THE EFFECT OF WHOLE LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION ON THE WRITING
DEVELOPMENT OF SPANISH-SPEAKING AND ENGLISH-SPEAKING
KINDERGARTNERS
Yazmin Elizabeth Kuball Sabrina Peck
Camellia Avenue School, California State Los Angeles University, Northridge
Abstract
A year-long, case study investigated the comparative effects of Whole Language-based
instruction upon the writing development of eight Spanish-speaking kindergarten
children and of eight English-speaking kindergarten children. [What level of
research ISN’T this?] Writing development was divided into three subsets of
assessment: self-concept of students as writers, compositional literacy, and graphophonemic literacy. The study provided descriptive information to answer the following
questions: (1) Will the use of Whole Language-based instruction have the same effects
upon the writing development of Spanish-speaking kindergarten children as it will for
English-speaking kindergarten children? (2) If the writing development of the Spanish
group does differ from the writing development of the English group, to what extent does
it differ? (3) In what areas of the writing development are the differences evident?
Findings indicated that the writing skills of Spanish-speaking children in a Whole
Language based program developed as well as the writing skills of the English-speaking
children. This study refutes certain rationales used by schools to place Spanish
speaking students in skill-based programs. [Does it? Did it make the proper
comparison?]
Many Hispanic students are underachieving academically in large segments of the United
States (Cummins, 1989; Goldenburg, 1987; Los Angeles Unified School District Board
of Education, 1989; Ogbu & Matute-Bianche, 1990). Lack of school-valued language
genres and cultural differences have been posited by many researchers, such as Pai
(1990) and Heath (1990), as causes for the school failure of Spanish-speakers. [Does this
exhaust the commonsense possibilities?] These supposed language genre deficiencies
often underlie decisions by administrators to place Spanish-speaking children in skillbased programs.
The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education (1989) has stated that
minority students are underachieving because they are being placed in skill-based
programs which use synthetic methods. The Bilingual Education Office Categorical
Support Program Division (1990) declares that minorities' school failure is due to the fact
that they frequently receive a "watered-down version of the curriculum ... with a heavy
dependence on the remedial drilling of basic skills ..."(p.2). Gursky (1991) pointed out
that Spanish-speaking children in phonics-based programs begin to fall noticeably behind
by the fourth grade. [What is missing here?] Although an abundance of research has
shown that minority students do not succeed in skill-based classrooms, [Uhhhhhhh?]
very little research has been directed towards the academic performance of minority
students in Whole Language-based classrooms. Instead, research has been geared toward
cultural and/or language deficiencies of minority students as means of rationalizing the
academic failure of minority students in skill-based programs (Edelsky, 1986).
This year-long case study compared the writing skill of Spanish-speaking and Englishspeaking children receiving whole language instruction. This study is based on the
following beliefs: (a) Spanish speaking children are not linguistically deficient; (b)
Although the Spanish language is grapho-phonemically dependable, the effectiveness of
synthetic approaches for teaching literacy skills is questionable; (c) Spanish-speaking
children can be academically successful given the right learning environment, teaching
strategies, and philosophy.
Background
Spanish-speaking children across the United States receive more skill-based instruction
than do English-speaking children (Bilingual Education Office Categorical Support
Program Division, 1990; Cummins, 1989; Diaz, Moll, & Mehan, 1990; Los Angeles
Unified School District Board of Education, 1989; Perez, 1992; Thonis, 1989; Weaver &
Padron, 1992). As a consequence, [Uhhhhhhhhh…?] these students are rarely asked to
think critically and do not reach their full potential [Follows?] (Diaz, Moll, & Mehan,
1990; Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, 1989).
Literature on language minority children provides three rationales for the practice of
placing Spanish speakers in skill-based programs. First, there is a structural inequality
between the goods and services that public institutions offer to English speakers and
Spanish speakers (Jimenez, 1994; Los Angeles Unified School District Board of
Education, 1989; Ogbu & Matute-Bianche, 1990; Pucci, 1994). For instance, Pucci
(1994) found that the public and school libraries did not provide Spanish and English
speakers with the same resources. The second rationale is that Spanish-speaking children
are linguistically different when comparing their language structures or discourse styles
to those valued by schools (Heath, 1990; Pai, 1990). The third rationale is that Spanishspeaking children are perceived to need skill-based instruction to make up for the lack of
value placed on reading in the home (Gursky, 1991). In addition, it is believed that skillbased phonics programs are ideal for languages with regular grapho-phonemic
relationships such as Spanish (Thonis, 1989).
However, skill-based instruction is not the most effective or favored method for
language minority children (Kuball, 1995; Ribowsky, 1985, Passidomo, 1994).
Cummins (1989) states [And, uhhhhhhhh?] that skill-based teachers' emphasis on
"correctness of surface forms" is detrimental for language minority students. He also
writes that the emphasis on drill and practice leads students to an attitude of learned
helplessness. [Uh huuuuuuhhhhh?] Cazden (1986) observes that in skill-based teaching,
children are drilled on components but are still unable to carry out the whole and
complex task that the parts are said to constitute.
