1.,

4th.: .. .

.
5n...
5

9w

.k. . r ...

k .r

¢ .
pr
3

. :ifiudr .fi
.3 (In. 1.! kn». .
zuwowmwli :92...

361:353

 

. .3 a l. .: "£13,..Jafx ,

 

1 "P11":
61
5/ 063
Li"? {pm 4

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
I . The e 0 th h
Umvers'ty magma °

 

 

The Functions of Written Language in the Development of Oral
Language for Young (K-2) ESL Students

presented by

Youb Kim

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree in Curriculum, Teaching, and
Educational Policy

 

 

 

June 23, 2003

 

MSU b an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

“A_

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

0127 0~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClFlC/DateDuepes-p. 15

THE FUNCTIONS OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ORAL LANGUAGE FOR YOUNG (K-2) ESL STUDENTS

By

Youb Kim

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Curriculum, Instruction and Educational Policy

2003

ABSTRACT

THE FUNCTIONS OF ENGLISH WRITTEN LANGUAGE
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH ORAL LANGUAGE
FOR YOUNG (K-3) ESL STUDENTS

By

Youb Kim

Developing English oral language skills is an important instructional issue for ESL
students because appropriate uses of oral language skills are necessary to participate
meaningfully in class activities and to communicate effectively with their teachers and
peers. When ESL students are placed in integrated language curricula based classrooms,
they are encouraged to use all language skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing).
Many literacy researchers support such instructional practice arguing that ESL students
can learn to read before they exhibit advanced stages of oral English proficiency. However,
popular views of ESL reading suggests that ESL students' participation in reading and
writing activities should be postponed until their oral language is in place. Having these
seemingly controversial views in mind, the current study seeks to answer, “How can school
based reading and writing be effectively used to develop English oral language skills for
young (K-3) ESL students?” Drawing upon seven case studies and an intervention study
using single subject experimental research, this study will explain the functions of English

reading and writing in the development of ESL students’ oral language skills.

Copyright by
YOUB KIM
2003

In dedication to the three most important teachers in my life:
P. David Pearson, Meredith McLellan, and my first grade
teacher, back in Korea, who warmed my hand in her coat

pocket and walked me home in cold winter days.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have been very fortunate to be supported by the Center for the Improvement of
Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) and the College of Education at Michigan State
University throughout my training as a developing researcher. As I reflect upon my
personal and professional experiences for the past seven years in my Ph. D. program, I
realize that so many people have contributed to the making of this dissertation work
through their brilliance and support.

I am tremendously indebted to my dissertation director, Dr. P. David Pearson for
his trust in my intellectual abilities, mentorship, support, and accommodation. I am also
immensely grateful of Dr. Laura Rohler, my dissertation committee chair and my
dissertation committee members, Drs. Jenny Denyer, Charlene Polio, and Philip Cusick.
Without their continuous intellectual and moral support, I could have not been able to
complete this work.

My work has been also possible thanks to many outstanding teachers and staff
members at Spartan Village Elementary School. My deepest appreciation goes to
Meredith McLellan, Zac Konett, Andrea Rumsey, Casey Bain, Siham Baladi, and Joan
Boylan who invited me into their wonderful classrooms and shared their precious time
with me answering my questions and helping me make sense of what I observed. Mr. Bill
Gale, the school principal, Mrs. Angie Morin, and Ms. Pam Mull have been wonderful in
making me feel welcomed in the school and helping me find my way around the beautiful

maze of the intellectual and cultural world of the school.

How can I ever forget my wonderful colleagues within CIERA? We worked,
challenged, and supported each other throughout our intellectual development as we
strived to achieve our goals. Especially, I am thankful to Jennifer Danridge Turner who
provided me with unfailing support with her keen intellectual and writing abilities. Her
friendship has been a key source of inspiration whenever I reached challenging moments
in the process of my dissertation work. I am also grateful of Sapna Vyas and Lisa Sensale
for their amazing support, friendship, and humor.

I am so thankful to my family. My husband, Jong-Yeul Moon, has endured my
moans and complaints during the difficult times of my dissertation work with his saint’s
patience, and consistently provided me with wise counsel and devotion. He spent
numerous days cooking for the family and taking our children to their extracurricular
activity sites and the library so that I could focus on my dissertation work. My children,
Bob and Susan Moon, have been so patient with me although they occasionally wondered
what I was doing in front of a computer screen all that time. I am also grateful to my late
mother, father, and my paternal grandmother who would be mighty happy and proud to

know that I have completed my doctorate program successfully.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Research ......................................................................................... 1
Review of Related Research ......................................................................................... 4
Pendulum Swing ............................................................................................... 6
ESL Literacy and Classroom Learning ........................................................... 10
What We Know ............................................................................................... 12
ESL Research Perspectives ............................................................................. 16
Developing a New Inquiry on Effective ESL Instruction ............................... 18
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER TWO
CASE STUDIES
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 22
Beginning an Inquiry ...................................................................................... 23
Continuing the Inquiry .................................................................................... 27
Research Questions ......................................................................................... 27
Method ........................................................................................................................ 29
School Context ................................................................................................ 29
ESL Program ................................................................................................... 29
Case Selection and Re-analysis of CIERA Data ............................................. 30
Results ......................................................................................................................... 33
Portraiture of Focus Students and Home Language-Learning Environment.. 34
Written Language Activities in General Classrooms ...................................... 41
Teachers’ Uses of Written Language Activities in General Classrooms ........ 49
Written Language Activities in the ESL Classroom ....................................... 55
The Emotions of Written Language in ESL Class Activities ......................... 64
Student Participation in General and ESL Classes ......................................... 67
The Functions of Written Language in Oral Language Development ............ 77
Making Language Stand Still .......................................................................... 78
Making Language Material ............................................................................. 81
Natural Language Enforcement ...................................................................... 82
Rehearsal ......................................................................................................... 83
Cross Classroom and Case Analyses .......................................................................... 84
Summary ......................................................................................................... 88
Discussion ................................................................................................................... 89

vii

CHAPTE THREE

INTERVENTION STUDY
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 95
Research Question and Rationale ................................................................... 96
Method ........................................................................................................................ 97
Study Participants ........................................................................................... 97
Procedures ..................................................................................................... 100
Assessment Tools .......................................................................................... 104
Daily Picture Description Tasks ................................................................... 106
Weekend Descriptions .................................................................................. 111
Formal Definitions ........................................................................................ 113
Baseline Picture Description ......................................................................... 116
Results ....................................................................................................................... 121
Daily Oral Language Assessment ................................................................. 121
Thematic Oral Language Assessment ........................................................... 127
Baseline Oral Language Assessment ............................................................ 132
Summary ....................................................................................................... 134
Discussion ................................................................................................................. 136
CHAPTE FOUR
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 144
Implications ............................................................................................................... 1 5 1
Effective Written Language Usage ............................................................... 152
ESL Learning ................................................................................................ 154
The Tension Between Accuracy and Fluency ............................................... 157
ESL Assessment ............................................................................................ 159
Preparation of Teachers of ESL Students ..................................................... 160
ESL Research ................................................................................................ 162
Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................................ 164
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 166

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Case Study Participants and Data Sources .......................................................... 32
Table 2. Student Assessment Information ........................................................................ 41
Table 3. Functions of Written Language in General Classrooms ..................................... 54
Table 4. Cross Case Analyses ........................................................................................... 87
Table 5. Intervention Study Student Information ........................................................... 100
Table 6. Intervention Study Themes and Treatments ..................................................... 101
Table 7. Intervention Study Assessment Overview ........................................................ 106
Table 8. Interaction Effects Between Students and Modes of Instruction ...................... 126
Table 9. Weekend Description Summary ....................................................................... 130
Table 10. Thematic Formal Definitions Summary ......................................................... 132
Table 11. Baseline Oral Language Assessment Summary ............................................. 134

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Spiral Instruction in Tayl’s ESL Classroom ...................................................... 59
Figure 2. Yang’s Difference Scores ................................................................................ 123
Figure 3. Yun’s Difference Scores .................................................................................. 125

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Research

Effective instruction for learners of English as a Second Language (ESL) has
garnered national attention in the United States. It has been the subject of intense debate
as the number of ESL students has increased in many schools, reaching 9.3% of total US
student population (August, 2002). A key aspect of effective instruction for ESL students
involves positive development of oral language skills to participate in academic and
social activities in their classrooms; ESL students need to respond to teachers’ questions
appropriately, participate in various class discussions, and converse with their peers and
adults in school. Meaningful participation in these tasks requires ESL students’
knowledge and appropriate use of English oral language. Because the acquisition of oral
language appropriate for schooling, what we normally call academic English, is more
challenging than conversational English used in informal contexts, ESL students depend
upon their teachers and instruction (Cummins, 1979, 1986 &1994). Effective teachers
use these academic and linguistic challenges as a basis for developing an appropriate
curriculum for ESL students.

The need for understanding effective instruction for ESL students has been
heightened by the fact that the population of students speaking English as a Second
Language grows faster than the number of teachers who understand ESL issues; in sort, a
growing number of ESL students will be placed in a classroom in which the teacher is not

fully informed about ESL learning issues. In developing ESL students’ academic oral

language skills, students’ native language competence is suggested to be an important
linguistic and cognitive tool (August & Hakuta, 1997; Cummins, 1979; Snow, Burns,
Griffin, 1998). In fact, in one important document on the teaching of English reading
(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), members of a panel on reading difficulties of the
National Academy of Science recommended that where bilingual resources are available,
students should be taught to read in their first language before being taught to read in
English. However, bilingual support is often unavailable due to various reasons, such as
shortage of qualified bilingual teachers. For example, “fewer than three percent of
teachers with [ESL] students have earned a degree in ESL or bilingual education”
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2003). In such circumstances, students have
no choice but to plunge into the task of learning English language utilizing language
input available in regular classroom learning contexts.

Effective instruction for ESL students can provide rich language and literacy
experiences. In elementary classrooms where teachers expose children to rich literacy
experiences, literacy is viewed as the competence to exploit a particular set of cultural
resources. It is the evolution of those resources in conjunction with the knowledge and
skill to exploit those resources for particular purposes that makes up literacy (Olson,
1996). In effective ESL classrooms, language and literacy reinforces each other. ESL
children are encouraged and supported to read high interest children’s books and express
their ideas through writing on various topics and purposes. (Elley & Mangubhai, 1983;
Hudelson, 1984 & 1986) Thus, opportunities to learn and use language and literacy skills

are inevitably abundant in effective classrooms for ESL students.

Considering that opportunities for interactions in English lead to learning English
as a Second Language (ESL), classrooms that provide rich literacy experiences to young
children can be opportune places for language learning (Ellis, 1999; Gass, 1986; Long,
1994). The central question is “How can English reading and writing be used to develop
English oral language?” The present research study attempts to address this question by
explaining the role of English reading and writing in the development of English oral
language for young (K-2) English Language Learners.

The paucity of research in effective instruction for ESL students accentuates the
importance of this research study. As van Lier (1988) suggests, “our actual knowledge of
what goes on in classrooms is extremely limited” (p. 37), partly due to the perception that
young children “pick up” language quickly and easily. Moreover, the field of second
language acquisition focuses on input and interactions of English oral language of adult
ESL learners, and the role of English reading and writing is a marginalized subject of
inquiry (Harklau, 2001 ). Research studies on the oral and written connection for young
ESL students are even much scarce. For example, in reviewing an extensive body of
literature, Fitzgerald (1995) found only four research studies that have addressed the
relationship between written and oral language in ESL learning for young ESL students
(i.e., Lara, 1991 as cited in Fitzgerald, 1995; Saville-Troike, 1984; Snow, 1991; Tragar &
Wong, 1984, as cited in Fitzgerald, 1995).

It was this lack of solid information on the potential, positive or negative, for
English literacy instruction to influence the acquisition of oral English, that prompted this
study. In explaining the role of English reading and writing in the development of

English oral language for young ESL students, this dissertation study combines two

interconnected research components. The first component focuses on providing “thick”
description of three ESL learners and their English language learning processes in
classrooms. Uses of written language by individual cases and patterns that emerged
across the cases were analyzed and used as empirical evidence to explain the various
functions that written language played in the development of individual ESL students’
English oral language. Drawing upon the insights gained from case studies, the second
component of this study is intended to evaluate the contributions of written language
more directly through a single subject experimental study.

This study is prompted by various conceptualizations regarding the relationship
between oral and written language within the context of effective instruction for ESL
students during the past few decades. The following review of research literature attempts
to document various lines of thoughts and link between those thoughts and the present

study.

Review of Related Research

“There is neither a first nor a last word and there are no limits to the dialogic
context (it extends into the boundless past and the boundless future). Even past
(italics in the original) meanings, that is, those born in the dialogue of past
centuries, can never be stable (finalized, ended once and for all)——they will
always change (be renewed) in the process of subsequent, future development of
the dialogue. At any moment in the development of the dialogue there are
immense, boundless masses of forgotten contextual meanings, but at certain
moments of the dialogue’s subsequent development along the way they are
recalled and invigorated in renewed form (in a new context). Nothing is
absolutely dead: every meaning will have its homecoming festival.” (Bakhtin,
1986,p.170)

There have been multiple dialogues regarding effective instruction for ESL

Students and the relationship between oral and written language in classroom contexts.

These dialogues for the past few decades can be summarized as a “pendulum swing”
between two conflicting perspectives on the oral and written connection in ESL, and
resembles the much politicized debate between whole language and phonics approaches
in reading instruction (Chall, 1996). The reading debate shed a light on how to
conceptualize the pendulum swing in ESL. Although there existed a conceptual
difference between phonics and whole language approach, the difference was not an issue
in instructional contexts because effective teachers of reading use both phonics and whole
language approaches seamlessly in their classrooms (Pressley, 2002). Unfortunately, the
reading debate became a heated political topic because the two approaches were
compared and contrasted without considering their usage in classrooms. In this sense, the
reading war was exacerbated partly due to “forgotten contextual meanings” (Bakhtin,
1986, p. 170) of effective reading instruction rather than fundamental differences
between two “seemingly” conflicting approaches to reading.

In understanding of the nature and the origins of the two conflicting views on the
relationship between oral and written language in ESL, I take the position that both views
need to be situated within the context of effective instruction for ESL students, and their
meanings and values need to be analyzed within the new context. Thus, I trace the two
conflicting views for the past three decades and their meanings with regards to effective
ESL instruction. More specifically, this literature review includes a brief description of
multiple dialogues within the oral primacy view and synergistic view. Perspectives on
ESL literacy and classroom learning, the characteristics of oral and literacy development

of ESL students, and an exploration of methodological possibilities are also included.

Pendulum Swing: the relationship between ora_1__2_1nd written langgage in ESL

In Preventing Readingéfifficulties, Snow and her colleagues (1998) made a
recommendation for teaching reading for language-minority students:

“If language-minority students arrive at school with no proficiency in English, but

speak a language for which the above conditions cannot be met and for which

there are insufficient numbers of children to justify the development of the local
community to meet such conditions [i.e., providing native language instruction
while developing English oral language] and the provision of native language
instruction at a community level is not feasible, instructional priority should be
given to develop English oral language and postpone formal reading instruction
until the language-minority students reach an adequate level of English oral

proficiency.” (Snow, Burns, Griffith, 1998, p. 11).

While privileging native language instruction, the editors espoused a perspective
that oral language should come before written language in learning English as a Second
Language. This oral primacy view has deep historical roots in Western intellectual
history. According to Derrida’s analysis, conflicting views existed regarding the
relationship between oral and written language. One such view is phonocentrism, which
traces back to Aristotle, Rousseau, and structural linguists including Saussure and Levi-
Strauss. Phonocentrism privileged speech as “the native unity of voice,” (Derrida, 1997, p.
17), “formal essence of the signified” (Den'ida, 1997, p. 18), and denounced writing as
“arche-speech” (Derrida, 1997, p. 17) or “disguise of language” (Derrida, 1997, p.35).
According to the perspective of phonocentrism, writing is unnatural and secondary.

The oral primacy view. The oral primacy view postulates that reading
comprehension (and perhaps writing) are cognitively and linguistically more demanding
than speaking and listening; therefore reading (and writing) should not be a part of initial

language input for ESL learners (Mills, Cowen, & Guess, 1977; Wong-Fillmore &

Valadez, 1986). An example of the oral before written phenomenon comes from the work

of Snow and her colleagues. They found that certain oral language structures (e. g., formal
definitions of words) carrying a syntax that is more similar to written language as it might
be encountered in school than it is to everyday oral language, predicted later success in
school literacy tasks (Snow, 1991; Snow, Cancino, Gonzalez, & Shriberg, 1987; Snow,
Tabors, Nicholson, & Kurland, 1995).

The oral primacy view appearing in PreventingReading Difficulties has a
historical precedent in ESL. In a report entitled, “Bilingual-bicultural education in the
classroom: A handbook of ideas for the teacher, Mills, Cowen, and Guess (1977) argued,
“teaching English as a Second Language should definitely begin with oral language
development. Reading should not be taught at all until they have attained sufficient
command of oral language including comprehension skills” (Mills, Cowen & Guess
(1977, p. 46) According to this view, oral language and written language inherently
possess different conceptual difficulties, and effective instruction should incorporate

these differing characteristics.

The instructional implication of the oral primacy view is that a key aspect of
effective ESL instruction involves a careful control on using and presenting written
language materials in classroom instruction. Because ESL students’ oral language
proficiency has to reach at an “adequate” level before they can be introduced to formal
reading and writing, teachers in these classrooms need to provide abundant opportunities
for conversations in English only using a limited number of print materials (Snow, Burns
& Griffin, 1998). Teachers in these classrooms also need to assess ESL students’ oral
language proficiency carefully so that they can judge when formal reading and writing

can be introduced. In addition, the level of difficulty in text materials needs to be

carefully controlled so that the written materials are not cognitively too challenging for

ESL students (Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986).

Swinging the Pendulum: Oral Proficiency and Readig Performance. Research
evidence for oral primacy view comes from studies on the relationship between oral
language proficiency and reading performance of ESL students. These studies found that
oral language was a predictor for students’ performance on reading (Snow, 1991; Snow,
Cancino, Gonzalez & Shriberg, 1987; Clarke, 1980). In response to the claims regarding
the connection between oral language proficiency and student performance in reading,
however, Garcia (2000) suggested, “variables other than oral language proficiency [e.g.,
first-language word recognition] were more powerful predictors of the children’s reading
task performance in either language” (Garcia, 2000, p. 818). According to Fitzgerald
(1995), “the relationship between ESL reading proficiency and ESL oral proficiency may
have depended on at least three factors: native language, age or grade level, and the type
of English oral proficiency measure used” (Fitzgerald, 1995, p. 175). Thus, this research
synthesis refutes the claim that the connection between oral language proficiency and
reading performance suggests the oral primacy view in ESL.

Synergistic view. The oral primacy view has been continuously challenged over
several decades by many researchers, such as Anderson & Roit (1996), Elley (1983, 1991,
1994), Goodman et a1 (1979), Hudelson (1984), Saville-Troike (1984), Seda & Abramson
(1990). Gersten (1996) and Anderson & Roit (1996) maintain that the use of written texts
can serve as building blocks for oral and written English proficiency. Barrera (1983) also
notes that children can learn to read in their second language before oral fluency deve10ps

(Anderson & Roit, 1996, p. 296). These arguments reveal many important contributions

of literacy activities to English language learning. Based upon experimental research on
the effect of a ‘book flood’ on 380 Fijian children, Elley (1983, 1991 &1994) suggests
that literacy activities facilitate the development of general English language proficiency
including oral language skills. He contends that high-interest story reading had a positive
role in second language learning including oral skills.

These authors argue for “parallel synergies” (Pearson, 2001, personal
communication) between English oral and written language development, suggesting that
ESL learners can read and write without developing firlly proficient English oral
language, and that reading and writing can facilitate English oral language development
(see, for example, Fitzgerald, 1995; Weber, 1991; Garcia, 2000). According to the
synergistic view, “it is not necessary to make literacy instruction contingent upon
considerable listening/speaking proficiency [because] literacy development begins long
before formal instruction” (Fitzgerald, 1993, p. 644). Rather, effective teachers create
classroom communities that support risk-taking and experimenting with emergent
language skills and immerse ESL children in reading and writing while de-emphasizing
“small things” such as including details, using correct grammar and pronouncing words
correctly (Au, Mason & Scheu, 1995; Fitzgerald, 1993). Teachers assess ESL students’
engagement and performance in classroom activities and use the assessment information
to inform instruction. Hence, authors who argue for the synergistic view accentuate
illuminate the nature of literacy and instructional contexts within the dialogue of effective
instruction for ESL students.

In summary, the issue of the oral and written connection in ESL is a much

contested terrain. Borrowing Weber’s words, “the current picture is fragmented and

underdeveloped, if not controversial” (Weber, 1991, p. 115). There are two conflicting
perspectives involving the oral primacy and synergistic views regarding the relationship
between the oral and written language in ESL. The oral primacy view seems to be
supported by “mechanistic principles of language learning and reinforced by a narrow
conception of reading as translating symbols to speech” (Weber, 1991, p. 101) while the
synergistic view is based upon the perspective that language and literacy supports each

other.

_A_nglysis of the Pendulum Swing: ESL literacygnd Clgssroom Legrning

The conflicting conversations between the oral primacy view and synergistic view
in ESL indicate that the crux of the argument lies in the perspectives of ESL literacy and
the language learning environment in elementary classrooms in which actual language
learning takes place. Researchers who argued for parallel synergies indicated that the
sequence of oral to literacy development evident in native language acquisition is not
valid in ESL. More specifically, Goodman argued, “Reading as a receptive language
process seems to develop more rapidly than speaking, a productive process.”(Goodman,
Goodman & Flores, 1978, p. 21) In addition, language skills are all integrated in ESL
classrooms. Hudelson argued, “the processes of writing, reading, speaking, and listening
in a second language are interrelated and interdependent. It is both useless and, ultimately,
impossible to separate out the language processes in our teaching or to try to present ESL
material in a linear sequence of listening, speaking, reading, and writing.” (Hudelson,

1984,p.234)

10

As such, conceptualizations of effective ESL instruction differ between the oral
primacy view and the synergistic view. The oral primacy view suggests that effective
instruction needs to take into account two important aspects about language and learning.
Researchers posit that oral language is the basis of all language development (Ticknor,
1833), and learning takes place in a progression of easy to complex. Thus, literacy
develops on the basis of language flaresumably oral language), and effective instruction
should incorporate these two factors into curriculum development. In other words,
because oral language is easier and more natural, and reading and writing is more
difficult, effective ESL curriculum needs to focus on the development of oral proficiency
initially and gradume move to the development of reading and writing. Unlike the oral
primacy view, the synergistic view proposes that effective instruction for ESL students
should consider the fact that all language skills can develop concomitantly especially in
second language learning (Fitzgerald, 1993). In classrooms in which actual language
learning and teaching take place, language skills cannot be separated out (Hudelson,
1984). Thus, language and literacy are connected according to synergistic view regarding
the relationship between oral and written language in ESL.

Another difference between the oral primacy view and synergistic view seems to
lie in their perspectives on ESL students. The oral primacy view indicates that ESL
students need to be carefully guided by the teachers in learning English as a Second
Language because language learning processes of ESL students are like those of young
children in learning a first language. On the contrary, the synergistic view suggests that
ESL students do make sense of language and literacy materials at their own pace

independently when teachers provide rich language learning environment. The question

11

is then, “What does research say about ESL students’ development in oral and literacy

skills in English?” This issue will be discussed in the next section.

_\_N_h_§t We Know: Chgracteristics of the Languagg Development of ESL Learners

Research evidence from case studies strongly indicates that language learning is
influenced by learning contexts (August & Hakuta, 1997; Snow, 1992). According to
several case studies that examined the language development of ESL learners in learning
English oral or literacy skills, it is evident that oral language development is shaped by
language input available to ESL students and ESL students’ efforts to maintain internal
consistency of grammatical rules (Hakuta, 1974). Written language development seems
to be influenced by teachers’ assumptions about reading and writing (Hudelson, 1986;
Weber & Longhi-Chirlin, 2001).

Oral langgge develogment. Based upon a research synthesis on a number of case
studies in ESL, van Lier (1998) gives an overview of young ESL students’ oral language
development. He suggests that young ESL children do not seem to develop complex
English skills. Instead, ESL students “speak of formulaic utterances, conversational
strategies, and a highly simple code. This simple code is sufficient for everyday social
contact, and ofien gives the impression of amazing conversational fluency in these
contexts, but it is not the elaborate, syntactically and lexically complex code of the
proficient language user.” (van Lier, 1998, p. 10)

More specific research evidence on young ESL children’s oral language
development comes from Hakuta’s work. Based upon spontaneous speech data of a five-

year old Japanese girl, Hakuta reported three prefabricated patterns (Hakuta, 1974). The

12

three speech patterns included a)“gonna” to represent “am/are/is gonna,” b) “do you” as
in “what do you do” and c) “how to” in embedded how-questions as in “I know how to
do it.” For example, the child’s utterances using the three prefabricated patterns involved
“I gonna make ‘nother baseball,” “What do you doing, this boy?” “I know how do you
write this” The existence of these prefabricated patterns suggested that the child did not
possess syntactic knowledge that governs the sentence structure in English. Among the
child’s speech samples over a period of sixty weeks, these prefabricated patterns
constituted over 50% of her total oral production (Hakuta, 1976). Hakuta also found the
evidence of language transfer. For example, the child uttered “I just mistake it” Linguistic
error in this sentence derived from using mistake, a noun as a verb, which is traceable to
Japanese because “make a mistake” is one word in Japanese (Hakuta, 1976).

Two other studies made similar observations regarding ESL students’ limited
progress in acquiring syntactic complexity in English oral language skills. Wagner and
Hatch included a brief description of Huang’s study of Paul, a five-year-old Chinese child.
Based on the description, Paul’s speech contained mostly formulas, such as “are you
ready?; I see you, and very good” during the first two months of his exposure to English
(Wagner-Gouch & Hatch, 1975, p. 298). They also reported the speech of Homer, a five-
year-old Iranian child who extended the usage of “what’s this?’ to mean “identification
(this is. . .), advice or help (what should I do now) or command (stop pushing sand in my
tunnel)” (Wagner-Gouch & Hatch, 1975, p. 301). Based upon case studies of two six year
old Spanish speaking children of Puerto Rican origin, Weber and Longhi-Chirlin

concluded that “both children advanced in speaking English, but not far beyond fixed

13

expressions and simple syntax, as observed in other learners in their first year in learning
English” (Weber & Longhi-Chirlin, 2001, p. 44).

All three case studies included here suggest that the ESL students make sense of
oral language input provided to them, and they sometimes overgeneralized the rules.
They were able to develop basic oral language skills appropriate for a conversational
context, however, their language development did not reach at the level of a proficient
language user.

Lime)! development. Studies on ESL children’s literacy development suggest
that ESL children develop literacy skills without sufficient proficiency in oral language,
and their literacy skills are appropriate for their instructional contexts. In other words,
ESL students develop literacy skills at a functioning level in their classrooms. Two
research studies are relevant here. Recall Weber and Longhi-Chirlin’s study (2001) of
two six year old Spanish speaking children. The school grouped children based upon their
ability to understand the concept of print in their native language, Spanish. The children
were in classrooms in which teachers used basal texts for reading and provided writing
experiences in a controlled way (i.e., dictation) while encouraging ESL students’
participation in class activities and providing necessary support such as bringing the
Reading Recovery teacher to the classroom. Weber and Longhi-Chirlin found that both
children develop highly accurate decoding skills, and their oral reading was generally
smooth and steady although both children did not seem to be successful in predicting and
comprehending written texts and writing their own ideas in different types of writing. The
literacy skill development of these two children was sufficient enough for them to keep

up with the class and meet the teachers’ expectations for text comprehension and writing.

14

Based upon a study of four intermediate grade children of Southeast Asian origin,
Hudelson (1986) found that ESL children could understand and produce different types
of written texts (i.e., expressive, poetic, and transactional writing), and they could do so
without a mastery of oral language in English in an ESL classroom. In the classrooms
Hudelson studied, the ESL teacher was committed to helping ESL students succeed
academically in regular classrooms and provided multiple opportunities to read and write
both expository and informational texts. Although there were differences among students
in the rates of writing development, Hudelson found that ESL students were generally
willing to express their ideas in written form in the classroom.

These two studies suggest that ESL students could develop literacy skills without
an “appropriate” level of oral language proficiency in English. ESL students’ literacy
skill development also reflects teachers’ assumptions about reading and writing. Thus,
instructional context influences ESL children’s reading and writing development. In
addition, ESL students are willing to express their ideas orally and in a written form.

Studies on ESL children’s oral and written language skill development indicate
that ESL students are motivated to communicate in English with English speakers using
available linguistic resources in a creative way. They do so by drawing from their
linguistic knowledge in their native language or making sense of linguistic input from
their surroundings. Their creative usage ofien leads to ungrammaticality in oral and
written forms. Thus, these studies highlight the importance of learning contexts and the
role of teachers in providing effective instruction for ESL students.

In summary, three key constructs seem to be important in understanding the

relationship between oral and written language in ESL in effective classrooms for ESL

15

students —students, teachers, and instructional contexts. The oral primacy view suggests
that ESL students’ language learning processes are similar to those of young children in
learning a first language, and teachers need to carefully guide ESL students in the process
of learning. In this sense, the role of instructional context is non-existent. To the contrary,
the synergistic view highlights the importance of language learning context as well as
students and teachers. ESL students are equipped to process language input
independently at their own pace with support from teachers. Teachers support ESL
students’ language learning through modeling and providing language learning
environment conducive to learning. Thus, conceptualizations of effective instruction

should take all these three constructs into account.

