This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 22 November 2014, At: 02:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

Literature‐based integratedlanguage instruction and thelanguage‐deficient studentNinette Bartley aa San Diego Unified School District , San Diego,CaliforniaPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Ninette Bartley (1992) Literature‐based integrated languageinstruction and the language‐deficient student, Reading Research and Instruction,32:2, 31-37, DOI: 10.1080/19388079309558114

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388079309558114

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

02 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Reading Research and Instruction1993, 32, (2) 31-37

Literature-Based IntegratedLanguage Instruction and theLanguage-Deficient Student

Ninette BartleySan Diego Unified School District

San Diego, California

ABSTRACT

This paper reports an ex post facto descriptive study that was conducted todetermine if the reading comprehension scores of intermediate-grade language-de-ficient students had improved with the use of literature-based integrated language(whole language) instruction regardless of the instructional strategies employed. Asample of 44 sixth-grade students of predominantly Filipino heritage were selectedfrom four naturally occurring clusters at a single site. Using the Unit 1 test fromthe Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (HBJ) curriculum, Imagination: An OdysseyThrough Language, for pre- and posttest evaluation, statistical analysis indicateda significant gain after approximately 25 weeks of instruction. Further analysiscorrelating percentages of various instructional strategies employed by the teachersof each group to the mean increases of the individual groups suggested that theeffectiveness of whole language instruction may be significantly enhanced with theuse of certain strategies such as class discussion, oral reading, and direct instruction.

INTRODUCTION

Teaching children to interpret the written word may be considered theprimary mission of elementary school teachers. Understandably, someteachers serving a population of children of predominantly Filipino heritagehave become concerned because many of their intermediate-grade studentsconsistently score poorly on reading comprehension tests. They believe thatthis deficit is the result of the students' language deficiency rather than theirinability to use appropriate strategies to discern meaning from text.

Components of reading comprehension as defined by Anthony, Pearson,and Raphael (1989) are prior knowledge, appropriately developed vocabu-lary, an understanding of written language structures and forms, and theability to monitor one's own reading. Norm-referenced test scores whichdemonstrate that the vocabulary and language expression scores of the chil-dren are consistently lower than their comprehension scores suggest thatthese students are able to monitor their own reading but only to the extentthat their vocabulary and their ability to use the language allows.

It was hypothesized that the use of literature-based integrated languageinstruction (i.e., instruction in reading using age-appropriate literature with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

02 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

32

concurrent instruction in written and oral language that includes examplesand prompts from that same literature) would expand the students' vocabularyand ability to use language and thus improve their reading comprehension.In the first year of their district's implementation of an integrated languagearts curriculum, four sixth-grade teachers at the school took part in a studyto determine if (a) there was overall improvement in comprehension testscores with the use of the integrated curriculum and (b) the results wereconsistent regardless of the instructional strategies employed in its implemen-tation.

The relationship of vocabulary knowledge to reading comprehensionhas long been recognized, but as Anthony and her associates (1989) state,"the nature of this relationship" has not been clear. They cite Pany andJenkins (1978), whose study shows that while students' vocabulary can beincreased using a variety of instructional techniques the increased knowledgeof word meanings does not necessarily result in increased comprehension ofreading passages; they suggest that vocabulary is actually a measure of back-ground knowledge. As such it should be taught as it relates to students'backgrounds of experiences. It is also important, they believe, that vocabularybe taught only when it is necessary for comprehension of particular passagesrather than as a part of a general list of words so that students may relateand add that vocabulary to schema. Johnson and Pearson (1984) write:

It's not just the words themselves that are so critical. Rather it isthe rich reservoir of meaning — the conceptual base — underlyingwords that matter. The words become a summary symbol for allthose concepts, a set of abbreviations that allow us to communicatea lot of meaning in a brief amount of space, (p. 1)

Klein (1988), Johnson and Pearson (1984), and Nagy (1988) stress the needfor a "literacy-rich" environment in which children are exposed to a greatmany words through reading, speaking, and listening, for they believe that itis through these incidental encounters one acquires the greatest volume ofvocabulary knowledge.