Whole Language methods are ideal for encouraging emergent literacy in Englishspeaking children (Clay, 1975; Freppon, 1988; Ribowsky, 1985). [Appeal to………] In
Whole Language instruction, all language skills are seen as developmental, and not to be
taught in isolation (Perez & Torres-Guzman, 1992). Whole Language teachers recognize
that children who can write well usually read well too (Stone, 1991). [Duhhhhhhhh?]
Just as skills are integrated, Whole Language instruction integrates the child's previous
knowledge and instruction. [?Dancing is an integrated set of skills, too. But how it is
TAUGHT, you bone-headed-rump fed clap-infected slut?]] Cooperative learning is used
extensively. Group projects, peer tutoring, group reading, and group writing activities are
common components of Whole Language instruction (Waring-Chaffee, 1994). Several
researchers have found that English-speaking children in a Whole Language classroom
read and write significantly better than children receiving skill-based instruction (Burts et
al., 1993; Freppon, 1988; Ribowsky, 1985). [Yeah yeah yeah. But does it….?]
Ribowsky's research indicated that there was a significant positive effect upon the
emergent literacy of kindergarten children in a Whole Language classroom. [???] The
Whole Language group, when compared to the skill-based group, demonstrated advances
in the following areas: orthographic, semantic and syntactic interpretation of print, and
the relationship between sound and symbol. Freppon was able to conclude that the
literature-based group was more successful than the skill-based group in these areas: (a)
Understanding the communicative purpose of reading; (b) understanding the reading
process; and (c) using strategies including self monitoring.
Almost all research in the area of Whole Language has been conducted in middle and
upper middle class mainstream classrooms. The research has proven Whole Language to
be very successful with this group. The question is: Why has Whole Language not been
evaluated with language minority students? A few studies have shown that language
minority students can thrive and succeed in Whole Language classrooms (Cummins,
1989; Edelsky, 1986; White, 1989). Some studies showing that Whole Language methods
are ideal for Spanish-speaking children.
Edelsky (1986) described the writings of Spanish-speaking children whose teachers used
a number of Whole Language approaches. The children were first, second, and third
graders. Edelsky discovered that many features of writing had been acquired by the
children through means other than direct instruction. Furthermore, she found, despite
phonics instruction, the children still used a variety of techniques for inventing spelling
when encountering an unfamiliar word. Thus, they did not rely solely on generalizations
from phonics lessons. Refuting yet another rationale that skills advocates use to place
Spanish speakers in skill-based programs, Edelsky's data revealed no language
deficiencies in language minority children. For example, when considering the language
genre "label quest" there were no instances of children substituting "thing" or "cosa" for a
noun that was required. In summary, Edelsky showed that Spanish-speaking children do
not need skill-based programs. She found that Whole Language instruction: (1) integrated
listening, speaking, reading and writing; (2) taught skills as part of a whole; and (3)
allowed students to work together cooperatively. Such instruction benefited bilingual
students in their language acquisition and writing.
Apart from Edelsky, very few researchers have examined the effects of Whole Language
instruction on the writing development of Spanish-speaking children. Apparently, little
research has been conducted on Spanish-speaking kindergartners. The purpose of this
study is to provide descriptive information to answer the following questions: (1) Will the
use of Whole Language-based instruction have the same effects upon the writing
development of Spanish-speaking kindergarten children as it will upon the writing
development of English-speaking kindergarten children? (2) If the writing development
of the Spanish-speaking children does differ from the writing development of the
English-speaking children, to what extent does it differ? (3) In what areas of the writing
development are the differences evident?
Method
Subjects
At the school where the study was conducted, kindergarten students were randomly
assigned by the administration to five different classrooms as they enrolled. The sixteen
children who participated in this study were kindergarten students from two bilingual
classes sharing the same classroom. Eight Spanish-speaking subjects, classified as
Limited English Proficient (LEP), were selected from the afternoon kindergarten class.
There were four male and four female students with a mean age of 5.4 years in the
Spanish group. The other eight subjects were native speakers of English and attended the
morning kindergarten class. This group consisted of four male and four female students
with a mean age of 5.2 years. One subject from the English-speaking group relocated
mid-year; therefore, the remaining seven subjects were investigated. The Spanish group
remained intact.
The study sample attended an elementary school in a large public school district located
in the greater Los Angeles area. The school is situated in a low-income minority area. It
is an overcrowded, year-round, multi-track school which also qualified for Chapter 1
funding. Ninety-three percent of its 1050 students are Spanish-speaking.
Teaching Strategies
For the English-speaking subjects, Whole Language instruction was provided in English
by their regular morning classroom teacher. The first author, Yazmin Kuball, participated
as instructor for the morning Spanish speakers, for one and a half hours, and as an
observer for one hour. In the afternoon, the roles were reversed. For the Spanish-speaking
subjects, Kuball, who was the regular classroom teacher, offered Whole Language
instruction in Spanish while the morning teacher participated as an ESL teacher. Both the
morning teacher and Kuball shared the same room environment and Whole Language
philosophy. Both teachers used the same teaching strategies when teaching literacy skills.
[???]