The Resegrch Paracfigmgtic Convegation in ESL

Research perspectives also play an important role in understanding the
relationship between oral and written connection within the context of effective
instruction for ESL students. There have been two competing perspectives in research
regarding second language development. The two perspectives involve cognition based
and socio-cultural oriented approaches (Snow, 1992). Psychologists and linguists mostly
focus on cognition, and they perceive second language acquisition as “acquiring a
complex cognitive system that is more or less overlap with complex systems already
acquired” (Snow, 1992, p. 17). The cognition-oriented approach focuses on what and
how individual learners learn a second language. Socio—linguists hold a socio-cultural
perspective in second language development. According to the socio-cultural perspective,

learning and cognition is viewed as a situated activity embedded in a social, cultural, and

16

physical context (Pease-Alvarez & Hakuta, 1992). Researchers focus on how children
come to use essential “cultural tools,” (Moll, 1992, p. 21) or how teachers become
agents/facilitators of students’ socialization in language practices. For example, M011
(1992) emphasizes how a cultural group becomes a resource for its individual families
with limited income. He calls this societal network as a “funds-of-knowledge.” In
classrooms where the funds-of-knowledge are abundant, teachers and English-speaking

peers provide ESL students with a rich language learning environment.

Explaining the role of written language in the development of oral language for
ESL students is a complex task, and current approaches in second language research are
not as helpful as they could be. Considering the complexity and ill-structuredness in
second language learning, incidences of ESL learning in context need to be described as
extensively as we can (Spiro, Vispoel, Schmitz & Boerger, 1987; Spiro & Jehng, 1990;
Spiro, F eltovich, Jacobson & Coulson, 1992; Spiro, F eltovich & Coulson, 1996). Spiro

calls it "criss-crossing a landscape" borrowing from Wittgenstein. He contends:

....because the complexity of a single region (issue, example, case) in a landscape
would not be fully graspable in any single context, its full multifacetedness would
be brought out by rearranging the sequence of sketch presentations in the album
so that the region would be revisited from a variety of vantage points, each
perspective highlighting aspects of the region in a somewhat different way than
the other perspectives. A synoptic view of the complexity of the conceptual
landscape would cumulatively emerge over a number of traversals-the richness of
the subject matter would not be crippled if the content was examined in many

different ways” (Spiro & Jehng, 1990, p. 170).

17

“Criss-crossing the landscape” of ESL learning may help us understand the relationship
between oral and written language in classrooms in which ESL students are learning

English as a Second Language.

Because effective instruction for ESL students is a complex phenomenon,
understanding effective instruction for ESL students requires a new research paradigm.
We need empirical research that looks at the oral and written relationship as it is situated
within elementary classrooms using a flexible research methodology that captures
exhaustive criss-crossing of ESL learning.

To summarize in the various dialogues regarding effective instruction for ESL
students, there has been a lack of empirical research studies regarding the oral and written
connection in ESL. Current research methodology in ESL is based upon a specific
perspective, and it does not allow the flexibility in exploring complex questions that arise
in instructional contexts. To honor the complexity of effective ESL instruction, a new
research methodology is needed. Lastly, the research literature suggests that there are
three important constructs in studying effective instruction for ESL students, and these

three constructs need to be included in the scope of a new inquiry.

Develoning a New Irguiry on Effective ESL Instruction

As I have described in tracing the multiple dialogues regarding effective
instruction for ESL students, the oral and written relationship in ESL is currently a much
contested and politicized research issue. As we have witnessed in the reading debates in
the past three decades, political attention does not necessarily lead to desirable

educational outcomes. While the issue is more prominent nationally, there is a lack of

18

empirical evidence to help policy makers decide on a course of action. Proponents of oral
primacy or synergistic views offer conceptual arguments, but very little empirical
evidence, to support their views. I found two empirical studies that provide evidence for
the synergistic view. Based upon experimental research on the effect of a ‘book flood’ on
380 Fijian children, Elley (1983, 1991 &1994) contends that high-interest story reading
had a positive role in second language learning including oral skills. Weber and Longhi-
Chirlin conducted two case studies and provided rich contextual information about the
students, their learning contexts, and their oral and written language development.

My understanding of the complexity of the effective instruction for ESL students
has been guided by my personal and professional experiences. Sensitized by my own
experiences as an ESL learner and parent, I have been interested in understanding various
issues in ESL learning and teaching. I have participated in research studies on ESL
assessment within Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA),
and observed both general and ESL teachers’ instruction and ESL students to understand
the role of assessment in the language learning for ESL students. My participation in ESL
assessment research studies enabled me to develop various hypotheses about ESL
teaching and learning. After Preventing Readifl Difficulties was published, I joined in a
research study that examined the relationship between oral and written language. As a
research team, we developed a conceptual framework that described the contribution of
written language in ESL. I expanded on my research interest in the oral and written
connection in ESL and began my dissertation study. Based upon my understanding of
general and ESL instruction for ESL students, I chose the synergistic perspective to guide

my thinking.

19

Equipped by both conceptual and experiential knowledge in ESL learning and
teaching, I posed a new set of questions to explain the role of written language in the
development of oral language for young ESL students. I also chose a research
methodology that was consistent with my belief on ESL learning; I believe language
learning is ultimately an individual process. Individuals make sense of what is available
in their learning environment and produce oral and written language to communicate
within their learning context. Thus, I chose research methodology that would allow me to
look carefully at individuals. Case studies seemed appropriate in this sense. In addition, I
sought ways to bone a theory that 1 generated through case studies and see an “objective
possibility” (Weber, 1949, p. 80). Thus, I chose a combination of case studies and a
single subject experimental study to explore a new set of questions that consider students,
teachers, and learning contexts in explaining the role of written language in the

development of oral language for ESL students.

Research Questions

1) What constitutes school based reading and writing activities in the cases
selected for the study?

2) What kinds of reading and writing activities do the ESL students
participate in and utilize for their English language learning?

3) What functions do school based reading and writing activities serve to
develop oral language skills in English for the ESL students?

4) Will the proposed intervention contribute to substantial gains in a focus

ESL student’s oral language development?

20

Bahktin’s notion of dialogue reminds us that a theory or a perspective is a part of
a dialogue (rather than a monologue), and it is situated in a dialogic context (rather than
existing as a separate entity). When the conflicting views on the relationship between oral
and written language in ESL is viewed as a dialogue within a larger context, such as
effective instruction for ESL students, we can bring those views into the appropriate
context and analyze their meaning and value within that specific context. In so doing, we
can seek pragmatic solutions to bring effective instruction for ESL students. To
contribute to the dialogue on the relationship between oral and written language within
the context of effective instruction for ESL students, I begin my inquiry by looking at

students, teachers, and instructional contexts through case studies.

21

CHAPTER TWO

CASE STUDIES

Introduction

This chapter presents the stories of three young Korean students who were
learning English as a Second Language (ESL) in the United States. Portraits of their
learning experiences include descriptions of their classroom learning contexts and
language learning processes of individual students. More specifically, students’ learning
contexts include descriptions of various learning opportunities offered in each classroom
and teachers’ uses of written language. Students’ language learning processes focus on
the kinds of classroom learning activities students participated throughout the year with a
special attention to their uses of written language in their classrooms. In so doing, I
intend to explain the functions that school based reading and writing played in the

development of oral language for the three ESL students.

The case studies are an extension of a previous ESL research study supported by
Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA), which I
participated in between 1999 and 2002. During the first year between 1999 and 2000, a
team of school and university-based researchers shadowed two ESL students and
ventured to develop a conceptual framework that described the written to oral connection
in ESL learning. I collected more cases in the following two years, and the data were

revisited and reanalyzed as a part of my dissertation study.

Considering the interconnectedness of the case studies and previous research

study, the report of case studies begins with a brief description of CIERA research. This

22

section includes the process of data collection, data analysis method, and an overview of
conceptual categories that describe the written to oral connection, and these conceptual
categories are used as an analytic tool for three cases presented in this chapter. Then,
three research questions are introduced. After describing the school context and ESL
program, findings of the three case studies are reported in the order of research questions
by individual cases. A brief summary of case study findings and implications conclude

this chapter.

Beginnig of an Inquiry: Center for the Improvement of Early ReadingAchievement

(CIERA) Research

Intrigued by the oral primacy view in ESL learning (i.e., teaching oral language
prior to reading and writing instruction) advocated by the editors of PreventinLReading
Difficulties in their report published in 1998, a group of school and university based
researchers within CIERA embarked on a research endeavor to develop a conceptual
framework that described the relationship between oral and written language in ESL
learning.

In developing our framework, the research team focused on two Korean ESL
students who were enrolled in the second and fifih grades and already possessed fluent
literacy skills in their native language. Data were collected in both the ESL and regular
classrooms from three sources: 1) weekly ESL and regular class observations, which we
recorded through field notes, audiotapes and videotapes; 2) student work samples; and 3)
student oral language samples. In particular, the classroom observations required

deliberate planning with the teachers. Where possible, we consulted with the teachers

23

about their upcoming lesson plans and observed lessons in which there was a high
likelihood of written-oral connections.

In order to measure student progress in English language learning and
effectiveness of ESL instruction for two focal students, we also collected assessment
information from standardized (i.e., Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey, Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test, and Bilingual Syntax Measure) and informal ESL assessments

(i.e., Qualitative Reading Inventories, English oral and written vocabulary tests).

In analyzing our data, we used a constant comparative method and analytic
induction (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). We reviewed students' oral and written language
production, identified segments that seemed to illustrate written to oral connections,
shared our candidate segments with one another, and generated analytic categories that
captured the essence of each example. We also used self-contained triangulation
(F etterman, 1984, p. 361), a process that we realized through ongoing weekly data
analysis conversations among ourselves as a research team. This process helped us
generate, revise, and refine our framework for analyzing the functions of reading and
writing in ESL oral language development. Consequently, the research team developed a
list of four conceptual categories that described the oral and written connection in ESL
learning. Among them, three categories were generated from a second grader, and they
were used for analyzing cases for this study. The three categoriesl involved making

language material, making language stand still, and rehearsal.

 

l The fourth category is discussion crutch. It refers to using written language as a scaffold to
facilitate participation in routine oral language activities in school contexts, such as class discussions.

During whole class discussions, the fifth-grade general classroom teachers expected all students to

24

Making language material refers to using written language to connect language to
its base in the everyday world. There were several ways in which this occurred in
classrooms: 1) “writing to label an object” (e. g., labeling objects in a classroom); 2)
“writing to describe a picture” (e. g., picture word cards or sentences describing pictures);
3) “writing to prompt speech” (e.g., seeing and saying the word); 4) combinations of the
above. Vocabulary acquisition exemplified the process of making language material. For
example, an ESL teacher showed a picture of buttons to her ESL students, said its
English name, wrote the word on the chalkboard, and read the word with the students.

This process was used to develop ESL students’ basic English vocabulary.

Making language “stand still” involved using written language to highlight
specific aspects of oral or written language use so that it can be inspected closely,
carefully, and deliberately. This is what Olson (1996) calls the metalinguistic advantage
of written language, and he claims that this advantage facilitates meta-awareness of both
oral and written language—what we would typically label linguistic analysis. According
to Olson (1996), it is this metalinguistic feature of written language that accounts for the

many of the differences in cognitive reflection that we discuss when we compare literate

 

participate orally. To meet the teacher’s expectation during whole class discussions, a fifth-grade student
created what turned out to serve as written scripts, or discussion crutches, fiom which he literally read
when he volunteered to talk in class. Written language seemed to assist the filth-grade student in fulfilling
this expectation and through his own writing. Thus, the discussion crutch differs from covert rehearsal
because the purpose of writing is for public sharing, and language in the script is not fully internalized into
the student’ oral language system. This category was excluded from case study analysis because it was

generated fi'om a fifth grader, and it was not utilized by any of the three case study participants.

25

to preliterate societies. Examples of this category also include using written language to
study phenomena such as past tense markers, morphological elements, and phonemic
awareness. For example, an ESL teacher wrote “-ed” on the chalkboard and explained to
her ESL students that the language form was used to describe what happened yesterday.
When a child said, “I played computer” during an oral sharing that immediately followed,

the teacher wrote the sentence to highlight the past tense verb marker and its meaning.

Rehearsal refers to using written language to practice emerging English skills, in
much the same way as a person would rehearse for a play. The rehearsal can be either
overt, as in rehearsing for participating in a reader’s theatre reading, or covert, as when a
student uses a journal as a way of practicing or rehearsing a specific language pattern for
later use in an informal conversational setting. Covert rehearsal focuses on the process of
repeated practice of one or more language forms over an extended period of time; thus,
repeated practice contributes to the development of both written and oral English
proficiency. The purpose of rehearsing a language form in covert rehearsal is for personal
reflection rather than immediate public sharing, and the rehearsal process is not likely to
be available to researchers. As an example, an ESL student rehearsed “I went to_” form
over a period of almost two months by repeatedly writing various sentences using the
sentence structure in her home journal. Her rehearsal seemed to have contributed to her
learning of the sentence structure and using it successfully during an oral sharing. This
category would not have been developed if the student’s family had not informed the
author of the existence of the student’s home journal and if the student and her family had

not granted a permission to use it for research.

26

As described thus far, CIERA research study focused on students’ use of written
language in school contexts in unraveling the oral and written connection in ESL learning.
Conceptual categories suggested that written language could play a role in the

development of English oral language skills in ESL

Continuing the Inquiry

Inspired by the initial findings from the CIERA research, I continued to collect
cases with the support from CIERA. Considering that learning and teaching are
intricately interwoven, what seemed to be a logical next step was to describe more
carefully the kinds of learning contexts in which ESL students were immersed, how
teachers used written language in their instruction, and the ways written language was
connected to the oral language development of ESL students. Thus, using the three
conceptual categories as an analytic tool, the author extended the scope of research and

proposed to investigate the following research questions based upon the existing data.

Research Questions
1) What constitutes school based reading and writing activities in the cases
selected for the study?
A historical review of research literature indicates that researchers hold different
views on reading and writing. The oral primacy view suggests that reading and writing is
a separate process from speaking and listening (Mills, Cowen & Guess, 1977; Snow,

Burns & Griffin, 1998; Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). On the contrary, the

27

synergistic view implies that reading and writing is intricately connected to the
development of speaking and listening especially in classroom contexts (Goodman,
Goodman & Flores, 1978; Hudelson, 1984). Thus, it seems important to explore what
constitutes school based reading and writing activities in focal students’ learning contexts.

2) What kinds of reading and writing activities do the ESL students participate in

and utilize for their English language learning?

Second language researchers argue that not all language input get processed by
ESL students, and this has been an important research agenda especially among second
language acquisition researchers. (Chaudron, 1985; Corder, 1967; Ellis, 1999; Gass, 1986;
Krashen, 1980; Long, 1994; Wong-Fillmore, 1985) Due to students’ linguistic knowledge,
opportunities for interaction as well as their emotional readiness, these researchers
posited, second language learners selectively participate and utilize language input
provided to them. (Gass, 1986; Krashen, 1980) Thus, it is hypothesized that the level of
students’ participation in various class activities may shed a light on understanding the
language learning processes of individual ESL students.

3) What functions do school based reading and writing activities serve to

develop oral language skills in English for the ESL students?

A conceptual framework developed through CIERA research during 1999-2000
suggested that school based reading and writing play a role in the development of English
oral language skills for ESL students who have already developed fullliteracy skills in
their native language. Considering that native language literacy is an important factor in
ESL learning (August & Hakuta, 1997), it is hypothesized that English reading and

writing may have a different impact on young ESL students with varying literacy skills in

28

their native language. Thus, I chose three students who possessed three different levels
(i.e., sophisticated, fluent, and minimal) in Korean literacy. They were also enrolled in

kindergarten, first and second grade respectively.

Method

School Context

The Spring Valley Elementary School served as my research site between 1998
and 2001. It was a public school located in mid Michigan with a population of 240 K-5
students. During my research period, the majority of the students were children of
international graduate students or visiting scholars in the neighboring university, and they
represented over 20 different languages and cultures. Among ESL students, who
constituted approximately 80% of the student population in the school, 27% of them
possessed limited English skills and were qualified for additional ESL support. To
accommodate the diverse cultural and linguistic needs of such a high percentage of ESL
students, two ESL teachers coordinated and implemented a pull-out ESL program to
complement the accommodations of the general classroom teachers. The focal students
worked with both ESL teachers throughout an academic year. However, data used for the
case studies came from observations of one of the ESL teachers, who was also a member

of the ESL research team.

ESL Pro

The English as a Second Language program at Spring Valley Elementary School

accommodated the needs of English language learning for K-5 students who spoke

29

minimal English when they first entered school. ESL instruction took place in small
groups outside of the general classroom. The length of ESL instruction was usually less
than an hour per day with some variation based upon the group. During the remainder of
the day, the ESL students studied in the general classrooms. The ESL program provided
English support in a small group. The program offered a supportive learning environment
and English language learning opportunities within an integrated language arts program
where both oral and written languages were used for instruction and class participation.
ESL students were given abundant opportunities to develop both English oral and written
language so that they could function at grade level in a general classroom. While learning
English as a Second Language, “students were helped to learn content knowledge and
make connections among subject areas, to develop feelings of empowerment in English,
to increase strategic reasoning for problem solving, and to form appropriate constructs for
authoring, reading and learning conversations. During the process, the ESL teacher
worked closely with the classroom teacher so that language learning would flow

seamlessly from one setting to the other.” (McLellan, 2000)

Case Selection and Re-anglgyses of CIERA Data

A set of procedures were employed in the process of case selection and reanalyses
of the existing data collected between 1999 and 2002. Among seven cases already existed,
two focal cases and one auxiliary case were selected to “maximize diversity” (Firestone,
1993, p. 20) in grade levels (i.e., kindergarten, first & second) and literacy skills in their
native language (i.e., sophisticated, literate, emergent), as well as availability of valid

student assessment results in oral and written language. The three students chosen for

30

case study analyses were Yonsu, Tayl, and J in. Among them, Yonsu and Tayl were two
focal cases because they shared the same ESL and general classroom teachers, and this
enabled the author to conduct a cross case analysis. Jin was an auxiliary case study
participant because his ESL and general teachers differed fi'om the other two. J in was
shadowed in his general classroom only because the author was interested in comparing
the grade level differences in the general curriculum. A more detailed description of

individual students will be included in the results section.

Data used for reanalyses came from a variety of data sources. They involved a)
observation notes from general and ESL classrooms, b) student oral language samples, c)
student work samples from school and home including home journals, and (1) interviews
with parents, teachers, and tutors. Because observations were made based upon
consultations with general and ESL classroom teachers in order to maximize the
opportunity of observing the written to oral connection in learning English, the frequency
and length of general and ESL classroom observations differed slightly year by year.
More specifically, Yonsu was observed weekly in her general classroom and three times
a month in an ESL classroom between October and early June. Tayl was observed almost
weekly in his general classroom and twice monthly in his ESL classroom between
September and May. J in was observed three times a month involving a total of seventeen
general class sessions between March and January of the following year. Unlike two

focal case study participants, J in’s data came from observations in his general classroom.

In analyzing data, constant comparative method was used (Glazer & Strauss, 1967
to realize “objective possibility” (Weber, 1949, p. 80) of observing the written to oral

connection in ESL. Guided by the description of conceptual categories developed from

31

the CIERA research, candidate data segments were identified for each category (i.e.,

making language material, making language stand still, and rehearsal). Then, the nature

and characteristics of each segment was compared to existing descriptions of conceptual

categories, and a conceptual category was assigned to the relevant data segment.

Impressions gained from various data sources were also triangulated in order to achieve

an analytic generalization regarding the written to oral connection (F etterman, 1984;

Firestone, 1993; Stake, 1994). Table 1 summarizes information on three case study

participants and data sources.

Table 1. Case study participants and data sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students Yonsu Tayl Jin
Grade 2nd lst K
Native language Korean Korean Korean
L1 literacy Sophisticated Literate Minimal
Research period 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002

(Oct-June) (Sep-May) (March-J an)

General class Weekly Weekly 3 times per month
observation
ESL class 3 times per month Twice monthly None
observation

 

Teacher interviews

Informal (need basis)

Twice (Nov., Jan.)

Informal (need
basis)

 

Parent interviews

3 times (Nov., March,
May)

Twice (Jan., June)

4 times (Feb., June,
Oct. of 2001 & Jan.
of2002)

 

Tutor interviews

Once (March)

Once (June)

None

 

 

Other data

 

School work samples,
home journal, student
assessment results,
oral language sample
general-ESL teacher
meeting

 

School work
samples, student
assessment results,
oral language
sample

 

School work
samples, student
assessment results,
oral language
sample

 

32

 

Results

Results include both a description and an evaluation of the written to oral
connection in ESL. In describing the written to oral connection in ESL, I focused on
written language usage in both teaching and leaming—incidences in which teachers and
students used literacy (i.e., reading, writing, and drawing) to discuss, highlight, and
review various aspects of English oral language together or individually. In evaluating
the functions of written language to the development of English oral language for the
three case study participants, the author focused on the specific ways in which written
language mediated three case study students’ oral language development with a special
attention to examples that exhibited the plausible written to oral connection. Interestingly,
the research results indicated that there was a relationship between students’ literacy
experiences in their native language and the functions of English written language.

There were differences in the nature of student participation between general and
ESL classrooms. Because general classroom instruction focused on English-speaking
students in each grade level (they were clearly the majority of the students in each
classroom), the general curriculum may have been challenging for beginning ESL
students. The three case study students exhibited changes in class participation, and the
changes that each student showed in participating in different types of activities shed
interesting insights. Thus, descriptions of general classroom instruction focus on the
changes each case study student made in participating in different types of classroom
activities. In other words, descriptions will focus on what type of activities the three case
study students participated in and how their participation in each type of class activity

Changed over time. In the ESL classroom where instruction was to provide English

33

language support for each individual ESL student, ESL classroom learning activities were
structured to engage all ESL students in classroom instruction. While student
participation was constant, the nature of ESL instruction changed over time. Thus,
accounts of ESL instruction include a detailed description of the nature of ESL
instruction highlighting changes throughout the year.

The case study findings reported in this section consist of two distinctive parts.
The first part focuses on the three focal students’ learning contexts and participation.
More specifically, it involves 1) descriptions of the three case study participants and their
home learning environment; 2) accounts of general and ESL classroom instruction; 3) the
functions of written language in both classroom instruction; 4) descriptions of the three
students’ participation in both classroom activities. The report is organized into four
sections, and each section is reported by students. The second part focuses on the
functions of written language that played a role in the development of oral language for
the three case study participants. For the second part, results from individual focal
students were complied and analyzed using the three conceptual categories (i.e., making

language material, making language stand still, and rehearsal) as a framework.

Portraiture of Focal Students and Home Langgag -LearningEnvironment

All three case study participants came from Korea with their families
accompanying their fathers who were visiting scholars at a mid-westem university.
During their one-year stay in the United States, all three families supported their
children’s English language learning in school and at home. The students played with

Korean friends in the beginning, and they gradually made English speaking friends as the

34

year progressed. All three students made progress in English oral and writing language

skills.

KM Yonsu was a second grade female student from Korea. She stayed in the
United States for one year with her family accompanying her father who came as a
visiting professional at a mid-western university. By coming to the States, Yonsu’s
parents hoped to give their children opportunities to learn English (Parent interview,
11/24/99). Before Yonsu came to the United States, she attended a public elementary
school for one year and acquired sophisticated literacy skills in her native language.
Korean was an important part of Yonsu’s life even in the United States. Yonsu spoke
Korean with her fiiends and family, and she spent her playtime mostly with Korean
friends outside of school. Yonsu’s parents described Yonsu as quiet, sensitive and shy.
They added that she was sometimes bold. For example, she volunteered to become a
chairperson in her homeroom when she was in Korea (Parent interview, 3/6/00).

Yonsu was an avid reader and writer. While Yonsu was in Korea, she sometimes
skipped a meal to read through a new book that her dad newly purchased for her (Parent
interview, 11/24/99). Her disposition for reading persisted in the US. She mostly read
Korean books in the beginning. She exhibited consistent progress in English reading as
the year progressed. In the beginning, she read ESL books that were sent home as home
assignment. By March, parents checked out books-on-tape from a local public library,
and Yonsu listened to them at bedtime (Parent interview, 3/6/00). By May, Yonsu read-

chapter books including science fiction (Parent interview, 5/22/00).

Yonsu’s disposition for reading and writing appeared to have been fostered

through parental support. They took her and her younger sister to a local public library

35

and provided a tutor twice weekly. Although they avoided reading to her after they were
warned by their Korean friend that their non-native pronunciation might impede Yonsu’s
English learning in a negative way, they encouraged her to read and write regularly at

home, and Yonsu kept a home journal throughout the year.

Entries in Yonsu’s home journal were written in Korean in the beginning and
gradually included English writing as the year progressed. She wrote a couple of English
words such as Christmas or good bye in the beginning (Yonsu’s home journal, 12/23/99).
On January 24’“, she wrote “Today, I went to MGM studio,” which was the first
incidence of writing in a full sentence in English on her own. The longest English entry
found in her journal dated April 10th when she recorded her excitement of getting
attention from her classmates during recess due to a jump rope she brought to school. Ten
English sentences she wrote that day included Yonsu’s recall of her friends’ questions.
Yonsu’s daily journal entries recorded detailed notes of her personal emotions, daily
experiences, happy moments in her school and home lives, family trips, and experiences
with her playmates. She also expressed her sadness of missing her home and extended

family members in Korea.

Despite Yonsu’s shyness and consistent use of Korean, Yonsu’s English
developed throughout the year. Assessment results showed positive gains in English oral
and written language development for Yonsu. For example, the Woodcock- Munoz test
showed that Yonsu’s oral English improved from very limited to limited (level 2-3) in
November, to the fluent level (level 4) in May. Her reading and writing progressed from
very limited to limited (level 2-3), to fluent to advanced (level 5) between November and

May. Yonsu’s progress in oral and written language skills in English seemed evident

36

according to her parents. Although they only taught English alphabet before they came to
the States (Parent interview, 11/24/99), Yonsu began to write her home journal in English
with a little help from them with English words (Parent interview, 3/6/00). By May,
Yonsu only spoke English even with Korean friends, preferred to read English chapter
books independently, and only wrote in English. She wrote a four-page journal regarding
her family trip to Holland (parent interview, 5/22/00). Take these assessment results
together, Yonsu developed English oral and written skills successfully.

M Tayl was enrolled in the first grade when he participated in the case study.
Tayl came to the United States with his mother, an older sister, and father who was a
visiting professional at a mid-westem university. Tayl read and wrote in Korean at his
grade level (Korean assessment, 1/24/01). Tayl was perceived to be shy according to his
general classroom teacher, who identified the need for him to be more vocal based upon
his classroom interactons (Teacher interview, 1/10/01).

Tayl’s family supported Tayl’s English language learning. They tried to speak a
couple of English sentences once or twice a day to encourage their children’s use of
English at home. To encourage reading, Tayl’s parents consulted with Tayl’s teacher and
purchased fifiy volumes of used children’s books. Among them were included Dr. Seuss’
books and Berenstein Bears series. Parents also tried to teach Tayl and his sister English
at home for a couple of hours a day. They used dictation to develop their children’s
English skills. Tayl was capable of reading English books independently by January
(Parent interview, 1/24/01). His parents continued to ask Tayl to read books at home. The
parents also provided their children with an English tutor who attended college in the area.

The tutor came twice a week during the first four months. Later, the parents increased the

37

frequency of tutoring to three times a week. With the tutor, Tayl read books, played
Hangman game, and studied workbooks that focused on phonics skills and reading

comprehension.

Tayl’s progress in English oral skills was evident in his social and cultural
interaction as well as his English use at home. In January, Tayl had two Korean friends
and an English-speaking fiiend from his first grade class. By June, he made more
English-speaking fiiends, and he frequently watched English cartoon movies. Tayl’s
speaking and listening skills improved noticeably since March, and by June he used more
English than Korean at home. At this time, Tayl’s parents were proud of Tayl’s
development in English oral language. They described, “Tayl speaks like foreign
students.” His mother added that he even translated for her when she did not understand

her neighbor who paid a visit to her apartment (Parent interview, 6/5/01).

Tayl’s performance on ESL assessment measures matched with his parents’
perceptions of Tayl’s growth in English. Tayl’s oral language skills developed from level
1 in October and improved to level 2 in May based upon the Pre-Las Oral Test (Duncan,
& De Avila, 1998). His oral syntax also improved from level 1 to level 3 according to the
Bilingual Syntax Measure (BSM) (Burt, Dulay & Hernandez Ch., 1976). According the
structural scoring index of BSM, almost half of Tayl’s utterances were grammatically
accurate in May. Tayl made comparable growth in learning the English written language.
His performance on Pre-Literacy on the Pre-Las Test showed that he improved from level
1 to level 3 between October and December. According to Tayl’s performance on the
Qualitative Reading Inventory (Leslie & Caldwell, 1995), Tayl began as a non-reader in

the beginning and became a primer level reader by the end of the year.

38

J3 J in was a kindergartner who participated in the study for 11 months between
January and November. Based upon classroom observations of J in and multiple
conversations with his parents, J in seemed to possess an outgoing personality. Due to
J in’s lack of English skills and schooling experiences, his parents and kindergarten
teacher met before the end of a school year and decided to retain him in the same
kindergarten classroom after the summer. Like two other case study participants, J in
came to the States with his family accompanying his father who was a visiting scholar at
a mid-westem university. J in did not have any formal schooling experience in Korea.
Before he came to the US, he was a proficient oral language user, but he did not know the
Korean alphabet fully. His mom mostly read Korean folk legends or Disney stories
written in Korean (Parent interview, 6/4/01).