Studies indicate that reading good literature is effective in improvingcomprehension skills not only because it provides a rich supply of words inmeaningful context but because it models natural and correct language struc-tures. Garcia and Pearson (1990) list studies (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott &Wilkinson, 1985; Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988; Tayler & Frye, 1987)demonstrating that low performing students who read literature acquire bettercomprehension skills than those who engage in isolated skills practice. Elleyand Mangubhi (1983) were convinced that deliberately simplifying the vocab-ulary and language structure of reading materials actually hinders readingcomprehension of second-language students. In their study with second-lan-guage Fijian students, children whose daily English instruction included read-ing a wide range of interesting age-appropriate books improved their readingcomprehension skill at twice the rate of those who were taught using thetraditional skills — oriented program exclusively.

There is much literature that supports the correlation between writingand reading comprehension. Writing fluency alone is believed by many (Lapp& Flood, 1983; Tierney, 1990) to enhance comprehension not only becauseit extends language development and arouses interest in other people's writing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

02 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

33

but also because many of the same thought processes occur in writing as inreading. The most significant correlation between writing and reading com-prehension occurs, many believe, when writing is a part of, rather thansupplementary to, reading. Klein (1988) suggests that writing should be inte-grated prior to, during, and/or after reading. Tierney, Ehrl, Healy, and Hurdlow(1988) describe their studies and experiences which indicate that integratingwriting and reading facilitates comprehension. In Healy's 1984 study, forexample, biology students were instructed to write down what they hadlearned and their reactions to that learning as they read from their text books;later they were asked to write a story or narrative about the material. Whenasked to respond to each other's work students demonstrated a high degreeof understanding and involvement with the material (e.g., they were able topoint out inaccuracies, make reference to specific parts of the text, formulatenew ideas, and generate pertinent questions).

In literature-based integrated language instruction students are exposedto a wide variety of literary forms that contain extensive uncontrolled butage-appropriate vocabulary. They are encouraged to relate their past experi-ences to that literature in discussions and in written products (Blazer, 1990).The Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (HBJ) curriculum used in this study includesmany suggestions for integrating writing with reading. Before beginning toread a selection students may write to make predictions, or to generate schemaor semantic maps. While reading they often take notes, develop or respondto questions, fill in charts, or comment on the text. After reading they mightsummarize or paraphrase what they have read. Written products at the endof each selection are related to the purpose set for reading and require thatstudents use information garnered from the text.

A review of the literature provides indications that literature-based wholelanguage instruction is an appropriate vehicle for increasing the reading com-prehension of language-deficient students. Its emphasis on exposure to goodliterature and verbalization of ideas related to that literature is compatible withcurrent theory that one acquires the greatest volume of his/her vocabularyby reading and through oral communication. Its emphasis on integratingwriting with reading is in direct response to current theory that the practice,because it increases the reader's involvement with text and heightens his/herawareness of text structures, will result in enhanced comprehension.

An ex post facto study was conducted to determine if the use of literature-based integrated language instruction improved the reading comprehensionscores of language-deficient students. A descriptive study was also conductedin order to determine if the instructional strategies of the teachers involvedin the study were significantly different and, if so, was there any discernibledifference in the progress of their students.

METHODSubjects

The targeted population of this study was intermediate-grade studentswho manifested language deficiency either because they had shifted fromtheir primary language or because they had been exposed to inadequate.English as their primary language. The students of interest had adequatedecoding and fluency skills but scored poorly on grade-level comprehension

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

02 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

34

tests. The accessible population was sixth-grade students from a single elemen-tary school in San Diego. They were of predominantly Filipino heritage,though some individuals may have been of other ethnic groups includingPacific Island, Hispanic, African American, or Anglo American.

Quota samplings were selected from naturally occurring clusters (classes)at the school. Students whose vocabulary and/or language expression scoreson the 1990 Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) were at least onestanine below their reading comprehension scores were used in the study.The sample included 21 boys and 23 girls. It was composed of 36 Filipinos,4 Hispanics, 3 African Americans, and 1 Anglo American.