The kindergarten subjects of this study participated in a Whole Language environment on
a daily basis - an environment in which age-appropriateness, natural development and
experiential learning were the key elements. [OOoooooo, key elememts.] The classroom
was non-threatening, child-centered and free from constant academic correction.
[Invidious distinction.] The environment was informal, relaxed, supportive, and noncompetitive. The children participated in all phases of their education from planning to
self-directed lessons. Children learned through literature, not through workbook
exercises. The classroom learning environment was set up to resemble a natural learning
environment of a home in which younger children learn to speak, walk, and socialize.
The classroom was a print-rich environment in which skills were learned within context
as part of a whole. For instance, the teachers modeled reading and writing on a daily
basis. Recipes, songs, stories, and daily news were charted in front of the students. Childdictated stories were transcribed by the morning teacher or the afternoon
teacher/researcher. When charting, the teachers pointed out specific skills they wanted
the students to focus on (i.e., sight words, grapho-phonemic relationships, syntax, etc.).
Thus, skills were presented to the students in context. Fragmented instruction, in which
skills are taught in isolation, was not offered.
Instruments
In this study, three instruments were used to assess the children's writing development.
The first instrument developed for this study [???] was a student questionnaire,
consisting of three closed-questions, was used to assess the children's self-concept as
writers. The questions were: (1) Can you write your name? (2) Can you write a story? (3)
Can you write a book? [WTF WTF WTF WTF.]
Content analysis [Bwwwaaaahahahahahaha] was conducted to measure the subjects.
[“Billy has a 21 inch inseam.”] All "YES" answers were rated a "1" and "NO" answers
were rated a "0". [Why not just Yes and No, and count them?] The self-concept of the
Spanish group was compared to that of the English group by computing the percentage of
subjects in each group who received rating of 0-1 and those who received rating of 2-3.
Data were analyzed to determine whether or not differences occurred between the two
groups. Children receiving a rating 0-1 were considered as having a self-concept of a
non-writer, while children receiving a rating of 2-3 were considered as having a selfconcept of a writer. [Any kid who said he could write a STORY or a BOOK is either a
liar or a nut case!] In an attempt to identify any changes in self-concept which occurred
during the year within and between both groups, questionnaire responses, gathered at the
beginning of the year, were compared to questionnaire responses collected at the end of
the year. [Big whoooooop! Before-after comparison of moronitude.]
The second instrument, used to assess the children's compositional literacy skills, was a
modified version of the Lamme/Green Scale of Children's Development in Composition
(Green, 1990). The Lamme/Green Scale defines four compositional stages through which
children progress: (a) Compositional 0: The child writes a one word statement, (b)
Compositional 1: The child writes simple messages and/or a list of ten or more words, (c)
Compositional 2: The child writes a complete thought, a message of two or more
sentences, or a list of short sentences, and (d) Compositional 3: The child writes a long
story of four or more sentences with a plot, or a long letter that focuses on a single
subject.
The writing samples collected were analyzed for compositional skills according to the
four compositional stages. Each stage was rated on a scale of 1 to 4, 1 being the least
advanced stage. The compositional skills of the Spanish speakers were compared to those
of the English speakers by calculating the percentage of subjects of each group receiving
a rating of 1-2 or 3-4. A rating of 1-2 indicated low compositional skills and a rating of 34 indicated advanced compositional skills. The writing samples, collected from each
group in the beginning of the year, were compared to those collected at the end of the
year. The progress in compositional skills within and between both groups, for that year,
were determined. [What if one kid wrote four sentences (4) and another kid wrote 20
short sentences (3). Who is the more advanced writer?]
Group comparisons were analyzed in several ways: (1) The percentage of Spanish
speakers compared to the percentage of English speakers who progressed from a rating of
1-2 to a rating of 3-4. (2) The percentage of Spanish speakers compared to the percentage
of English speakers who progressed from any one stage to the subsequent stage. (3) The
percentage of Spanish speakers compared to the percentage of English speakers who
progressed through more than just one stage. Composition analysis was conducted to
analyze the differences between the two groups.
The third instrument was a scale for measuring grapho-phonemic literacy skills
(Kuball, 1993). The measurement scale was used throughout the school year to assess the
children's progress through the eight stages of writing development (Clay, 1975; Green,
1990). The stages include:
(1) Scribble Stage: When the child scribbles something and says, "Look mommy, I made
my name!" he/she has realized that written symbols carry meaning and can communicate
a message. (2) Linear Mock Writing: Scribbles that flow in a line. The child has already
discovered that directional principles (Clay, 1987). The child understands that we write in
a single line, starting at the left side of the paper and proceeding to the right. (3) Mock
Letter Writing: Children reach this stage when they realize that the written language is
made up of distinct characteristics. Children start to imitate the conventional alphabet
used by mature writers. (4) Prephonemic Stage: Children have learned that by repeating a
few symbols they can produce a long statement. Children will usually begin
experimenting with letters found in their names. They make inventories of letters learned.
