent l e v e l of achievement" (p. 7). The Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey measures the amount of i n t e r e s t and pleasure a subject has with reading, by t o t a l l i n g his/her responses to f i f t e e n questions. The questions ask how the subject fee l s , or thinks others f e e l about various reading a c t i v i t i e s . Typical questions are: "How do you f e e l about reading books fo r fun at home?" and "How do you think your teacher f e e l s when you are reading?" The subject picks one of f i v e possible choices f o r his/her answer to each question. The f i v e choices consist of pictures of the Peanuts character. Snoopy. He i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n various moods, ranging from jumping with joy to growling with anger. This survey format i s p a r t i c u l a r l y suited to the L2 subject because the pictures convey a great deal of nonverbal information and the subject can either state his/her response or simply point to the appropriate pictures. Scoring of the Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey consisted of assigning a number value to each of the f i v e possible responses. Five was given f o r the happiest response and one was given f o r the saddest response. The maximum score possible on the survey was seventy-five. 48. The IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test was given only to the L2 subjects i n the experiment. This test i s designed to measure the o r a l language proficiency of ESL children, from grades Kindergarten to Six. While McCollum (1983) wonders i f t h i s t e s t and other language proficiency tests measure what they purport to measure, she does say the IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test i s state-adopted i n C a l i f o r n i a and Texas and i s widely used i n Colorado, New York, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. The reason f o r using t h i s test i n the experiment was to determine i f LEA was a factor i n English acquisition, by providing a measure of growth i n second language, o r a l a b i l i t y between the L2 subjects i n the control group and the L2 subjects i n the experimental group. The IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test assesses four areas of o r a l language: vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and comprehension. The test consists of such items as picture naming, comprehending questions and commands, asking questions i n various tenses, repeating sentences, and i d e n t i f y i n g differences i n minimal pairs of words. Six l e v e l s of d i f f i c u l t y are measured. A student, a f t e r completing the test i s assigned one of seven l e v e l s of proficiency, the seventh l e v e l being mastery. A l l l e v e l s were given a number value. Mastery being seven, and Level A being one. 49. Procedures This experiment had pretests, the treatment, and posttests. The f i r s t pretest was the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index. It was given to a l l the subjects i n t h i s experiment, i n the spring of the previous school year, while they were s t i l l i n Kindergarten. The method of administrating the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index was the same with a l l the subjects. Each student was taken i n d i v i d u a l l y , to the school's t e s t i n g centre and given the f i v e sub-tests i n the screening index, at one s i t t i n g . A l l the subjects were given the screening index, by the researcher, within a two week period. In September, a f t e r the subjects had been assigned to groups and the treatment had begun, the other pretests were given. The creative writing pretest was given f i r s t . The researcher went into each classroom and assigned a l l of the subjects to an i d e n t i c a l writing task. They spent ten minutes writing about anything they wished. No hints or assistance were provided on what to write or how to write i t . Their compositions were then c o l l e c t e d and f i l e d u n t i l the end of the treatment. The Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey was given next, i n d i v i d u a l l y to a l l of the subjects. The children were advised that t h i s was a survey and not a test, and that they 50. were to answer the questions as t r u t h f u l l y as possible. Their responses were also c o l l e c t e d and kept u n t i l the end of the treatment. The l a s t pretest was the the IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test. Each L2 subject was i n d i v i d u a l l y tested, beginning at Level A on the test. They continued working through the test, u n t i l they reached a point where they no longer scored enough correct responses to advance to the next l e v e l . Their l a s t successful l e v e l was recorded and the r e s u l t s were f i l e d u n t i l a f t e r the treatment had ended. The treatment ran from early September to l a t e March, a duration of about seven months. During the e n t i r e course of the treatment, the experimental group used LEA with i t s Language Arts i n s t r u c t i o n , while the control group worked with a basal reader series, Ginn 720. Ginn 720 exemplifies popular reading i n s t r u c t i o n (Fuchs, Fuchs & Deno, 1981). Furthermore, Beck and Block (1976) praise the s e r i e s ' sight words and i t s st o r i e s , which, "resemble naturally occurring, spoken language" (p. 52). A classroom observation c h e c k l i s t was used to confirm the presence of the two treatments: using LEA and not using LEA. The researcher took t h i s c h e c k l i s t into classrooms, and used i t to determine how much of the treatments were present during the Language Arts lessons. In November, January, and February, the researcher formally, but unobtrusively, observed each of the three 51. classrooms. These months were chosen f o r the observation period because these are prime teaching months. By November, the students and teachers had s e t t l e d into t h e i r routines and the Language Arts programs were d e f i n i t e l y underway. While December was f i l l e d with the disruptions of the Christmas season, January and February were quiet, productive months of the school year. Each classroom was observed on twelve d i f f e r e n t occasions. The observations occurred during various parts of the Language Arts lessons. The researcher was able to observe the beginning, middle, and end of lessons. In t h i s manner, i t was possible to obtain a survey of what was happening i n the classrooms during the en t i r e Language Arts lesson. Each observation lasted f o r approximately f i f t e e n minutes. While s i t t i n g at the back of the classroom, the researcher marked o f f each item on the c h e c k l i s t as i t was observed during the lesson. After each classroom had been observed twelve times, the c h e c k l i s t s were compiled and f i l e d u n t i l the treatment had finished. The treatment ended i n l a t e March. Posttests were then administered. A l l of the subjects i n the control and experimental groups took the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests. Both groups completed the tests under i d e n t i c a l conditions. The 52. researcher went into each of the classrooms and administered the vocabulary test one day and the comprehension test on the following day. The raw scores of the vocabulary and the comprehension tests were then recorded separately. After the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests had been given, a random sample of subjects was taken from each of the two groups. Five subjects were selected from the experimental group and f i v e from the control group. During the f i r s t week of A p r i l , these ten subjects were i n d i v i d u a l l y given the Basic Reading Inventory. Testing conditions were s i m i l a r for each student. The scores were given i n percentiles. A l l of the subjects then produced another creative writing sample. Once again, they spent ten minutes writing about anything they wished. The pretest and posttest writing samples were then c o l l e c t e d and given to two trained assistants who counted the number of t-units present i n each sample. The compiled scores were used to es t a b l i s h the amounts of growth i n independent writing a b i l i t y . Next, the Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey was administered i n d i v i d u a l l y to a l l of the subjects, i n exactly the same manner as i t had been done as a pretest. This was followed by the IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test. Again, i t was given to only the L2 subjects. Each L2 subject was retested, beginning at the l e v e l they had successfully completed i n September. I f a student could not 53. pass t h i s placement l e v e l , he/she was tested on the next, lower l e v e l . Hypotheses The experiment had f i v e research hypotheses and f i v e n u l l hypotheses: Research Hypotheses: H : mr 1 > mr 2 1 H : mw 1 > mw 2 2 H : mi 1 > mi 2 3 H : me 1 > me 2 4 H : mrL2 1 > mrL2 2, mwL2 1 > mwL2 2, miL2 1 > miL2 2 5 Null Hypotheses: H : mr 1 = mr 2 0 H : mw 1 = mw 2 0 H : mi 1 = mi 2 0 H : me 1 = me 2 0 H : mrL2 1 = mrL2 2, mwL2 1 = = mwL2 2, miL2 1 =  miL2 2 0 where mr 1 i s represented by the mean of the reading a b i l i t y of the experimental group (LEA) and mr 2 i s represented by the mean of the reading a b i l i t y of the control group (basal readers), where mw 1 i s represented by the mean of the writing a b i l i t y of the experimental group and mw 2 i s represented by the mean of the writing a b i l i t y of the control 54. group, where me 1 i s represented by the mean of the a b i l i t y with English as a Second Language of the L2 students i n the experimental group and me 2 i s represented by the mean of the a b i l i t y with English as a Second Language of the L2 students i n the control group, and where mrL2 1, mwL2 1, and miL2 1 are represented by the mean of the reading a b i l i t y , the mean of the writing a b i l i t y , and the mean of the reading i n t e r e s t of the L2 subjects i n the experimental group and mrL2 2, mwL2 2, and miL2 2 are repesented by the mean of the reading a b i l i t y , the mean of the writing a b i l i t y , and the mean of the reading i n t e r e s t of the L2 subjects i n the control group. These f i v e n u l l hypotheses were rejected i f p r o b a b i l i t y was equal to or less than . 