J in possessed minimal English skills when he first arrived in the US. While he
was in the country, his family supported Jin’s learning of English. For example, J in’s
family members encouraged him to use English at home. His parents often used English
at home to encourage J in to practice his emerging English skills, which he readily
complied (2/7/01 interview). J in’s parents also encouraged J in to watch TV programs
with his older sister, which Jin seemed to have been reluctant to do in the beginning. J in’s
mom or his sister, who was enrolled in the third grade, read English books to support
J in’s learning of English. Until June, I in insisted upon listening to Korean translations so
that he could understand what was read to him (6/4/01 interview). In the beginning, he
used Korean and mostly played with his older sister and other Korean friends in the
neighborhood. Later in the year, however, J in listened to English stories without Korean

translation, and he understood the content of a book when his family read books to him

39

(10/12/01 interview). He preferred to watch TV rather than reading books. He switched
language depending upon his interlocutors. He used English when he played with his
sister or school friends who came from other countries. When he spoke with Korean

adults, he used Korean.

J in developed his English skills during his stay in the United States. Based upon
his performance on Pre-Las, a standardized ESL test, his oral language improved to level
1 by October. In the beginning, he was not tested for oral skills because he did not speak
English at all. His literacy skills also improved slightly. Although his performance on the
Pre-Literacy component of Pre-Las test remained in level two, his performance improved
by 7 points in between May and October. J in’s oral and written language samples from
class observations also indicated his progress in learning English. Early in the year, J in
did not speak English at all (Class observation, 1/24/01). His writing involved a string of
random letters (Student artifact, 2/21/01). Later in the year, he was able to produce a
sentence. He shouted, “I can spell grass” when the teacher flipped a chart paper and
showed the picture of a tree (Class observation, 10/10/01). His writing involved a
complete sentence with inventive spelling such as, “I lik soccer” (Student artifact,

10/12/01)

40

Table 2. Student assessment information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(level 2-3) to fluent
(level 4)

Measure (level 1 to
level 3)

Students Yonsu Tayl J in
Personality shy shy outgoing
Korean oral skills competent competent competent
Native language sophisticated fluent minimal
(L1) literacy
L1 writing at home Yes (daily home Sometimes minimal

Eurnal) (dictation)
English skills upon minimal minimal minimal
arrival in the US
English oral skill Woodcock-Munoz PreLas oral PreLas oral
development Language Survey (level 1 to level 3) none to level 1
very limited-limited Bilingual Syntax

 

English written
skill development

 

 

WMLS level 2-3 to
fluent-advanced (level
5)

 

PreLas Pre-Literacy
(level 1 to level 3)
QRI (non-reader to
primer)

 

PreLas Pre-
Literacy level 2
(65) to level 2 (72)

 

Written Language Activities in General Classrooms

All class activities involved reading and writing when reading and writing

activities were defined based upon the perspective of literacy forwarded by Olson (i.e.,

the competence to exploit a particular set of cultural resources) (Olson, 1996). Both

general and ESL classroom teachers used English written language to provide a model

for learning and using English oral language.

All class activities incorporated reading and writing with a varying degree, and

there were three different levels of incorporation of written language: 1) Independent

writing activities called for mostly reading and writing skills. Students were required to

41

 

use their reading and writing skills to complete independent writing activities; 2) Small
group activities incorporated a mix of all language skills. Students needed reading and
writing skills to process written information provided to them, and speaking and listening
skills to discuss ideas to complete a given task; and 3) Whole group activities involved
oral language skills with a varying degree of written language usage. Specifically,
students were required to use reading skills to process teachers’ writing on the chalkboard
or chart paper and oral language skills to comprehend and participate in class discussions.

Because all class activities were reading and writing activities, the description of
written language activities in general classrooms is organized into two parts. It focuses on
1) activities offered in each classroom and 2) teachers’ uses of written language. Reports
of classroom activities are organized by each student, and teachers’ uses of written
language are organized by conceptual categories.

Yon_su’s Second Grade Clafi A daily routine in Yonsu’s class indicated
omnipresence of written language in all class activities. The students in Yonsu’s class sat
in small groups. When they arrived in the morning, they were given time to review basic
math skills such as subtraction or to build literacy related skills using morning
worksheets. The “Student of The Week” presentation was occasionally offered during the
time after morning worksheet and before morning recess. Afier morning recess, students
were given time to do publishing when they do not go to special classes such as arts.
Independent reading or literacy related whole class games or teacher reading aloud were
offered before students left for lunch. In the afiemoon, students were given content
instruction around 1:30 for about forty-five minutes before the students left for aftemoon

recess. When they returned to the room after recess, the teacher read aloud a book to the

42

children while children ate snacks in the front of the room. After the whole group reading
by Mr. K, Yonsu’s second grade teacher, the class focused on math lessons or science
lessons. Occasionally, the teacher implemented a student of the week activity when the
class did not have time in the morning.

Written language mediated oral language use in various ways depending upon the
purpose and the type of learning activities (i.e., whole group, small group, independent).
The purpose of whole group activities was to introduce a new concept, wrapping up what
they learned in small group discussions, and building a supportive and collaborative
learning community in the class. Types of whole group activities included teacher’s
content instruction, teacher’s summary of group discussions, science experiments, small
group presentations, teacher reading, a discussion of annoying behavior, student of the

week, and literacy games such as letter bingo or Hangman.

Among whole group activities, some activities relied more on oral language skills.
These activities involved student of the week, whole group discussions on annoying
behavior, bingo or hangman games. During these activities, written language or objects
played an auxiliary role to support oral language use. For example, during student of the
week, the focal student brought in various objects that he or she wanted to share with the
class. The student showed each object to the class and explained what it was. At that time,
students were given opportunities to view the objects (class observation, 1/13/00).

Small group activities were designed to help students apply what they learned in
whole groups. Types of small group activities involved coloring and cutting shapes for a
puppet show (for story retelling), measuring lengths of straight lines, magnet experiment

entitled “To stick or not stick,” a role play on annoying behavior, small group reading

43

with the teacher (so that the students can be helped), and research projects on tomados
and manatees. During small group activities, students shared resources or discussed ideas
to complete the given class assignment. Thus, both oral and written language skills were
required to participate in small group activities. Because students sat in small groups, Mr.
K attended to interactions among students and made changes that he deemed necessary.
When ESL students used native language only while interacting with each other in
January, the teacher consulted with an ESL teacher and changed the seating arrangement
in the room to encourage ESL students to practice their emerging English skills (General-

ESL teacher meeting, 1/18/00).

The purpose of independent activities was to practice basic academic skills (e. g.,
math and literacy skills), to review learning from whole group instruction, and to develop
writing skills. Independent learning activities included morning worksheets which
focused on practicing basic math skills and reading related skills (e.g., syllables, words in
context). Independent learning activities were implemented as a follow-up of a whole
group activity. After a whole class instruction in a content area, students were given a
teacher-developed worksheet related to the content discussed earlier. Students were asked
to answer questions included in the worksheet independently. Publishing was another
important independent learning activity. Students were given opportunities to write a
story of their own choice and include their own illustration during publishing.

Independent learning activities mostly involved the use of written language from students

Tayl’s First (Ede Class. Tayl’s first grade classroom offered a wide range of
learning opportunities in a diverse group setting including whole and small groups as

well as individual activities. Mr. K, Tayl’s general classroom teacher, integrated these

44

three different types of activities into a daily routine. Like Yonsu’s class, written
language was used in all class activities, and it was impossible to separate out oral and
written language in class activities.

When the students arrived, they participated in morning worksheets while the
teacher was getting lunch counts and completing other important classroom logistics.
After the morning worksheet time, students then gathered around the teacher in the front
of the room near the chalkboard. Sometimes the teacher began the whole group activity
with reviewing concepts or skills in morning worksheets when the teacher found
something that he wanted to discuss from observing students’ work in the morning
worksheet, he addressed the question to the whole class. After the morning worksheet
activity, the teacher offered “The Question of the Day” activity, which involved a small
group of students’ writing of their questions that they wanted to explore that day. All
students took turns to participate in the activity, and eventually, every student in the class
had an opportunity to contribute to developing “The Question of the Day.” Students who
participated in the activity wrote their questions on a chart paper. During this time, other
children participated in a morning routine, which involved writing the date and counting
the day of the week. Classroom jobs followed immediately afier. The rest of the morning
after recess was filled with other literacy activities such as journal writing, studying
spelling words in pair groups, student reading of a journal entry, teacher read aloud to the

class, publishing, or small group editing with the teacher.

When children returned from lunch and a short lunch recess, they engaged
themselves in silent reading. Students were given opportunities to choose books of their

own choice and find a place to read quietly. The teacher had a classroom library full of a

45

wide variety of children literature in the room. Bookshelves were located at various
comers of the room. After aftemoon recess, children again gathered around the teacher in
the carpeted area in the front of the room. At this time, the teacher read aloud a book or
two out loud to the children. Children were invited to bring their own snack and listen to
the teacher’s story. After the snack and story time, lessons on Social Studies or Science
followed. Sometimes a school day concluded with estimation or following directions.

Whole group activities included guessing jar that required students to estimate the
number of objects in the jar, morning routine (i.e., writing the date of the day and singing
the day of the week song), teacher read aloud, student of the day, snack & story time,
content area instruction including math, science and social studies. Literacy activities
completed in whole group settings included student journal reading, and generating word
lists for journal writing. As such, whole group activities mostly involved use of oral
language skills from students, and written language (e. g., books or teacher’s writing)
often mediated usage of oral language (e. g., class discussions or teacher read aloud).
Students listened to the books that the teacher or their peers read or teacher directions
regarding a lesson in a content area. They shared their ideas verbally. Ofien, whole group
activities were preludes to small or independent activities.

Small group activities included studying spelling words in a pair group, a map
activity which required making a school map with members of a small group as a part of
Social Studies lesson, and small group presentations during a science lesson. Another
type of small group activity involved editing with the teacher. During publishing time, a
small group of students were invited to bring their written works to the teacher for editing.

Participation in small group activities involved both written and oral language skills.

46

Independent learning activities mostly required the use of written language skills
from students. The type of independent activities included morning worksheets, journal
writing, silent reading, or writing responses to the questions written in a worksheet during
science lessons. During these independent learning activities after whole group science
lessons, students sat quietly in their seats and wrote their own responses to the questions
on teacher-generated worksheets or wrote their ideas in their literacy journals. During
morning worksheets, another independent learning activity, students completed their
written responses to math questions or basic literacy skill related questions.

J in’s Kindergarten Class. Like the two previous classrooms, J in’s general
classroom required use of all language skills in class activities. Although usage of written
language varied depending upon the type of class activities, oral language were
inseparable from written language. J in’s class activities included a wide variety of theme-
based learning activities ranging from whole and small group activities as well as
learning centers. These activities were a part of the class routine. For example, morning
activities consisted of reviewing the day’s schedule, calendar activity, counting the day
and month (and occasionally year), reading Fish News (which involved listening to a
piece of news from one of the students and choral reading), job charts, and weather of the
day. Alter morning recess, students engaged in whole group content instruction and small

group activities before they left the classroom for lunch.

Whole group activities included discussing different weather words,
characteristics of butterflies, students’ Reading All About Me books, morning routine,
teacher’s reading of children’s books or informational texts related to a class theme,

finding words that begin with “The Letter of the Day”, writing conventions (e. g.,

47

exclamation marks) and the sounds and letters of double consonants. The purpose of
whole group activities was mostly to introduce new lessons or themes, or teacher
modeling of an activity. These whole group activities involved all language skills, and

they were often followed by independent review activities in small groups.

Independent activities involved review of whole group lessons in small group
settings. Individual students were given teacher generated worksheets related to the
whole group discussion on a theme (e. g., butterfly). Each activity was focused on theme
related vocabulary or compositions of one’s own sentence in a little book, which the
teacher developed. The main purpose of review activities was to reinforce their previous
learning in whole groups through writing or drawing or a combination of the two. Ms. P,
Jin’s general classroom teacher, often visited the students who needed extra support and
helped them understand a given task and complete their review sheets. The teacher asked
questions to encourage the students to think harder (Class observation, 5/17/01). When
the students were done, they were asked to turn in their written work. When the teacher
completed checking the student’s work and found it to be satisfactory, students were
allowed to go to centers of their choice. Independent review activities in the class mostly
involved the use of written language, and oral language played an auxiliary role to

support learning of content instruction during whole group lessons.

Center activities in J in’s class offered a variety of choices. Centers, which the
author observed, included construction, games, reading, literacy, listening, and pretend
play. Students were given options to choose a center of their interest and play either alone
or with friends. The teacher circulated the classroom, supported individual students’

engagement in each center activity, and helped students manage their own behaviors so

48

that they could share toys and take turns to use games. The most frequently used
language skill during center activities was oral language mediated by cultural artifacts
such as board games, blocks, books, and play things. The only exception was literacy
centers, which the teacher offered in the afternoon during free center activities. At these
literacy centers, students worked on writing skills through, for example, teacher
developed little alphabet books. At these literacy centers, however, uses of oral language
were not excluded because students often conversed while completing their work.

To summarize, written language was omnipresent in all three general classrooms.
Although all class activities involved reading and writing, written language was
integrated into class activities in various ways depending upon the purpose and the type
of class activities. Oral and written skills were fused in all class activities, and they were

inseparable.

Teachers’ uses of written language in general classrooms

General classroom teachers used various functions of written language to provide
a model of learning and using oral language. The functions of written language utilized
by teachers included making language material, making language stand still, and
rehearsal. Teachers taught English oral vocabulary using written language or pictures or a
combination of both. They introduced new concepts in a content area through written
language by writing class discussions on the board or drawing a diagram while
introducing new ideas orally. The teachers also used written language to support

students’ learning of oral language through repeated practice. The existence of grade

49

level differences in teachers’ usage of written language indicated that teachers had

different expectations for required cognitive skills depending upon grade levels.

Making language material. This function was utilized only by the 1”t and
kindergarten teachers. Vocabulary instruction was a typical example of using written
language to make oral language material. Mr. K, Tayl’s first grade teacher, encouraged
students to explain their understanding of words through pictures when the students wrote
in their journals. For example, Mr. K drew a rectangle and a line in the middle. He drew a
picture of the sun on the top part and the word sun on the bottom of the rectangle. Then,
he told the students to do the same in their journals (Class observation, 10/18/00). By
modeling drawing a picture that represented the meaning of a word to the students, the
teacher encouraged the students to make oral language material in their journal writing so
that they understood the meanings of the written words.

J in’s teacher used written language to make oral language material. In November,
the teacher asked the students to find words that begin with the letter (I. When a student
raised his hand and said dragon, the teacher wrote the word on a chart paper in front of
the class and drew a simplified picture of a dragon next the English word. In so doing, the
teacher made the meaning of dragon material, and the students could actually see the
meaning of the word. (Class observation, 11/14/01)

Making language stand still. Making language stand still was utilized to discuss
concepts in whole groups or to revisit class discussions or whole group instruction.
Yonsu’s teacher made oral language stand still during content instruction. When the
teacher introduced magnetism to the class, he asked individual students what they knew

about it. The teacher wrote students’ responses on the chalk board and created a class

50

concept map. Each time students offered a new idea regarding magnetism, the teacher
made connections among different ideas and expanded the class concept map. After the
lesson, the class reviewed the concept map together (Class observation, 2/22/00).
Because the class concept map made oral language stand still, the class could analyze
various characteristics of magnetism and revisit the concept map as a whole class when
the oral discussions ended. As another example, when the class discussed annoying
behaviors, the teacher wrote a script on the chalkboard to be used for a role play. Students
were paired up and told their pairs what was written on the board. When the students
forgot what they were supposed to say, they looked at the board. Because the teacher’s
writing on the chalkboard made oral language stand still, students were able to use the
information when they could not recall the script (Class observation, 3/23/00).

Written language was used to make oral language stand still in Tayl’s general
classroom. Everyday, after Mr. K read books before journal time, the students and the
teacher generated a list of words that students could use in their writing journals. Students
readily offered words that they wanted to know more or they liked for the list. Then, Mr.
K, Tayl’s first grade teacher, wrote the words that students offered for the class word list
for their journal writing. On September 20th of 2000, the students and the teacher
generated twenty-one words related to environment. The words were environment, fish,
eagle, sparkling, brook, deer, shine, bears, turtle, birds, bats, frogs, mouse, wolf, duck,
squirrel, horse, eat, drink, water, and food. By writing students’ words on a big piece of
paper, Mr. K made language stand still so that the students can revisit and use them in
their journal writing. Making language stand still was also observed when the teacher

wrote oral discussions during “The Student of the Day” activity, “The Question of the

51

Day”, and other daily whole group activities. Thus, making language stand still was the
most frequently used function of written language in this classroom.

Mr. K also made oral language stand still to help students promote scientific
understanding. On May 9‘", one of the foci of the science lesson was to compare the
differences between woodland plants and freshwater plants. The teacher drew two
columns on a piece of chart paper and asked to volunteer their ideas. Students raised their
hands and said that woodland plants had conifers and the size, shape, color, texture of
woodland plants were different from freshwater plants. They added that woodland plants
need soil, don’t live in water, and they have leaves. Mr. K wrote these ideas on the left
column and students’ ideas related to freshwater plans on the right column. In so doing,
the teacher used writing to make oral language (i.e., students oral responses) stand still so
that they can analyze and understand the differences between woodland plants and
freshwater plants.

Analyses of functions of written language in class activities exhibited the intricate
connection between oral and written language in Jin’s class. For example, his teacher led
a whole group discussion with the students regarding various kinds of weather in April.
When the students offered weather related words, the teacher wrote the words on the
chart paper placed on an easel next to the teacher. (Class observation, 4/18/01) By writing
the words that the students offered, the teacher made oral language stand still so that the
students and teacher could review the words.

Rehearsal. Yonsu’s second grade teacher provided his students opportunities to
rehearse their language skills. During morning worksheets, students were invited to do

worksheets. One of the important purposes of worksheets was to practice English sounds

52

such as long vowels, the sounds of co, consonant pairs, and blends. For example, students
were given a worksheet focusing on the sounds of 00. The worksheet included “moon”
and “noon” as sample words on the top. Next, ten sentences were listed with a blank
space in the middle. Next to each sentence, there were three word choices. Students were
then asked to choose a word from the word choices that fit in the sentence (Student
artifact, 10/18/99). By reading words included in a worksheet, identifying the same
sounds as the sample words, and using correct words in a given sentence, students were
given opportunities to rehearse their language skills.

Rehearsal was also observed in Tayl’s classroom. Journal writing was a typical
example in the classroom through which the teacher encouraged the children to rehearse
their language skills. Mr. K explained that generating a word list for their journals was
specifically to encourage students use the words. The word list that the teacher wrote for
the students were actually words that the students wanted to include in their journals
because they liked a specific word. The teacher stated that because words were from the
students, he thought that the students would have ownership of the words, and they would
be more likely to use them. (Informal teacher interview, 9/20/00). By including journal
writing in a daily routine, the teacher encouraged the students to rehearse their language
skills so that their oral language would develop more fully.

J in’s kindergarten teacher provided students with teacher generated worksheets or
small books after whole group discussions. The worksheets or small books often included
words or sentences related to the lessons during previous whole group discussions.
Students were required to copy the words or sentences and add a new word. By writing

the words or sentences, students were given opportunities to review what they have

53

learned previously. In so doing, the teacher used written language to provide students
with opportunities to do a rehearsal of their developing language skills. Table 3
summarizes the functions of written language in each classroom.

Table 3. Functions of written language in general classrooms

 

 

grades Making Language Making Language Rehearsal
Material Stand Still
2"“ Not observed Content instruction Basic literacy skill
(e.g., magnetism), worksheets, journal

Reviewing concepts or writing
instruction or discussion

 

 

 

 

 

 

lSt Vocabulary Word list for journal Journal writing,
knowledge writing, Comparison of Review worksheets
different types of plants
K Vocabulary Reviewing whole class Review worksheets
instruction discussions

 

Summgy. As Table 3 shows, general classroom teachers used English written
language to provide a model for learning and using English oral language. They modeled
that written language could be used, to name a few, to introduce new concepts such as
magnetism, to compare and contrast differences between plants, to record oral
discussions so that they could review what they discussed, to highlight English sounds, to
connect oral language to read world objects, or to practice emerging oral language skills
repeatedly. Interestingly, Mr. K did not use making language material function for his 2nd
graders. Considering that this function was used for basic vocabulary instruction in other
classrooms, Mr. K may have expected his students to have already acquired basic English

vocabulary before they arrived in the 2"d grade.

54

 

Written Language Activities in the ESL Classroom

As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, ESL instruction was observed in
two focal students’ ESL classrooms (i.e., Yonsu and Tayl) only. Based upon observations
of these two ESL classes, it was evident that all ESL class activities involved a varying
degree of written language skills. Analyses of ESL written language activities indicated a
distinctive pattern in integrating oral and written language skills in ESL instruction. The
ESL teacher also modeled using English written language to understand and learn various
aspects of English oral language.

Yonsu’s ESL Classroom. Yonsu’s ESL classroom provided ESL support for
about 40 minutes in a small group. In the beginning of the year, Yonsu was a part of
small group of four members. Later in the year, Yonsu joined in an intermediate group,
which consisted of nine group members. Except independent writing, most ESL class
activities were done in whole groups. The kinds of whole group activities included
vocabulary, grammar, and basic literacy skill instruction, language experience, oral
sharing, games, choral, paired, and individual reading, as well as independent writing.
While both oral and written language were integrated into ESL instruction throughout the
year, the language skills required to participate in ESL activities seemed to increase in its
depth and breadth as the year progressed.

Vocabulary instruction in the beginning focused on building basic English
vocabulary such as shape words. The teacher gave each student a word bank which
included picture word cards of about one and a half inch in length on each side. The
teacher taught the names of objects in the word bank in class, and encouraged the

students to say the name of an object on each card and practice it repeatedly (ESL class

55

observation, 10/25/99). Later, vocabulary instruction involved semantic aspects of the
English language such as the meaning of a plural marker “5” or “are”. Mrs. M., the ESL
teacher, often used pictures to help students understand these linguistic features. For

‘6 ’9
S

example, the ESL teacher asked the students, “Why do we have on chenies and
grapes? The teacher then told the students to look at the picture and notice that there was
more than one. (ESL class observation, 1 1/16/99).

Basic literacy skill instruction was observed in the beginning. It focused on
developing English sounds such as initial consonants, silent ending “e” and phonemic
segmentation. For example, when the class learned the names of various kinds of fruit

using pictures in November, the ESL teacher segmented a word into its phonemes or

discussed a silent letter “e” and initial consonants.

ESL teacher: What is next word?

Student 1: Strawberry

(The teacher writes the word as she pronounces the word in phonemic segments)
ESL teacher: St-raw-berry

ESL teacher: Next one is green, and we can use it for salads.

(No students respond.)

ESL teacher: Lettuce. (Pointing to a picture of oranges) I said the other day,
“Don’t say orange-e.” Why? (Student 2 explains that there is a silent letter “e.”
The teacher affirms the students’ response.)

ESL teacher: (pointing to a picture of beans) Beans. Beans. (She reads the word

twice) Tell me what letter the word begins with.

Students: B

(ESL observation, 1 1/16/99)

As this example shows, the ESL teacher used writing to highlight and help her
students understand various aspects of English sounds and basic literacy concepts such as

a beginning consonant “b,” a silent letter “e,” and segmenting the word strawberry into its

phonemes.

56

Grammar instruction focused on past tense verbs. Mrs. M, the ESL teacher asked
students to talk about the place they visited during the winter break and wrote students’
responses on the chalkboard. After the class, the teacher made little books using student
sentences and encouraged students to read the sentences multiple times in class (ESL
class observation, 1/13/00). Mrs. M also sent little books to students’ parents. Mrs. M
also provided students with opportunities to use past tense verb forms in class during oral
sharing. For example, when the class met first time in a week, the teacher asked students
to share their weekend experiences orally with the class (ESL class observation, 2/20/00).

The usage of Language Experience Approach (Smith, 1965; Spache & Spache.
1964; Taylor, 1992) was also evident in the ESL instruction. The ESL class made a
peanut butter sandwich in March. The teacher asked the students to share what they know
about how to make a peanut butter sandwich. The teacher wrote student responses on the
chalk board and generated a class list for making a peanut butter sandwich. With the
ingredients that Mrs. M brought to the class, students and the ESL teacher together made
their own peanut butter sandwiches and ate them in class. After tasting, the teacher asked
individual students to describe what their peanut butter sandwich tasted like, and she
wrote students’ responses on the board. At the end of the class, the students read what
was written on the board (ESL observation, 300000). In so doing, the ESL teacher
modeled that written language could be used to record class oral discussions, to generate
a class list regarding how to make peanut butter sandwich, to describe one’s impressions
on how it tasted like, and to review the information they recorded when needed. Both oral
and written language required to participate in this activity were more complex and

diverse than when the students first came to the ESL class.

57

Independent writing activities included letter writing or making little books. For
example, the students wrote a letter to their parents or relatives in their home country.
The students were given instruction regarding how to write a letter and address on an
envelope. (ESL class observation, 3/23/00). Students also made their own little books.
After studying farm animals, the ESL teacher gave sheets of lined papers that included
pictures of farm animals. Students were invited to write what they remembered about
each animal (ESL class observation, 4/12/00). In another example, students made frog
books. After the students studied frogs, the teacher asked students to make their own frog
book and create illustrations (ESL class observation, 4/20/00). In these independent
writing instructions, oral and written language skills required for class participation were
content related (e.g., science) and involved more complex cognitive skills than ESL
activities in the beginning.

Tayl’s ESL Classroom. Tayl also received ESL instruction in mostly whole
groups. His ESL group involved a group of six ESL students. In addition to whole group
activities, there were also independent writing activities and pair group reading activities.
Throughout the year, all students participated in the learning process, and oral and written

language skills were integrated in the ESL instruction in a spiral fashion. (See Figure 1)

58

 

Pr Literacy

     

Level of
complexity

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Spiral instruction in Tayl’s ESL classroom

As figure 1 demonstrates, the content of ESL instruction encompassed all aspects
of language and literacy moving from basic oral language related activities to more
complex written language related activities. Usage of both oral and written language
skills was required for class participation in the process. Chronologically, ESL classroom
activities included learning the English alphabet, the order of English letters, sounding
out words, identifying initial and ending consonants, developing letter and word concepts,
vocabulary learning through matching English words with pictures or body parts or
behaviors, describing quantity more precisely, learning English syntax, past tense verbs,
looking at the title page of a book and guessing the content of a book, reading little books
and other content related books, comprehending written texts, guessing a title of a written
text after reading, greeting, writing date and month, writing journals and little books, and

writing an ending to a story.

59

During each class period, Mrs. M went to the students’ classrooms and brought
them to the ESL classroom. Once the students were seated, the teacher began her
instruction with checking students’ ESL folders. The ESL teacher checked whether
students read little books that they took home to their parents or adults in their homes by
looking at the signatures on the cover page of their ESL folders. Students who completed
their home reading assignment were given a sticker as a reward. Then, the main
instruction was provided. After the main ESL instruction, students chose a book to take
home to read to their parents. Toward the middle of the year when the students were
accustomed to daily home reading assignment, the teacher checked students’ completion
of home assignment before they left for their general classrooms. The responsibility of
checking student assignment was often carried out by a senior citizen who volunteered in

the ESL classroom.

The content of main ESL instruction changed over time. It can be divided into
three phases. In the beginning, it focused on building basic vocabulary such as things to
wear or body parts (ESL class observations, 10/18/00 & 11/1/00). Singing was used as a
tool to engage all students in the learning process. For example, when the teacher taught
body parts in November, the teacher started and ended the class with singing heads,
shoulders, knees, and toes (ESL observation, 11/01/00). Because all students sang the
song, everyone had a chance to pronounce the words while pointing to relevant body
parts. After singing the song, students were given a few pictures of body parts. They were
asked to out each picture and include the picture in their word bank. Then, students were
given opportunities to make sentences using the words. For example, in October, Mrs. M

asked the students to choose two items that they wanted to wear from their word bank.

60

She modeled by saying and writing on the chalkboard, “Mrs. M is wearing socks and a
necklace.” Then, she looked at each student and asked them to make a sentence using the
same sentence structure, and the teacher wrote the sentences students generated (ESL
observation, 10/18/00). The ESL teacher also implemented student reading. Student
reading at this time involved reading words in their word bank or little books made up of
one-word utterances. The teacher also encouraged the students to sound out initial
consonants (ESL class observation, 11/01/00).

From February of 2001 , the second phase of ESL instruction began. It focused on
understanding date and month, listening and reading comprehension, and pre-reading
conversations around a book. In other words, the teacher incorporated more literacy
related features of English into the ESL instruction. All language skills were still required
for class participation. For example, the teacher asked the students to help her write the
date and the month in February. She told the students that they needed to listen carefully
to what was read. When each student read three pages from the text regarding a lion and a
mouse, the ESL teacher stopped and asked questions that required recall or
comprehension skills. She asked, “How do you think a mouse could help a lion? Give me
an idea. Help me. . ..without. . .checking [your book].” (ESL class observation, 2/7/01)

During this time, Mrs. M implemented vocabulary lessons when students
exhibited difficulty in decoding words. She used motions instead of pictures. For example,
when Tayl read the text, he stumbled on the word, “nibbling.” The ESL teacher
demonstrated a nibbling behavior and pronounced the word again for Tayl. She also

helped students develop the concept of a word or a letter. She showed cards that included

61

words or letters to the students and asked them to identify the category (i.e., word or
letter) of each one.

Pre-reading conversations around a book were first observed in February as well.
Before the ESL teacher read a book entitled, “The very hungry caterpillar” (Carle, 1987),

she led a brief whole group discussion about the book:

ESL teacher: Who knows about what a caterpillar is?
$1: I know about it.

ESL teacher: What does it eat?

S1: It eats everything.

(Mrs. M smiles.)

ESL teacher: Where does he live? (She looks at Tayl and repeats the question)
Where does he live, Tayl?

S2: Leaf
ESL teacher: That’s right.

(Mrs. M shows the title page of the book and reads the title with the students
pointing to each word.)