InstrumentsThe instrument used to measure comprehension for the study was the

Unit 1 comprehension test of the HBJ series, Imagination: An OdysseyThrough Language, which served as pre- and posttest. The test was deter-mined to be a valid measure of reading comprehension because of its designand because students' performance on it correlates with their performanceon the CTBS. It consists of four reading selections that are autonomous fromthose studied in the unit. Each is preceded by a purpose question and followedby five questions about the selection that are related to the purpose set forreading. Of the 20 responses, 6 are literal, 12 are interpretive, and 2 requirecritical thinking. Correlation between students' scores on the test and theirpercentile rank on the CTBS is significant for the 44 students in the studygroup (.6623; p < .0005) as well as for a group composed of 26 boys and26 girls who were randomly selected from the four clusters (.4974; p < .0005).The scores of all the students in cluster D (N = 24) were used to determinethe test's reliability. Rank order correlation between their pretest and posttestscores (.6504; p < .005), their pretest and Unit 2 test scores (.6496; p < .005),and their pretest and Unit 3 test scores (.6313; p < .005) is significant.

An instrument was developed for a descriptive study of the instructionalpractices of the participating teachers. Strategies that may be used in theinstruction of vocabulary, reading comprehension, and creative writing wereenumerated and teachers asked to respond to terms of percentage of timespent using each strategy.Procedure

Participating teachers were given no guidelines on the implementationof the curriculum other than that which had been suggested by the districtand in the teacher's manual of the series. After about 25 weeks of instruction,they were asked to administer the posttest and respond to the survey. Thesample was then selected and their scores analyzed.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis was computed on the differences between all students'pre- and posttest scores using a directional t-Test for paired samples (seeTable 1). The increased mean score of 9.5 percentage points is significant,f(43) = 5.655, p < .0005. Similar analyses computed for each of the fourgroups indicates differences between them are also significant. Group Ashowed an increased mean of 12.3 percentage points, f(14) = 3.653, p <.005. Group B showed an increased mean score of 9.4 percentage points,t(8) = 3.091, p < .01. Group C showed an increased mean of 8.5 percentage

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

02 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

35

points, t(9) = 2.94, p < .01. Group D showed an increased mean of 6.5percentage points, t(9) = 1.677, p > .05.

Table 1 Comparison of Pretest and Posttest Scores

Group

AllABCD

MeanPretest

59.754.762.262.062.5

MeanPosttest

69.267.071.770.569.0

MeanDiff.

9.512.39.48.56.5

DF

4314899

Pairedt value

5.6553.6533.0912.9401.677

Prob1-tail

< .0005<.005<.01<.01>.O5

Using information from the descriptive component of this study, a corre-lation matrix was computed between the increases of each group and thereported percentages of time the teachers spent using various instructionalstrategies. The result of the analysis (presented in Table 2) indicates highpositive correlations between gain and the amount of class discussion duringcomprehension activities (.982; p < .05), guided oral reading (.915; p < .05),and direct instruction of comprehension (.911; p < .05); and high negativecorrelations between gain and the use of independent seat work for vocabularyinstruction (-.914;p<. 05), andindependentsilentreading(-.929);p<. 05).

Table 2 Instructional Variables and Correlation with Gain

Instructional Variables(% point Gain)

Vocabulary Activities% Direct instruction% Cooperative learning% Independent seat work% Class discussion

Comprehensive Activities% Direct instruction% Cooperative learning% Independent seat work% Class discussion

Writing Activities% Direct instruction% Cooperative learning% Independent seat work% Class discussion

Reading% Oral, guided% Silent, guided% Oral, uninterrupted% Silent, Independent

*p < .05, one-tailed.

A(12)

70001020

40000555

30103030

80100505

TeacherB(9)

20103535

20401030

15303025

60101020

C(9)

25252525

25005025

25007500

25252525

D(7)

38005038

17501717

17501717

25252525

CorrCoef

.649-.173-.914*-.780

.911*-.652-.450.982*

.694-.594.026.582

.915*-.807-.887-.929*

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

02 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

36

DISCUSSION

The overall increase in the comprehension scores of subjects in the studysupports the hypothesis that whole language instruction is effective in improv-ing the reading of language-deficient students. However, the differences inincrease between the four clusters and correlation between gain and specificinstructional variables are notable. Class discussion in comprehension activitiesis the most highly correlated of all instructional variables. This finding isconsistent with whole language philosophy, since the practice integrates orallanguage, both speaking and listening, in a meaningful way with reading andin many cases with writing.

High correlation between direct instruction and increased scores may beobserved in the area of comprehension (.911; p < .05) as well as in guidedoral reading (.915; < .05). In addition it is the only listed variable for vocabularyinstruction that is positively correlated. It may also be observed that theaverage time spent in direct instruction correlates with increased scores (i.e.,Teacher A averages 55% of instructional time employing direct instructionwhile Teacher D averages 25%). This along with the high negative correlationbetween increased scores and independent activity both in the area of vocab-ulary work (-.914; p < .05) and actual reading (-.929; p < .05)is consistentwith research on direct instruction. (See Rosenshine and associates, 1976-1986.)