05. Data Analysis Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA), using the measures described i n t h i s chapter, were the tests of signif i c a n c e . The means and standard deviations f o r each of the two groups, with each of the dependent variables were determined. Then ANCOVA with the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index as the covariate, were computed f o r a l l test results, by group and by L2 subjects i n the two groups. S t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s were necessary i n order to determine whether or not the differences between the mean scores of the two groups with the various dependent variables were s i g n i f i c a n t . If they were, the n u l l hypotheses could be 55. rejected and the independent variable of using LEA could be attributed to the differences i n scores between the groups. The r e s u l t s of t h i s experiment would also be s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the e n t i r e population of LI and L2, Grade One, B r i t i s h Columbian school children. Summary This chapter described the design of the experiment and the procedures necessary i n completing the experiment. In order to determine whether or not using LEA i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n introducing reading and writing to LI and L2 children, a number of hypotheses were developed f o r testing. An independent variable with two treatments, was established. Two groups of subjects were created. These were a control group, using as one treatment, basal readers, and an experimental group, using, as the second treatment, LEA. For seven months, from September to March, the experimental group's treatment consisted of LEA a c t i v i t i e s , while the control group's treatment consisted of using basal readers. A classroom observation c h e c k l i s t was incorporated to ensure the experimental group used only LEA and the control group used only basal readers. V e r i f i c a t i o n that the treatments were followed by the classroom teachers was provided through the tabulated r e s u l t s of the observation c h e c k l i s t s . Dependent variables were applied to the independent variable to measure the e f f e c t s of the treatments. These dependent variables consisted of several pretests and posttests. S t a t i s t i c a l analyses were used to determine the sig n i f i c a n c e of the t e s t s ' r e s u l t s . ANCOVA measured the sig n i f i c a n c e of mean differences between groups and between L2 subjects i n those groups, i n a b i l i t y with reading, writing, and ESL, and i n reading interest. 57. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION The r e s u l t s of the experiment are presented i n t h i s chapter. The Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index Results The data from the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index, given to a l l of the subjects, before the treatment began, were used as the covariate measure i n a l l of the ANCOVA. The means and standard deviations of scores from the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index f o r a l l subjects, are presented i n Table VII. Table VII Jansky- de Hirsch Screening Index: Table of Means Group N M SD A l l subjects 57 48. 74 14. 43 Experimental 18 48. 71 13. 96 L i 09 57. 70 8. 71 L2 09 40. 55 12. 93 Control 39 48. 75 14. 84 LI 18 52. 63 12. 42 L2 21 45. 23 16. 24 The experimental group (LEA) had a mean score of 48.71 58. with a standard deviation of 13.96. The control group (basal readers) had a mean score of 48.75 with a standard deviation of 14.84. The mean scores and, thus, the mean l e v e l s of reading readiness of both groups were very sim i l a r . The Classroom Observation Checklist Results In order to v e r i f y the existence of the two treatments i n the classrooms, during the course of the experiment, a classroom observation c h e c k l i s t was used. The r e s u l t s of t h i s c h e c k l i s t are compiled i n Table VIII. These r e s u l t s confirm how c l o s e l y each teacher followed the request of the researcher to keep to her assigned treatment as much as possible. LEA or i n s t r u c t i o n with a basal reader were considered present during the Language Arts lesson, i f any two or more of the items that were used to define LEA or i n s t r u c t i o n with a basal reader were observed. The teacher of the experimental group used LEA i n her teaching methods every time she was observed. In nearly every lesson, the students' vocabulary was used. Most lessons had speaking and l i s t e n i n g opportunities as well as opportunities f o r independent writing. Meaningful experiences and high i n t e r e s t a c t i v i t i e s stimulated the students' learning a c t i v i t i e s i n a large majority of a l l the lessons observed. In many of the observations, the students used t h e i r own written work and those of t h e i r peers as the 59. source of t h e i r reading material. Table VIII Summary of A c t i v i t i e s Recorded during Classroom Observations (percentages of observations i n which items were present) Item: Group: Experimental Control LEA present as defined below 100% 4% speaking opportunities present 83% 4% l i s t e n i n g opportunities present 67% 4% students' i n t e r e s t s i n i t i a t e lessons 58% 0% meaningful and high i n t e r e s t a c t i v i t i e s 75% 0% student i n i t i a t e d o r a l discussion 25% 0% seatwork based on student i . o. discussion.. 17% 0% vocabulary comes from students 92% 0% students' s t o r i e s as worksheets 0% 0% students read own written work 67% 0% students read peers' written work 25% 0% students' thoughts i n creative writing 75% 0% basal readers present as defined below 0% 100% students read from basal readers 0% 46% seatwork based on basal readers 0% 96% teacher or publisher worksheets used 0% 92% vocabulary from teacher or basal readers.... 0% 96% heavily structured creative writing.. 0% 0% students on task 100% 100% teacher on task 100% 100% Basal readers were never present i n the LEA classroom during the formal observations. The teacher did, however, permit a couple of basal books i n her classroom l i b r a r y . These were s t r i c t l y f o r supplemental reading f o r anyone who may have been interested i n reading them. Teacher made worksheets were sometimes used i n the LEA 60. classroom, as part of a phonics lesson, but they were s o l e l y the production of the teacher, and were not i n anyway connected to a basal reader s e r i e s ' scope and sequence. As such, they were not recorded on the checklist. In the two control classrooms, basal readers, as defined by the ch e c k l i s t c r i t e r i a , were present during a l l lessons. Vocabulary, seatwork a c t i v i t i e s , and worksheets, i n nearly a l l instances, came from the basal reading series. Teacher made worksheets used vocabulary and themes s i m i l a r to or the same as those found i n the basal readers. Seatwork either came d i r e c t l y from the basal reader's workbook or from ideas and a c t i v i t i e s suggested i n the basal reader's teacher manual. In approximately half of a l l the observations i n the control group classrooms, students were actually reading from the basal readers. No other reading materials were being used i n class or group i n s t r u c t i o n . Some books were present however, for independent reading when assigned seatwork was completed. These books came from the classroom l i b r a r i e s or from the school l i b r a r y . From the observations i n the control classes, i t i s clea r that the teachers i n the control group used the basal readers very extensively. The objectives i n terms of vocabulary and comprehension development, as determined by the basal reader series, were taught to the students i n an extremely thorough manner. 61. The major goal of the two treatments i n t h i s study was to have LEA occurring exclusively i n the experimental group, while basal readers were used exclusively i n the control group. From the formal, observation c h e c k l i s t s and from informal, classroom v i s i t s , i t appeared that t h i s objective was accomplished. Table IX c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s . There were minor departures from the patterns of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a l l three classrooms, but f o r the most part, the three teachers ensured that they used the i n s t r u c t i o n a l method assigned to them. Table IX Presence of LEA and Basal Readers i n Classroom Observations Group LEA Basal Readers Experimental 100'/. 