(ESL class observation, 2/21/01)

By having a conversation before reading a book, the ESL teacher achieved
multiple goals. She helped the students recall facts about a caterpillar, share what they
knew, reminded the students of word concepts by pointing to each word while reading
the title. She also helped students understand the information included in the illustration
of the title page. After reading, each student was given a teacher-developed little book
that included sentences from “The very hungry caterpillar.” Students were asked to draw
an appropriate illustration on each page.

The last phase of ESL instruction took place between early April and the end of
May. During this time, explicit grammar instruction was observed. For example, the ESL

teacher asked the students to talk about what they did during the previous day in April.

62

She wrote “—ed” on the chalkboard and explained what it meant. Then, she drew two
columns. She wrote the word “play” in the left column as she said the word and asked the
students to give her a past tense form of the word. When students said played, she wrote
it on the right column. The ESL teacher also taught irregular past tense forms such as
“thought.” She gave a sentence to individual students and asked students to change the
verb of a sentence into its past tense form. (ESL class observation, 4/10/01).

More reading and writing activities were observed during the last phase of ESL
instruction, and the activities required more advanced literacy related skills than during
the first two phases. The teacher and the students read a book entitled “Put your best foot
forward.” (Stoutland, 2000) Students independently wrote a book using the sentence
structure appeared in the book (ESL observation, 4/18/01). When the students finished
writing their little books, the whole class reviewed classroom rules for authors and
audience members and read their little books to the whole group (ESL observation,
4/25/01). The ESL teacher also focused on predicting and writing an ending to a story.
For example, the teacher read a short passage with the students and asked the students to
guess what a girl in a picture of the story was going to do (ESL observation, 5/23/01). In
the following day, the teacher asked the students write an ending to the story after reading
a short passage (ESL observation, 5/24/01). In addition, the teacher taught phrases such
as a bar of soap or a bunch of carrot and helped ESL students to be more elaborate in
their language use (ESL observation, 5/16/01).

When new ESL students arrived in the room, the process seemed to begin again.

The ESL teacher began her instruction with greeting individual students:

ESL teacher: Good afternoon.

Student 1: Good afternoon.

63

(Mrs. M greets everyone and asks each student to greet her back)
(ESL observation, 5/24/01)

Then the ESL teacher engaged the students in an introduction activity, which
required the students to describe themselves including how old they were and where they
lived. For the remainder of the ESL class that day, existing ESL class members wrote an
ending to a story while newcomers drew an illustration for each page. As such, oral and
written language skills were integrated on a daily basis while the depth and breadth of
literacy related skills in the ESL instruction increased as the year progressed. In summary.

the ESL instruction resembled an enlarging spiral.

The functions of written language in ESL class activities

Although all language skills were used in ESL instruction, the ESL teacher used
written language throughout the year to highlight, analyze, and understand various
aspects of English oral language. Pictures were used to make names of real world objects
material, and teacher’s writing on the chalk board made oral language stand still. The
ESL teacher also used written language to provide her students with opportunities to

rehearse their emerging oral language skills in English.

Making language material. The ESL teacher made language material by using
pictures to build basic English oral vocabulary. Individual students in Yonsu’s ESL class
were given a word bank, which consisted of small picture word cards. Each card included
a picture of a real world object. These cards were used to develop ESL students’
vocabulary. For example, the ESL teacher asked students to look at the picture of buttons

in their word bank and asked them to say its English name (ESL class observation,

64

10/25/99). Pictures in the word bank were used to develop the concept of plurals. For
example, the teacher asked the students to look at the objects in a picture in November
when the class discussed a plural marker —s (ESL observation, 11/16/99). In so doing, the
ESL teacher made oral language material so that the students could understand the
meaning of a plural marker (i.e., “3”).

The ESL teacher made oral language material for vocabulary instruction for
Tayl’s ESL group. In addition to picture cards, Mrs. M used body parts or physical
demonstrations to make oral language material. For example, the teacher pointed to each
of the body parts while singing a song called “Heads, shoulders, knees and toes.” In the
process, the teacher helped students connect the actual body parts and their names. (ESL
observation, 11/01/00) Later in the year, the teacher demonstrated a nibbling behavior to
show what the word meant (ESL observation, 2/7/01). These examples show that the ESL
teacher made language material to develop students’ oral vocabulary.

Making language stand still. Written language made oral language stand still in
Yonsu’s ESL class. The ESL teachers often wrote what were discussed in a whole group.
For example, when the class discussed numbers and shapes in November, the ESL
teacher wrote, “six, seven, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, stars, squares, circles, hearts,
triangles, and octagon” Then, the class read these words together (ESL observation,
11/10/99). Recall the example of making a peanut butter sandwich in March when Mrs.
M engaged her ESL students in a discussion and generated a class list of how to make a
peanut butter sandwich (ESL observation, 3/2/00). In so doing, the ESL teacher modeled
a usage of written language to make oral language stand still so that the students can

revisit whenever the students needed while making peanut butter sandwiches.

65

The function of making language stand still was evident in Tayl’s ESL classroom.
Mrs. M wrote the name of the month and date on the chalkboard after she said the words
(ESL observation, 2/7/010). The ESL teacher used written language to introduce the form
and meaning of past tense verbs. She wrote “ed” on the chalkboard and explained to the
students that people use the form to describe things happened yesterday (ESL class
observation, 4/10/01). ESL teacher also used written language to teach a new phrase that
described quantity such as a bar of soap or a tube of toothpaste (ESL class observation,
5/16/01). By using written language, the ESL teacher made the form and function of past
tense verbs and adjectival phrases stand still. In so doing, the teacher helped her students
understand and use more elaborate English.

Rehearsal. Students were also given opportunities to rehearse their emerging
English skills through writing. Recall the example of making a little book on farm
animals. The ESL teacher provided teacher-developed worksheets to individual students.
The sheet included small pictures of farm animals and a few lines for each animal so that
the students could write a description for each animal. Yonsu wrote a couple of sentences
for each animal. In describing a piglet, she wrote, “This is a piglet. He likes in the mud.”
After she wrote these statements, she read the sentence over again. She then erased the
second sentence and rewrote, “He likes play in the mud.” (ESL class observation,
4/12/00). As this example illustrates, by giving an opportunity to write about what they
learned in class, the ESL teacher provided ESL students opportunities to rehearse their
emerging English skills. Interestingly, in the particular example, written language
provided Yonsu with an opportunity to rehearse her emerging language skills, to

recognize ambiguity in her sentence, and to elaborate it.

66

Tayl’s ESL class was also given opportunities to rehearse a newly learned English
form through writing. Recall when the ESL students made little books in April. Tayl’s
ESL class read two books entitled, “Put your best foot forward: more little lessons for a
happier world” and “Reach for the sky.” Both books had a sentence pattern, “. . .taught
me...” Then, the students made their own little books using the sentence pattern. Some of
Tayl’s sentences included, “My sister taught me to study and computing number. Mr. K
taught me to play a tag. People taught me that I am so good” (ESL observation, 4/18/01).
While writing these sentences, Tayl was given opportunities to rehearse the new sentence
structure, “...taught me...” and expand his English skills.

In summary, the ESL teacher modeled for her students various ways of using
written language to develop English oral language skills. The teacher used written
language to highlight various aspects of English oral language, to expand oral vocabulary,
to practice English syntax (e.g., making English sentences in present or past tenses) and
to use their emerging oral language skills. The ESL teacher’s modeling seemed to have
influenced student participation in the ESL class activities and the processes of learning

English.

Studenfiartitmaation in General and ESL Classes

All three students exhibited similar patterns in participating in both general and
ESL classrooms. In general classrooms, the three case study students participated in a
progression of general classroom activities that required least oral language skills to most
flexible oral language skills. Students’ participation in written language activities

indicated that students moved from copying to more active meaning making literacy

67

activities. Changes in participating in ESL classes showed the process of oral language
development of ESL students in a year. Students used single word utterances in the

beginning, and their utterances involved sentences toward the end of the year.

Yousu’grarticipation. In her general classroom, Yonsu participated in
independent writing activities from the beginning. She completed her morning
worksheets and wrote in her journals. She often copied sentences from journal entries of
her Korean friends who possessed proficient English skills, and she added detailed
illustrations (Class observation, 1/20/00). In another example, Yonsu participated
successfully in review activities after whole group instruction. She looked at written
materials provided for an activity and worksheet, understood the task and participated
successfully in the class activity (Class observation, 2/22/00). By the end of February,
Yonsu became more expressive and independent (Informal teacher interview, 2/29/00).

As the year progressed, Yonsu began to participate in whole group activities as
she became more familiar with the class routine and developed oral and written language
skills to understand what was discussed. When she was “The Student of the Week,” she
successfully completed her student of the week presentation with help from a Korean
female student whose English was proficient (Class observation, 3/4/00). In a couple of
weeks later, Yonsu volunteered an answer during a whole class discussion on annoying

behavior as the following example illustrates:

Teacher: What is annoying behavior?

(Students raise hands. Yonsu also raises a hand)
Teacher: Yonsu?

Yonsu: (in a soft voice) Hating

Teacher: Hitting or hating?

68

Yonsu: Hating.
(Class observation, 3/23/00)

In this example, the teacher asked Yonsu to clarify her responses by repeating
what he thought Yonsu said. At that moment, Yonsu did not become silent. Instead, she
repeated her earlier response. Although participating whole group activities required
more oral language skills than independent writing activities, Yonsu was able to
contribute to whole group discussion with single word utterances. As such, Yonsu’s

increased participation in whole group activities was evident as the year progressed.

Yonsu also participated in small group activities as her oral and written language
skills developed. Participating in small group activities seemed to involve a combination
of more flexible use of oral language skills and more active meaning making of written
texts than whole group activities. During a pair group discussion on sea otters and
manatees, Yonsu contributed meaningfully to the group activity. During the activity,
students were paired up to discuss short passages on sea otters and manatees as well as
questions regarding the texts. Yonsu read the questions and told her partner the answers
she found from the passages. Her partner wrote the answers. When the teacher asked
students’ attention to wrap up their activity, Yonsu’s partner reported to the teacher that

they did a great job answering the questions (Class observation, 5/2/00).

Because ESL instruction was organized to involve all students in class activities,
Yonsu participated in ESL activities from the beginning. However, her oral responses
changed over time. In the beginning, Yonsu did not volunteer to respond to the ESL
teacher’s questions. She completed class work as she was told. She usually gave one-

word utterances. By February, Yonsu began to participate more actively in ESL class

69

activities. For example, Mrs. M told the author that she did a good job participating in
class (Informal interview with ESL teacher, 2/1/00). In February, Yonsu’s response in a
complete sentence was observed for the first time when she stated, “I went to

Frankenmu ”to describe her weekend experience (ESL observation, 2/20/00). By March,
Yonsu began asking questions to the teacher. As she became more comfortable in her
classrooms, and she developed more confidence in her oral and written language skills,
Yonsu participated more actively in class activities, became more verbal, and initiated
oral interactions with her teachers and peers. Her grammatical errors also became more

apparent to the observer.

Tayl’s Participation. Tayl’s participation in general classroom activities showed a
similar pattern as Yonsu. In the beginning he participated in independent activities such
as journal writing and silent reading. As the year progressed, his participation extended to
other types of activities. He participated in whole group activities as well as more
substantially in independent activities.

Tayl participated in independent activities from the beginning of the year.
Independent activities he participated in included journal writing, morning worksheets,
and silent reading after lunch. During journal writing activities, Tayl usually received
help in the beginning from a female Korean student who was proficient in English. Tayl
asked the female student what a specific word meant. After he understood what it meant,
he wrote the word in his journal and drew a picture that represented the meaning of the
word. Later, he wrote words independently. Toward the end of the school year, Tayl
wrote in sentences instead of words in his journal. For example, he wrote, “people eat

food because people is people. And family is my family and my friend’s family to. And

70

long ago people eat fruit and mill.” (Student artifact, 4/11/02) During silent reading, Tayl
usually looked at the cover of a book in February (Class observation, 2/7/01). Later in the
year, he actually read a few books during silent reading. For example, he read
“Graveyard of the dinosaurs” (Tanaka, 1998), “I am water” (Marzollo, 1996), and a book
about Pokemon by April (Class observation, 4/25/01).

Tayl’s participation in whole group activities changed over time. In earlier months
such as October, he did not engage himself in whole group activities. For example, he
played with his fingers during the question of the day activity (Class observation,
10/9/00).When the class generated a word list before journal writing, Tayl did not
volunteer to talk in the beginning. When the teacher read to the whole class and asked
whether the book the class read was fiction or non-fiction, Tayl looked down on the floor
and did not say anything (Class observation, 10/18/00).

However, Tayl actively participated in whole group activities later in the year.
During the word list activity in which students offered words to be included on a chart
paper for their journal writing, Tayl offered two words including airplane and people in
March (Class observation, 3/28/01). When the teacher read a book entitled, “Plants we
know” (Miner, 1981), Tayl looked at the book while the teacher read to the whole class.
When the teacher stopped reading the book and asked the students to give an example of
root plants, Tayl raised a hand and said, “seeds.” Although his answer was not accurate,
this incidence showed Tayl’s willingness to participate in the whole group activities
(Class observation, 5/16/01 ).

During a small group activity, which the author observed on May 31St of 2001,

Tayl actively participated in a given task. During a pair group spelling words activity,

71

Tayl and an English speaking male student paired up, asked spelling a word to the other,
and switched their roles. They stood near the classroom entrance to do the activity. Tayl
asked his partner to spell the word “America,” and his partner said, “Aou. . .” “A. . At
that time, Tayl showed the spelling word list. His partner spelled “Amerca.” Tayl told his
partner that he forgot the letter “1” although his spelling partner denied it. Then, they
switched their roles. It was Tayl’s turn to spell equator. Tayl said, “e-q-u-a-t-o-r,” and his
partner told Tayl that his spelling was wrong. Tayl said that he would try again (Class
observation, 5/31/01).

Later in the day, Tayl participated in a map activity in another small group of
three students including himself. Tayl and two other English-speaking male students left
the room with each holding an outline of a map filled with squares and lines that
represented different classrooms in the school. Their task was to label the rooms on their
individual maps. As soon as they went out their classroom door, Tayl said, while looking
at his map outline, “This is my room. Here is Mrs. B. No, this is Mrs. D.” Then, two

other group members join in finding where they were:

Student 1: We went down the hall.

Tayl: No, here’s Mrs. B here...

Student 2 (pointing to a square on his map): Office.
Tayl: Let’s draw.

Two boys asked Tayl to spell the word, “door,” and Tayl spelled it out for them.
Tayl then shouted out, “We forgot gym. We forgot lunch.”

(Class observation, 5/ 3 1/01)

Tayl’s participation in ESL class activities also changed over time. Earlier in the
year, he did not respond to the teacher’s request for participation. For example, when he

was first asked to describe what he wanted to wear by his ESL teacher, Tayl did not say

72

anything. The teacher asked the next person to respond to the question (ESL class
observation, 10/18/00). Tayl also used Korean for communication with his peers and

other Korean speakers. (ESL class observation, 11/01/00).

During the second half of the year, Tayl began participating in ESL class
activities more actively. In February, the teacher asked inferential questions while
reading a book entitled, “The very hungry caterpillar” (Carle, 1987). Tayl responded to

the teacher’s question posed to the whole group although his answer was not accurate:

ESL teacher: What kind of day is it today?

Student 1 : Juicy. . .Umm. . .Wednesday.

ESL teacher: What kind of weather is it in our story?

Student 2: Windy. Ahh. . .Sun.

ESL teacher: Do you expect that it’s a warm day or a cold day like Michigan?
Tayl: Snow?

ESL teacher: Snowy day? It’s what we have outside.

(ESL class observation, 2/21/01)

In this conversation, Tayl responded to the question that the teacher posed to the
whole group. Although his answer was not accurate, he used the information he knew
about Michigan weather at the time in responding to the teacher’s question. In this sense,

his response was exploratory.

Tayl continued to participate actively in ESL class activities. By May, his
responses were more accurate. For example, during an activity in which students and the
ESL teacher took turns to read a passage regarding a truck and a pig, Tayl read a
paragraph. He said, “talking’ while he was reading the word, “taking.” The ESL teacher
stopped him and asked him if it made sense, and she repeated the sentence that Tayl

uttered. The teacher again asked Tayl whether the sentence made sense to him. She urged

73

Tayl to think about what the word might be if it did not make sense. At that moment,
Tayl corrected himself. When Tayl was done with reading a paragraph, the ESL teacher

asked comprehension questions to the whole group:

ESL teacher: What just happened? The man stopped at the red light. And then
what happened?

Students: Pig...Pig...

Tayl: Wait. Wait. Pig jumped out.
ESL teacher: Out of the truck.
(ESL observation, 5/1 6/01 )

During this conversation, Tayl processed the teacher’s both questions and
responded to her accurately with the teacher’s support. By this time, both his oral and
written language skills were more developed. He participated more meaningfully in ESL
class activities, and his oral responses were more appropriate to the linguistic context.

J in’s Participation. Jin’s participation in class activities also followed the pattern
of the two other case study participants. The change involved both the type of class
activities in which he engaged himself and the nature of his participation. J in participated
in a limited range of activities in the beginning. The activities included independent
review activities in small groups, center activities, and independent writing activities.
These activities mostly involved written language skills and did not require much peer
interactions. When the class went to their seats clustered in small groups after whole
group discussions, J in also went to his seat and completed teacher developed review
sheets. He did so by looking at what other children in his group were doing. (Student
interview, 4/25/01) When he completed his work, he submitted it to his teacher, and he
participated in different centers. In the construction areas, he would build airplanes or

guns (which was discouraged by the teacher explaining to him that guns were not allowed

74

in school). He played number bingo and listened to books-on-tape. His favorite book-on-
tape was titled “Chicka Chicka Boom Boom.” (Martin Jr. & Archambault, 2000) In
reading areas, he usually picked up a book, flipped through and put it back to a book
basket or a bookshelf.

During the whole group activities, he idled in different comers of the classroom
looking at environmental print on the wall in the beginning. (Class observation, 4/18/01)
At this time he did not understand what was going on during the whole group instruction.
He explained to the author why he did not participate in the whole group activities when
the author asked him in Korean. During a classroom observation in April, J in blamed
himself. He told the author that he did not know Korean well so that he did not
understand what was taught in the whole group instruction (Student interview, 4/18/01).
In May, J in told the author that other children understood what went on, but he did not
know. So he was bored (Student interview, 5/10/01).

After the summer, J in actively participated in whole group activities. Weekly
observations made between September and the end of November showed that he made
oral contributions to whole class discussions. During a guessing jar activity in September,
J in commented that twenty, the number of his classmate guessed, was not too little after
the teacher said that the number was too little for the number of objects in the guessing
jar:

Ms. P: Kyle has twenty.

J in: Twenty very much. Twenty very much. One very little.

(Ms. P points to the objects in the guessing jar and explains to the students that
the number twenty is too little.)

Jin: Ms. P, twenty not too little.

75

Ms. P: Twenty is not very little, but it is too little in comparison to what’s in the
jar.

(Class observation, 9/26/01).

This conversation shows J in’s willingness to respond to the teacher’s question and
share his ideas when there is disagreement between his and his teacher’s opinions.

During a journal reading activity in a whole group, when I in saw a picture of
Disney World that a student showed to the class while reading her journal, J in said, “My
friend go Disney World” (Class observation, 10/03/01). When the teacher read a big book
entitled “Life in a tree,” (Berger, 1997) J in questioned the color of the egg in the picture.
He said, “Why blue egg? Not white egg?” (Class observation, 10/19/01) J in also offered
words that began with the letter of the day during vocabulary activity. On October 24'“,
when the teacher asked the students to say j words, I in raised his hand and said jacket
(Class observation, 10/24/01). He even offered help to his friends by urging them to look
at the environmental print in the room and get ideas for words that begin with the letter of
the day (Class observation, 10/10/01). On the same day, J in also complained that
someone else had two turns instead of one.

The nature of J in’s participation in class reading and writing activities also
changed as the year progressed. Observations of J in’s participation in small group
activities early in the year showed that he focused on completing his work while leaving
out details. For example, on April 18’“, a month after he began participating in the case
study, students were given a teacher developed worksheet as a small group review
activity. At the bottom of the sheet read a sentence, “My favorite kind of weather is” with
an underlined blank space at the end. I in wrote his name and drew a very simplified stick

person on the sheet. When he showed it to the teacher, the teacher asked, “J in, where is

76

your feet?” pointing to the stick person that J in drew. The teacher then pointed to J in’s
feet. J in said, “Uh eh” and added feet to the picture he drew. (Class observation, 4/18/01)
J in’s writing in his journal early in the year included random English letters or his names
in English (Student artifacts, 2/21/01).

J in’s writing in his journal entries exhibited more developed language form and
content after the summer. It resembled real English words and described his ideas more
fully. In October, he wrote complete sentences with a word with inventive spelling, and
his inventive spelling resembled adult writing. He wrote, “I lik birds.” His drawing
included more details, and writing was used to communicate a message (Class
observation, 10/16/01). J in also exercised ownership in participating in a writing activity
based on a class observation in October. After he drew two M & M’s which he wanted
for his and his dad’s Halloween costumes, he wrote “I like to be.” Then, he asked the
author, “How do you write chocolate?” When the author wrote the word on the top of the
picture, J in copied it below the author’s word and wrote the word in his sentence (Class
observation, 10/31/01). By this time, writing activity was not just completing given
assignment to comply with the teacher’s directions. Rather, the purpose of writing was to

represent his ideas accurately.

The Functiormrf Written Langflge in Oral Langflrge Development

All three case study students participated in a wide range of reading and writing
activities in both general and ESL classrooms. Their engagement in class activities and
appropriateness of their oral responses to their teachers and peers indicated the progress

they made in learning English oral language. In most class activities written language

77

mediated the three case study students’ participation and oral language use in various
ways. Among them, there were a few examples that showed a more plausible connection
between oral and written language in English. These examples also show that not all
students utilized the three fimctions of written language that their teachers modeled for
them (i.e., making language material, making language stand still, rehearsal). Students’
experiences with literacy in their native language seemed to play a role in how the

students utilized English written language to develop oral language skills.

MakinLLanguage Stand Still

Low. The function of making language stand still was evident in two examples
from Yonsu. She used written language to help her remember how to pronounce English
words. In November, Yonsu rewrote a title of her weekly spelling list, “Spelling words
for the week of November 8th” using Korean phonetic system so that she could be sure to
pronounce and hear the words correctly (Student artifact, 11/08/99). By writing the title
and the date in Korean (the orthography in which she was already competent) she made
the English pronunciation of the title “stand still” so that she could pronounce the words
in the title. In this interesting application of cross-orthographic transfer, she essentially
used a more well-developed orthographic system (the Korean alphabet) to do the job (i.e.,

assist in the oral production task) that English orthography would later do.

Books made language stand still and helped Yonsu acquire a vowel sound during
reading. In late April, she participated in a guided pair group reading activity with the
regular classroom teacher. When faced with an unknown word, “Elvira,” the name of a

main character, she skipped reading it. Then the teacher pronounced it for her. As the

78

word reappeared several times in the text, she gradually approximated its conventional
pronunciation. Because the book made the word stand still, the teacher was able to notice
that she did not read the word and model how to pronounce it (Class observation,
4/21/00). Written language provided Yonsu with opportunities to practice the word
repeatedly and learn to pronounce it.

Tayl. Written language seemed to have played a role in Tayl’s oral language
development by making oral language stand still. An example comes from Tayl’s
learning of “caught.” On April 10’“, the ESL teacher taught her students how to describe
“things I did yesterday” as a way to teach past tense verb forms. Students were taught
both regular and irregular ones. During the review of the day’s lesson, the ESL teacher
asked a sentence and expected them to say the past tense form of a verb in the sentence.

Tayl did not know the correct tense form of catch that day:

ESL teacher (looking at Tayl): Can you catch that big ball?
Tayl: Catched.

ESL teacher: Close.

Tayl: Ca...

ESL teacher: Caught.

(The ESL teacher writes the word on the board)

After this conversation, the teacher asked her students to read their little books,
which included past tense verb forms that they studied that day, to a partner or another
adult in the room. The ESL teacher told Tayl to go to the principal’s office and read to
him. Because the school principal served as a listening partner to all school children,
going to the principal’s office meant “cool” thing to the school children. Tayl went to the

principal’s office and read his little book. Every time he encountered the word “caught,”

79

he hesitated, and the principal pronounced the word for him. When Tayl was done with
reading, the principal gave Tayl a “special” pencil with compliments for Tayl’s good
work.

About a month later on May 16’“, Tayl used the word “caught” accurately during

a conversation after a reading passage:

ESL teacher: What did he take to his farm?
Student 1: The pig.

ESL teacher: The pig. How did he get the pig?
Student 1: Catch

Tayl: No. Caught.

In this exchange, Tayl corrected his friend and provided an accurate past tense
form for catch, which seemed to exhibit his solid understanding of the word. This
example shows that written language made oral language stand still and contributed to
Tayl’s acquisition and accurate use of “caught.”

J31. The classroom teacher made language stand still, and it seemed to have
played a role in J in’s oral language development. On April 18”, the teacher developed a
list of weather words and wrote them on a chart paper. The words included tornado, rainy,
hot, cloudy, sunny, snowy, windy, hail, foggy, thunder, lightening, and storm. On the
same day during the small group review activity, when the teacher asked J in what kind of
weather that he liked the best, I in said, “Windy” (Class observation, 4/18/01). The
teacher’s writing seemed to have class discussion stand still and contributed to Jin’s use

of the word verbally.

Another example of making language stand still comes from an observation made

on May 17th of 2001. The class discussed butterflies before the author arrived in the room.

80

Upon arrival, the author noticed that the class produced a diagram regarding butterflies
on a piece of a chart paper. It included a simplified picture of a butterfly and words
associated with butterflies. One of the words written on the chart paper was scary.
Interestingly, J in used the word “scary” verbally on the following week. On May 23”, J in
colored a butterfly pattern in various colors as a small group review activity. When
coloring was completed, J in began cutting the butterfly pattern. A few minutes later, I in
came and told the teacher, “Amy’s butterfly very scary.” Because the author did not
observe J in’s use of the word “scary” in previous class observations, it seemed that the
teacher’s writing of the word on the chart paper made it stand still, and that writing

seemed to have contributed to J in’s use of the word verbally a week later.

Making Language Material

Yonsu used written language to support her oral language skills in English.
Vocabulary acquisition exemplifies the process of making language material. For Yonsu,
teachers’ use of word sheets or word banks that involve pictures and matching English
words helped her learn basic English vocabulary. Words in word sheets and word banks
from the ESL classroom included objects available in children's everyday lives like
shapes, body parts, and playground items. Pictures helped Yonsu to use her knowledge of
objects in her native language and understand the meanings of matching English words.
As she read the words in her word sheets and word banks repeatedly to the ESL teacher
and her peers in school and to her parents at home, she began to understand meanings of
individual words without assistance of pictures. Considering that there was no explicit

vocabulary instruction at home according to Yonsu’s parent interviews, school based

81

reading and writing helped her acquire English vocabulary. Based on the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test-form 3B (1997), she made substantial progress moving from an age
equivalence of 3 years 2 months in receptive vocabulary in November, to an age

equivalence of 5 years by the end of May.

Natural Language Enforcement

Written language also served as “natural language enforcement” for Tayl. In his
general classroom, story reading was a part of daily routine. The teacher read stories to
the whole class at least once a day during the afternoon snack and story time. Most of the
times, Tayl seemed to be more interested in eating his snack than listening to the story.
On February 7’“, when the afternoon snack and story time was over, the author asked
Tayl if he enjoyed listening to the stories during snack and story time. He said that he
enjoyed it because he could hear some words in the book that he already knew in Korean.
About two weeks later when his ESL teacher read a book entitled, “The very hungry
caterpillar,” Tayl stood up to look at the book and silently read the words along with the
teacher (ESL observation, 2/22/01). Almost two months later, when Tayl seemed to be
engaged in listening to a story entitled, “Bear’s Bargain” during the snack and story time
in his general classroom, the author asked him again if he enjoyed the story. Tayl said
that he enjoyed the story because he knew all of the words. Taking these examples
together, English reading reminded Tayl of the words he knew from reading at home or at
other occasions, encouraged him to practice reading the words silently, and consequently

reinforced his language learning in class.

82

Rehearsal

The following example shows the process of how writing helped Yonsu acquire a
specific sentence structure, "I went to" and produce it orally in the ESL class. After
Yonsu's ESL class discussed places students visited during the Christmas break, she
copied what the teacher wrote on the chalkboard in her journal on January l6lh (Appendix

D). She wrote the title in Korean and the rest in English:

Places where my friends went (Underlined parts are written in Korean)
Han said, "I went to Niagara Fall." Kyle said, "I went to Canada."
Andy said, "I went to Seoul."

Aluba said, "I went to Chicago."

Elina said, "I went to New York."

Wally said, "I went to Caesi Land."

Wook said, "I went to Washington D. C ."

(Yonsu’s home journal, 1/16/00)

Practicing these sentences through writing in her home journal helped to her
acquire the sentence structure. She seemed to have understood that names of places could
come after the preposition “to.”

Yonsu’s understanding of this sentence structure seems to be evident in her

continued rehearsal observed between January 24’h and February 6th in her home journal:

Today, I went to MGM studio. (January 24’")
Today, I went to Animal Kingdom (January 25’")
Today, I went to Daytona Beach (January 26'")

Today, I went to MGM studio, Animal Kingdom, Magic Kingdom. (January 28‘")
Today, my family went to swimming pool. (no father) (February 6’")

During these times, Yonsu added “today” in the beginning of the sentences. On

66199

February 6’", Yonsu changed the subject of the sentence to “my family” instead of

83

and a place after the proposition appropriately. In so doing, she exhibited her deeper
understanding of the sentence structure.