When children start to separate letters, they have internalized that statements are made up
of words and that words are units of several letters together. (5) Phonemic 1 Stage: The
children have discovered that each letter has a sound and that words are made by
combining these sounds in a specific order. It is in this stage when children guess at the
spelling of a word by sounding it out and writing down the sounds they hear to represent
a word. Normally, the first letter written is the first letter they hear. (6) Phonemic 2 Stage:
Children begin to hear the first and last sounds of a word. As a result, they represent a
word by writing its first and last letters. (7) Phonemic 3 Stage: Children are now
perfecting the sounding out technique by hearing sounds found in the middle of the word.
English speakers usually omit vowels at this stage. (8) Phonemic 4 Stage: Children in this
stage include vowel sounds along with the beginning, middle, and ending sounds.
However, silent letters are still omitted. [Stages of maturation or stages taught by wl?]
The writing samples collected were rated on a scale of 1 to 8 with 1 being the least
advanced stage. The grapho-phonemic skills of the Spanish-speaking students were
compared to those of the English-speaking students by computing the percentage of
subjects in each group receiving a rating of 1-4, then calculating the percentage of
subjects in each group receiving a rating of 5-6, and finally computing the percentage of
subjects in each group receiving a rating of 7-8.
A rating of 1-4 represented the pre-phonemic stages, in which a grapho-phonemic
relationship had not been obtained. Therefore, subjects receiving a rating of 1-4 were
assessed as having low grapho-phonemic literacy skills. A rating of 5-6 indicated
application of average grapho-phonemic literacy skills for a kindergarten child, and a 7-8
rating represented possession of advanced grapho-phonemic literacy skills. [This is an
ordinal scale. You CANNOT compare the levels!!Fallacy of false precision.]
Writing samples collected from each group, in the beginning of the school year, were
analyzed and compared to those collected and analyzed at the end of the year. Progress in
grapho-phonemic literacy skills was analyzed in several ways. Using the scale of graphophonemic literacy skills (Clay, 1975; Green, 1990; Kuball, 1993), each child was
assigned an initial and final grapho-phonemic stage. Next, three percentages were
computed: (1) The percentage of Spanish speakers compared to the percentage of English
speakers who progressed from the pre-phonemic stages (rating 1-4) to phonemic stages
(rating 5-8). (2) The percentage of Spanish speakers compared to the percentage of
English speakers who progressed from any one stage to the subsequent stage. (3) The
percentage of Spanish speakers compared to the percentage of English speakers who
progressed through two or more stages during the school year. Across the two groups,
grapho-phonemic analysis was conducted to analyze the differences between the two
groups.
Procedure
The study took place in a year-round school attended by students from July through June.
The year-long study began in July, 1991 and ended in June, 1992. The questionnaire was
given orally by the researcher in the beginning of the school year and again at the end of
the school year. In both cases, the interaction was accomplished with all sixteen
participants in a two-day span. The researcher marked the student's responses on the selfconcept questionnaire.
The first writing samples (pretest) were collected the third week after the school year
began. The students were asked by the researcher to write a story. They were given the
option to write about a self-chosen topic (e.g., an event that happened in their home) or a
topic suggested by the researcher (e.g., plants). Topics suggested by the researcher
involved the thematic unit that the children were studying at the time. Once the students
finished the writing samples, the researcher asked each of the students to read his/her
writing aloud. The researcher transcribed the students' oral reading and comments
identifying the compositional stage represented by each student's writing. The researcher
also identified the grapho-phonemic writing stage for each child and dated the entry on
the grapho-phonemic literacy and the compositional literacy checklist in order to assess
progress. The interaction was accomplished with all sixteen participants in a two-day
span. The second writing samples (posttest) were collected during the thirty-second week
of the school year. The same procedures were followed for the second writing samples as
were for the first writing samples. Each assessment was accomplished with all
participants in a two-day span.
Results
The progress made by both groups in the development of writing skills was similar.
The results of the data analysis yield these answers to the research questions for this
study: (1) Instruction based on a whole language philosophy had positive effects on the
writing development of both language groups. (2) Differences were found between the
language groups as to specific areas of progress. (3) The language groups differed as to
the extent of progress made in each of the three writing development areas analyzed.
Self-concept as a Writer
One hundred percent of the Spanish and English-speaking groups were rated as having
the self-concept of non-writers (0-1 on the pre-test). Those who gave a `yes' answer to the
question "Can you write your name?" were the ones that knew how to write their names
using the conventional writing system. The other two questions, "Can you write a story?
and "Can you write a book?" answered `no' by 100% of both groups. On the posttest,
both groups unanimously answered the questions, "Can you write your name?" and "Can
you write a story?" with a `yes' answer. The groups differed in their answers to "Can you
write a book?" A `no' answer was given by 25% of the Spanish-speaking group and 14%
of the English-speaking group. Table 1 demonstrates the percentage of students who
viewed themselves as non-writers or writers.
Rating of 0
Rating of 1
Non-writers Non-writers WritersWriters
Pretest Spanish
62% 38% 0%
0%
Pretest English
29% 71% 0%
0%
Posttest Spanish
0%
0%
25% 75%
Posttest English
0%
0%
14% 86%
Rating of 2
Rating of 3
Table 1. Percentage of students who viewed themselves as non-writers or writers.
Compositional Skills
At the beginning of the school year, the two groups differed in their compositional skills.