0'/. Control 4'/. 100% The r e s u l t s from the classroom observations also indicated equal amounts of time on task i n the classrooms of both teachers and students. This confirmed that each group during the treatment had equal opportunities to develop t h e i r reading and writing s k i l l s . The r e s u l t s showed a l l three teachers were consistently on task and kept t h e i r students on task, during the course of the treatment. The teacher of the experimental group strongly believed i n the LEA philosophy and i n the Whole Language philosophy. 62. and had practiced her b e l i e f s i n the classroom f o r a number or years. As well, she had given many workshops throughout the province on Math Their Way, a primary, mathematics program quite s i m i l a r i n philosophy to LEA and Whole Language. The two teachers of the control group also strongly believed i n t h e i r programs. One teacher had been a primary, d i r e c t o r of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r a number of years before returning to the classroom. While i n that position, she had encouraged the use of basal readers. The other teacher had taught, with much conviction, the same Language Arts program i n Grade One, i n the same school, f o r the past ten years. A l l three teachers believed i n the treatment assigned to them and were determined to keep themselves and t h e i r students on task, during the course of the experiment. Reading A b i l i t y The f i r s t n u l l hypothesis stated there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the LEA group and the control group i n reading a b i l i t y . H : mr 1 = mr 2. Reading a b i l i t y 0 consisted i n t h i s experiment, of a b i l i t y with reading vocabulary and with reading comprehension. The mean score i n vocabulary as measured by the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, was lower with the experimental group than with the control group. The experimental group had a mean score of 22.11 with a standard 63. deviation of 8.20. The control group had a mean score of 29.08 with a standard deviation of 11.04. See Table X f o r the means and standard deviations of scores on the Gates-HacGinitie vocabulary test. Table X Gates-HacGinitie Reading Tests, Vocabulary: Table of Heans Group N H SD A l l subjects 57 26.88 10. 66 Experimental 18 22. 11 8. 20 LI 09 24. 89 7. 08 L2 09 19. 33 8. 67 Control 39 29.08 11. 04 LI 18 29.00 9. 47 L2 21 29. 14 12. 46 The data f o r the Gates-HacGinitie vocabulary were tested by Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) using the Jansky scores as a covariate. See Table XI. Table XI ANCOVA on Gates-HacGinitie Vocabulary by Group with Jansky Source of Variation Hean Square F Significance of F Covariate (Jansky) 2410.906 39.722 0.000 Hain E f f e c t s (Group) 679.722 11.199 0. 001 £4. S i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were found i n vocabulary (F (1,55) = 11.199, p. = .001) due to the teaching approach. In reading comprehension, measured by the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, the mean score was also lower i n the experimental group than i n the control group, as shown i n Table XII. The experimental group had a mean score of 11.06 with a standard deviation of 5.37. The control group had a mean score of 15.69 with a standard deviation of 7.36. Table XII Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Comprehension: Table of Means Group N M SD A l l subjects 57 14. 22 7. 11 Experimental 18 11.06 5. 37 LI 09 9.89 6. 25 L2 09 12. 22 4. 38 Control 39 15. 69 7. 38 LI 18 14. 83 5. 02 L2 21 16. 43 9. 00 The data f o r the Gates-MacGinitie comprehension were tested by ANCOVA using the Jansky scores as a covariate. See Table XIII. S i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were found i n comprehension (F (1,55) = 10.134, p. = .002) due to the teaching approach. 65. Table XIII ANCOVA on Gates-MacGinitie Comprehension by Group with Jansky Source of Variation Mean Square F Significance of F Covariate (Jansky) 936.911 31.773 0.000 Main E f f e c t s (Group) 298.812 10.134 0.002 The r e s u l t s of the ANCOVA on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests showed there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n subjects' a b i l i t y with reading vocabulary and reading comprehension, a f t e r the treatments. H : mr 1 - mr 2 was 0 rejected. There are differences i n reading a b i l i t y due to the independent variable. When posttreatment, reading vocabulary and reading comprehension were measured by the i n d i v i d u a l i z e d measure, the Basic Reading Inventory, the r e s u l t s were d i f f e r e n t . With vocabulary, the experimental group had a mean score of 56.00 with a standard deviation of 22.72, while the control group had a mean score of 50.40 with a standard deviation of 30.90. With comprehension, the experimental group had a mean score of 20.00 with a standard deviation of 21.21, while the control group had a mean score of 22.00 with 'a standard deviation of 33.47. See Table XIV. No s t a t i s t i c a l t e sts were applied to these r e s u l t s because of the extremely small sample. However, the experimental group scored higher on vocabulary than the 66. control group. This d i f f e r s from the r e s u l t s of the standardized tests, where the experimental group scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower i n vocabulary than the control group. Table XIV Basic Reading Inventory, Vocabulary and Comprehension: Table of Means Vocabulary Comprehension Group N M SD M SD A l l subjects 10 53.20 25. 74 21. 00 26. 44 Experimental 05 56. 00 22. 72 20. 00 21. 21 LI 03 69. 33 13. 01 33. 33 15. 28 L2 02 36. 00 19. 80 0. 00 0. 00 Control 05 50. 40 30. 90 22. 00 33. 47 LI 03 53.33 40. 27 36.67 37. 86 L2 02 46. 00 22. 63 0. 00 0. 00 Although both groups of subjects, during the vocabulary test, were able to decode words i n the i s o l a t i o n of word l i s t s with the same degree of success, the LEA subjects were more w i l l i n g and able to decode words i n the context of a reading passage. Once again, the control group scored higher i n comprehension than the experimental group. However, both groups of L2 subjects had equal d i f f i c u l t y with comprehension. None of the L2 subjects could answer any of 67. the comprehension questions dealing with the reading passage. Writing A b i l i t y The second n u l l hypothesis stated there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the LEA group and the control group i n writing a b i l i t y . H : mw 1 = mw 2. Writing a b i l i t y i n t h i s experiment consisted of the number of t-units present i n writing samples. The two trained assistants who counted the t-units had a in t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of . 95. After the pretest samples were studied, i t became clear that the number of mean t-units present i n the samples from both groups was i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. Host of the subjects were unable to produce any t-units i n early September writing samples. Thus, only the t-units i n the posttreatment samples were analyzed. The number of t-units was higher for the basal reader group (control) than for the LEA group (experimental). Both the LI and the L2 subjects i n the basal reader group produced more t-units than t h e i r peers i n the LEA group. The LI subjects i n the control group had a mean score of 2.86 with a standard deviation of 2.08, while the LI subjects i n the experimental group had a mean score of 2.11 with a standard deviation of 2.20. The L2 subjects i n the control group had a mean score of 3.59 with a standard deviation of 2.10, while the L2 subjects i n the experimental group had a mean score of 68. 2.70 with a standard deviation of 2.58. Table XV gives the mean scores of the t-units i n the writing samples co l l e c t e d a f t e r the treatment. Table XV T-units i n Posttest Writing Sample: Table of Means Group N M SD LI subjects 27 2.65 2. 10 LEA LI 09 2. 11 2.20 Control LI 18 2. 86 2. 08 L2 subjects 30 3. 31 2. 26 LEA L2 09 2. 70 2. 58 Control L2 21 3. 59 2. 10 Two i n t e r e s t i n g points emerge on examining the t-units i n the posttest writing samples. F i r s t , the L2 students produced more t-units than t h e i r LI peers, i n both groups. However, on closer examination, while the L2 students produced more sentences, these sentences were much shorter than the sentences of t h e i r LI peers. Second, while the subjects i n the control group produced more t-units, these t-units were very s i m i l a r to those found i n basal reader text. The writing sample of Subject #55 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s : Can a t u r t l e run no a t u r t l e can't run can a duck run no a duck can't run. 69. Eckhoff (1983) found a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n when she analyszed basal readers and writing samples from two Grade Two classes. She f e e l s : Many publishers have used s i m p l i f i e d sentence structures i n basal readers with the intention of easing the process of learning to read. Apparently t h i s practice has an e f f e c t on children's writing. . . . i t appears important not to oversimplify text or to introduce s t y l i s t i c features and text formats that are uncharacteristic of written English. (p. 616) The data from the t-units i n the posttest writing sample, were tested by ANCOVA using the Jansky scores as a covariate. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the t-unit scores, revealing the two groups did not d i f f e r i n writing a b i l i t y (F (1,55) = 1.47, p. = .230). The n u l l hypothesis f o r writing a b i l i t y H : mw 1 = mw 2, 0 was not rejected. There are no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n independent writing a b i l i t y due to the independent variable. Reading Interest The t h i r d n u l l hypothesis stated there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the LEA group and the control group i n reading interest. H : mi 1 = mi 2. Reading 0 in t e r e s t i n t h i s experiment, was determined by the score 70. obtained on a reading i n t e r e s t questionnaire, the Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey. The mean scores and standard deviations for both groups, on the pretest and posttest, are shown i n Table XVI. Table XVI Pre- and Pqsttest Means f o r Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey Pretest Posttest Group N M SD M SD A l l subjects 57 55. 99 5. 55 56. 58 6. 72 Experimental 18 56. 04 5. 28 57. 33 4. 99 LI 09 57. 42 4. 81 56. 78 5. 83 L2 09 54. 67 5. 57 57. 89 4. 29 Control 39 55. 96 5. 74 56. 23 7. 41 LI 18 56.52 5. 95 57. 11 7. 66 L2 21 55. 39 5. 59 55. 48 7. 30 In the pretest, both groups of subjects had quite s i m i l a r scores. The experimental group had a mean score of 56.04 with a standard deviation of 5.28, while the control group had a mean score of 55.96 with a standard deviation of 5.74. In the posttest, the experimental group had a higher score than the control group. The experimental group had a mean score of 57.33 with a standard deviation of 4.99, while the control group had a mean score of 56.23 with a standard deviation of 7.41. 71. The Snoopy data were tested by ANCOVA using Jansky scores as a covariate. The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table XVII. Table XVII ANCOVA on Snoopy Pretest and Posttest by Group with Jansky Source of Variation Hean Square Significance of F Pretest Covariate (Jansky) Hain E f f e c t s (Group > 79.006 15. 285 3. 053 0. 591 0. 086 0. 446 Posttest Covariate (Jansky) Main E f f e c t s (Group) 128.074 12.248 2. 897 0. 277 0. 095 0. 601 There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the pretest Snoopy scores (F (1,55) = 0.59, p. = .446), revealing there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n pretest reading i n t e r e s t between the control and the LEA groups. There were also no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the posttest Snoopy scores (F (1,55) = 0.28, p. = .601), revealing there were also no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n posttest reading i n t e r e s t between the control and the LEA groups. The n u l l hypothesis H : mi 1 = mi 2 was not rejected. 0 There are no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading i n t e r e s t due to the independent variable. 72. L2 Acquisition The fourth n u l l hypothesis stated there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n L2 ac q u i s i t i o n between the L2 subjects i n the LEA group and the L2 subjects i n the control group. H : me 1 = me 2. L2 a b i l i t y i n t h i s experiment, was 0 determined by the scores obtained on the IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test as a pretest and posttest. The mean scores and standard deviations f o r both groups of L2 subjects, on the pretest and posttest, are shown i n Table XVIII. Table XVIII Pre- and Posttest Means: IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test Pretest Posttest Group N M SD M SD L2 subjects 30 2. 9667 1.1290 3. 8667 1.1958 Experimental 09 3. 0000 1.0000 4. 1111 1.1667 Control 21 2. 9524 1.2032 3. 7619 1.2209 In the pretest, the experimental group had a mean score of 3.00 with a standard deviation of 1.00, while the control group had a mean score of 2.95 with a standard deviation of 1.20. In the posttest, the experimental group had a mean score of 4.11 with a standard deviation of 1.17, while the control group had a mean score of 3.76 with a standard deviation of 1.22. 73. The IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test data were tested by ANCOVA using Jansky scores as a covariate. The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table XIX. Table XIX ANCOVA on IDEA Pretest and Posttest by Group with Jansky Source of Variation Mean Square F Significance of F Pretest Covariate (Jansky) 13.126 15.009 0. 001 Main E f f e c t s (Group) 0.230 0.263 0. 612 Posttest Covariate (Jansky) 12.645 12.801 0. 001 Main E f f e c t s (Group) 1.529 1.523 0. 228 There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the pretest IDEA scores (F (1,28) = 0.26, p. = .612), revealing there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n pretest L2 a c q u i s i t i o n between the L2 subjects i n the control and LEA groups. There were also no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the posttest IDEA scores (F (1,28) = 1.52, p. = .228), revealing there were also no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n posttest L2 a c q u i s i t i o n between the L2 subjects i n the control and LEA groups. The n u l l hypothesis H : me 1 = me 2 was not rejected. 0 There are no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n L2 ac q u i s i t i o n due to 74. the independent variable. Reading A b i l i t y , Writing A b i l i t y , and Reading Interest Between the L2 Subjects i n the Two Groups The l a s t n u l l hypothesis stated there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the L2 subjects i n the LEA group and the L2 subjects i n the control group i n reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , and reading interest. H : mrL2 1 = mrL2 2, mwL2 1 = mwL2 2, miL2 1 = miL2 2. 0 In order to test t h i s hypothesis, the posttest mean scores of the two treatment groups were compared. These mean scores were gathered from the vocabulary subtest and the comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, the posttest Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey, and the posttest independent writing sample. See Table XX. Table XX Posttest Scores f o r L2 Subjects: Table of Means L2 Subjects Group LEA Control N 09 18 Posttests M SD M SD Gates (Voca) 19.33 8.67 29. 14 12. 46 Gates (Comp) 12. 22 4.38 16. 43 9. 00 Writing <t-units) 2.70 2.58 3.59 2.10 Snoopy 57.89 4.29 .55.48 7.30 75. In the Gates vocabulary subtest the LEA L2 subjects had a mean score of 19.33 with a standard deviation of 8.67, while the control L2 subjects had a mean score of 29.14 with a standard deviation of 12.46. In the Gates comprehension subtest the LEA L2 subjects had a mean score of 12.22 with a standard deviation of 4.38, while the control L2 subjects had a mean score of 16.43 with a standard deviation of 9.00. In the writing posttest the LEA L2 subjects had a mean score of 2.70 with a standard deviation of 2.58, while the control L2 subjects had a mean score of 3.59 with a standard deviation of 2.10. In the Snoopy posttest the LEA L2 subjects had a mean score of 57.89 with a standard deviation of 4.29, while the control L2 subjects had a mean score of 55.48 with a standard deviation of 7.30. The data f o r these posttests were tested by ANCOVA using the Jansky scores as a covariate. Table XXI gives these ANCOVA. Table XXI ANCOVA on Posttests by Group with Jansky, f o r L2 Subjects Dependent Variables Main E f f e c t s Mean Square F Sign, of F Voca. (Gates) Group 410.54 5.96 0.021 Comp. (Gates) Group 54.88 1.88 0.182 Writing (t-units) Group 5.46 1.07 0.310 Interest (Snoopy) Group 36.95 0.82 0.372 76. S i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were found i n vocabulary (F (1,28) = 5.96, p. = .021) due to the teaching approach. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n comprehension scores (F (1,28) = 1.88, p. = .182), revealing there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n posttreatment comprehension between the two groups of L2 subjects. There were also no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n t-units (F (1,28) = 1.07, p. = .310), revealing there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n posttreatment writing a b i l i t y between the two groups of L2 subjects. There were also no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n Snoopy scores (F (1,28) = 0.82, p. = .372), revealing there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n posttreatment reading i n t e r e s t between the two groups of L2 subjects. The n u l l hypothesis H : mrL2 1 = mrL2 2, 0 mwL2 1 = mwL2 2, miL2 1 = miL2 2 was not rejected. With the exception of reading vocabulary, there are no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , and reading i n t e r e s t of L2 students due to the independent variable. Summary Of the f i v e n u l l hypotheses, only one was rejected. Only i n reading a b i l i t y , was there s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the LEA and the control groups. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the LEA and the control groups with the other four n u l l hypotheses of writing 77. a b i l i t y , reading interest, ESL acquisition, and the L2 subjects' reading and writing a b i l i t y and reading interest. The r e s u l t s of the reading assessment favour the basal reader group. Their scores were much higher on average, than the scores of the subjects using LEA, with both vocabulary and reading comprehension. It appears, from the r e s u l t s of standardized tests, at least, that LI and L2 Grade One students would do better to acquire the reading process through a basal reader ser i e s than through the LEA. In acquiring the writing process and an int e r e s t i n reading, i t would appear from the r e s u l t s of t h i s experiment, that using a basal reader ser i e s or a LEA would make no s i g n i f i c a n t difference. LI and L2 Grade One students l i k e l y would acquire both to a s i m i l a r degree, regardless of whether or not they use a basal reader ser i e s or a LEA. L2 a c q u i s i t i o n did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y improve with the L2 subjects on either program. Using LEA or a basal reader s e r i e s does not appear to make any s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the rate of L2 acquisition. F i n a l l y , while the L2 subjects using LEA had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t y with reading vocabulary, they did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e i r L2 peers, using the basal readers, i n reading comprehension, writing a b i l i t y , and reading interest. The empirical research presented here did not back up the claims of the many researchers and educators quoted i n 78. t h i s study who praised the LEA as an excellent means of introducing the reading and writing process to young LI and L2 learners. In fact, the findings of t h i s experiment suggest these learners could better acquire the reading process through a means other than LEA. 79. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary of Experiment This experiment was undertaken i n order to provide some much needed, empirical research on LEA. While LEA i s believed i n educational theory and philosophy, to be an excellent method of reading instruction, l i t t l e empirical research i s available to back up i t s claims. LEA i s endorsed by many researchers (Levenson, 1968, Kirkland, 1980, Stauffer, 1980, Hall, 1981) as a good means of teaching reading and writing to young, beginning readers. Researchers i n the f i e l d of Second Language education (Moustafa, 1978, Degler, 1979, Feeley, 1979, Murphy, 1980, Deem & Marshall, 1980, Hudelson, 1984) believe LEA i s es p e c i a l l y valuable i n teaching L2 children the reading and writing process. LEA i s related to the current. Whole Language philosophy, for as Ha l l (1981) argues, LEA makes use of the ch i l d ' s whole language. LEA i n s t r u c t i o n stresses, "written expression, vocabulary development, and l i t e r a r y experiences i n a classroom based on f l e x i b i l i t y , receptiveness, and stimulation " (Hall, 1981, p. 141). LEA i s a philosophy f o r teaching reading and writing. It stresses the rel a t i o n s h i p between the four facets of 80. language: l i s t e n i n g , speaking, reading, and writing (Thorn & Braun, 1974). LEA uses the c h i l d ' s own language to b u i l d l i t e r a c y upon (Hall, 1981, Stauffer, 1980). Each c h i l d has his/her own experiences and thus creates and reads his/her own s t o r i e s (Levenson, 1969). The LEA classroom i s a child-centred environment, f i l l e d with meaningful experiences and high i n t e r e s t a c t i v i t i e s (Wiesendanger & Birlem, 1979). As well as introducing the reading and writing process to beginning readers, Kirkland (1980) believes LEA also develops a l i f e - l o n g love of reading and of language i n general. Second Language children p a r t i c u l a r l y benefit from LEA because, according to Cummins, "languages e x i s t for communicating meaning, and are therefore best learned i n s i t u a t i o n s where meanings are being communicated and learners are interested i n what i s being communicated" (Cummins, 1981, p. 34). Furthermore, argues Hudelson (1984), L2 children are "able to read English when the material comes from within themselves, that i s , when the approach used i s an organic one that r e l i e s on what the students know rather than on what they do not know" (p. 228). Unfortunately, while many educators and researchers endorse LEA, l i t t l e empirical research i s available to confirm i t s value. The purpose of t h i s experiment, was thus, to provide some of t h i s much needed research. A simple experiment was designed with one independent Bl-and several dependent variables present. The dependent variables involved pretests and posttests. S t a t i s t i c a l analyses, consisting of ANCOVAs determined the si g n i f i c a n c e of the tests. The r e s u l t s shed some l i g h t on the question of using LEA as a means of teaching reading and writing. The independent variable i n t h i s experiment was LEA as a means of teaching reading and writing to Grade One, LI and L2 students. Over a seven month period, three Grade One classes were involved i n two c a r e f u l l y observed treatments. One class, forming the experimental group, used LEA as a treatment i n acquiring the reading and writing process. The other two classes, forming the control group, used as a treatment, the basal reader series, Ginn 720, one of the more popular, prescribed basal reader s e r i e s used i n B r i t i s h Columbian public schools. Neither group was exposed to the i n s t r u c t i o n a l methodology u t i l i z e d by the other. Over the course of the experiment, the researcher was often present i n the three classrooms, unobtrusively observing classroom a c t i v i t i e s to ensure the treatments were occurring. A checklist, f o r use during these classroom observations, was developed to record i n an orderly fashion, the presence of the two treatments. This c h e c k l i s t consisted of the items used to define LEA i n t h i s experiment, and the items used to define the presence of basal readers. By using the checklist, the observer was able to systematically record the presence of LEA or basal readers i n the classrooms. 82. At the end of the treatment, the recordings were tabulated and the presence of LEA or basal readers was determined by percentages. While the observer was i n the classrooms, LEA was present, and thus being used as the i n s t r u c t i o n a l method, i n the experimental c l a s s 100% of the time, and i n the control classes,.only 4% of the time. Simi l a r l y , basal readers were present and being used, 0% of the time with the experimental group, but 100% of the time, with the control group. The dependent variables f o r growth i n reading and writing were three reading tests. The pretest, f o r measuring readiness, was the Jansky-de Hirsch Screening Index. The scores on t h i s index were used as a covariate measure. The posttests were the standardized tests, the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Canadian Edition, and the i n d i v i d u a l i z e d tests, the Basic Reading Inventory, Second Edition. Both sets of posttests measured reading vocabulary a c q u i s i t i o n and a b i l i t y with reading comprehension. Writing samples were c o l l e c t e d from a l l the subjects, at the beginning and at the end of the treatment. These samples consisted of independent writing sessions on a topic of t h e i r choice. The writing samples were used as the dependent variable, measuring growth i n writing s k i l l . Counting the number of t-units, that i s , miminal clauses, present i n the pretest and posttest samples, enabled the researcher to determine the independent writing a b i l i t i e s of the two 83. groups. The Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey was the dependent variable employed for determining differences i n reading i n t e r e s t and pleasure among the experimental and control groups. This reading survey was given to each subject at the beginning and at the end of the treatment. The survey asked f i f t e e n general questions concerning reading, reading a c t i v i t i e s , and reading books. The IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test was the measure used to determine growth i n ESL a c q u i s i t i o n among the L2 subjects i n the experiment. This test was given, i n d i v i d u a l l y to each of the L2 subjects at the beginning and at the end of the treatment. The test measured a b i l i t y i n comprehending and communicating i n English. Means and standard deviations were determined f o r each group, and f o r the LI and L2 subjects within each group, on each dependent variable. Tests of significance, ANCOVA, were then administered to the mean scores of a l l dependent variables. The s t a t i s t i c a l analyses allowed the researcher to accept or r e j e c t the experiment's n u l l hypotheses. If the n u l l hypotheses were rejected, then using LEA as a method of introducing the reading and writing processes would have s i g n i f i c a n t consequences, f o r a l l LI and L2, Grade One students. 