The form "I went to" that she rehearsed over and over again in her home journal
seemed to have become readily available for oral language production and enabled her to
answer in a complete sentence on February 22'”. When the ESL teacher asked the
students to share their experiences during the weekend, Yonsu answered, "I went to

Frankenmuth" alter the teacher's second prompting:

Meredith (looking at Yonsu): Did you do something for the weekend?
Yonsu gives no answer.

Meredith (with a smile): Can you tell me one thing?

Yonsu (In a soft voice): Franken...

Meredith: You went to Pokemon? I am sorry?

Yonsu: I went to Frankenmuth.
(ESL class observation, 2/22/00)

Producing this complete sentence was a definite accomplishment. Her earlier
productions during this critical period typically consisted of one word sentences, and her
use of more complete English sentences increased dramatically after the writing incident
just reported. Thus, it seems quite clear that this written language activity (i.e., journal

writing) made a contribution to her oral language proficiency.

Cross Classroom and Case Analysis
When literacy is viewed as “the competence to exploit a particular set of cultural
resources” (Olson, 1996), all class activities in both general and ESL classrooms involved

a varying degree of reading and writing skills. There were, however, differences between

84

ESL and general classroom classrooms. Grade level differences were also observed amon
g the three general classrooms.

Reading and writing activities in the ESL classroom changed as the year
progressed from reading and writing activities that required simple recognition to more
complex and cognitive functioning. Oral language skills required for class participation
changed accordingly from simple responses in the beginning to more complex thinking
skills toward the end of the year. For example, students participated in recognizing and
saying English names of objects that they already knew or encountered on a daily basis
such as clothing or body parts. Toward the end of the school year, students read content
related books (e.g., caterpillars) and discussed related concepts (e.g., food and habitat of
caterpillars). Considering that one of the important goals of ESL instruction was to
encourage students to participate in class activities and use their developing language

skills in English, such progression seems critical in the success of the program.

The yearly progression of complexity in literacy activities in the ESL classroom
was not evident in general classrooms. By maintaining the same daily routine in each
classroom, general classroom teachers offered continuity in the type and nature of
literacy activities throughout the year. Literacy activities did not change although new
concepts were introduced in each content area through reading and writing. For example,
Tayl’s class had the same variety of literacy activities throughout the year. To name a few,
they were snack and story, journal writing, reading in content areas, and review of skills
and concepts through worksheets throughout the year. Through these activities, students
in Tayl’s classroom studied fall and pumpkin patch in October and lightening in May.

This pattern was consistent for all three general classrooms.

85

There were grade level differences in the functions of written language utilized by
the teachers. For example, while teachers’ usage of making language stand still and
rehearsal were present in all three classrooms, the making language material fiinction was
not observed in the second grade classroom. Its usage was only evident in the first and
kindergarten classrooms. Considering that Mr. K taught both first and second grade
classrooms, this research finding indicates that the teacher expected basic vocabulary
instruction (i.e., vocabulary instruction through usage of pictures or real world objects) to
be done in kindergarten and first grade. Because the author was not present in the
classrooms at all times, however, there is a possibility that the second grade teacher used
making language material function to teach vocabulary while the author was not present.
Nevertheless, the fact that such use was not observed through weekly observations
suggests that making language material was less common in the second grade classroom.

A cross case analysis showed that the three students utilized the functions of
written language differently regardless of common characteristics among them. All three
students possessed minimal English skills in the beginning, they all received parental
support for learning English, they were exposed to all three functions of written language
in their general and ESL classrooms, and their oral and written language progressed in a
similar pattern. Thus, students’ experiences in native language literacy seem to be the
only factor related to the three students’ different usage of written language. More
specifically, Yonsu was a sophisticated reader and writer in Korean, and her rehearsal of
“I went to” form in her home journal seemed to have contributed to her learning and
successful use of the language form in her ESL class. In the case of Tayl, who was

literate in Korean, natural language enforcement was unique to his case. It seemed that

86

Tayl’s experience of reading in Korean carried over to his extensive reading in English.

Unlike Yonsu and Tayl, J in was minimally literate in Korean, and he did not utilize the

functions of reading and writing like the two other students did. The examples of the

written to oral connection in his case seemed to have been influenced by his general

teacher’s usage of making language stand still. Hence, there seems to be a relationship

between students’ experiences with native language literacy and the functions of English

written language. Table 4 summarizes cross case analyses.

Table 4. Cross case analyses

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students General class ESL participation Ll literacy Functions of
participation skills written language
Yonsu Oral: Independent -—r Oral: passive, sophisticated Making
whole group —> small simple —> active, language stand
group complex still, making
Written: language
Written: Copying —> Simple (drawing) —> material,
recognizing —-r complex rehearsal
meaning making (composing)
Tayl Oral: Independent -—> Oral: passive, literate Making
whole group —+ small simple —> active, language stand
group complex still, natural
Written: language
Written: Copying -—> Simple (drawing) —-> reinforcement
recognizing —» complex
meaning making (composing)
J in Oral: Independent —> Not observed minimal Making
whole group -—r small language stand

 

group

Written: Copying —r
recognizing -—>
meaning making

 

 

 

still

 

87

 

Summm

The case study findings showed that school based reading and writing activities
involved an integration of all language skills. In both general and ESL classrooms,
teachers used reading and writing to promote oral language skills, and oral language was
used to develop reading and writing. Teachers modeled written language usage to
understand and analyze various aspects of the English oral language. In the process, they
utilized all three conceptual categories (i.e., making language stand still, making

language material, and rehearsal).

The type and the nature of student participation in class activities changed over
time. In the beginning, ESL students participated in independent writing activities
Completing worksheets or journal writing were the two most common independent
writing activities, and these activities did not require an overt use of oral language skills.
As the year progressed, ESL students develop more oral and written language skills, and
they participated in whole group and small group activities, which required students’
greater understanding of oral language skills than independent writing activities.

Results showed that school based reading and writing activities played various
functions in developing the three students’ oral language development. Written language
made oral language material and stand still. Using written language, a focal student
rehearsed her emerging language skills privately. Among various examples, Yonsu’s
acquisition of “I went to” sentence structure and Tayl’s understanding and an accurate
use of “caught” demonstrated the most plausible connection between the oral and written

language in ESL.

88

Discussion

It is important to note that the categories in the conceptual framework are not
mutually exclusive. For any given example of written language transfer, it would have
been possible to attach more than one category label. For example, Yonsu’s rehearsal
involved the process of close inspection by writing sentences down to highlight English
syntactic structure in addition to her silent rehearsal of the language form, “I went to.”
The most salient category label was chosen for the purposes of analysis to a given
example.

The connection between students’ literacy skills in their native language and the
functions of written language that the students utilized for their oral language
development warrants further discussion. This finding seems to be consonant with
Cummins’ conceptualization of linguistic interdependence between native language and
second language competencies (Cummins, 1979 & 1994). While this research finding
indicates the importance of developing students’ literacy skills in their native language
while learning English (hence, validating the arguments made by the proponents of
bilingual education), this study does not suggest that ESL students cannot develop second
language literacy skills without native language literacy. Further studies are required to
explore the relationship between native language and English literacy skill development.

Differences in general and ESL teachers’ usage of written language seem to
suggest academic and linguistic challenges that older ESL students would face in schools,
and the necessity to understand effective instruction for older ESL students. Recall that
both Yonsu and Tayl possessed similar English proficiency in the beginning. The ESL

teacher modeled all three functions of written language (i.e., making language material,

89

making language stand still, rehearsal) in her instruction. However, Mr. K who also
taught both first and second graders did not seem to use making language material, the
function activated for basic vocabulary instruction, in his second grade classroom. This
seemed to suggest that there are certain linguistic and literacy skills that students need to
possess at each grade level to function in general classrooms because the general
curriculum is geared toward English speaking students. When older ESL students enter
U.S. classrooms with minimal English oral and literacy skills, they have to acquire basic
English skills while making sense of grade level academic materials presented to them. It
may be true that older students come with higher cognitive skills due to their physical
development. Because the nation seems to lean toward English-only instruction and
weaning ESL support earlier than what ESL students actually need, more and more
general classroom teachers will face the issue of teaching ESL students with minimal
English skills. What make matters worse, there are “thirteen percent of schools (4,832)”
in the United States (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2003, p. 2), which does
not provide ESL support because of the small number of ESL students in a school or lack
of funding or a combination of both. Then, an important question is how do general
classroom teachers of older ESL students with minimal English skills successfully help
their ESL students learn necessary English skills in school even without ESL support?
This is a question that needs to be answered only through studying the instruction of
effective general classroom teachers.

Having documented a few examples of effective instruction for ESL students, we
need to do more research on understanding its nature and characteristics. What the

general and ESL teachers in this study did in their classrooms supported language

90

learning of the three case study participants based upon student assessment results. For
example, J in read and wrote mostly in school. What the class discussed appeared in J in’s
oral conversations. In the case Tayl, the general classroom teacher’s reading served as
natural language enforcement and contributed to Tayl’s oral language skills. For Yonsu,
she practiced language forms that she learned in school (e. g., I went to... ) in her home
journal. Recall also the ESL teacher’s curriculum, which encompassed sharing past
experiences, providing students with the language form explicitly through writing and
giving students with opportunities to use the form verbally and successfully. Such a
curriculum led to Yonsu’s acquisition of the language form. Considering that we do not
know much about the nature and characteristics of effective instruction for ESL students,
more research studies are needed in this area (Hakuta, 1999, personal communication;
vanLier, 1988).

Conversations among teachers seem important in individualizing instruction for
ESL students as well as accommodating and supporting their language learning needs.
For example, Yonsu’s general and ESL teachers had a brief meeting to discuss ways to
support ESL students’ English language learning. More specifically, Mr. K, Yonsu’s
general classroom teacher, addressed his concerns regarding Yonsu’s lack of class
participation and asked what level reading books ESL children should read. He also
asked an ESL teacher whether he should separate three girls to encourage Yonsu’s use of
her emerging English skills. Consequently, ESL teacher helped the general classroom
teacher understand Yonsu by sharing her observations of Yonsu as a perfectionist and a
shy person, and how that might have been a factor in Yonsu’s class participation.

Through this conversation, it seemed that the general classroom teacher had a better

91

understanding of Yonsu and what levels of books that he could use for her (General-ESL
teacher meeting, l/18/00). Thus, conversation such as this would help shaping general
class curriculum in much culturally relevant ways.

Students’ emotions seemed to be an important factor in language learning. The
students seemed to have missed home. They did not want to learn English. Learning
another language was an onerous task. For example, Yonsu wrote in home journal her
sense of homesickness and disinterest in learning English. Teachers in the case study
supported these ESL students in a couple of ways. The teachers used students’
homesickness to develop their language and literacy skills in English. The ESL teacher’s
writing activity was a good example. The teachers also gave case study students more
freedom than other students to explore what they wanted to do while providing more
individual support. Jin’s teacher held him on her laps to help him focused. The ESL
teacher gave positive comments whenever she can get a chance. For example, the ESL
teacher told Yonsu , “I like that you talk to me” when Yonsu responded to her.
Consequently, teachers’ efforts to use students’ emotions as part of their academic
curriculum and to provide emotional support seemed to have played a positive role in
English learning of the three case study participants.

We also need to reconsider educational benefits of worksheets. Research literature
strongly discourages teachers’ usage of worksheets. Using worksheets is likened to a bad
teaching practice especially in reading because worksheets require “only a perfunctory
level of reading” and “the exercise [through worksheets] is time-consuming and
extremely tedious” (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985). Interestingly, all

teachers in the case study used both teacher-generated and commercially available

92

worksheets in their instruction. They seem to use worksheets for various purposes. To
name a few, worksheets were used to help students practice what they have learned in
class, to introduce a new concept (e. g., playground nouns), and to encourage group
discussions (e. g., Mr. K’s use of worksheets on manatees). Thus, it seems to suggest that
the worksheet is not the problem. The key issue is how worksheets are used in classroom
instruction. To unveil this issue, we need to investigate why teachers use worksheets and
good uses of worksheets.

We need to consider inherent methodological issues in case studies. Case studies
provided us with a rich description of ESL students’ learning opportunities and their
language learning processes. However, the case studies were opportunistic. To capture
strong examples that showed the written to oral connection, the author spent numerous
hours in their classrooms shadowing the children. More than often such efforts did not
seem to bring fruitfirl results. It was only when Yonsu’s home journal was found and
when Tayl’s use of “caught” was noticed that the research appeared to be going toward
the right direction. Considering the benefits of case studies, we need to understand how
we could overcome its opportunistic nature and conduct case studies more effectively. An
equally important methodological issue in case studies is the observational bias. Because
observations were conducted solely by the author, it is also possible that the author’s
personal experiences and world views may have tainted what was observed in classrooms
and in the data and consequently creating an observational bias. Thus, more rigorous
research studies are needed to resolve inherent methodological issues of case studies.

Understanding the nature and characteristics of effective instruction for ESL

students requires making multiple dialogues alive—dialogues between research and

93

practice, between novice and veteran teachers, between students and teachers and
between researchers amongst themselves. Having a dialogue between research and
practice partly means looking carefully at what is happening in classrooms where
teachers successfully engage themselves in a dialogue with their ESL students and their
families, and where ESL students are successful in learning a new language and the
culture of power (Delpit, 1988). Researchers need to come in those classrooms and ask
questions to the teachers so that teachers can make their thinking explicit to themselves
and to others. There also needs to be a dialogue among teachers—between general
classroom teachers and ESL or bilingual teachers as well as novice and veteran teachers.
While engaging in conversations regarding how they can effectively work with students
with linguistic challenges, we will be able to understand “how’s” of effective instruction
for ESL students. Researchers also need to engage themselves in the dialogue. Focusing
on the complex issue of learning English as a Second Language, researchers need to ask

how their expertise could bring new perspectives and solutions.

Documenting effective instruction for ESL students in research requires
methodological flexibility. Both qualitative and quantitative research paradigms are
needed because effective instruction is complex phenomena and requires multiple
perspectives. Case studies or ethnography allow researchers to construct rich descriptions
on inner workings of effective ESL instruction and generate a grounded theory. However,
that process alone is not enough because the research findings may have been tainted by
observational bias. A theory generated from qualitative research framework needs to be
evaluated through quantitative research methods. In so doing, researchers will be able to

hone a theory that is relatively free of personal bias while it is grounded in ESL practice.

94

CHAPTER THREE

INTERVENTION STUDY

Introduction

The purpose of this intervention study is to validate the findings of case studies
regarding the role of English written language in the development of English oral
language for young ESL students. To this end, conceptual categories that show the oral
and written connection (i.e., case study findings) served as a guiding framework to design
the intervention. Considering methodological concerns about case studies within
scientific research community; that is, observational bias can muddle case study findings
(McLaughlin, 1978), and observations can be opportunistic (Pearson, 2000, personal
communication), single subject experimental research method was chosen to conduct a
more controlled study in examining the written and oral connection.

The intervention study took place during a period of ten weeks (February through
April 2002) including a two-week baseline period. A two—week baseline period was
established to collect extensive information on focal students’ oral language skills using
various assessment tools. During an eight-week intervention, two modes of instruction or
treatments (i.e., integrated language and oral language-based instruction) were
implemented repeatedly to two beginning level ESL students. The sequence of treatments
crossed over between the students. An extensive use of written language marks the
difference between the treatments, and it was withdrawn during the oral language-based

instructional phase.

95

A key element of the intervention study was extensive oral language assessment
of two focal students. The purpose of the assessment was to observe treatment effects.
Focal students’ oral language performances were assessed at various times including
daily, thematically, and during baseline phases. Among these various assessments, daily
oral language assessment was central in identifying treatment effects. Differences in focal
students’ oral language performance on daily assessment were observed. Analyses
involved visual analyses of differences in students’ oral language performances on daily
assessment and statistical analyses of their mean differences between the two treatments.
Results demonstrated that treatment effects were greater during integrated language-
based instruction (i.e., treatment OW) than oral language-based instruction (i.e., treatment
0). Thus, the study suggested that English written language plays a role in the
development of English oral language for young ESL students.

The intervention study is reported in a chronological order of the research process.
Preceded by the description of research questions, sections that explicate the process in
which data collection took place, the method used to analyze data, and study results are
presented sequentially. A brief summary and discussion appear in the last section of this

chapter.

Research question and rationale
Does the integrated language based intervention lead to greater gains in the oral
language development of focal ESL students than the oral language based

intervention?

96

This question is proposed to conduct a controlled study that evaluates the
contributions of English written language in the development of English oral language for
two focal ESL students. Earlier case study findings delineated specific roles that written
language played in the development of oral language. The three most important roles of
written language identified through case studies were making language stand still,
making language material, and rehearsal. Integrated language based intervention was
designed to utilize these three roles of written language. Thus, the integrated language
based intervention was hypothesized to lead to greater gains in the oral language
development of focus ESL students than oral language based intervention, which does

not utilize the three functions of written language specified above.

Method

Study Participants

Two focal students, Yang and Yun, were chosen for the single subject
intervention study. Student selection criteria included: (1) grade level, (2) native language
background, (3) length of residence in the United States, (4) English oral and written
language proficiency, and (5) literacy skills in their native languages. Preference was
given to the students who were enrolled in kindergarten classrooms, spoke Asian
languages (i.e., Korean and Chinese) as a first language with minimal literacy skills,
resided in the US. less than one year at the time the intervention study began, and
possessed emergent English oral and written skills. Once two focal students were chosen,

they were observed in their classrooms in order to understand their personality, learning

97

environment, and most importantly to get an impression on their oral and written
language skills in English. Classroom observations were conducted from the beginning of
the school year until the intervention study began, and observation data were the basis of

describing the focal students.

Egg, Yang was six years and eight months old when she began the intervention
study. She exhibited an outgoing personality. In the beginning of the school year, she
used her emerging English skills such as, “hi,” or “bye” to talk to her classroom teacher
and familiar visitors in her classroom. Yang emigrated from China with her brother at the
age of six and lived with her grandparents and uncle’s family in the United States. Yang’s
native tongue was Cantonese. According to a Cantonese native speaker who assessed
Yang’s native language skills, Yang’s oral language skills in Cantonese were “normal”
for her age level, and her literacy skills in her native language were limited (Informal

Chinese assessment, l2//20/01)

Yang had no formal schooling experience in her home country. In China, she
attended a preschool, which was more like a daycare according to her aunt (Interview
with Yang’s aunt, 6/7/02). She learned Chinese songs and dances at the preschool. She
received informal instruction on Chinese from her extended family members in China
and in the United States. For example, her maternal grandmother taught her numbers in
Chinese. After her arrival in the United States, she learned to read and write in Chinese
for a short period of time (i.e., less than half an hour) every week. Her grandfather and
uncle read Chinese stories or poems. Her uncle taught Yang how to write Chinese

characters. According to her aunt, Yang spent a lot of time watching children’s television

98

programs including Blues Clues or Discovery Channel. (Interview with Yang’s aunt,

6/7/02)

ha. Yun, the other focal student, came from Korea when she was almost five
years old. She came to the United States with her family accompanying her father who
was a visiting scholar. Like Yang, Yun did not have a formal schooling experience in her
home country. She participated in swimming and art programs in Korea totaling one year.
Yun’s personality was marked by her shyness. She seldom spoke a word to her peers or
visitors in the classroom. When her classroom visitors said greetings to her, she often
ducked her head while smiling. Her shyness persisted throughout the school year, but the
tendency was apparent in the beginning. For example, during center activities on
February of 2002, Yun went to a writing center and stood there leaning against a
bookshelf nearby. When a child asked Yun if she wanted a piece of paper, Yun nodded
her head. A few minutes later, the author asked Yun a few questions regarding which
center activity she liked the most. She did not respond to any of the author’s questions.
She only shook her head. (Class observation, 2/27/02) Yun began the intervention study
at the age of five years and three months. She possessed minimal oral and written
language skills in English. During the intervention study, Yun’s oral language skills in
Korean were at her age level, and her literacy skills in Korean were emerging. While she
was in the United States, her mother taught reading and writing in Korean for about 2
hours a week in the beginning and 5-6 hours a month toward the end of their stay in the
States. According to her mother, Yun was better at reading than writing in Korean. She

was only able to write her own name and simple words such as lion or apple, which do

99

not have ending consonants. (Interview with Yun’s mother, 6/5/02). Table 5 summarizes
information on two focal students.

Table 5. Intervention Study Student Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student name Yang Yun

Nationality China Korea

Native language Cantonese Korean

Literacy skills in native language Limited Emergent
Personality Outgoing Extremely shy

Prior schooling experience No formal schooling No formal schooling
English proficiency Minimal Minimal

Procedures

D§s_igr_r. The research design for the single subject intervention study involved a
sequence of Baseline Phase One, Intervention, and Baseline Phase Two for duration of
ten weeks between February and April 2002. The primary focus of the two baseline
phases was to collect information on individual focus students’ English oral language
proficiency. To this end, five different types of formal and informal oral assessment
measures were used. The names and characteristics of these assessment measures will be

described in the assessment section below.

There were two treatments during the intervention phase. The two treatments
involved integrated (i.e., treatment OW) and oral language-based instruction (i.e.,
treatment 0), and each treatment was repeated twice altogether. Extensive uses of written
language were withdrawn during the oral language-based instruction phase. For example,

during integrated language-based instruction. 1 read books while pointing to the words

100

 

and sentences on each page. I also gave the students opportunities to read and write books
or texts that they created. Reading and writing by students were important component of
integrated language-based instruction. During oral language-based instruction, however, I
read and explained the content of a book pointing to pictures on each page, and students
were not given opportunities to read or write. There were no reading and writing by
students during oral language-based instruction. Only pictures on books or picture cards
were used to make the content of conversations comprehensible to the students and

facilitate oral conversations on a focal theme.

To avoid the transfer of learning effects between treatments, four different themes
were chosen for instruction. The four themes consisted of food, places we live, clothing,
and transportation. These themes were organized into either oral or integrated language-
based instruction. Each theme was taught for two weeks. More specifically, for Yang,
places we live and clothing themes were organized into integrated language based
activities, and food and transportation themes were oral language activities. The
combination of themes and treatments was reversed for Yun. As such, the order of
treatments crossed over between students to control for the effect of treatment sequence.
To represent procedural characteristics of the study as described in the above, the single
subject intervention study is entitled as crossover withdrawal single subject research

study. Table 2 summarizes themes and treatments by focal students.

Table 6. Intervention Study Themes and Treatments

 

 

 

 

Themes , Integrated Oral
Places/Clothing Yang Yun
Food/Transportation Yun Yang

 

 

 

 

101

Treatments

Instruction within each treatment involved two themes and twelve instructional
sessions for individual focal students. Each instructional session consisted of a thirty-
minute mini lesson and a two minute-fifty second pre and post daily oral language
assessment. There was an exception regarding the length of instructional time. Lessons
during the first and last session of each theme lasted for 20 minutes, and the rest of the
lessons were 30 minutes in length as described in the above. These adjustments were
made because students were given thematic assessments during the first and last session
of each session.

The purpose of each lesson was in two fold. The primary objective was to expand
focal students’ vocabulary in four themes (i.e., food, places we live, clothing, and
transportation. The four themes were chosen because of their familiarity to the young
children. (Kostelnik, Howe, Payne, Rohde, Spalding, Stein & Whitbeck, 1991; Herr &
Libby, 1995) Because children encounter items within these four themes on a daily basis,
their needs to understand vocabulary and use them in daily communication were assumed

to be great.

The secondary instructional objective of each lesson was to help focal students
use a complete sentence involving more than one word. Bimonthly classroom
observations prior to the intervention study showed that the focal students used one-word
utterances. For example, Yang mostly nodded or gave one word responses to her
classroom teacher’s questions in October and November. The teacher provided

instructional support by asking her to repeat a request in a full sentence (Class

102

observation, 11/16/01). However, Yang’s one word utterances persisted through
December. Yun also used one word utterances when she responded orally. In November,
when the author asked Yun what she was doing, she said, “computer.” (Class observation,
11/07/01) During most of class observations between October and December of 2001,

Yun nodded or followed the teacher’s directions without any oral response.

Integrated language-based instruction generally consisted of four steps: (1)
teacher’s reading of a story related to each theme, (2) focus instruction including pre-
journal writing activity for the purpose of elaborating language and journal writing, and
(3) student’s reading of their journals. The last session of each theme consisted of
reviewing words and key sentence structures in previous lessons using reading and
writing. As such, reading and writing were an integral part of instruction during
integrated language based lessons. The author read the text while pointing to the words
and pictures on each page. Focal students wrote words or sentences. As a review activity,

the students read what they wrote independently or with the author.

Oral language-based instruction was matched to the integrated language-based
instruction. Unlike integrated language-based instruction, however, students were not
involved in reading and writing during oral language-based instruction. Books or pictures
were used as an auxiliary tool to support oral interactions between the author and focal
students. Oral language-based instruction primarily involved (1) listening to the teacher’s
explanation of a story while looking at the pictures in the story, (2) focus instruction
through the teacher and the student’s conversation on the main idea of the story as a way
to elaborate language, and (3) an oral review of what the teacher and the student studied

that day. The last instruction session of each theme focused on reviewing words and

103

 

de
19‘,

Silu

sentence structures learned in previous lessons orally. Picture cards were used to facilitate

reviewing words from previous lessons.
Assessment Tools

To compare treatment effects, the same outcome measures were used for pre and
post-assessment. For example, assessment tools used for Baseline Phase One and Two
were the same. Outcome measures for each theme were the same between pre and post-
assessment. Most importantly, the same oral language assessment tool was used for daily
pre and post-assessment sessions. In what follows unfolds a more detailed description of
each assessment tool preceded by an overview of assessment measures. Each assessment
description delineates assessment format and scoring procedures. Examples of scoring
procedures are also included for informal assessment measures only. Sections on daily
picture description tasks and two standardized assessment measures contain validity and
reliability information.

In all, there were five different types of English language assessment measures,
and these measures focused on focal students’ knowledge of vocabulary, syntax, or a
combination of both in English. Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey was a standardized
assessment tool for gauging overall English oral and written language development.
There were two types of vocabulary assessment. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn
& Dunn, 1997) was a standardized receptive vocabulary assessment measure, and formal
definitions (Snow, Cancino, Gonzalez, Shriberg, 1987; Snow, Cancino, Temple & Schley,
1991) were used to assess ESL students’ ability to define words in decontexualized

situations.

104

Weekend descriptions and picture descriptions were used to assess a combination
of vocabulary and syntax. More specifically, weekend descriptions assessed children’s
ability to articulate their weekend experiences in an informal conversational setting.
Picture description tasks during baseline phases and daily lessons within the intervention
phase assessed children’s ability to provide an oral description regarding Objects and
events in a picture that the administrator selected for them. Daily picture description tasks
were timed, and each was administered for 2 minute 50 seconds (or 25 tape counts).
More specific description on picture selections used for picture description tasks will be
included in daily picture description task section.

Out of five types of oral language assessment measures, a different combination
of assessment tools was selected depending upon the phase of the intervention study.
Assessment tools for the two baseline phases were same. Assessment used for baseline
phases involved Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey (Woodcock & Munoz —Sandoval,
1993), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn & Dunn, 1997), baseline picture
description tasks, formal definitions (Snow, Cancino, Gonzalez, Shriberg, 1987; Snow,
Cancino, Temple & Schley, 1991). Additional information on focal students’ language
development was collected around the baseline phases (i.e., before the intervention study
began and during the second baseline phase). It included informal literacy assessment in
students’ native languages, and two parent interviews. Teacher interviews on student
language development were conducted during the second baseline phase as well.
Assessment tools used for the eight-week intervention phase included pre and post-theme
formal definitions, weekend descriptions, and daily pictures description assessment prior

to and followed by daily lessons. Assessment tools are summarized in Table 7.

105

Table 7. Intervention Study Assessment Overview

 

 

 

 

Baseline: Phase One Intervention Phase Baseline: Phase Two
(Pre-assessment) (Treatments 0 & OW) (Post-assessment)
Picture description, Daily (pre & post Picture Picture description,
Formal definition, assessment) description Formal definition,
PPVT, Woodcock- PPVT, Woodcock-
Weekly Weekend
Mufloz Language . . Munoz Language
description
Survey Survey
Thematic Formal
definitions

 

 

 

 

 

 

Among these measures, information on validity and reliability is included for
three assessment measures including daily picture description tasks, Woodcock-Mufioz
Language Survey, and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Validity is defined as “the
degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by
proposed uses of tests,” (The American Educational Research Association, the American
Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education, p. 9),
and reliability refers to consistency of assessment measures when “the testing procedure
is repeated on a population of individuals or groups.” (ibid., p. 25) Validity and reliability
checks on assessment tools and procedures for the intervention study are reported based
upon their availability and the importance of an assessment tool to the intervention study.
Thus, information on assessment validity and reliability is reported for daily oral

language assessment and two standardized tests.

_I_)_aily Picture Description Tasks

Assessment portrait. Daily picture description tasks were oral language

assessment tools used for measuring treatment effects on a daily basis. Because the

106

existence of confounding factors was minimal during daily picture description tasks
among all assessment tools used for the intervention study, this task was used as a
primary tool to assess treatment effects. A total of four different pictures were used for
each theme. The four pictures included three different representational types of pictures.
Type one involved two real life pictures from a commercial calendar entitled Defining
Moments (lmmunex Corporation, 2001). Type two consisted of two colorful illustrations
from Oxford Picture Dictionary for Kids (Keyes, 1998), a commercially developed
picture books developed for ESL students. Type three involved white and black two-tone
illustrations from Composition Through Pictures (Heaton, 1966), a picture book
developed to guide composition for ESL students. In summary, one picture was chosen
from either type one or three, and three pictures from type two for each theme. For each
treatment (i.e., two themes), a total of eight pictures were chosen from the three sources
described in the above. The eight pictures included one picture from type one, six

pictures from type two, and one picture from type three.