Many reading researchers (Christensen, 1990; Garcia & Pearson, 1990;Hillerich, 1990; Nagy, 1988; Star, 1989) indicate that integrated languageinstruction is appropriately used in conjunction with direct instruction. Whilecautioning against taking too much time from actual reading, Nagy (1988)acknowledges that there are appropriate times to teach vocabulary (e.g.,conceptually difficult words necessary for understanding the text, or wordswith great general utility). At these times it is recommended by him and others(Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenul, 1990; Klein, 1988) that teachers directlyinstruct words by giving simple definitions or by relating them to knownsynonyms/antonyms. When students are ignorant of concepts they shouldbe instructed using examples and nonexamples. In an interview with Brandt(1990) Ethna Reid, founder and director of the Exemplary Center for ReadingInstruction (ECRI), describes how her highly effective remedial reading pro-gram employs direct instruction strategies within the context of whole languagephilosophy and states:

We agree with the whole language people that language instruction— reading and writing — should be integrated. We greatly careabout providing good literature for children to read. We believethat the outcomes of an effective reading program should includeeffective speaking, listening, and writing as well as reading. Butwe also agree with the proponents of direct instruction that childrenshould be taught, (p. 81)

Negative correlation between gain and cooperative learning in all areasof instruction (-.173, -.652, -.594; p < .05) cannot be ignored. The practice,widely advocated in whole language, does not appear to be effective withthis population of students.

Recognizing the limitations inherent in the ex post facto study, particularlythe absence of direct observation of the teachers to document their instruc-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

02 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

37

tional strategies, it is apparent, nonetheless, that literature-based integratedlanguage instruction is effective in improving reading comprehension scoresof language-deficient students. It appears that the effectiveness of such aprogram may be significantly amplified when the students engage in classdiscussion about what has been read, read orally under the guidance of theteacher, and receive direct instruction when appropriate.

REFERENCES

Anthony, H. M., Pearson, P. D., & Raphael, T. (1989). Reading comprehension research: Aselected review (Report No. 448). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for theStudy of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 302 827)

Brandt, R. (1990). On teaching reading: A conversation with Ethna Reid. Educational Leadership,47(6), 78-81.

Blazer, P. C. (1989). Whole language annotated bibliography. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 307 595)

Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (1990). Direct instruction: Reading (2nd ed.). Colum-bus, OH: Merrill.

Christensen, K. E. (1990). Whole language in perspective: A teacher's continuum. West Chester,PA: West Chester University. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 315 725)

Elley, W. B., & Mangubhi, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning.Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67.

Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1990). Modifying reading instruction to maximize its effectivenessfor all students (Report No. 489). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Studyof Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 314 723)

Healy, M. K. (1984). Writing in a science class: A case study of the connections between writingand learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York: NY.

Hillerich, R. L. (1990, February). Whole language: Looking for balance among dichotomies.Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Colorado Council of the International Associ-ation, Denver, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 315 746).

Johnson, D. D., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary (2nd ed.). New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Klein, M. L. (1988). Teaching reading comprehension and vocabulary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1983). Teaching every child to read (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Nagy, W. E. (1988). Vocabulary and reading comprehension (Report No. 431). Champaign,

IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. (ERCI Document ReproductionService No. ED 300 789).

Pany, D., & Jenkins, J. R. (1978). Learning word meanings: A comparison of instructionalprocedures. Learning Disabled Quarterly, 1, 21-32.

Starr, K. (1989). Whole language and the essential elements of instruction: Sheathe your daggers!New York: Instructional Development Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.RD 304 657).

Taylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1987). Reducing time on comprehension skill instruction andpractice and increasing time on independent reading in the elementary classroom. Unpub-lished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Tierney, R. J. (1990). Redefining reading comprehension. Educational Leadership, 47(6), 37-42.Tierney, R. J., Capan, R., Erhi, L , Healy, M. K., & Hurdlow, M. (1988). Writing and reading

working together. (Occasional Paper No. 5). Berkeley: University of California, Center forthe Study of Writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 312 666).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

02 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014