One hundred percent of the English-speaking group received a rating of `3' (advanced
compositional skills). In contrast, 12.5% of the Spanish-speaking group received a rating
of `1' (i.e., Planto una semilla. [He planted a seed.]); 62.5% received a rating of `2' (i.e.,
El papa esta arrancando la zanahoria. Tambien esta arrancando la maleza. [The father is
pulling out the carrot. He is also pulling out the weeds.]); and only 25% of the Spanish
speaking group received a rating of `3' (i.e., Sembro una semilla. Despues broto la
zanahoria. El nino se lo quiso comer. No podia. [He planted a seed. The a carrot sprouted.
The boy wanted to eat it. He couldn't.]). On the posttest, 100% of the children, in both
groups, received ratings of 3-4, considered to be advanced compositional skill. The
difference was in the distribution of subjects among the rating `3' and rating `4'
categories. Table 2 displays the percentage of students rated 1, 2, 3, or 4 in compositional
skills.
Pretest Spanish
Pretest English
Posttest Spanish
Posttest English
Rating of 1: Low
Composition Skill
Rating of 2: Low
Composition Skill
12.50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Rating of 3: Adv
Composition Skill
62.5% 25%
100%
87.5%
71%
Rating of 4: Adv
Composition Skill
0%
0%
12.5%
25%
Table 2. Percentage of students rated 1, 2, 3, or 4 in compositional skills.
The groups also differed in the percentage of subjects who progressed from any one stage
to the subsequent stage and in the percentage of subjects from each group who progressed
through more than just one stage. Table 3 shows the percentage of students who
progressed through 0, 1, 2, or 3 stages of compositional skills.
Progressed
Progressed
Progressed
Progressed
0 Stages
1 Stage
2 Stage
3 Stage
Spanish-Speaking
12.50%
75%
12.50%
0%
English-Speaking
71%
29%
0%
0%
Table 3. Percentage of students who progressed through 0, 1, 2, or 3 stages of
compositional skills.
Grapho-phonemic Literacy
All in all, the two groups were similar in their pre-test grapho-phonemic literacy skills.
Both groups, could be classified into three of the eight distinct stages of writing
development. The three stages were (1) Linear Mock Writing Stage (Rating of 2), (2)
Mock Letter Writing Stage (Rating of 3), and (3) Prephonemic Writing Stage (Rating of
4). Table 4 demonstrates the percentage of students rated 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 in
grapho-phonemic skills. Table 4. Percentage of students rated 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 in
grapho-phonemic skills.
The posttest writing samples revealed the progress made by the two groups. Both groups
progressed out of the first three writing stages. Although differences occurred in the
progress made by each group, the majority of subjects across both groups progressed to
or stayed in the fourth stage of writing development, the Prephonemic Stage. In
summary, 0% of the English-Speaking group progressed from the prephonemic stages
(ratings 1-4) to the phonemic stages (ratings of 5-8) during the school year. On the other
hand, 25% of the Spanish-speaking group progressed from the prephonemic stages to
phonemic stages.
Table 5 shows how many stages of grapho-phonemic literacy skills the groups progressed
through. Most of the students (62.5% of the Spanish-speaking group and 43% of the
English-speaking group) progressed through one stage. A noteworthy difference between
the groups was that 25% of the Spanish-speaking group progressed through three to four
stages as compared to 0% of the English-speaking group.
Table 5. Number of stages of grapho-phonemic literacy skills which Spanish-speakers
and English-speakers progressed through.
Discussion
Both the Spanish-speaking and the English-speaking groups progressed in their selfconcept as writers, compositional skills, and grapho-phonemic skills after an entire year
of Whole Language instruction. However, differences were evident between the two
language groups as to the areas of progress and the extent of progress made in each area.
Initially, as writers, English speakers appeared to be higher in self-concept. Almost twice
the percentage of English-speaking subjects, as compared to Spanish-speaking subjects,
answered the question "Can you write your name?" with a `yes' on the first administration
of the self-concept student questionnaire. Although none of the subjects, in either group,
had attended pre-school prior to kindergarten, the difference in ability between both
language groups in writing their names was noteworthy. Perhaps, as Heath (1990) claims,
the social and school-valued language experiences of Mexican-American families and
mainstream families are different. For example, the families of 71% of the Englishspeaking group had taught their children how to write their name before entering school.
Thus, these parents took on an active role in teaching the children school-valued language
skills. On the other hand, the families of 62% of the Spanish-speaking children waited
and depended on the school to teach this skill.
The other two questions, "Can you write a story?" and "Can you write a book?" were
given a `no' answer by all of the subjects in both groups. This contradicts Heller's (1991)
and Calkins' (1986) belief that most children have a self-concept of being a writer before
they enter school. A self-concept of being a writer is not innate, but rather must be
nurtured by the family. Calkins (1986) believes that children who perceive themselves as
authors can put their thoughts into print and see that their words are being communicated
to others. Writing involves thinking, not rote memorization. This may explain why the
children who wrote their name by memorizing the formation and sequence of letters still
perceived themselves as non-writers.