General prompts used for daily picture description tasks were “Tell me what you
see in this picture,” “What do you see in this picture? Please tell me.” Or “Can you tell
me what you see in this picture?” One of these three prompts was given to focus students
when a picture was shown to them. When students did not say anything after a few
moments, the teacher repeated one of the prompts. For incidences when a child did not
produce any words orally even after general prompts were given for a couple times, the

author pointed to a specific object in the picture and asked what it was.

Scoring of daily picture description was additive. This was due to the operational

definition that students’ oral language proficiency is represented by the student’s ability

107

to articulate her ideas appropriately to a given question using accurate words in a
grammatically appropriate sentential structure within a reasonably limited time. Both
qualitative and quantitative aspects of student oral language production were considered.
Scores were computed for each utterance and aggregated per each testing session. Two
points were assigned if a testing session lasted less than 25 tape counts (or two minute
and fifty seconds), one point for 25-30 tape counts, and zero point for over 30 tape counts.
A score for the length of testing time was given for each testing session. Treatment
effects were calculated by finding differences in sum scores between daily pre and post
assessments. Getting positive numbers as a product represented that a specific treatment

was effective.

Five areas were considered for scoring each utterance. They included number of
words, pragmatic acceptability (i.e., whether students’ responses were appropriate to the
teachers’ questions), semantic (i.e., whether the students’ responses accurately describe
what are in a picture) and syntactic acceptability (i.e., whether the sentential structure of
the students’ utterances are grammatical), and absence of prompting. One point was
given for each comprehensible word per utterance, and the range in sample was between
0-15. Then, a maximum of 2 points per utterance were given for each of the five areas
mentioned in the above. Two points were given for an appropriate response for each area.
One point was assigned for an acceptable response, and zero point for unacceptable
response. The range in sample for number of words per assessment session was between
0-71, 0-40 for grammaticality, 0-21 for semantic acceptability, 0-23 for syntactic

acceptability, and 0-39 for the absence of prompt.

108

To describe an example of scoring, Yang produced, “onion, apple, pizza, I see
apple” during the post assessment on the first day of oral language-based instruction
phase. Among the items mentioned by Yang, only onion and apple were present in the
picture. Thus, Yang’s score for the total number of words was 6, sum of pragmatic scores
were 8. A total of 2 points was given for semantic acceptability, and a total of 4 points
was given for syntactic acceptability. After 2 points were assigned for the length of

testing time, the total points given to Yang’s oral day one production was twenty-three.

Validity and reliability. Validity of daily picture description tasks focused on
construct validity of using pictures as the main stimuli and scoring process. Pictures are
confirmed to be a valid assessment tool according to the research literature in semiotics
and an analysis of standardized ESL tests. Research literature in semiotics describes
pictures as the most familiar form to most people and universal in all cultures. (Smith,
2001) Pictures have been used to communicate messages in the human history, and
picture reading involves different skills than reading written words. (Manguel, 1996)
Because “all discourse (everyday speech, poetry, drama, novels, music, and scientific
articles) is contextual, immediate, and grounded in the concrete specifics of the
international situation” (Denzin, 1997, p. 36; Bakhtin, 1986), one can posit that a picture
is a reliable assessment tool to induce a person’s oral language abilities in everyday
context regardless of one’s cultural orientation. This postulation is confirmed by popular
use of pictures in standardized ESL tests. Analyses of all standardized ESL tests currently
available in the market exhibit that 40% of tests use pictures as main stimuli. Thus,

validity of using pictures as main stimuli is affirmed.

109

The validity of daily picture description tasks also involves construct validity of
scoring components. Syntax (i.e., grammar), semantics (i.e., word meaning), and
pragmatics (i.e., responding appropriately to a question or following directions) are three
most important constructs in assessing ESL students’ language and literacy skills based
upon analyses of ESL tests. For example, 26% of ESL tests assessed syntactic skills,
19.3% on semantic skills, and 10.5% on school language (i.e., following directions).
School language was an especially important language skill in young ESL learners
because 33.3% of ESL tests designed for young ESL learners assessed this skill.

To ensure the validity of daily picture description tasks, the development process
involved a careful set of efforts. The assessment rubric was developed based upon three
sources— a literature review on language development, insights gained from longitudinal
ESL class observations and discussions with an experienced ESL teachers, and scoring
the focal students’ oral language production based upon the assessment criteria. During
the scoring process, the author marked items that were not quite clear and checked the
validity of scoring of those items with two experienced ESL teachers and a graduate
student trained in assessment and literacy.

Reliability checks on daily picture descriptions consisted of internal consistency
affirmed by inter-rater reliability and factor analysis. After the author completed scoring
of focal students’ oral language production, 10% of focal students’ oral response was
graded by another scorer who was a first grade teacher, and inter-rater reliability between
the author and the second scorer was 87.5%. Explanatory factor analysis was conducted
to examine whether the interrelationships of different scores were consistent with the

main construct (i.e., English oral language proficiency) (Mulaik, 1972; The American

110

Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the
National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999). The results show that there are
two components, and the major component explains 71% of variability. In addition,
reliability coefficients based on correlation analysis among different scores 0.8989. Thus,

daily picture description is a reliable assessment measure.

Weekend Descriptions

Weekend descriptions were an informal assessment tool administered weekly.
This assessment was derived from an ESL teacher’s weekly warm-up conversation and
review lessons that the author observed for five years. The purpose of this assessment
was to gauge focal students’ oral language skills in articulating past experiences. Of key
interest was their accurate use of past tense verbs with teacher prompts in informal
contexts. The length of each assessment session was not timed, and the number and
nature of teacher prompts were flexible. Because weekend descriptions assessed broad
oral language skills, and they were minimally related to the curriculum specifically
developed for the intervention study, focal students’ performance may not directly reflect
treatment effects. However, it was assumed that the changes in the fluency and accuracy
of focus students’ oral language performance between different time points within each
theme and across themes may shed some insights into understanding the connection
between treatments and the development of focal students’ oral language skills.

The prompts of weekend descriptions included “What did you do during

the weekend?” or “Did you have a good weekend?” with a follow-up question, “What did

you do?” In the beginning of a first weekly instructional session, the teacher waited for

111

the child to be seated and asked one of these questions. When the teacher deemed it to be
appropriate, the prompt was modified to ask the student’s experience in the previous day.
The teacher also provided additional prompts to maintain conversation with the focus
students. Additional prompts involved follow-up questions to students’ responses to the
initial prompts described in the above. For example, the following conversation took

place during weekend description assessment on March 25'":

Youb: Yang, what did you do during the weekend?
Yang: Eh...

Youb: Did you play?
Yang: Umm. Yeah.

Youb: What did you play?
Yang: I play that one (pointing to a map puzzle)
(Weekend descriptions, 3/25/02)

By providing additional prompts such as “Did you play?” or “What did you
play?” focal students were given opportunities to maintain a conversation and use their

emerging oral language.

The mean length of comprehensible utterances (MLCU) was computed to analyze
focus students’ oral language performance in weekend descriptions. The steps taken to
calculate MLCU involved 1) counting the number of comprehensible utterances and the
number of words from the focus students’ oral language during a weekend description, 2)
counting the number of incorrectly tensed verbs, 3) subtracting the number of incorrect
words from total number of words, and 4) dividing the product from step three by the
number of utterances. MLCU was derived from Mean Length of Utterances (MLU) used
in linguistics to analyze young first language learners’ syntactic development. The

difference between the two is that MLC U counts the number of comprehensible words

112

while MLU counts the number of accurate morphemes. This is due to the fact that
beginning second language learners seemed to memorize a word in chunk rather than
attending to individual morphemes. (Hakuta, 1974) In addition, beginning second
language learners often do not use accurate language forms although their language is

comprehensible.

To give an example of scoring weekend descriptions, Yun stated the following
statements on May 6th while describing her weekend experience of going to an ice cream
store with her aunt and younger brother, “East ice cream. Strawberry and ...chocolate.
My brother eat chocolate. I eat strawberry. I give her [store keeper] money. Specially, I
eat this kind. Lizzy [Yang’s aunt] give money for me and go to the ice cream. And I go
and I go. And I need to line up and go and first to the desk and get it ice cream. That’s it.”
The total number of utterances was 10, and the number of words was 60. Among them,
twelve words were ungrammatical. After dividing the number of grammatical words (i.e.,
48) with the total number of utterances (i.e., 10), the mean length of comprehensible
utterances was 4.8. In other words, Yang was able to produce grammatical sentences that
consisted of a little less than five words. The higher the number, the greater the child’s

ability is to speak grammatically acceptable and articulate sentences.

Formal definitions

Formal definitions (Snow, Tabors, Nicholson, & Kurland, 1995; Snow, Cancino,
Temple & Schley, 1991; Snow, C. E., Cancino, H., Gonzalez, P., & Shriberg, E., 1987)
were an informal assessment tool administered in the beginning and at the end of each

theme and during the two baseline phases. The purpose of formal definitions was to

113

measure the depth of focal students’ vocabulary. Students were given a word from a
vocabulary list and asked to provide a definition of the word in question. Because no
explicit instruction was provided regarding how to define the words (i.e., giving formal
definitions), although words were chosen from the books used for treatments, formal
definitions was less curriculum embedded assessment than daily picture descriptions, and
it was assumed that the relationship between student performance on formal definitions
and treatments might be weaker than daily picture description tasks.

Formal definition vocabulary list was generated from new words introduced in the
children’s books used for the intervention study. Ten or fourteen words were randomly
chosen from the new word list. The number of theme-based formal definition words was
ten, and baseline formal definition words were fourteen. For example, the fourteen words
included in the baseline formal definition word list were cherry, orange, watermelon,
bookshelf, light switch, sofa, airports, fire chief, flash, steer, rush, mind, fix, and fun.
Prompts for formal definitions involved, “What does __ mean or “Tell me what _
is.” When the focal students did not say anything to the initial prompt, the teacher
repeated one of the prompts. When the student did not respond to the second prompt, the
teacher left student response column blank and asked the next word on the list. When the
student’s responses were unclear, the teacher asked clarification questions to the student
by repeating the student response. Formal definitions were not timed.

There was a modification in administering formal definitions. Due to extensive
assessment in the beginning, the author used Baseline One formal definitions as pre-
assessment for the first two themes (i.e., food and places we live). Thus, student

responses to only the first three words were used for comparison between pre- and post-

114

assessment for the first two themes. All ten words were used for assessment for the third
and fourth themes (i.e., transportation and clothing).

Scoring of formal definitions was based on a five-point scale for definitional
features of student responses. The scale was derived from formal definition scoring
system used by Snow and her colleagues’ studies described above. Four points were
given to responses such as x is a y syntax with a superordinate such as thing or a kind of
with minimal complement. Four points were given to student responses with x is to be y
syntax when the word in question was an adjective, and x is to y syntax when the
question involved a verb. Three points were given to students’ responses consisting of
complements or a sentence. Complements were synonyms of words in question (e. g.,
chair for a sofa). Sentences involved using the word in question in an acceptable
sentence (e.g., “Wash your hands in bathroom” for bathroom) or an appropriate
description of the features or functions of the word in question (e.g., “We can eat” for
watermelon; “Put the book. . .put the book over there” for bookshelf; “It’s lying the book”
for a bookshelf). Two points were given if student responses consisted of complements
only. Complements were related to the word in question (e. g., book for a bookshelf) or
use the word in question in a colloquial expression (e.g., never mind for mind). If focus
students pointed to the relevant object or used gesture or repeated the word in question
(e. g., drawing a circle with a finger while saying orange is. . ..orange; “color. . .ing” for
orange) or an inferable description of the features or functions of the word in question
(“It can open” for light switch), one point was given. No points were given to no or

irrelevant response or “I don’t know.” The range of student formal definition scores in

data was 0-3.

115

Definitional fluency was calculated to analyze formal definitions involved. It
involved three steps: 1) assigning a score for the definitional feature of each of the focus
students’ responses; 2) computing a sum of scores for the definitional feature of the focus
students’ responses for an assessment session; and 3) dividing the product by the total
number of words (i.e., 14 for baseline formal definitions). The differences in the
definitional fluency between pre- and post-assessment were compared to observe
treatment effects. For example, Yang gave the following responses during baseline one
formal definitions (i.e., pre-intervention) assessment: “Orange is. . .orange” while drawing
a circle in the air when asked to define orange (1 point); “the book” for bookshelf (2
points); “chair” for sofa (3 points); “car” for steer (2 points), and “boom” for flash (3
points). The total score for definitional features assigned to Yang’s responses was twelve,
and the total number of words was fourteen. Thus, Yang’s definitional accuracy was 0.86.
In other words, Yang was not able to point to a relevant object or repeat the word in

question during pre-intervention formal definitions.

Baseline Picture Description

Baseline picture description was an informal assessment tool administered during
two baseline phases. The purpose of the assessment was to measure focal students’ oral
language development before and after the intervention. Focal students were shown two
different series pictures and asked to describe them. Each series of pictures were chosen
from Bilingual Syntax Measure (Burt, Dulay & Hernandez Ch., 1976) and preLas
(Duncan & De Avila, 1998). Pictures in preLAS included a series of four illustrations of

a snail and an earthworm that encounter a rainstorm while strolling through the woods.

ll6

 

Pictures in Bilingual Syntax Measure described a series of three scenes of a king at a
dining table and the king’s dog that ate up the food on the king’s plate while the king

took an apple from his servant.

An initial prompt provided to the focus students for baseline picture description
included “What do you see in these pictures?” Then, follow-up questions were asked
while pointing to each picture. When the students did not reply to the initial prompt, the
teacher pointed to an object or a person and asked what the picture was. Follow-up
questions included, “What is going on in this picture?” or “What happens here?” or
“What is he doing?” while pointing to the king in the picture in Bilingual Syntax Measure.
Clarification questions were also asked when the students’ oral responses were unclear.
Baseline picture description was not timed. However, only the first 25 tape counts (or two
minute and fifty seconds) of student responses were used for analyses.

Analyses of student oral responses involved computing fluency and accuracy and
comparing focal students’ performance in these two areas between pre and post-
assessment. Fluency was calculated by counting mean length of comprehensible
utterances (MLCU). To assess focal students’ syntactic maturityz, the number of words in

each utterance was counted (O’Hare, 1971).

 

2 Although one of the focal students used a plural marker —s, this was not counted independently
because the student did not seem to have an understanding about the role of —s. Rather, the student seemed
to have memorized the words as a chunk. For example, the only word that Yang used in a plural form was
“pizzas” during Baseline Phase One picture description. Because Yang did not use a plural form for two
apples in the picture, she did not seem to understand “5” means more than one thing at that point. Thus,

Yang’s use of a plural morpheme “s” was not counted independently.

117

Computing accuracy consisted of two steps: 1) getting a summed score of oral
language production based upon daily oral language assessment rubric and a maximum
possible score; 2) dividing a summed score of student oral language production by the
maximum possible score. For example, Yang produced, “Pizzas. No, yummy food.
Eating. Doggie. Not apple. The doggie eat it. The apple. Down. Not turkey” during pre-
assessment. The maximum possible score based on the grading rubric was two hundred
and one, and the student’s performance score was one hundred twenty-seven. When
Yang’s performance score was divided by the possible maximum score of Yang’s
utterances, the result was seventy-eight percent, and this score represented Yang’s
accuracy for the pre-assessment.

Mody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
Third Edition (Dunn & Dunn, 1997) was a standardized test administered during two
baseline phases. The purpose of this test was to measure the development of focus
students’ English receptive vocabulary. Essentially, the test kit involved two components:
a testing booklet with an easel feature for the student and a scoring form recorded by the
teacher or a test administrator. Each test item involved four choices of illustrations of real
world objects, and each picture was given a sequential number in the bottom center. A
teacher called out a stimulus word, and the student was asked to say the number of an
appropriate illustration out of four choices. PPVT was not timed.

Scoring consisted of calculating chronological age, setting basal and ceiling items.
and computing raw scores. Raw scores of student performance were computed.
Chronological age was calculated by subtracting the month, date and year of the focal

students’ birth from the date of testing. Basal was set when a student made one or no

118

errors in a set, which consisted of twelve stimuli words. Ceiling was decided when an
examinee made eight or more errors in a set. The test manual required a complete
administration of each set of questions was required even if ceiling was set. Raw scores
were computed by counting the number of correctly answered items between the basal
and ceiling items. A raw score was then translated into a standard score, percentile rank,
Normal Curve Equivalent, Stanine score, and age equivalent score based upon the rubric
developed by the test. An age equivalent score was used to analyze focus students’
vocabulary development between pre and post-assessment. Other scores were not used
for analysis.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test reported three forms of test reliabilities
including alternate-forms, split-half, and test-retest reliabilities. Median values of all
three coefficients ranged above .90. A qualitative description of both content and
construct validity as well as internal and criterion validity were reported. These pieces of
information suggested PPVT as a valid measure of vocabulary test.

Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey. Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey
(Woodcock & Munoz -Sandoval, 1993) was a standardized test administered during the
two baseline phases. It is a language test specifically developed for students learning
English as a Second Language. The purpose of the test was to measure focal students’
English skills in oral language and literacy (i.e., reading-writing). A test kit included a
testing booklet with easel feature and two answer sheets for dictation for the student, and
a scoring form completed by the teacher. There were four components in the test

encompassing picture vocabulary. verbal analogies, letter-word identification, and

dictation.

119

Scoring of Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey requires obtaining the age of the
student, setting basal and ceiling items, and computing raw scores. Like PPVT, age of the
student was computed by subtracting the child’s date of birth from the date of testing.
The test provided suggested testing points based upon students’ grade levels. However,
unlike PPVT, basal level of Woodcock-Mufioz Language Survey was set by assigning the
lowest item number in a set of six consecutive correct answers or the first test item of a
set if a child was not able to correctly answer any of the six consecutive items in a set.
The ceiling level was determined by assigning the item number of the highest item
number in the first set of six consecutive incorrect answers. Raw scores were calculated
by counting the number of items answered correctly between basal and ceiling items.
Using a computerized scoring system developed by the test developer, these raw scores
were converted into the level of oral and literacy skills for the focus students. These
levels were used for analyzing focus students’ language development between pre- and
post—assessment.

The technical manual of the Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey reports a split-
half reliability for each set of four tests (i.e., picture vocabulary, verbal analogies, letter-
word identification, and dictation) and three clusters (i.e., oral language, reading-writing,
and broad English abilities), with coefficients ranging between 0.753 and 0.908. A
qualitative description of content, concurrent, and construct validity is also reported, and

it suggests strong validity of the test as a language test for English as a Second Language

students.

120

Results

The results are reported in by dependent measure, using the order of assessment
tools administered daily, thematically and during baseline phases. The results of each
assessment tool are presented according to individual focal students, Yang and then Yun.
For daily oral language assessment, a central measure for evaluating treatment effects,
both visual and statistical analyses (an independent sample t-test) were conducted.
Additionally, two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to discern
interaction effects among independent variables (i.e., students and treatments).
Quantitative analyses on the accuracy and fluency of oral language production were
conducted on assessment during baseline phases and each theme. Results confirmed the
fundamental research hypothesis by showing that focal students made greater gains in
oral language performance during integrated oral-written language based instruction than

oral language-based instruction.

Daily Oral Language Assessment
Yang
To understand treatment effect, differences in Yang’s oral language performance
between pre and post-assessments were computed. If the difference score was positive, it
was assumed that the treatment was effective. Treatment was assumed to be ineffective if
the difference score was negative. Daily difference scores were plotted into a graph for a
visual analysis. A mean of daily difference scores was calculated for each theme. and

mean shifts across themes were observed.

121

Visual analysis. Recall that the basic unit of analysis for the daily measures was
the difference in the scores of a picture description task administered immediately before
and immediately after each daily lesson, the assumption being that if scores increased
then the daily lesson had a positive impact on language growth. A visual analysis of the
scores showed wide day to day fluctuation in difference scores. Across these variations,
however, a clear pattern emerged: the daily difference scores were positive whenever
integrated language-based instruction (i.e., OW, dotted line in figure 1) was first
introduced. Shifts across themes show the same pattern. The mean of difference scores
for the first treatment 0 was —2.83. The mean of difference scores for the first treatment
OW was 25.67. The mean of difference scores for the second treatment 0 was —3.5, and
the mean of difference scores for the second treatment OW was 31.67. The means shifted
up and down depending upon treatments. Clearly, treatment OW led to upward mean

shifts, and treatment 0 led to downward mean shifts as shown in figure 2.

122

Difference In Yang's oral production

120

80

60

40

20

number of utterances

between pre 8: post assessment

 

 

9

5 e
o ; -
I - '. 9
'. f l 9'
:,_L_ I;
:9 19
gr

8 e

 

 

tutoring sessions

+dif
mean

 

Figure 2. Yang’s difference scores

_ Treatment 0

----- Treatment OW

Mean shifts across themes
0 (oral): -2.83

OW (integrated): 25.67

0 (oral): -3.5
OW (integrated): 31.67

T—test analysis. To supplement visual analyses, an independent sample t-test was

conducted in order to discern statistical significance of mean differences between

treatments A and B. Autocorrelations among data points were examined as a prerequisite

to a t-test because the data were from a single subject (Kamil, 1995; Kazdin, 1982). The

results showed that the data were not autocorrelated. In other words, the value of a data

point was not “predictable from its predecessor” (Kamil, 1995, p. 87). Because the main

research hypothesis was that the mean of treatment OW effects (i.e., integrated language-

based instruction) was greater than that of treatment 0 effects, one-tailed t-test was

conducted.

123

T-test results show that the mean difference between treatments was statistically
significant at the level of 0.05. In other words, the mean treatment effects of integrated
language-based instruction was greater than that of oral language-based instruction, and
the difference between the two means was statistically significant at the 95% confidence
interval. To reiterate, integrated language-based instruction (i.e., treatment OW) was
more effective than oral language-based instruction (i.e., treatment 0) in leading to
greater differences in Yang’s oral language production between pre and post-daily

assessment.

£12

Visrgl analysis. Although difference scores fluctuated, Yun’s oral language
performance showed a different pattern from Yang’s. The means of difference scores for
all themes were positive. Unlike Yang. there was no clear pattern in the difference scores.
When the first oral language-based instruction (treatment 0, straight line in figure 2) was
introduced, difference scores moved upward. However, the difference scores moved
downward whenever a new mode of instruction was introduced for the second time
regardless of the type of treatments. The mean of difference scores for the first treatment
OW was 13.83. The mean of difference scores for the first treatment 0 was 8.5. The
mean of difference scores for the second treatment OW was 16, and the mean of
difference scores for the second treatment 0 was 2.67. Upward mean shifts were
observed during treatment OW, and downward mean shifts were noticed during treatment

0 as shown in figure 3.

124

afferences in Yun's oral production
between pre 8. post assessment

 

 

4o
___TreatmentO
30 0. °
3': , A ----- Treatment OW
20«fi Ill f >
'__,__._.i "3 “1” ;
10 ; :: 3 z : I Mean shifts across themes
' I :— e T! .
O- - ; ,
§ ° 1- _; , ow (integrated): 13.83
'- OP:,\OM®O,N‘ 'O(oral):8.5
g " “ " " N i OW (integrated): 16
E -10 O(oral): 2.67
g 0
c .20
-3o
-40
+DIfference L
_50 ‘-———- Mean i}

 

tutoring sessions

Figure 3. Yun’s difference scores

T-test analysis. To complement visual analyses, 3 t-test was conducted in order to
understand the statistical significance of mean differences between treatments. After
confirming that data were not autocorrelated, an independent sample one-tailed t-test was
conducted. T-test results show that the mean difference between treatments was
statistically significant at the level of 0.10. In other words, the mean treatment effects of
integrated language-based instruction were greater than that of oral language-based

instruction, and the difference was statistically significant at the 90% confidence interval.

125

To reiterate, integrated language-based instruction (i.e., treatment OW) was more
effective than oral language-based instruction (i.e., treatment 0) in leading to greater

differences in Yun’s oral language production between pre and post-daily assessment.

Two-way ANOVA

Visual analyses of treatment effects exhibited that Yang’s performance fluctuated
greatly based upon the type of instruction (i.e., treatments) while Yun’s performance
seemed to be less affected by the type of instruction. The difference between the two
students suggested the possibility of interaction between students and treatments (i.e.,
integrated and oral language-based instruction). In other words, Yang seemed to be
dramatically more receptive to integrated language-based instruction while Yun seemed
to be moderately receptive to both oral and integrated language-based instruction. To
examine interaction effects, an ad-hoc two-way ANOVA was conducted using SPSS
program. Two independent variables were student and activity (i.e., mode of instruction).
The results show that the interaction effect was not statistically significant at the a level
of 0.05 (i.e., p value = 0.081, R2 = .241, adjusted R2 = .190). However, it was significant
at the a level of 0.10 as shown in table 2. The bottom line seems to be that the OW

treatment is effective overall, but created a more modest advantage for Yun.

Table 8. Interaction effects between students and mode of instruction

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Dependent Variable: dif)

Source Type III Sum df Mean Square F Sig.
of Squares
Corrected 6677.833 3 2225.944 4.670 .006
Model
Intercept 6348.000 1 6348.000 13.3 I 7 .001

126

Table 8 (cont’d)

ACTIVITY 5084.083 1 5084.083 10.665 .002
STUDENT 75.000 1 75.000 .157 .694
ACTIVITY 1518.750 1 1518.750 3.186 .081
* STUDENT
Error 20974.167 44 476.686
Total 34000.000 48
Corrected 27652.000 47
Total

a R Squared = .241 (Adjusted R Squared = .190)

Thematic Oral Language Assessment

Thematic oral language assessment included weekend descriptions administered
on a weekly basis and formal definitions administered in the beginning and at the end of
each theme. Weekend descriptions assessed focal students’ language skills to describe
their past experiences. Mean length of comprehensible utterances (MLCU) was
calculated to analyze weekend descriptions. Formal definitions assess the depth of focal
students’ vocabulary. Each thematic formal definition words included ten words from a
list of new words appeared in the books used for intervention.

The results show that Yang’s performance on weekend descriptions differed
depending upon the treatments. Integrated language-based instruction was related to
Yang’s greater mean length of comprehensible utterances and more grammatical errors
during weekend descriptions. Yang’s performance on formal definitions showed oral
language based activities led to greater differences between pre and post-assessment.
Regarding Yun’s performance on thematic formal definitions and weekend descriptions,

however, there was no apparent difference between treatments.

Weekend Description

Weekend descriptions were usually given on Monday tutoring sessions or the first
time when the focal students came for tutoring sessions regardless of theme changes.
Thus, the number of weekend descriptions across themes was not constant. It also

differed between the two focal students.

Yaag. Based upon Yang’s performances on a total of seven weekend descriptions
during the intervention phase, Yang’s mean length of comprehensible utterances (MLCU)
increased across the themes. As described earlier, MLCU refers to the average number of
words in focal students’ comprehensible utterances, and it was calculated by 1) counting
the number of comprehensible utterances and the number of words from the focus
students’ oral language during a weekend description, 2) counting the number of
incorrectly tensed verbs, 3) subtracting the number of incorrect words from total number

of words, and 4) dividing the product from step three by the number of utterances.

Seven weekend descriptions included one session from both food and
transportation (i.e., treatment 0), and three sessions during places-we-live theme and two
sessions during clothing theme (i.e., treatment OW). Because there was a single session
for treatment 0 and multiple sessions for treatment OW, comparison between pre and
post—assessment across themes was not made. Instead, an average MLCU score was
calculated for the themes with multiple weekend description sessions, and changes across
the themes were observed.

Yang’s MLCU increased across the themes. Yang’s MLCU during food theme
(treatment O) was 1.78. In other words, the length of comprehensible sentences was a

little less than two words when Yang described her weekend experiences during food

128

theme. It increased to an average of 2.52 during places-we-live theme (treatment OW).
Yang’s MLCU during transportation theme (treatment O) was 3.14, and it increased to an
average of 4.0 during clothing theme (treatment OW).

Although Yang’s performances on themes with multiple sessions did not show
any consistent pattern, a positive correlation was noted between the number of words and
the number of incorrect words in Yang’s oral responses. More specifically, Yang’s
performance fluctuated slightly during the places-we-live theme (2.3, 2.63, and 2.63
respectively), and it increased during clothing theme (3.14 and 4.8 respectively). Use of
incorrect words ranged between 0 and 5 in most sessions. During these sessions, Yang’s
number of words ranged between 16 and 45. However, the number of incorrect words
increased to 12 at the last weekend description session of the second treatment B phase.
At this session, the number of words in Yang’s responses was 60.

An interesting contrastive pattern was observed when the number of words in
Yang’s responses was compared between treatments. The number of Yang’s words
ranged between 25 and 60 during treatment OW. An overall trend in the number of words
was an upward fashion during the treatment OW (i.e., 27, 45, 42, 27, 60 respectively)
with a sudden drop in the number of Yang’s words (i.e., 27) at the fourth session. The
range of the number of incorrect words during treatment OW was between 0 and 12 (i.e.,
4, 3, 0, 5,12 respectively). In contrast, the number of words in Yang’s responses during
treatment 0 was 16 or 19 respectively, and there was no incorrect word in her responses.
To summarize, Yang produced a greater mean length of utterances and higher number of

errors during integrated language based intervention. Thus, it suggested that integrated

language-based instruction led to greater oral language production as well as greater
linguistic errors, which will be revisited in the discussion section.

_Y_gn_. There were a total of seven assessment sessions. Among them, three
sessions were during food theme, two sessions during clothing theme, and one session
during both places we live and transportation theme. Yun’s responses during seven
weekend description sessions were minimal. She stated a total of five one-word
utterances. Four utterances were mentioned across three assessment sessions during
treatment OW and one utterance was produced during treatment 0. When changes in
Yun’s responses within each theme were compared, there was the same difference. More
specifically, she uttered no word in the beginning and gave a one-word response toward
the end of a theme. To reiterate, Yun’s responses to weekend descriptions were too scant
to make any generalizations about her knowledge of past tense.