84. Answers to Research Questions There were f i v e research hypotheses i n t h i s experiment. They were: 1) The reading a b i l i t y of students using LEA would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the reading a b i l i t y of those students not using LEA. 2) The writing a b i l i t y of students using LEA would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the writing a b i l i t y of those students not using LEA. 3) Interest and pleasure i n the reading process would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater with those students using LEA than with those students not using LEA. 4) Second language a c q u i s i t i o n would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater f o r those students using LEA than with those students not using LEA. 5) L2 students using LEA would have s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , and reading i n t e r e s t than those L2 students not using LEA. In order to answer these research hypotheses, the following n u l l hypotheses were formulated: H : mr 1 = - mr 2 0 H : mw 1 = = mw 2 0 H : mi 1 = = mi 2 0 H : ml 1 = = ml 2 0 85. H : mrL2 1 = mrL2 2, mwL2 1 = mwL2 2, m±L2 1 = miL2 2 0 Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA) with the Jansky scores as the covariate, were the tests of significance. They were used to either accept or reject the n u l l hypotheses. The ANCOVA on the Gates vocabulary, with Jansky as the covariate, found s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s (F (1,55) = 11.20, p = .001). The ANCOVA on the Gates comprehension, with Jansky as the covariate, also found s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s (F (1,55) = 10.13, p. = .002). The n u l l hypothesis f o r reading a b i l i t y was rejected. There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading a b i l i t y between the LEA group and the control group. From a comparsion of the posttest means, the students i n the basal reader classes had greater reading a b i l i t y than t h e i r peers i n the LEA class. The ANCOVA on the posttest t-units data, with Jansky as the covariate, revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences (F (1,55) = 1.47, p. = .230). The n u l l hypothesis f o r writing a b i l i t y was not rejected. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n writing a b i l i t y between the students using LEA and t h e i r peers using the basal readers. For reading interest, ANCOVA were applied to the pretest and posttest Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey data. The ANCOVA on the pretest Snoopy with Jansky as the covariate resulted i n an i n s i g n i f i c a n t F value. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading i n t e r e s t between the two groups. 86. before the treatment. The ANCOVA on the posttest Snoopy data, with Jansky as the covariate, also revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences < F (1,55) = 0.28, p. = .601). The n u l l hypothesis f o r reading i n t e r e s t was not rejected. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading i n t e r e s t between the students using LEA and t h e i r peers using the basal readers. For L2 acquisition, ANCOVA were applied to the pretest and posttest IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test data. The ANCOVA on the pretest IDEA with Jansky as the covariate resulted i n an i n s i g n i f i c a n t F value. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n L2 a b i l i t y between the two groups of L2 subjects before the treatment. The ANCOVA on the posttest IDEA, with Jansky as the covariate, also revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences (F (1,28) = 1.52, p. = .228). The n u l l hypothesis f o r L2 ac q u i s i t i o n was not rejected. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n L2 ac q u i s i t i o n between the L2 students using LEA and t h e i r peers using the basal readers. The method of reading i n s t r u c t i o n did not appear to influence the rate of second language acquisition. The l a s t hypothesis i n t h i s experiment looked at the reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , and reading i n t e r e s t of the L2 subjects within the LEA group and the control group. ANCOVA were applied to the L2 subjects' data from the Gates vocabulary test, Gates comprehension test, posttest writing sample, and posttest Snoopy. 87. The F values of the ANCOVA were a l l i n s i g n i f i c a n t , with the exception of the Gates vocabulary test. The ANCOVA on the Gates vocabulary test, by group of L2 subjects, with Jansky as the covariate, found s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s <F (1,28) = 5.958, p. = .021). There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading vocabulary a b i l i t y between the two groups of L2 subjects. From the mean scores, i t appeared that the L2 subjects using the basal readers had a higher reading a b i l i t y than t h e i r peers on LEA. With the exception of reading vocabulary a b i l i t y , the n u l l hypothesis f o r reading a b i l i t y , writing a b i l i t y , and reading inte r e s t among the two groups of L2 subjects, was not rejected. With the exception of growth i n reading vocabulary, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the L2 students using LEA and t h e i r peers using the basal readers. In conclusion, the independent variable of LEA to introduce the reading and writing processes had s i g n i f i c a n t influence on the reading a b i l i t y of Grade One, LI and L2 students, but no s i g n i f i c a n t influence on t h e i r writing a b i l i t y and t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n reading. It also had no s i g n i f i c a n t influence on the L2 ac q u i s i t i o n of L2, Grade One students. Furthermore, the use of LEA did not re s u l t i n greater reading a b i l i t y , but to the contrary, i n lesser reading a b i l i t y . The students i n the control group, those not using 88. LEA, scored higher i n reading a b i l i t y than t h e i r peers. Implications and Discussion The purpose of t h i s experiment was to provide empirical research to support the claims many educators have made concerning the v a l i d i t y of LEA as a means of introducing reading and writing to young, LI and L2 students. The re s u l t s however, not only f a i l e d to prove that LEA i s a superior Language Arts program, but act u a l l y suggested that such an approach might be les s e f f e c t i v e than more t r a d i t i o n a l methods. The r e s u l t s of t h i s experiment indicate that perhaps too much weight i s given to theory and not enough attention to research, when philosophies of Language Arts i n s t r u c t i o n are touted. In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study the claims made about LEA by i t s advocates c l e a r l y f a l l short of the mark. Although the r e s u l t s on reading a b i l i t y are not encouraging for supporters of LEA, such an approach may s t i l l have merit. Management of a LEA program may require refinement. The scope and sequence of a basal reading ser i e s i s absent i n LEA programs. Perhaps, with such a management system, containing a structured, learning pattern, young LI and L2 children would be able to focus t h e i r attention on s p e c i f i c , necessary s k i l l s , while s t i l l using t h e i r own language and experiences i n the learning process. Organization i s sorely missing i n LEA programs. 89. Something as simple as a c h e c k l i s t to ensure basic decoding s k i l l s are covered, could make a LEA program much more successful. Basal reading s e r i e s focus on teaching systematic phonics and introducing sight words. LEA does not do t h i s i n a systematic manner. If the goal of a reading program i s to master reading tests, which usually measure amounts of sight vocabulary and knowledge of phonics rules, then a program r e l y i n g s o l e l y on LEA i s not recommended. A combination of methods using LEA and basal readers could be a viable option. Such a program could incorporate the good q u a l i t i e s of both philosophies. The c r e a t i v i t y and comprehension of LEA could be melded with the decoding s k i l l s and sight vocabulary of a basal reader series. Such a program, combining comprehension and vocabulary, might be p a r t i c u l a r l y suited f o r L2 learners. While the subjects using LEA did not have s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t writing a b i l i t y than t h e i r peers not using LEA, they may not have been as s t i f l e d i n what they wrote as some of t h e i r peers i n the basal reader program appeared to be. Development of a more creative writing s t y l e could be an advantage further up the grades. On the other hand, i f the fundamental encoding s k i l l s are not mastered, c r e a t i v i t y w i l l not help i n l a t e r l i f e , with written expression. The r e s u l t s of the reading i n t e r e s t survey were i n s i g n i f i c a n t . However, the age and grade l e v e l of the 90. subjects may have contributed to these r e s u l t s . Most young children, entering the school system, are very keen, d i l i g e n t workers. They can happily spend day a f t e r day working on worksheets, d r i l l i n g vocabulary, and reading and rereading the same story. This kind of school work i s new and fresh to them. However, af t e r a couple of years, the pleasure they f i n d i n t h i s type of work may w i l t away, e s p e c i a l l y i f they are beginning to experience f a i l u r e . In Grade One, LEA may seem no more novel and e x c i t i n g to these students than reams of worksheets. It would not be s u r p r i s i n g then, to see s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n reading i n t e r e s t surveys. However, l a t e r i n the primary and intermediate grades, LEA may rekindle a fading i n t e r e s t i n the reading process. The r e s u l t s of a reading i n t e r e s t survey might then, r e f l e c t differences between a LEA program and a basal reader program. LEA might also rekindle an i n t e r e s t i n the teaching process f o r the classroom teacher, bored with years of r i g i d , basal i n s t r u c t i o n . This might, i n part, account f o r the new i n t e r e s t i n the Whole Language philosophy. It could be the teachers, not the Grade One students, who need the challenge of a new, innovative program. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n L2 a c q u i s i t i o n between the L2 subjects i n the LEA classroom and t h e i r L2 peers i n the control classrooms. Different philosophies and methods of classroom instruction, present i n t h i s experiment. 91. had l i t t l e e f f e c t on L2 acquisition. Acquiring reading and writing s k i l l s i n meaningful context did not appear to increase the rate of L2 acqu i s i t i o n . Limitations of the Study By involving three teachers, d i f f e r e n t teaching techniques, management styles, and pe r s o n a l i t i e s may have been a major contributing factor i n the r e s u l t s of the experiment. Another l i m i t a t i o n was the duration of the treatment. If the treatment had lasted for three years (time f o r the subjects to work through the primary grades), the data c o l l e c t e d might have been quite d i f f e r e n t . Students' a b i l i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s might have been more affected by the two approaches over a longer period of time, and more s i g n i f i c a n t differences may have appeared. Suggestions f o r Further Research Many p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r further research evolve from t h i s study. They include: 1) An obvious example i s further c o l l e c t i o n of s i m i l a r data, using d i f f e r e n t schools and more teachers. More data may y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t findings f o r a l l of the hypotheses. By using more teachers, the extraneous variable of teacher input would be lessened. 2) Data could also be c o l l e c t e d over a longer period of 92. time. O'Donnell (1968), i n concluding his experiment on using LEA, also expressed need f o r more longitudinal research. With d i f f e r e n t methods, s k i l l s may be acquired at d i f f e r e n t rates. I f the subjects i n t h i s experiment were able to remain i n t h e i r two groups through Grades Two and Three, they could be reassessed, and the r e s u l t s a f t e r three years of LEA might be quite d i f f e r e n t . Reading in t e r e s t and writing a b i l i t y especially, might be higher with those subjects using LEA. 3) Stauffer (1966) concluded a f t e r his experiment with LEA, that above average children performed better with LEA. This seems l i k e l y because f a s t learners could perhaps be s t i f l e d and bored by being locked into a l e v e l i n a basal reader, waiting for the rest of the class to catch up. In a LEA program, where ho l i m i t a t i o n s e x i s t on what they can read, above average children would experience l e s s f r u s t r a t i o n and would probably enjoy reading more. By looking at i n d i v i d u a l readiness l e v e l s and posttest scores i n LEA classrooms, Stauffer's conclusion might be v e r i f i e d . 4) Sex differences could also be a possible cause for d i f f e r e n t reading a b i l i t y scores between students on LEA and students on basal readers. In t h i s study, the sample s i z e of the experimental group was too small to determine the s i g n i f i c a n c e of any differences. Another study, with a larger sample, could do t h i s . 5) Another p o s s i b i l i t y f o r further research would be a 93. more i n depth search f o r reports and findings of other reserach on LEA with LI and L2 children. As demonstrated i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e , the body of empirical research on LEA appears to be small. 6) F i n a l l y , an interesting, worthwhile experiment might be to look at the e f f e c t s of a program combining LEA and basal readers. Such an experiment would involve three groups: a LEA / basal reader group, a LEA group, and a basal reader group. The strengths of LEA, i f i n f a c t there are any, combined with the strengths of a basal reader series, might produce a very strong Language Arts program. In summary, more causal-comparative studies need to be done i n t h i s area. Host research currently involving LEA and Whole Language tends to be i n the form of case studies. Case studies, however, are deceptive. Every c h i l d w i l l l i k e l y show growth over a period of time. A case study documenting the growth i n written expression of a c h i l d using LEA may be impressive. However, a case study of a c h i l d on a successful basal reader program may be even more impressive. More research on LEA and other a l t e r n a t i v e s to basal readers i s needed. Buckner, Mo r s i l l o and Semple (1978) suggest, "research i n t h i s f i e l d has been long overdue . . . further large scale research analysis i s warranted" (p. 22). Before more and more teachers begin to use Whole Language, an o f f s p r i n g of LEA, i n B r i t i s h Columbian schools, i t i s imperative that such further research be forthcoming. 94. REFERENCES Ashton-Warner, S. (1963). Teacher. New York: Simon & Schuster. Bartelt, H. G. (1983). Transfer and V a r i a b i l i t y of Rhetorical Redundancy i n Apachean English Interlanguage. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language Transfer i n Language Learning (pp. 297-305). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers. Beck, I. L., & Block, K. K. (1976). An Analysis of Two Beginning Reading Programs: Some Facts and Some Opinions. Pittsburgh University: Learning Research and Development Center. ERIC Document ED 155 620. Bissex, G. L. (1965). Watching Young Writers. In A. Jaggar & H. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Observing the Language Learning (pp. 99-113). Newark: International Reading Association & Urbana, I l l i n o i s : National Council on Teachers of English. Blackburn, E. (1984). Common Ground: Developing Relationships Between Reading and Writing. Language Arts, 61 (4), 367-375. Buckner, J. H., Morsillo, C. M., & Semple, E. E. (1978). Supportive Evidence f o r the Language Experience Approach at the Kindergarten Level. Graduate Student Association Journal, 6, 15-29. Campbell, P. B., Housner, H. C., Slobodian, J. J. (1967). 95. An Analysis of Eight Different Reading Instructional Methods used with F i r s t Grade Students. Livonia, Michigan: Livonia Public Schools. ERIC Document ED 014 375. Canada Year Book. (1985). Ottawa: Publications Division, S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Chapman, B. H. (1977). LEA solves syntax f o r the Spanish speaking c h i l d . Reading Teacher, 31 (2), 151-153. Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and Minority-Language Children. Toronto: The Ontario I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education. Deem, J. M., & Marshall, W. J. (1980). Teaching a Second Language to Indochinese Refugees When No Program Exists. Journal of Reading, 23 (7), 601-605. Degler, L. S. (1979). Reading Instruction f o r the Language Minority Child. George Peabody College for Teachers at Vanderbilt University. ERIC Document ED 186 876. Dreher, M. J. (1985). Review of Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Canadian Edition. In J. V. Mit c h e l l (Ed.), The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 597-599). Lincoln, Nebraska: The Buros I n s t i t u t e of Mental Measurements. Eckhoff, B. (1983). How Reading Affects Children's Writing. Language Arts, 60 (5), 607-616. Elenbaas, C. T. (1983). Putting Language Acquisition Theory to Practice i n the Classroom. Viewpoints, 120. ERIC 96. Document ED 226 587. Feeley, J. T. (1970). Teaching Non-English Speaking F i r s t Graders to Read. Elementary English, 47, 199-208. Feeley, J. T. (1977). B i l i n g u a l i n s t r u c t i o n : Puerto Rico and the mainland. Reading Teacher, 30 (7), 741-744. Feeley, J. T. (1979). A workshop t r i e d and true: Language experience f o r b i l i n g u a l s . Reading Teacher, 33 (1), 25-27. Feeley, J. T. (1983). Help f o r the Reading Teacher: Dealing with the Limited English P r o f i c i e n t (LEP) C h i l d i n the Elementary Classroom. Reading Teacher, 36 (7), 650-655. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Deno, S. (1981). R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y of Curriculum-Based Informal Reading Inventories. Minnesota University, Minneapolis: I n s t i t u t e f o r Research on Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . ERIC Document ED 214 155. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1983). Language Transfer i n Language Learning. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers. Goodman, Y.M. (1985). Kidwatching: Observing Children i n the Classroom. In A. Jaggar & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Observing the Language Learning (pp. 9-18). Newark: International Reading Association & Urbana, I l l i n o i s : National Council on Teachers of English. Gunderson, L. (1985). A Survey of E.S.L. Reading Instruction i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The Canadian Modern 97. Language Review, 42 (1), 44-55. Hall, M. A. (1981). Teaching Reading as a Language Experience. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l . Heald-Taylor, G. (1986). Whole Language Strategies f o r ESL Students. Toronto: The Ontario I n s t i t u t e for Studies i n Education. Hudelson, S. (1984). Kan Yu Ret an Rayt en Ingles: Children Become L i t e r a t e i n English as a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (2), 221-238. Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : National Council of Teachers of English. ERIC Document ED 113 735. Je f f e r s , E., & Sperber, D. (198(9). Project P. R. 0. B. E., T i t l e VII. Community School D i s t r i c t 7. F i n a l Evaluation Report, 1979-1980. Washington, D. C.: O f f i c e of B i l i n g u a l Education and Minority Languages A f f a i r s . ERIC Document ED 199 370. Kawakami, A., & Au, K. H. (1986). Encouraging reading and language development i n c u l t u r a l minority children. Topics i n Language Disorders, 6 (2), 71-80. King, M. L. (1985). Language and Language Learning f o r Child Watchers. In A. Jaggar & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Observing the Language Learning (pp. 19-37). Newark: International Reading Association & Urbana, I l l i n o i s : National Council on Teachers of English. 98. Kirkland, E. R. (1980). Language Experience and the Limited and Non-English Speaking Child. Paper presented at the Far West Regional Conference, International Reading Association, Hawaii, and at the C a l i f o r n i a Reading Association Conference, Sacramento. ERIC Document ED 197 286. Lee, D. M., & Allen, R. V. (1963). Learning to Read Through Experience (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton Century Crofts. Levenson, S. (1969). TEBRETSQL: The LEA (Teaching Beginning Reading to Speakers of Other Languages: The Language Experience Approach). Paper given at the Third Annual TESOL Convention, Chicago, I l l i n o i s . ERIC Document ED 032 519. McCollum, P. A. (1983). The IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test: A C r i t i c a l Review. In S. S. Seidner (Ed.), Issues of Language Assessment. Volume I I : Language Assessment and Curriculum Planning (pp. 85-92). Springfield, I l l i n o i s : I l l i n o i s State Board of Education. Moffett, J., & Wagner, B. J. (1976). Student-centered Language Arts and Reading, K-13 (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company. Moustafa, M. (1978). Bridging the Gap Between the ESL Curriculum and the Reading Curriculum i n the Elementary School. Paper presented at the Conference of the C a l i f o r n i a Association of Teachers of English to Speakers 99. of Other Languages, and i n CATESOL Occasional Papers, No. 4. ERIC Document ED 172 576. Moustafa, M., & Penrose, J. (1965). Comprehensible Input PLUS the Language Experience Approach: Reading i n s t r u c t i o n f o r li m i t e d English speaking students. Reading Teacher, 38 (7), 640-647. Murphy, B. (1980). Second Language Reading and Testing i n B i l i n g u a l Education. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (2), 189-197. O'Donnell, C. M. (1968). A Comparsion of the Reading Readiness of Kindergarten Pupils Exposed to Conceptual-Language and Basal Reader Prereading Programs. A P i l o t Study. F i n a l Report. Washington, D. C.: O f f i c e of Education (DHEW). ERIC Document ED 029 709. O'Donnell, C. M., & Raymond, D. (1972). Developing Reading Readiness i n the Kindergarten. Elementary English, 49 (5), 768-771. Pflaum, S. W. (1985). Review of Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Canadian Edition. In J. V. M i t c h e l l (Ed.), The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook (p. 599). Lincoln, Nebraska: The Buros I n s t i t u t e of Mental Measurements. Plessas, G. P. (1985). Review of Basic Reading Inventory, Second, Edition. In J. V. M i t c h e l l (Ed. ), The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 143-144). Lincoln, Nebraska: The Buros I n s t i t u t e of Mental Measurements. Rigg, P. (1977). Beginning to Read i n English the LEA Way. Guide prepared at the State University of New York at 100. Albany. ERIC Document ED 170 730. Rothenberg, J. J. , Lehman, L. B. , & Hackman, J. D. (1979). An Individualized Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s Program i n the Regular Classroom. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 12 (7), 72-75. Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1986). Letter to the editor of S» Li* R* Stauffer, R. G. (1966). The Effectiveness of the Language Arts and Basal Readers Approaches to F i r s t Grade Reading Instruction. Reading Teacher, 20 (Oct.), 18-24. Stauffer, R. G. (1980). The Language Experience Approach to the Teaching of Reading. New York: Harper & Row. Thorn, E. A., & Braun, C. (1974). Teaching the Language Arts: Speaking, Listening, Reading, Writing. Toronto: Gage. Tierney, R. J. (1965). Reading-writing Relationships: A Glimpse at Some Facets. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 3 (2), 109-116. Veatch, J. (1973). Key Words to Reading: The Language Experience Approach Begins. Columbus, Ohio: M e r r i l l Publishing. Wallbrown, J. D. , Wallbrown, F. H. , Engin, A. W. , & Blaha, J. (1975). The Prediction of F i r s t Grade Reading Achievement with Selected Perceptual-Cognitive Tests. Psychology i n Schools, 12, 140-149. White House Conference on Children. (1970). Model Programs: Childhood Education. A Computer-Assisted Language Experience Which Allows Children to Create Their Own Reading Lessons. Washington: National Center f o r Educational Research and Development. ERIC Document 044 932. Wiesendanger, K. D., & Birlem, E. D. (1979). Adapting language experience to reading f o r b i l i n g u a l pupils. Reading Teacher, 32 (6), 671-673. 102. Appendix A Classroom Observation Checklist 15 minute observation period during Language Arts lesson: Part of lesson 1st 2nd 3rd LEA present (as defined below) speaking opportunities present l i s t e n i n g opportunities present students' i n t e r e s t s i n i t i a t e lessons meaningful experiences or high i n t e r e s t a c t i v i t i e s i n i t i a t e writing and reading student i n i t i a t e d o r a l discussion seatwork based on student i . o. discussion vocabulary comes from students students' own s t o r i e s as worksheets students read own written work students read peers' written work creative writing: students reproduce own thoughts basal readers present students read from basal readers seatwork based on basal readers teacher or publisher worksheets used vocabulary comes from teacher or basal reader creative writing: heavily structured by teacher students on task teacher on task 12 observations per classroom. Half of the observations were i n the month of November and the other half were i n the months of January and February. 103. Appendix B Data Gr » L2 Jans G. V. G. C. BR. V BR.C IW 2W ISn 2Sn IE 2E E 01 55 27 10 56 30 60 58 E 02 46 28 05 55 53 E 03 Y 54 18 13 22 00 54 58 03 04 E 04 Y 43 19 08 60 60 02 03 E 05 Y 35 08 07 51 61 03 05 E 06 65 38 22 56 48 E 07 Y 26 26 10 52 47 03 06 E 08 Y 38 17 15 60 60 02 03 E 09 59 28 11 82 20 60 64 E 10 73 27 17 63 66 E 11 Y 28 08 09 60 60 02 03 E 12 Y 58 36 21 60 60 04 03 E 13 49 13 04 58 54 E 14 Y 33 20 12 49 58 05 05 E 15 Y 63 23 15 50 00 59 57 03 05 E 16 50 20 03 70 50 56 60 E 17 55 19 07 60 52 E 18 68 24 10 57 56 C 19 Y 54 21 09 57 67 02 03 C 20 Y 31 12 10 39 48 02 03 C 21 56 33 22 69 67 C 22 Y 42 40 20 60 60 04 04 C 23 38 20 06 58 51 C 24 48 24 15 56 59 C 25 Y 75 48 33 54 55 05 06 C 26 30 16 12 16 10 44 41 C 27 Y 38 31 17 60 60 02 04 C 28 66 23 17 61 60 C 29 Y 50 25 11 48 48 02 04 C 30 62 43 22 60 60 C 31 69 26 15 48 58 C 32 Y 30 11 10 60 49 01 02 C 33 Y 28 22 10 62 00 61 60 03 04 C 34 55 40 14 96 80 59 60 C 35 59 25 11 63 54 C 36 58 24 10 56 58 C 37 61 36 17 58 60 C 38 Y 29 28 06 54 59 02 03 C 39 Y 47 21 14 30 00 60 60 04 04 C 40 Y 64 41 27 51 53 05 05 C 41 60 45 18 59 61 C 42 54 26 14 48 20 55 54 C 43 Y 54 45 30 56 37 02 04 C 44 Y 38 15 18 60 60 03 03 Appendix B (Continued) 104. Gr # L2 Jans G. V. G. C. BR. V BR. C IW 2W ISn 2Sn IE 2E C 45 Y 16 17 08 49 59 02 02 C 46 Y 72 46 32 58 61 05 07 C 47 Y 27 17 11 63 59 02 02 C 48 Y 57 23 08 53 44 03 04 C 49 Y 65 45 28 58 65 04 04 C 50 Y 30 22 05 58 52 02 03 C 51 39 16 10 48 38 C 52 75 43 26 58 65 C 53 Y 51 43 16 54 58 03 04 C 54 Y 52 39 22 49 51 04 04 C 55 47 36 12 58 67 C 56 48 27 16 56 59 C 57 31 31 57 57 56 Gr = Group (C = control, E = experimental) # = subject's number L2 = Second Language subject (Y = yes) Jan = Jansky- de Hirsch Screening Index raw score G.V.= Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests - vocabulary raw score G.C.= Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests - comprehension raw score BR.V = Basic Reading Inventory - vocabulary percentage BR.C = Basic Reading Inventory - comprehension percentage IW = Independent Writing Sample - pretest raw score 2W = Independent Writing Sample - posttest raw score ISn = Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey - pretest raw score 2Sn = Snoopy Reading Attitude Survey - posttest raw score IE = IDEA Oral Proficiency Test - pretest l e v e l 2E = IDEA Oral Proficiency Test - posttest l e v e l 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078280/manifest

Comment

Related Items