Following an entire year of instruction, based on a Whole Language philosophy, the
subjects of both language groups demonstrated an increase in their self-concept as
writers. All of the subjects, in both the Spanish-speaking group and the English-speaking
group, believed that they could write their name and write a story, although only 25% of
the Spanish-speaking group had made the connection between the alphabetic
representation of a symbol and the sound. The rest of the subjects, in both groups, were
writing creatively without any regard to spelling of words. Despite this, the subjects still
believed that they could write a story. When they were asked to read the story back, they
would read their story as they followed along with their fingers under the letters. The fact
that they could not yet spell did not hinder their ability to write imaginative stories full of
developed details. These children felt free to explore literacy, to state, test, and modify
hypotheses about literacy (Gentry, 1987). The third question "Can you write a book?" did
reveal differences. Almost twice as many Spanish speakers answered `no' to this
question. Since both language groups experienced writing individual books and
classroom big books throughout the entire school year, the differences in answers given
by each group is puzzling. Perhaps, as phonics advocates argue, minority and immigrant
children come from homes in which reading is not valued (Gursky, 1991) and books in
these homes are scarce. Children may feel that only prominent people can author a real
book. Another explanation may be that the Spanish-speaking subjects consider their
experience of writing individual small books and classroom big books as writing stories,
not books.
As for compositional skills, the Spanish-speaking and the English-speaking groups were
dramatically different in the beginning of the school year. This difference can be
attributed to many factors. As Pai (1990) states, Hispanic children are socialized to
receive communication from adults but not to actively participate in conversation with
adults. Therefore, the Spanish-speaking children may not have felt comfortable
communicating with the adults in the classroom in the beginning of the year.
There is a second explanation for this difference between the two groups in
compositional skills. Heath (1990) argues that language minority children lack the
language genres valued by mainstream schools. Mexican-American children are
unaccustomed to taking part in label quests, meaning quests, recounts/accounts,
eventcasts and stories (Heath's terms) because language is rarely used in these ways in
their families or communities.
Relatively recent immigrants from Mexico use label quests less frequently with their
children than do mainstream parents (Heath, 1990). As a result, these children rarely use
nouns when referring to things. This was not the case with the Spanish-speaking subjects
in this study. All of the subjects used nouns when rereading their written statements.
Even those subjects who received a rating of `1' used a noun for their one word statement.
The other five categories (meaning quest, recounts, accounts, eventcasts, and stories) all
involve some form of verbalizing meanings of pictures or events, retelling stories or
events, communicating their own interpretations of stories or events, narrating events and
making inferences from events or stories heard. According to Heath (1990), MexicanAmerican families do not participate in any of the above school-valued language
interactions with their children to the same degree as mainstream families. Heath's
analysis could partly explain the differences between the two groups of children when
they reread their written stories. Since the Spanish speakers would not have told stories at
home, the researcher's request to tell (read) their story would have been a new and
unfamiliar experience.
Edelsky (1986) contradicted the prejudice that Spanish speakers and/or bilingual students
are language deprived by showing that her subjects did not have limited knowledge of
nouns. In fact, in the 500 writing samples collected, nouns were used when referring to
things. There was not one example of a subject using the word "cosa/thing" in place of
nouns. The findings from the present study corroborate those of Edelsky regarding `label
quest.' These Spanish-speaking children cannot be considered linguistically deficient.
Heath (1990) has shown that Mexican-Americans value different language experiences
than the mainstream culture; however, whether this rationalizes the placement of
Mexican-Americans in skill based programs is questionable.
Following an entire school year of receiving instruction based on a Whole Language
philosophy, the subjects' compositional skills were re-evaluated. The compositional skills
of the Spanish-speaking group and the English-speaking group progressed by the end of
the school year. The data present that 71% of the English-speaking group versus 12.5%
of the Spanish-speaking group made no progress. However, all of these subjects had
received a rating of `3' (advanced compositional skills) in the beginning of the year.
Therefore, although they did not show any progress, their performance remained in the
advanced compositional skills stage.
The children's lack of progress can be viewed in terms of a developmental model of
children's writing growth. In this view, children master the next stage of writing when
they are developmentally ready. Similarly, Ribowsky (1985) found that age was not a
factor in the acquisition of literacy skills but that the children acquired these skills at their
own pace. Thus, the development of writing skill is similar to the development of first
language acquisition (Calkins, 1986; Fields, 1988). Subjects in the present study who
began the year in the advanced compositional stage may not have progressed because
they were not developmentally ready to move on to the next stage.
All in all, the groups differed in the extent of their progress in compositional skills
throughout the year. It is important to note that the Spanish speakers who began the year
with low compositional skills, and who might have been considered as language
deficient, progressed through up to two stages and were performing comparatively to the
English-speakers by the end of the year.
One conclusion that can be made, if one accepts Heath's contention of linguistic
differences, is that although Spanish speakers may lack school-valued language genres,
they can overcome this difference when offered instruction based on a Whole Language
philosophy. This being the case, a language deficient argument should not be used as a
rationale for placing Spanish-speaking children in skill-based classrooms.