Table 9. Weekend description summary

 

 

 

 

 

Students MLCU Number of words (errors)
Yang 0: 2.17 MLCU 0: 16(0)
OW: 2.6 (average) OW: 27 (4), 45 (3), 42 (0)
O: 3.2 0: 19(0)
OW: 4.2 (average) OW: 27 (5), 60 (12)
Yun O: 0 O: 0 (0)
OW: 1 (average) OW: 1 (0), 1 (0), 2(0)
0: 0 O: 0 (0)
OW: 1 OW: 1 (0)

 

 

 

Thematic Fomal Definitions

mg. Yang’s definitional fluency increased between pre- and post-assessment
across the themes except during clothing theme, during which it remained the same. It
increased the most during food theme. When comparing changes between treatments, the

changes in Yang’s formal definitional fluency were greater during treatment 0 than

130

during treatment OW. The highest score Yang obtained was 4 points when she defined
orange as, “Eat. Orange is. . .the color is orange.” Her lowest score was 0 point which
means that she did not respond to the question or uttered that she did not know the word.

For food theme, Yang’s definitional fluency increased to 2.3 from 0.3. In other
words, Yang was not able to give any formal definitions in the beginning, but she was
able to give formal definitions either using the word in question in an expression or
giving a synonym at the end of the theme. The differences in Yang’s definitional fluency
were also slightly positive for the places-we-live theme, changing to 2 during post-
assessment from 1.6 during pre—assessment, and for transportation theme when the
change was 0.6 during post-assessment from 0.2 during pre-assessment. However, there
was no change between pre and post-assessment during clothing theme. During this
theme, Yang’s formal definitional fluency remained at 1. In other words, she pointed to a
relevant object or repeated the focus word or used gestures to describe the word in
question.

Yam. Yun’s responses for formal definitions were minimal. She produced a total
of six formal definitions. Yun’s progress between two formal definitions within each
theme was minimal in general. During the food theme (i.e., treatment OW), Yun’s formal
definitions improved to 0.3 from zero. It remained zero during places we live theme (i.e.,
treatment 0), zero to 0.2 during transportation theme (i.e., treatment OW), and 0.1 to zero
during clothing theme (i.e., treatment 0). During treatment OW, Yun made progress in
formal definitions. Yang’s performance during treatment 0 was inconsistent.

Her responses involved mostly pointing to relevant items or repeating the word in

question or listed items that belong to the word in question. For example, when she was

131

asked to give formal definitions of kitchen, she responded by saying “kitchen chair, table,
cup.” Yun also responded in Korean occasionally. Her Korean responses were accurate
translations of words in question, but they did not lead her to earn points because her
English oral skills were being assessed. In summary, Yun’s performance in formal
definitions ranged between zero and 0.6 with no distinctive differences between
treatments.

Table 10. Thematic formal definitions summary

 

 

 

Students Post-test results Pre-test results
Yang 0: 2.3 (MLCU) O: 0.3 (MLCU)
OW: 2 OW: 1.6
O: 0.6 O: 0.2
OW: 1 OW: 1
Yun OW: 0.3 OW: 0
O: 0 O: 0
OW: 0.2 OW: 0
O: 0 O: 0.1

 

 

 

 

 

gaseline Oral Languag Assessment

Baseline oral language assessment includes focal students’ performances on three
assessment tools. They included baseline picture description tasks, formal definitions,
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), and Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey.
Results are reported based upon each focal student. Baseline assessment results illustrate
that Yang made gains in most English oral and written language assessment measures
between February and May. During the same period, Yun also made gains in one
language test, but her performance remained the same in most language assessment
measures.

mg. Yang made progress in both baseline picture description tasks and formal

definitions between pre & post-intervention assessment. Yang’s accuracy in picture

description tasks increased to 78% during post-assessment from 63.2% during pre-
assessment. The mean length of comprehensible utterances also increased to 2.9 words
from 1.7 words. In other words, Yang’s responses during post-assessment consisted of
generally three words, and they were at least one word longer and 15% more accurate
than pre-assessment. Yang’s definitional fluency on formal definitions also increased to
1.14 from 0.86.

Yang’s performance on standardized tests showed interesting results. Yang made
progress on both oral and reading & writing tests of Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey
between pre & post assessment. Yang improved to oral level 4 from level 3. She also
made progress in reading & writing by scoring 432 points from 422.5 points although she
stayed within the level 5. However, Yang’s vocabulary did not improve between pre &
post-intervention assessment according to her performance on PPVT. Yang was 4 years
and 3 months of age equivalent of the nomr group (AE) and a raw score of 54 during the
post-assessment, but her performance during pre-assessment was 4 years and 9 months
AE and a raw score of 61 during pre-assessment. Considering the standard error of
measurement of PPVT is 3.7, there was 11% chance of Yang’s vocabulary skills
remained the same, and 89% chance that Yang’s vocabulary skills decreased during the
post-assessment.

Yu_n. Yun did not make progress in either baseline picture description tasks or
formal definitions. Her baseline picture description tasks results show that her MCLU
was one for both pre & post-assessment, and accuracy slightly decreased from 63.6% to
59%. Her performance on formal definitions did not change between pre & post-

assessment. She scored zero on both assessment sessions.

133

Yun’s performance on standardized tests show Yun made some progress in
English skills, but her vocabulary skills remained the same. Yun was oral level 3 and
reading & writing level 4 in the beginning, but her oral skill improved to level 4, and her
reading & writing skill improved to level 5 during post-assessment. According to Yang’s
performance on PPVT, she seemed to remain the same. She was 3 years and 2 months
AE and a raw score of 39 during pre-assessment and 3 years and 1 months AE and a raw

score of 38 during post-assessment.

Table 11. Baseline oral language assessment summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students Assessment Post-test results Pre-test results
Yang PPVT 4:03 AE 4:09 AE
W-M Oral level 4 Oral level 3
R & W level 5 (432 points) R & W level 5
(422.5 points)
Baseline picture 78% accuracy 63.2% accuracy
description 2.9 MLCU 1.7 MLCU
Formal definitions 1.14 definitional fluency 0.86
definitional
fluency
Yun PPVT 3:01 AB (38 raw score) 3:02 AE (39
raw score)
W-M Oral level 4 Oral level 3
R&Wleve15 R&Wlevel4
Baseline picture 69% accuracy 63.6 %
description 1.0 MLCU accuracy
1.0 MLCU
Formal definitions 0 0
Steam

This intervention study was proposed to examine the question, “Does the

integrated language based intervention lead to greater gains in the oral language

 

development of focal ESL students than the oral language based intervention?” Drawing

from the results of multiple oral language assessment administered during baseline and

134

intervention phases, integrated language based intervention, in overall, led to greater
gains in the oral language development of two focal ESL students than oral language
based intervention.

Yang seems to be a critical informant of the oral and written connection. While
she made progress in oral language between two baseline phases according to the results
of Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey and baseline picture description tasks, her oral
language performance was influenced by treatments. Yang’s performance on daily oral
language assessment clearly exhibited that integrated language-based instruction led to
greater and statistically significant (95% confidence interval) treatment effects than oral
language-based instruction. Thematic oral language assessment also showed that Yang
produced greater mean length of comprehensible utterances during weekend descriptions.
Interestingly, however, Yang’s performance on formal definitions showed that gains in
formal definitional fluency were greater during food theme, oral language-based
instruction. Her vocabulary did not improve between two baseline phases according to
her performance on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.

The assessment results of Yun, the other focal student, were similar to Yang’s.
Integrated language-based instruction led to greater gains in Yun’s performances in
various assessment measures, but Yun’s oral language development appeared to be less
influenced by the type of treatment. More specifically, her performance on Woodcock-
Munoz Language Survey suggested that she made progress in English oral language
between two baseline phases. Daily oral language assessment results showed that
integrated language-based instruction led to greater treatment effects than oral language-

based instruction. The result was statistically significant at 90% confidence interval.

135

Because Yun’s responses to other language assessment measures (i.e., formal definitions,
weekend descriptions, and baseline picture description tasks) were minimal, however, it
was difficult to get an impression on her oral language development during the
intervention study. Yang’s performance on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test showed that
her vocabulary skills remained the same between two baseline phases.

Taken together, the results showed that integrated language-based instruction led
to greater gains in two focal students’ oral language performance than oral language-
based instruction. There existed at least a hint of an interaction effect between treatments
and focal students on daily oral language performance. If one is willing to accept the
statistical appropriateness of a 90% confidence interval, then it can be concluded that the
integrated language-based instruction (OW) was more effective for Yang’s oral language
development than was oral language instruction (0). For Yun, on the other hand, 0 and

OW were equally effective.

Discussion

At this point, a couple of cautionary remarks seem appropriate. Findings are based
upon single subject experimental research on two ESL students, and they may not be
generalizable to other ESL students. It is also important to note that the number of
assessment sessions of thematic informal assessment (i.e., weekend descriptions and
thematic formal definitions) was small, and interpretation of focal students’ oral language
performance on those assessment measures should not be overextended.

Despite these limitations, there were a few interesting findings that warrant more

thorough discussions. To begin, Yang’s performance on weekend descriptions exhibited a

136

curious phenomenon. When she produced greatest mean length of comprehensible
utterances, her grammatical errors were also the highest. The errors involved Yang’s use
of present tense verb forms in linguistic contexts that past tense forms were appropriate.
The positive correlation between fluency and grammatical errors found in Yang’s
assessment performance seems to be consistent with Bemhardt’s finding on ESL
students’ grammatical development. She stated “syntactic errors actually increase with
learning time is evidence that as learners become more sophisticated in their use of
language they make more sophisticated errors” (Bernhardt, 2001, p. 798) This research
finding has profound implications in ESL instruction and assessment. To suggest a
couple of key instructional issues, if a classroom teacher values accuracy over fluency
and does not allow ESL students to have a psychological space to explore their emerging
language skills, in what ways will such classroom environment influence ESL students’
language development? Positive correlation between grammatical errors and ESL
students’ fluency also poses a dilemma in the area of ESL assessment. Do any of the
currently available ESL tests incorporate the relationship among English fluency,
grammatical errors, and the stages of English language development? What is the
appropriate balance between accuracy and fluency in assessing ESL students’ language
development in order to ensure test validity? These issues need firrther exploration.
Yang’s performance on thematic formal definitions also sheds an interesting
insight regarding the issue of developing background knowledge in ESL. The assessment
results showed that she made most progress in food theme. Considering the empirical
evidence that formal definitions assess decontextualized oral language skills, which are

predictive of students’ future literacy skills (Snow, C. E., Cancino, H., Gonzalez, P., &

137

Shriberg, E., 1987), Yang’s results provokes an interesting question regarding the
relationship between background knowledge and formal definitions. I suspect that Yang’s
daily encounters with food items were more substantial than other three themes. Such
frequent encounters may have enabled her to develop background knowledge in food
theme, and her background knowledge in food theme might have contributed to. Yang’s
most progress in formal definitions on food theme. Thus, it would be worthwhile to study
whether ESL students’ background knowledge is prerequisite to their development in
formal definition skills, and what would be the best way to develop background
knowledge. Another question may involve if ESL students’ formal definition skills on a
specific topic (e.g., animals) can be transferred to those skills in other topics.

Yun’s use of native language accentuates the importance of allowing students’
use of native language in ESL instruction and assessment if the focus is to understand and
foster their linguistic and cognitive abilities. Yun and the author came from the same
native language background (i.e., Korean), and Yun knew the fact. In the beginning, Yun
responded in Korean only when the author encouraged Yun to use Korean because she
did not seem to know how to respond in English. As the study progressed, Yun
voluntarily used Korean in her oral responses when she did not remember English words.
or she did not know how to respond in English sentences. What this seems to suggest is
that ESL students’ English oral language alone cannot be a good indicator of their
cognitive abilities. This seems to be especially true for beginning ESL students. Thus, if
the focus of instruction or assessment is to understand ESL students’ linguistic and
cognitive abilities, it seems important for teachers and test administers to allow ESL

students use their native languages to represent what they know more accurately.

138

While attending to the issue of providing instructional support in students’ native
languages through bilingual teachers in schools, Yun’s use of her native language in
assessment also indicates the importance of understanding the nature and characteristics
of successful bilingual teachers’ instructional practice. Based upon the fact that it took a
while for Yun to voluntarily use her native language during assessment even though she
knew the author would understand, it would not be too much to say that ESL students do
not automatically feel comfortable with speakers of the same native language background.
In other words, teachers’ ability to speak ESL students’ native language is only a
beginning to connect to ESL students and encourage their educational endeavors.
Bilingual teachers need to understand effective instructional approaches that can both
engage ESL students in the process of language and content learning and bring desirable
educational outcomes. It necessitates bilingual teachers’ understanding in pedagogically
sound approaches to nurture linguistic or cognitive development for ESL students. Such
teacher knowledge does not come naturally with bilingual teachers’ competence in
speaking student languages. Then, what are the nature and characteristics of effective
instructional strategies, and how do bilingual teachers develop such knowledge? More
research studies are needed to unveil the knowledge of effective ESL and bilingual
teachers.

Test sensitivity is another interesting issue that arose during the intervention study.
Test sensitivity seems to be an important concept in medical research although it does not
seem to be the case in educational or linguistic research. For example, the author did not
find any research studies in ERIC database when key word searches were conducted

using “test sensitivity.” A definition of sensitivity that the author found in a medical

139

research was “the proportion of truly non-diseased person who are identified as diseased
by the diagnostic test. . .In the case of C XR [chest X-ray], it is 80%. . .80% of all those
with TB are successfully picked up by chest X-rays.” (Sunmed organization, 2003, p. 3)
Drawing from this example, test sensitivity can be reformulated as the level of
effectiveness of an assessment measure for a specific purpose (e.g., assessing
effectiveness of an ESL program)

It seemed that standardized ESL assessment tools exhibit different sensitivities in
detecting ESL students’ language development in English. For example, the Woodcock-
Munoz Language Survey (WMLS) showed changes in the two focal students’ language
development. On the contrary, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) did not show
such changes. Considering that both tests are widely used as valid and reliable ESL
assessment tools, the issue does not seem to lie in whether one is more valid and reliable
than the other. Rather, it seems to be a test sensitivity issue. Drawing from the fact that
norm groups differ between the two standardized tests, the two tests may possess
different sensitivities in detecting language development of ESL students. For example,
WMLS may be more appropriate in assessing beginning ESL students’ language
development, and PPVT may be used for more advanced ESL students. Thus, the two
tests can serve different roles. It is possible to administer both tests and get different
indicators for ESL students’ language development in English.

The implication of this finding is profound in the era of hyperaccountability.
Schools are required to report annual assessment results to receive firnding necessary for
sustaining school programs. If ESL assessment measures possess different sensitivities in

detecting ESL students’ language development in English, a school’s choice of an

140

assessment tool may bring different outcomes in representing effectiveness of an ESL
program, and such assessment choice may influence school funding. For example, a
school district in mid Michigan adopted Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey (WWLS)
as an ESL assessment tool. Based upon a conversation with an ESL teacher in the school
district, the author learned that most of ESL students including recent arrivals in her
school scored above intermediate level (i.e., levels 3, 4, & 5) in WMLS. Because WMLS
assessment levels were based upon grade norms, interpretation of assessment results
should be contextualized both WMLS proficiency level and student grade level. In other
words, level 5 in grade 1 is different from level 5 in grade 2. That assessment result was a
concern to the ESL teacher because she suspected that the state department may not
understand how to interpret WWLS results, and they may cease to fund the ESL program
because ESL students scored high. While listening to the teacher’s concern, the author
could feel the sense of risk that an assessment measure created in the era of
hyperaccountability and the feeling of helplessness that the teachers and administrators
may experience on a daily basis.

If ESL assessment measures possess different sensitivities in detecting ESL
students’ English language development, it is reasonable to assume the existence of
variability in representing effectiveness of ESL instruction. A careful choice of
assessment tools will lead to a more accurate representation of instructional effectiveness
(Gunderson & Siegel, 2001; Pearson, 1998; Pearson, Vyas, Sensale, & Kim, 2001;
Serafini, 2001). Stakeholders in education (e. g., teachers, school administrators, and
parents) need to be informed about characteristics of ESL assessment tools. Rather than

consuming assessment information given to them, they need to read it more critically.

141

Additionally, instead of using single ESL assessment measure, using multiple assessment
tools seems to make better sense considering that each ESL assessment exhibits different
sensitivities. For example, teachers may want to identify a few assessment measures in
the beginning of a school year focusing on the type (e.g., formal or informal), skills (e.g.,
syntax and vocabulary), and sensitivity (e. g, WMLS is more sensitive to beginning ESL
students’ language development than PPVT). Such multiple assessment practices will be
one way to provide individualized instruction that meets the diverse needs of ESL
students.

Lastly, the issue of language input needs a more thorough discussion. While it is
reasonable to judge that the two focal students’ oral language proficiency in English
improved based upon their performances in various ESL assessment measures, it is not
easy to pinpoint what played a key role in students’ learning in English. Data from
parent or guardian interviews clearly indicated that both focal students did not receive
any type of formal English oral language instruction from home. Instead, the students
relied mostly on school instruction and English reading at home as well as viewing
English TV programs. In school contexts, focal students participated in extensive literacy
activities including structured language instruction, journal writing and independent
reading. Taken the information together, it seems evident that school instruction was an
important source of language input for two focal students in developing their English
skills although there is no data that delineated a clear causal relationship between
language input provided in school contexts and two focal ESL students’ language
development in English. If we want educational research to play a role in improving

schooling for ESL students in American public schools, more careful research studies are

142

necessary to understand the specific roles of school instruction in the development of
ESL students’ English language development.

Undoubtedly, language learning is a complicated issue. Existence of varying
perspectives on second language development attests to such complexity (Snow, 1992).
Research knowledge accumulated in various disciplines related to second language
research has indicated that language learning takes place in social milieu, and
understanding ESL students’ language development requires thoughtful investigation of
various factors related to both student learning, teaching, and the context in which ESL
learning and teaching occurs. Consideration of these complex factors can be a daunting
task, and it presents interesting intellectual challenges. Future ESL research should
consider, in addition to identifying research areas that have not been studied, new

methodological and conceptual possibilities to meet such challenges successfully.

143

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Conclusion

The current study is a conceptual and methodological attempt to bring multiple
perspectives on effective instruction for ESL students into classroom contexts. As a
response to the growing number of ESL students in U. S. public schools, multiple
conversations evolved concerning the issue of effectively educating students who come
from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. My analysis of the development of the
dialogue for the past three decades revealed that there has been a pendulum swing to and
fro between the oral primacy view and the synergistic view on the subject of the
relationship between oral and written language in ESL. Because the difference between
the two perspectives seemed to emerge from “immense, boundless masses of forgotten
contextual meanings” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 170) of written language usage, I examined

these two competing perspectives within the classroom contexts.

The purpose of this work was to explain the role of English reading and writing in
the development of English oral language for young (K-2) English as a Second Language
(ESL) students. Based upon my understanding that classrooms that provide rich literacy
experiences to young children can be opportune places for developing oral language for
ESL students, an overarching research question was “How can English reading and
writing be used to develop English oral language?” For this inquiry, I chose a research
methodology that reflected the centrality of individuals in language learning because I

believe that language learning is ultimately individualistic. In other words, although

144

language learning always occurs in a social context, it is best viewed as a combination of
individual, social, and political phenomena. And irrespective of the stimulus to
acquisition and growth, it is individuals who internalize language input available to them,
decide what and how to communicate, compose a message based upon one’s knowledge
about English and take risks to produce oral language. I used case studies to observe the
written to oral connection in ESL learning in naturalistic settings. Based upon insights
gained from case studies, I designed a single subject experimental study to confirm my
findings regarding the role of written language. In so doing, the current study criss-
crossed landscapes of ESL learning and teaching and illuminated four key issues in ESL
learning. These issues include the nature of school based reading and writing activities,
the role of teachers and teaching contexts, the active role of learners in the process of
language learning, and the written to oral connection in ESL. Each of these issues
involves research findings and implications for research and practice, carries some

limitations, and suggests fixture research initiatives.

This work shed light on the nature of school based reading and writing activities
and the role of teachers and contexts. As suggested in the synergistic view, all language
skills were integrated in the classrooms where the three case studies took place. All class
activities involved a varying degree of reading and writing depending upon the purpose
and the type (i.e., whole, small, independent groups) of class activities. Because school
based reading and writing activities required the use of all language skills, findings from
my dissertation study suggested that language skills need not be taught in a linear
progression of oral and written language skills in the classroom contexts where learning

literacy is viewed as “learning to exploit [cultural] resources” (Olson, 1996, p. 17).

145

Because oral and written language skills ebbed and flowed seamlessly, it was impossible
to separate out listening, speaking, reading, and writing in these classrooms (Goodman,
Goodman, & Flores, 1978; Huddelson, 1984 & 1986). In these classrooms, teachers
modeled various uses of written language for their students. The teachers used written
language to make oral language material so that they could teach basic vocabulary to
their students. They wrote English words or sentences to highlight phonemes, plural
markers and past tense verbs. In so doing, they used written language to make phonemic,
semantic, and syntactic aspects of oral language stand still. The teachers also used written
language to help students rehearse their emerging oral language skills so that students
could internalize what they learned about English language.

Classroom contexts influence teachers’ instructional roles in providing effective
instruction for ESL students (Weber & Longhi-Chirlin, 2001). While teachers’ content
and pedagogical knowledge is a critical component of effective instruction, teachers’
instructional roles are mediated by the classroom context in which they operate. In the
school where this study took place, both general and ESL classroom teachers used written
language in their instruction, but they did so in very different ways. General classroom
teachers began with their grade level curriculum and attended to the whole class while
diversifying their support to meet the needs of individual ESL students. The ESL teacher,
on the other hand, began her instruction at the language and literacy level where ESL
students were and guided them through the process of expanding the complexity and the
depth of language and literacy skills. The ESL teacher was able to organize her
curriculum to accommodate the needs of individual ESL students because she had a small

group of ESL students with similar language and literacy skills. When comparing the

146

different roles that general and ESL class teachers played, it seemed to me that ESL
students’ academic success is critically dependent upon maintaining a balance between
holding academic expectations at a grade level and beginning at ESL students’ language
and literacy levels. Teaching contexts (i.e., general or ESL classrooms) seemed to
influence the ways in which teachers balance between these two spectrums of instruction
for ESL students. Teachers of ESL students should be aware of the balance and find ways
to support successful language learning for ESL students by sharing information among
teachers about the linguistic capabilities of individual ESL students as well as content

standards that all students need to meet at each grade level.

The data from the case studies suggests that these ESL students are active sense-
makers as indicated by the synergistic view. However, these active processes are not
always visible to outsiders because students choose different modes of communication
(i.e., oral or written) depending upon their personality. ESL students often understand
more than what they produce orally. For example, Yonsu’s journal entries seemed to
indicate that she understood how to make sentences using the “I went to” form for at least
a month earlier than she was able to produce the structure orally in her ESL class. A main
reason for the discrepancy between oral performance and linguistic competence of ESL
students lies in the fact that speaking requires more risk-taking than other language skills.
The consistency across classroom contexts in providing support for all three case study
participants in their language learning processes suggests that the variability across the
students, their disposition to take risks by speaking in class may come from one’s
personality. More specifically, J in, who possessed an outgoing personality, asked, “Can I

lunch rooms my mommy?” to mean whether he could go to the lunchroom with his

147

mommy who was visiting his classroom that day. J in produced this utterance in mid May,
about four months after his arrival in the States. As this example indicates, J in seemed to
be interested in achieving his goals for communication rather than being conscious of
uttering grammatical sentences. In contrast, such linguistic behaviors were not evident in
Yonsu and Tayl. Although these two students were capable of writing complete sentences
privately, they did not produce full sentences orally until later when they had some
control over English language to produce syntactically sound sentences. This seemed to
suggest that these two shy students monitored their language production and tried their
best to refrain themselves from speaking ungrammatical sentences. Thus, a key to
effective instruction may be to provide ESL students with classroom activities that
require varying language skills (i.e., speaking, listening, reading, and writing) so that they
can choose activities where they feel comfortable participating, and they can develop

language proficiency despite their differing personalities.

As active sense-makers, ESL students want to communicate with other people and
participate meaningfully in class activities. Effective school curricula for ESL students
should incorporate ESL students’ interests in meaningful participation. For example, one
of Yonsu’s journal entries in April described her happiness at being an important part of
her classroom community when she brought a jump rope to school (Yonsu’s journal,
4/10/00). Case study participants made use of what they learned from their teachers to
participate in class activities. Yonsu’s journal entries clearly showed that she learned past
tense verbs during the weekend description tasks in her ESL class, and she quietly
practiced this form over and over again. When teachers provided ESL students with

diverse classroom activities that required a varying degree of oral and written language

148

skills, ESL students participated in the activities that they could manage and extended
their participation in other class activities as their language skills improved. For example,
recall the three ESL students’ participation in general and ESL classroom activities.
While the ESL students participated in all ESL class activities from the beginning, their
exploration in general classrooms began with activities that required the least use of oral
language and gradually moved toward the activities that required more active use of oral
language skills as the year progressed. It is also important to note other factors that may
have facilitated the ESL students’ aspirations for meaningful participation in class
activities. For example, the three case study participants received parental support for
learning English and academic skills. The students seemed to make their best efforts to
make sense of language input available to them and communicate in English utilizing
whatever cultural and linguistic resources were at their disposal (e. g., students’ literacy
skills in their native language) (Hakuta, 1976; Huddelson, 1986; Weber & Longhi-Chirlin,
2001).

The most important finding from this work is that written language played very
specific functions in language learning for the participating ESL students. The three case
study participants developed all language skills concomitantly while participating in
school based reading and writing activities. Although written language seems lifeless
because it does not carry sounds, pitch or tone—all of which are the intrinsic
characteristics of oral language, written language comes to life in use by teachers and
students. As described in my case study chapter, teachers used written language to serve
three distinctive functions: (a) to make oral language material, (b) to make oral language

stand still, and (c) to provide students with opportunities to rehearse their emerging

149

language skills. Most importantly, when the three case study participants made use of
these various written language ploys introduced by their teachers, their oral language
improved.

The single subject research study supported this case study finding. When the two
focal students were provided with oral language-based instruction or integrated language-
based instruction, and when their oral language performances before and after the
instruction were compared, it was evident that the focal students made more substantial
and statistically significant gains on daily oral language measures during integrated
language-based instruction than during exclusively oral instruction.

Although information was available only from Yang, her fluency increased to a
greater degree during integrated language-based instruction than oral language-based
instruction when she was given opportunities to talk about her weekend experiences.
More specifically, Yang produced a greater mean length of utterances and a higher
number of errors during integrated language-based instruction. While the contribution of
written language was evident, there seems to be a hint of an interaction effect between the
type of instruction (i.e., oral language-based or integrated language-based instruction)
and focal students’ oral language performance. In other words, there is a slight possibility
that integrated language instruction was more effective than oral language activities for
Yang while both types of instruction seemed effective for Yun.

Taken together, school based reading and writing activities can play a role in the
development of young (K-2) ESL students, and reading and writing can be used to
develop oral language for young ESL students with limited English oral language

proficiency. Having extended our understanding regarding the usage of written language

150

through criss—crossing landscapes of ESL teaching and learning both conceptually and
methodologically, we need to rethink the dialogue on the written and oral connection in

ESL and effective instruction for ESL students.

Implications

“There is neither a first nor a last word and there are no limits to the dialogic
context (it extends into the boundless past and the boundless future). . ..At any
moment in the development of the dialogue there are immense, boundless masses
of forgotten contextual meanings, but at certain moments of the dialogue’s
subsequent development along the way they are recalled and invigorated in
renewed form (in a new context). Nothing is absolutely dead: every meaning will
have its homecoming festival.” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 170)

Promoting effective instruction for ESL students requires our careful attention to
what is lost or implicit in the current perspectives of teaching and learning in ESL.
Because ESL learning takes place in a classroom context, understanding the role of
written language requires understanding what it means to read and write in a classroom,
and what individual teachers and students do with reading and writing. In rethinking the
pendulum swing between the oral primacy view and the synergistic view for the past
three decades, I have realized that the resurgence of the two competing perspectives
represents a lack of attention to all three aspects of ESL practice (i.e., students, teachers,
and learning contexts) in ESL research, and this lack of attention exacerbates the gap
between research and practice at that. Thus, forgotten contextual meanings of a dialogue
regarding the relationship between oral and written language in ESL can be
“invigorated,” to borrow Bahkin’s term, when we attend to all three central aspects of
instruction in ESL. Equally importantly, we need to attend to the important contextual

factors of ESL learning such as individual students’ personalities, experiences, and

151

capabilities as well as their goals for ESL learning. A lack of attention to these learning

factors in teaching engenders the gap between teaching and learning in ESL.

Effective Written Laguaga Usage

 

An implication of this line of inquiry is that it is not written language but the use
of written language, that is at issue. Written language can be used ineffectively or
effectively depending upon its users. To highlight the importance of users and their usage
of written language, members of the CIERA research study used action words in labeling
conceptual categories that show written to oral connection, and I endorsed this idea
through my dissertation study. In the area of ESL educational policy, teachers’ ineffective
usage of written language seems to be a dominant concern. For example, in an informal
conversation with one of the editors of Preventing Readigg Difficulties during the year of
2000, she described many ineffective ESL classrooms where uses of worksheets were
prevalent with minimal opportunities for oral interactions for students. Perhaps the
recommendations for ESL reading by the editors of Preventing Reading Difficulties may
have been guided by the concern about ineffective (and often exclusively) reading and
writing instruction for ESL students. Similar concerns were discussed by Valdés (1998).
Based upon her observations of ESL classrooms where ESL students were tracked and
uses of worksheets were common, she raised significant issues regarding the educational
practice that used language to create an ESL track and consequently “an important
rallying point in boundary maintenance” (Valdés, 1998, p. 13) between ESL and English
speaking students. As such, ineffective usage of written language can hamper ESL

students’ learning and school success, and the ESL research community needs to put

152

forth its best efforts to resolve this issue. This does not mean, however, that all written
language activities will hamper learning; indeed the data from the current study suggests

that in the right hands and in the right instructional contexts, it can be very effective.