A second conclusion that can be made is that Spanish speakers are not linguistically
deficient in any way but only lack the experience of the school-valued language
experiences listed by Heath (1990). Once given the opportunity to experience these
school-valued language skills, via Whole Language, they display no difficulty in
performing at the same level as the English speakers.
The writing samples collected at the end of the year indicated minimal differences
between the grapho-phonemic skills of the majority of the students in both language
groups. All subjects had progressed out of the first three stages. The entire Englishspeaking group was writing within the Prephonemic Stage (a rating of 4). Seventy-five
percent of the Spanish-speaking group was also found to be writing within this fourth
stage. The other 25% of the Spanish speaking group had progressed into the seventh
stage, Phonemic 3 Stage. Since the Spanish language is considered to be
graphophonically regular, it was expected that more of the Spanish-speaking children
would enter the phonemic stage. The low percentage of Spanish-speaking children who
entered the phonemic stages can be explained in two ways.
The first explanation that can be offered is that the subjects were not given enough
phonics instruction within the Whole Language based instruction they received.
However, consideration must be given to the fact that 25% of the Spanish-speaking group
did progress into the phonemic stages. This advancement was also noteworthy in that
they progressed all the way up to the seventh stage. Therefore, if the phonics instruction,
that was integrated within the Whole Language based instruction, had been enough for
25% of the subjects, why had it not been enough for the other 75% of the group? This
leads us to another explanation for the low percentage of Spanish-speaking children who
entered the phonemic stage.
Perhaps the other 75% of the Spanish-speaking group were not developmentally ready to
move into the phonemic stage. In a year-long study (cited by Mason, 1989) very few
kindergartners had moved into invented spelling. However, during the same period the
children showed growth in compositional skills when rereading their writing. In addition,
by the end of first grade, they were using conventional strategies to write and reread their
stories. The children Edelsky (1986) studied gained in writing skills through means other
than direct instruction.
To sum up, teaching children phonics in isolation, whether the language is graphophonemically regular or not, does not necessarily mean that they will apply the
generalizations from phonics lessons to their writing. Ribowsky (1985) found that the
subjects in her study exhibited a significant number of literacy skills without direct
instruction in phonics. Therefore, to increase phonics instruction does not necessarily
mean that a larger percentage of Spanish-speaking children will enter the phonemic stage
by kindergarten.
ConclusionS
In this study, the writing skills of Spanish-speaking kindergarten children, in a Whole
Language classroom, were as developed as the writing skills of English-speaking
kindergarten children in a Whole Language classroom. The English-speaking group
performed somewhat better than the Spanish-speaking group in the compositional skills
category. On the other hand, the Spanish-speaking group performed slightly better on the
grapho-phonemic skills category than did the English speaking group. In the self-concept
as a writer analysis, the English-speaking group displayed a slightly higher self-concept
as a writer than did the Spanish speaking group. All in all, the two language groups'
performance was extremely similar in all of the posttests.
This study lends support for the following statements: (a) Spanish-speaking children are
not linguistically deficient. Once exposed to school-valued language experiences, through
a Whole Language program, these children perform as well as mainstream children. (b)
Although the Spanish language is grapho-phonemically predictable, the effectiveness of
synthetic approaches to teach literacy skills is questionable. The children who were
developmentally ready to move on to the phonemic stages did so without the instruction
of phonics in isolation. (c) Spanish-speaking children can be academically successful
given the right learning environment, teaching strategies, and philosophy.
The results of this study supports the work of Cummins (1989), Edelsky (1986), Gursky
(1991) and Perez & Torres-Guzman (1992) in refuting the myths that describe the
linguistic deficiency of Mexican-American children and the grapho-phonemic
dependability of the Spanish language. Both myths are still being used to rationalize the
placement of Spanish-speaking students in skill-based programs.
Schools need to discard these rationales being used for placing Spanish-speaking students
in skill-based programs. Children should be taught to read and write, not by breaking
language down into meaningless parts/skills, but, by being introduced to the wholeness
and meaningfulness of language (Weaver, 1990). Children should be treated as emergent
readers and writers rather than non-readers and non-writers. Classrooms should provide
an abundance of environmental print (Eaton, 1987; Hall, 1987). Children's growth in
writing should be considered to be a developmental progression through a number of
writing stages very similar to the stages that they pass through when acquiring oral
speech (Strickland & Morrow, 1989).
Writing development flourishes when Whole Language based instruction is provided. In
this approach, writing is considered a meaningful form of communication and not a set of
learned skills. Students should be encouraged to write for an authentic purpose
(Goodman, 1986). Students need to be allowed to use developmentally appropriate
writing (Waring-Chaffee, 1994). Through experimenting with writing, children refine
their compositional skills, grapho-phonemic skills and letter formation (Newman, 1984).
Students should also be encouraged to bring their own background knowledge into the
classroom and their writing. Lessons must be taught not through lectures but by placing
the students in an environment where they learn through experimenting and thinking
(Hennings, 1990; Leu & Kinzer, 1987; Strickland & Morrow, 1990).
It is essential to recognize the remarkable potential for academic success which Whole
Language-based instruction offers Spanish-speaking children. Through instruction based
on a Whole Language philosophy, they are given a chance to experience, firsthand,
through genuine interactions with the teachers and other students the school-valued
language experiences discussed by Heath (1990) and Pai (1990). This case study has
shown that Spanish-speaking children receiving Whole Language instruction are able to
develop their literacy skills, compositional skills, and self-concept as writers while
displaying no difficulty in performing at the same level as English speakers.
References
Burts, D.C., Hart C.H., Charlesworth R., DeWolf, D.M., Ray, J., Manuel, K., & Fleege,
P.O. (1993, Fall/Winter). Developmental appropriateness of kindergarten programs and
academic outcomes in first grade. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23-31.
Bilingual Education Office Categorical Support Program Division. (1990). Bilingual
education handbook designing instruction for LEP students. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Education.
Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational
Books.
Cazden, C. (1986). ESL teachers as language advocates for children. In P. Rigg & S.D.
Enright (Eds.) Children and ESL: Integrating perspectives (pp.7-22). Washington, DC:
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Clay, M. (1975). What did I write? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Clay, M. (1987). Writing begins at home. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational
Books.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: California
Association for Bilingual Educators.
Diaz, S., Moll, L.; & Mehan, H. (1990). Sociocultural resources in instruction: A context
specific approach. 4th ed. Beyond language: Social & cultural factors in schooling
language minority students (pp. 187-230). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination
and Assessment Center.
Eaton, A.J. (1987, January/February). Natural literacy development: observations of
spelling strategies. California Reader, 10-14.
Edelsky, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program: Habia una vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fields, M.V. (1988, May). Talking and writing: explaining the whole language approach
to parents. The Reading Teacher, 89-99.
Freppon, P. (1988). An investigation of children's concepts of the purpose and nature of
reading in different instructional settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Cincinnati. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 313 659).
Gentry, R.J. (1987). Spel ... Is a four letter word. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Goldenburg, C.N. (1987). Low-income Hispanic parents' contribution to their first-grade
children's word recognition skills. Anthropology Educational Quarterly, 18, 149-179.
Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language? Ontario, Canada: Scholastic.
Green, C. (1990, January). Assessing kindergarten children's writing. Dimensions, 14-18.
Gursky, D. (1991, August). After the reign of Dick and Jane. Teacher Magazine, 22-47.
Hall, N. (1987). The emergence of literature. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational
Books.
Heath, S.B. (1990). Sociocultural context of language development. In Beyond language:
Social & cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp.143-186). Los
Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
Heller, M. (1991). Reading-writing connections from theory to practice. White Plains,
NY: Longman Publishing Group.
Hennings, D.G. (1990). Communication in action (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jimenez, R.T. (1994). Understanding and promoting the reading comprehension of
bilingual students. National Association for Bilingual Education: Bilingual Research
Journal, 18 (1&2), 99-119.
Kuball, Y.E. (1993). A comparison of the writing development between Spanish
speaking children and English speaking children. Unpublished master's thesis, California
State University of Northridge.
Kuball, Y.E. (1995, January). Goodbye dittos: A journey from skill-based teaching to
developmentally appropriate language education in a bilingual kindergarten. Young
Children, 6-14.
Leu, D. Jr. & Kinzer, C.K. (1987). Effective reading instruction in the elementary grades.
Ohio: Merrill Publishing.
Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education. (1989). The children can no
longer wait. Sacramento, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education.
Mason, J.M. (1989). Reading and writing connections. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Newman, J. (1984). The craft of children's writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Ogbu, J.U. & Matute-Bianche, M.E. (1990). Understanding sociocultural factors:
Knowledge, identity and school adjustment. (In Eds. 4) Beyond language: Social &
cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp.73-142.). Los Angeles, CA:
Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
Pai, Y. (1990). Cultural foundations of education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Passidomo, M. (1994, September). Moving from traditional to developmentally
appropriate education: A work in progress. Young Children, 75-78.
Perez, B. & Torres-Guzman, M.E. (1992). Learning in two worlds: An integrated
Spanish/English biliteracy approach. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
language approach upon emergent literacy of kindergarten children. Alexandria, VA:
ERIC (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 269 720).
Stone, E. (1991, March). Lok i can rit. Parent Magazine. 103-108.
Strickland, D. & Morrow, L.M. (1989). Emerging literacy: Young children learn to-read
and write. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Strickland, D. & Morrow, L.M. (1989, February). Young children's early writing
development. The Reading Teacher, 426-427.
Strickland, D. & Morrow, L.M. (1990). Linking theory and practice: Resources for an
emergent literacy curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 690-691.
Thonis, E.W. (1989). Reading instruction for language minority students. Schooling and
language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation,
Dissemination and Assessment Center.
Weaver, C. (1990). Understanding whole language from principles to practice.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Waring-Chaffee, M.B. (1994, September). RDRNT ... HRIKM: Investigations in
children's emergence as readers and writers. Young Children, 52-55.
Weaver, L. R. & Padron, Y.N. (1992). Writing instruction for limited English proficient
students: A survey of teachers' perceptions. National Association of Bilingual Education
Annual Conference Journal, 1-13.
White, R. (1989). Whole Language in a bilingual kindergarten. Unpublished master's
thesis, California State University, Los Angeles.