The current findings suggest that the key issue for effective instruction for ESL
students is using written language as “a launching pad not a trap” (P.D.Pearson, personal
communication, 2003). Conceptualizations of what effective instruction looks like in
practice differ between research and practice. Worksheets are the most interesting
example that shows the gap between research and practice with respect to their
educational value. Teachers in my case studies used worksheets in their classrooms to
provide students with opportunities to practice their emerging language skills, and their
usage seemed to reap educational benefits. Research literature in reading, on the contrary,
discourages teachers’ uses of worksheets, especially those with poor educational quality.
For example, authors of “Becoming a nation of readers” were concerned about
worksheets because they involve “only a perfunctory level of reading” and “the exercise
[through worksheets] is time-consuming and extremely tedious” (Anderson, Hiebert,
Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985, p. 75). Interestingly, most of the teachers that I observed used
worksheets in various ways, and many of them had reputation as effective teachers. My
impression is that the teachers used worksheets because they did not have time to prepare
instructional materials independently. However, teachers chose specific worksheets that
were related to their lessons and helpful to their students. Worksheets seemed to offer
convenience to the teachers and they devised creative ways of using worksheets to
reinforce their students’ language learning. Additionally, worksheets may be able to offer

opportunities to provide explicit language skill instruction for ESL students, especially

153

the subset of ESL students who receive minimal parental support at home. In this sense,
worksheets can be used to teach the culture of power (Delpit, 1995). For example, most
of the parents of my case study participants did not help their children pronounce English
words because they were concerned that their non-native pronunciation would interfere
with their children’s learning of phonological aspects of English. Mr. K, the teacher for
Yonsu and Tayl, used worksheets to teach them various aspects of English pronunciation
such as vowels or diphthongs or initial consonants. Considering that being able to
pronounce English words and being understood by English speaking teachers and peers
give ESL students an advantage in school, Mr. K taught the culture of power (i.e.,
English pronunciation) to Yonsu and Tayl through worksheets. The fact that worksheets
have existed despite the criticisms from the reading research community for many
decades may suggest that worksheets are a necessary vice due to the nature of teaching,
or at least that they serve an important need (Jackson, 1968; Lortie, 1975). Given the fact
that there are teachers who use worksheets as an instructional tool, we need to better
understand the role of worksheets in promoting student learning. Researchers could
review previous research reports or studies that discussed worksheets (e. g., Becoming a
Nation of Readers) and investigate effective usage of worksheets in classrooms before

dismissing educational benefits of them.

ESL Learning

The oral primacy view accentuates the importance of teachers’ careful monitoring
of oral language development and thoughtful introduction of formal reading instruction
for beginning ESL students so that the students are not exposed to materials and activities

that are cognitively too challenging (Mills, Cowen, & Guess, 1977; Snow, Burns, Griffith,

154

1998; Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). In this sense, individual ESL students play a
marginal role in language learning. However, my case study findings suggest that ESL
students are active sense makers as indicated in the synergistic view. They use their own
cultural and linguistic knowledge to learn English and communicate with teachers, peers,
and other adults in their classrooms. Because language learning is ultimately an
individual process in the sense that individual students have to produce oral language to
communicate with others, we need to understand what ESL students are capable of doing
independently. While we have some understanding regarding what young ESL students
can accomplish, our knowledge base in this area is very limited, and more research
studies are urgently needed (van Lier, 1988). For example, in a study on essay revisions
with adult ESL students, Polio and her colleagues found that adult ESL students
improved their essays when given extra time (Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998). We could do
similar studies with young ESL students to document their emerging linguistic
capabilities in various areas of language learning under various sorts of accommodations
(Abedi, Courtney, & Leon, 2003; Pelligrino, Jones, Mitchell, 1999). A deeper
understanding of what ESL students can do will enable us to design ESL curriculum and

instruction that meets the linguistic and cultural needs and strengths of ESL students.

One important way to enrich our understanding about ESL students’ capabilities
involves a reconceptualization of ESL students’ grammatical errors. The oral primacy
view indicates that ESL learning takes place in stages. ESL learning begins with the
development of oral language, the basis of all language skills. Once oral language is
reached at an appropriate level, ESL students develop written language, cognitively more

demanding language skills (Mills, Cowen, & Guess, 1977; Wong-Fillmore & Valadez,

155

1986). In this view, grammatical errors imply a lack of linguistic control, and
grammatical errors would decrease as language proficiency increases. Similar to
Bamhardt (2001), however, my case studies showed that ESL students’ grammatical
errors increased as their English proficiency improved. This finding indicates that ESL
students’ grammatical errors reveal their developing knowledge or hypothesis in English
language and perhaps their increasing willingness to take risks. Some of their
grammatical errors may appear because ESL students think in a complex way. In other
words, they make grammatical errors in English when they mobilize their linguistic
knowledge in their native language, generate hypothesis about English, organize their
ideas based upon their hypothesis about English and take risks to communicate in English.
Considering that English is added into students’ knowledge in their native language when
they learn English as a Second Language, grammatical errors may be an indication of
ESL students’ richer linguistic capital rather than a lack of linguistic control (Bernstein,

1977; Cummins, 1979).

An important implication of the current study is that there are both similarities
and differences between the processes of ESL learning and learning a native language.
The oral primacy view suggests that ESL learning is similar to the process of learning a
native language. My observations of ESL students’ language learning affirmed the view
that ESL students develop English language skills in phases. For example, young ESL
students that I observed in a period of one academic year began with the initial
observational phase, which is also called as the silent period in applied linguistics. During
this phase, beginning ESL students mostly observe the language usage of their peers and

teachers without producing any oral or written language. The next phase is the simple

156

utterance production phase. The nature and the length of ESL students’ utterances seem
to depend upon the personality of individual ESL students. Shy students seem to produce
one word utterances, while outgoing students tend to produce longer sentences that seem
to be based upon linguistic rules generated initially by their knowledge of native
language in a combination with their emerging knowledge of English. Then, both shy and
outgoing students move into the fluency phase in which they make many more utterances
and linguistic errors in English (Bamhardt, 2001). However, unlike children who are
learning their native language, ESL students do not develop English oral language skills
before they develop written language skills. Rather, ESL students concomitantly develop
English oral and written language skills as shown in my dissertation study. Thus, while
there is similarity at a macro level between native language learning and learning English
a second language, based upon my data, micro level differences do exist between the two
language learning processes (August & Hakuta, 1997; McLaughlin, 197 8).
Understanding these micro level differences between first and second language learning

will influence the effectiveness of an ESL curriculum.

The tension between accuracy and fluency

An implication of this work for ESL practice is concerned with the tension
between accuracy and fluency during the beginning and intermediate phases of ESL
learning. As I discussed in the intervention chapter, ESL students at these phases seem to
be increasingly inaccurate while they become more fluent. Because accuracy is another
important issue in communication considering the fact that our ideas can be
misinterpreted and communication gaps can occur when we are not accurate in conveying

our thoughts, the inconsistency between accuracy and fluency among beginning and

157

intermediate ESL students becomes an important instructional issue. For language
minority children who are in the process of learning oral language and school discourse,
there is ample research evidence that shows emphasis on accuracy leads to unintended
negative consequences. M011 and his colleagues, based upon observations of reading
instruction for young Spanish bilingual children by two teachers (i.e., a Spanish teacher
and an English teacher), noted “the overriding concern of the lessons in English [was]
decoding, pronunciation, and other forms related to the sounds of the second language”
(Cazden, 1988, p. 84). Teachers’ focus on accuracy and their “immediate correction
inadvertently depressed both children’s self-correction and their accuracy scores”
(Cazden, 1988, p. 88). These examples suggest that ESL students are capable of language
self-corrections, and the processes of making self-corrections are important in cognitive
development. Thus, it is important to provide opportunities for ESL students and other
language minority students to explore language independently and develop fluency while

developing linguistic competence and accuracy in English.

In conceptualizing the balance between fluency and accuracy in language learning,
it is important to consider the purpose and the scope of accuracy. To give an example
from my personal experiences, I have finally decided to improve my knowledge and
usage of definite and indefinite articles. I have not been working on my article usage in
English because I found that articles are difficult grammatical features for me to tackle
because they are nonexistent or unimportant in my native language. Recently, my
dissertation director raised my awareness of improving my inattentiveness to English
articles because accurate articles usage is important in academic writing. Because I

possess strong aspirations to write for academic purposes, I have decided to improve my

158

knowledge of English articles. This example indicated to me that the development of
linguistic competence is driven by purpose and context. Advanced linguistic accuracy,
such as the acquisition of the rules of definite and indefinite articles, is important in
certain areas such as academic writing, but essentially irrelevant in daily oral
communication. In addition, my purpose for doing academic writing influences the
importance of attending to the issue of linguistic accuracy. Thus, the tension between
accuracy and fluency can be resolved through thoughtful considerations of the goals of

language learning of individual ESL students.

In helping ESL students learn English successfully, teachers of ESL students need
to understand how to set up classroom learning environment that promote self-
exploration and self correction while developing fluency. Until ESL students gain
linguistic and conceptual flexibility in English and monitor their own language usage
appropriately, teachers’ guidance plays a critical role in helping ESL students acquire
linguistic and cognitive independence. Considering the variability and the importance of
classroom contexts in language learning, we need to understand how effective teachers
resolve the tension of balancing accuracy and fluency in language learning to

successfully promote ESL students’ language development.

ESL Assessment

 

Test sensitivity is an important issue considering that ESL students’ linguistic
fluency rather than accuracy may be a better indicator of language proficiency for
beginning and intermediate ESL students. Test sensitivity refers to the level of

effectiveness of an assessment measure for a specific purpose (e. g., assessing

159

effectiveness of an ESL program). Because ESL tests are developed based upon test
developers’ assumptions regarding language learning, there may be variability in test
sensitivity. More specifically, to accurately assess ESL students’ language development,
educators should use ESL tests that are sensitive to beginning ESL students’ language
development, which may consider the issues of fluency and accuracy. For example, the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test did not reveal any growth in language development for
the two single subject experimental study participants during the study period, but the
Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey did reflect the progress that the two ESL students
made in learning English. In the era of hyperaccountability when student performance on
standardized tests critically influence the funding for educational programs and the
existence of schools with a high proportion of ESL students, it is important to attend to
the issue of test sensitivity and identify appropriate tests that are valid and reliable
measures of student performance and instructional effectiveness (Pellegrino, Jones, &

Mitchell, 1999)

Preparation of Teachers of ESL Students

Teachers are key players in providing effective instruction for ESL students. As I
described in the case study chapter, general classroom teachers need to balance two
competing instructional goals (i.e., holding grade level expectations while beginning with
students’ linguistic competence and providing scaffolding in the processes of developing
linguistic, literacy, and cognitive skills). To meet such daunting instructional challenges,
teachers need opportunities to develop knowledge, skills, and strategies, and dispositions
to work with ESL students (Duffy & Roehler, 1993). Based upon my readings of

conversations for the past few years in a bilingual list serve in which I participate, I found

160

that one of the key instructional issues in ESL is general classroom teachers’ lack of
confidence and knowledge in working with ESL students. Considering that many general
classroom teachers do not receive adequate training in this area, we need to find ways to
support teacher learning through effective professional development activities (August &
Hakuta, 1997; Little, 1993).

Focusing specifically on the knowledge and disposition necessary for the teachers
of ESL students, the data from my case studies suggests that effective teachers possess at
least three interconnected attributes. They have positive perspectives about ESL students.
The three collaborating teachers seemed to perceive that ESL students were competent
language users despite grammatical errors in the ESL students’ utterances. They focused
on what the ESL students were capable of doing while listening to the stduents and
reading their written work. The second attribute of effective teachers of ESL students is
holding high expectations for ESL students (August & Hakuta, 1997). Even when case
study participants did not produce any oral language, or when their utterances were full
of grammatical errors, the teachers invited ESL students to participate in all class
activities. While providing linguistically and cognitively challenging activities, effective
teachers individualize instructional and emotional support as the three collaborating
teachers did so by observing personalities and the strengths of the ESL students and
conversing with fellow teachers who knew the students and the processes of ESL
learning and teaching to discuss how to provide better support for the ESL students. As
such, effective teachers of ESL students possess certain knowledge and disposition.
While there is an extensive body of research literature on the subject of the characteristics

of effective teaching for ESL and bilingual students, most studies do not clearly describe

161

the criteria for instructional effectiveness (August & Hakuta, 1997). Thus, more rigorous
research studies are needed to document the nature and characteristics of effective
instruction and share research findings with teacher educators who work with inservice

and preservice teacher population.

ESL Research

 

When I launched my dissertation study, I perceived quantitative and qualitative
research paradigms to be incommensurable. Through my dissertation study, however, I
have learned that the two research paradigms are complementary. More specifically, case
studies helped me gain a deep understanding about students, teachers, and their learning
contexts. My knowledge about individual research participants and the research context led
me to identify key constructs for my single subject experimental research study. Through
case studies, I learned that three conceptual categories (i.e., making language material,
making language stand still, and rehearsal) served key firnctions of written language, and I
used them as. the basis of designing my single subject experimental research study. The
single subject experimental research study, on the other hand, helped me review my coding
scheme, and evaluate and reevaluate my assumptions, hypothesis, and assessment criteria.
It also helped me make my thinking explicit and make my ideas comprehensible to others. I
especially felt that the two research paradigms were complementary when my knowledge
on learners, classroom contexts, and their learning opportunities helped me understand the
meaning of numbers from the results of the single subject research study and enabled me to
compose a narrative of the research participants. Using both case studies and a single

subject experimental study allowed me to criss-cross landscapes of the written to oral

162

connection in ESL methodologically. Complementarity between the two research
paradigms seemed also apparent when I used my understanding of reliability and validity to
scrutinize my selections of examples that showed the written to oral connection in my case
studies. Considering conceptual benefits of mixed research methods, we need to create
research environment that encourages us to explore both research paradigms and “promote
synergy and complementarity across methods” (P.D. Pearson, personal communication,

2003; Shavelson & Towne, 2002)

Delineating the complex nature of ESL learning and teaching in research requires
researchers’ flexible uses of research methodology. In ESL research, there has been a clear
divide between cognitive and socio-cultural research perspectives, and each perspective has
asked different questions and utilized different research methods (Snow, 1992).
Considering that language learning takes place in a social milieu, understanding factors that
influence the development of language proficiency for an individual requires
“understanding that language is a sociocultural phenomenon as well as a cognitive
achievement” (Snow, 199, p. 18). Thus, it seems quite plausible to make flexible uses of
research methods. For example, by using both case study and single subject experimental
method for the purpose of understanding the written to oral connection in ESL, I was able
to understand the nuances of ESL learning, teaching, context and the intricate connection
among them. Through the employment of methodological flexibility, I believe that
researchers can make educational research relevant to the realities of learning and teaching

in ESL and consequently contribute to ensuring effective instruction for all ESL students.

163

Limitations and Future Directions

Because my dissertation study is based upon a small number of participants and a
specific learning context, findings and implications from my study may not be applicable
to other groups of ESL students that may come from a drastically different context.
Equally importantly, my research findings cannot be generalized to the overall ESL
student population due to the small sample, both in the case studies and in the single
subject experimental study. Limitations of my dissertation notwithstanding, the issue on
the role of written language for young ESL students deserves more attention from the
ESL research community because empirical studies in this area are extremely limited. To
list a few future research possibilities, researchers should explore the possibility of
developing new conceptual categories that describe the relationship between oral and
written language in ESL. Considering that conceptual categories are a mere description of
the written to oral connection, future research should also examine how we could use
conceptual categories to guide instruction practice and eventually to promote effective
instruction in classrooms. The results from my intervention study suggested that there is a
possible interaction effect between students and the mode of instruction. Future search
should explore the connection between ESL students and mode of instruction (i.e., oral
language-based or integrated language-based instruction). Lastly, research studies are
needed to understand whether the same type of the written to oral connection is evident
with different groups of ESL students, especially the subset of ESL students who have
performed poorly in US. schools.

By using mixed methods and triangulating research evidence from various data

sources, I have tried to make my dissertation study an accurate representation of the

164

 

perspectives of ESL students and teachers and a realistic depiction of ESL practice.
However, I cannot confidently claim that my attention to methodological rigor eradicated
my personal bias. I suspect that my observations are inevitably influenced by my personal
and professional experiences, and beliefs and aspirations engendered through my social
network. Considering the role of researcher’s personal experiences and beliefs in research,
future ESL research may consider collaborative research projects by researchers whose
life experiences and perspectives differ in various ways so that personal biases can be
sifted through purposeful dialogues. One such example may involve an analytic study

that compares and contrasts case studies conducted by various researchers in order to
develop insights into improving case study methods and procedures (D.W. Rowe,

personal communication, 2003).

My attempt to involve teachers in a dialogue on the written to oral relationship in
ESL and effective instruction for ESL students is reflected in the fact that my research
question evolved from observing classroom teaching practice and what teachers have
mentioned during research meetings. We can envision different types of dialogues that
engage teachers more actively and frequently during the research process, although the
level of teachers’ engagement in a research project may critically depend upon the
purpose of a research study (Shavelson & Towne, 2002). Future research needs to
consider the flexibility of the level of engagement of students, parents and teachers in a
dialogue and may explore strengths and weaknesses of different levels of their

involvement in research.

165

References

Abedi, J., Courtney, M., & Leon, S. (2003). Research-supported accommodation for
English language learners in NAEP (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 586). Los Angeles, CA:
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing,
University of California, Los Angeles.

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J .A., & Wilkinson, 1. AG. (1985). Becoming a
nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC:
The National Institute of Education.

Au, K. H., Mason, J. M. & Scheu, J. A. (1995). Literacy instruction for today. New York:
Harper Collins College Publishers.

August, D. (2002). Literacy for English-language learners: Four key issues. Paper
Presented at the Department of Education’s First-Annual Summit on English
Language Acquisition, Washington, DC.

August. D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Irmroving schooling for language-minority
children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bahktin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.

Barrera, R. B. (1983). Bilingual reading in the primary grades: Some questions about
questionable views and practices. In T. H. Escobedo (Ed.), Early childhood
bilingual education: A Hispanic perspective (pp. 164-184). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.

Berger, M. (1997). Life in a tree. New York, NY: Newbridge Communications Inc.

Bernhardt, E. B. (2001). Second-language reading as a case study of reading scholarship
in the 20th century. In M. K. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3, (pp. 791-811). Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates, Inc.

Berstein, B. (1977). Social Class, Language, and Socialization. In J. Karabel & A. H.
Halsey, Power and Ideology in Education. (pp. 473-486). New York: Oxford
University Press.

Burt, M. K., Dulay, H. C., and Hernandez Ch., E. (1976). Bilingual Syntax Measure.
Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

166

Carle, E. (1987). The veg hunggy categpillar. New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The langaage of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chall, Jeanne S. (1996). Learning to Read: The Great Debatg. Hartcourt Brace &
Company, 3rd ed.

Chaudron, C. (1985). A method for examining the input/intake distinction. In S. M. Gass
& C. G. Madden (Eds), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 285-300).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading—or when language
competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal,
64(2), 203-209. ‘

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222-251.

Cummins, J. (1994). The acquisition of English as a second language. In Spangenberg—
Urbschat, K & Prichard, R., Kids come in all langgages: Reading instruction for
ESL students. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.

Cummins, J. & Swain. M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research
and practice. New York, NY: Longrnan.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Educatiorgtl Review, 56(1), 280-298.

Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnograrmy: Ethnogr_aphic practices for the 21St
centug. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.

Duffy, G. G. & Roehler, L. R. (1993). Improving classroom reading instruction: A
decision-making approach (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Duncan, S. E., De Avila, E. A. (1998). PreLASZOOO. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw Hill
Companies, Inc.

Dunn, L. M. and Dunn, L. M. (1997). moody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd Ed.). Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

167

Elley, W.B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based
programs. Language Learning, 41(3), 375-411.

Elley, W.B. (1994). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based
programs. In A.H. Cumming (Ed.), Bilingual performance in reading and writing.
Ann Arbor, MI: Research Club in Language Learning.

Elley, W.B. & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading in second language
learning. @ding Research Quarterly, 14(1), 53-67.

Ellis, R. (1999). Wing a second language through interaction. Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjarnins Publishing Company

Evaluating diagnostic and screening tests. Retrieved from the Sunmed Organization
Website: http://www.sunmed.org/Dia.html.

Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications

Firestone, W. M. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to
qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22 (4), 16-23.

Fitzgerald, J. (1993). Literacy and students who are learning English as a Second
Language. The reading teacher, 46 (8), 638-647.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive reading
processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational
Research, 65(2), 145-190.

Fitzgerald, J. (2001). English learners’ reading. In P. R. Schmidt & P.B. Mosenthal
(Eds), Reconceptualizing literacy in the new age of multiculturalism aad
pluralism (pp. 255-271). Greenwich, CT: Informational Age Publishing Inc.

Garcia, G. E. (2000). Bilingual children’s reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, & R. Barr. (Eds), H_andbog< of Reading Research. Vol. 3 (pp.813-834).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Gass, S. M. (n.d.). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies.

Gersten, R. (1996). Literacy instruction for language minority students: The transition
years. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3). 227-244.

168

Glazer, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theom Chicago,
Aldine Publishing Company.

Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., & Flores, B. (1978). Reading in the bilingual classroom:
literacy and biliterfl Rosslyn, Virginia: National Clearing House for Bilingual
Education.

Gunderson, L. and Siegel, L. S. (2001). The evils of the use of IQ tests to define learning

disabilities in first- and second-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 55 (1),
48-55.

Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second
language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(2), 287-297.

Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a Second
Language. Language Learning, 26 (2), 321-351.

Harklau, L. (2001). Writing literacy into research on classroom second language
acquisition (unpublished manuscript).

Heaton, J. B. (1966). Composition through pictures. London, England: Longman Group
Limited.

Herr, J ., & Libby, Y. (1995). Creative resources for the early childhood classroom (2nd
ed.). Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers Inc.

Hudelson, S. (1984). Kan Yu Ret an Rayt en Igles: Children become literate in English as
a second langauge. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (2), 221-238.

Hudelson, S. (1986). ESL children’s writing: What we’ve learned, what we’re learning.
In P. Rigg & D. S. Enright (Eds), Children and ESL: Integrating perspectives (pp.
25-54). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Immunex Corporation (2001). Defining moments: Enliven 2002 [calendar]. Seattle, WA:
Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceutical and Immunex Corporation.

Kamil, M. L. (1995). Statistical analysis procedures for single-subject designs. In S. B.
Neuman & S. McCormick (Eds), Single-subject experimental research:
Amplications for literaay. Neward, Delaware: International Reading Association.

Kazden, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied
settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

169

Keyes, K. R. (1998). The Oxford picture dictionary for baa. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

Kostelnik, M. J. Howe, D., Payne, K., Rohde, B., Spalding, G., Stein, L., & Whitbeck, D.
(1991). Teaching young children using themes. Glenview, IL: Good Year Books.

Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. Atlatis (ed.), Current issues in bilingual
education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.

Leslie, L. and Caldwell, J. (1995). gralitative reading inventory. Harper Collins College
Publishers.

Little, J. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (2), 129-151.

Long, M. H. (1994). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. Unpublished paper.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.

Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading. New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc.

Martin Jr., B. and Archambault, J. (August, 2000). Chicka chicka boom boom. Aladdin
Picture Books.

Marzollo, J. (1996). I am water. New York, NY: Scholastic.

McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second-language acquisition in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

McLellan, M. (2000). Spartan Village ESL program. Symposium at the 50th Annual
Meeting for the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.

Mills, F ., Cowen, A., & Guess, W. (1977). Bilingual-Bicultural Education in the
Classroom. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 794).

Miner, I. S. (1981). Plants we know. Chicago, IL: Childrens Press.

170

Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual Classroom Studies and Community analysis: Some Recent
Trends. Educfionafltesegcher, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 20-24.

Mulaik, S. A. (1972). The foundations of fagor analysis. McGraw-Hill Inc.

National Center for Educational Statistics. Bilingual education/limited English proficient
students. Retrived 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id-96

Olson, DR. (1996). The world onfipaper: The conceptualand cognitive implications of
writing and reading. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Pearson, P. D. (1998). Standards and assessments: Tools for crafting effective
instruction? In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds), Literacy for Q: Issues in teaching and
learning. (pp. 264-286). New York, NY: The Gilford Press.

Pearson, P. D., Vyas, S., Sensale, L. M., Kim, Y. (2001). Making our way through the
assessment and accountability maze: where do we go now? The Clearing House:
A iournal of Educational Research, Controversy, and PrtLtices. Washington,
DC: Heldref Publications. 175-182.

 

Pease-Alvarez, L. & Hakuta, K. (1992). Enriching Our Views of Bilingualism and
Bilingual Education. Educational Researcher, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 4-6.

Pelligrino, J. W., Jones, L. R., & Mitchell, K. J. (Eds) (1999). Grading the nation’s report

card: Evaluating NAEP and transforming the assessment of educational progrgess.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Polio, C., Fleck, C., Leder, N. (1998). If I only had more time: ESL learners’ changes in

linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Joumza of Second Langaage Writing, 7 (1),
43-68.

Pressley, M. (2002). Raiding instruction that works (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Gilford
Publications, Inc.

SavilIe-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning for academic
achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 199-219.

Seda, I., Abramson, S. (1990). English writing development of young, linguistically
different learners. Early Childhood Research (marterly, 5, 379-391.

Serafini, F. (2001). Three paradigms of assessment: Measurement, procedure, and
inquiry. The ReadiagTeacher, 54 (4). 384-393.

171

Shavelson, R. J. & Towne, L. (Eds). (2002). Scientific research in education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Smith, N. B. (1965). American readinginstruction: its development and its significance
in gaining a perspective on current practices in reading. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.

Snow, C. E. (1991). Diverse conversational contexts for the acquisition of various
language skills. In J. F. Miller (Ed.), Research on Child Language Disorders: A
decade of progress (pp. 105-124). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Snow, C. E. (1992). Perspectives on second-language development: Implications for
bilingual education. Educational Researcher, 21 (2), 16-19.

Snow, C. E., Cancino, H., Gonzalez, P., & Shriberg, E. (1987). Second language leamers'
formal definitions: An oral_l__anguage correlate of school literm (technical report
CLEAR-TRS). Los Angeles, CA: Center for Language Education and Research,
University of California, Los Angeles.

Snow, C. E., Cancino, H., Temple, J. D., & Schley, S. (1991). Giving formal definitions:
A linguistic or metalinguistic skill? In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Qnguage processing in
bilingual children. Cambridge, England; New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press

 

Snow, c. E., Tabors, P. O., Nicholson, P. A., & Kurland, B. F. (1995). SHELL: oral
language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first-grade children. Journal
of Research in Childhood Education, 10(1), 37-48.

Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds). (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in
Young Children. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

Spache, G. & Spache, E. (1964). Reading in the elementary School. New York, NY:
Allyn & Bacon.

Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J. G., & Boerger, A. E. (1987). Knowledge
acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content
domains. In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glynn (Eds), Executive control processes in
reading (pp. 177-199). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spiro, R. J., & J ehng, J -C (1990). Cognitive Flexibility and Hypertext; theory and
Technology for the Nonlinear and Multidimensional Traversal of Complex
Subject Matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds), Cognition, Education and

172

Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in Hng Technology (pp. 163-205). Hillside, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J ., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive
flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced
knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen
(Eds), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A convmation (pp. 57-
75). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Coulson, R. L. (1996). Two Epistemic World-Views:
Prefigurative Schemas and Learning in Complex Domains. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, Vol. 10, 851-861.

Stake, RE. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Tanaka, IS. (1998). Graveyard of the dinosaurs. Toronto, Ontario: Madison Press Books.

Taylor, M. (1992). The language experience approach and adult learners. ERIC Digest.
http://www.cal.org/NCLE/DEGESTS/LANG_EXPER.HTML

Temple, C., Nathan, R. Temple, F., and Burris, N. A. (1993). The beginnings of writing
(3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

The American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological
Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999).
Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.

Ticknor, G. (1833). Lecture on the best methods of teaching the living languagg. Boston,
MA: Carter, Hendee and Co.

Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of giblic school
reform. Harvard University Press.

Valdés, G. (1998). The World Outside and Inside Schools: Language and Immigrant
Children. Educational Researcher, 27 (6). 4-18.

van Lier, L. (1988). The iassroom and the language learner. New York, NY: Longman,
Inc.

173

van Lier, L. (1998). Second language acquisition: What we know from case studies of
structural development. Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language
Affairs.

Wagner-Gough, J. and Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input data in second language
acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25(20), 297-308.

Weber, M. (1949). Max Weber on the methodology of the social sciences. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.

Weber, R. (1991). Linguistic diversity and reading in American society. In R. Barr,
M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds), The handbook of reading
research. Vol. 2 (pp. 97-119). New York: Longman.

Weber, R. and Longhi-Chirlin, T. (2001). Beginning in English: The growth of linguistic
and literate abilities in Spanish-speaking first graders. Reading Research and
Instruction, 41 (1), 19-50.

Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S. M. Gass & C.G.,
Madden (Eds), Input in second language acguisition (pp. 17-58). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Wong-Fillmore, L. & Valadez, C. (1986). Teaching bilingual learners. In M.C. Wittrock
(Ed.). The handboak of research on teaching (3rd ed, pp. 648-685). New York:
Macmillan.

Woodcock, R. W. and Munoz-Sandoval, A. F. (1993). Woodcock-Munoz Languaga
Survey. Itasca, IL: The Riverside Publishing Company.

174