Go to Dedication

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Several years ago, for a course in classroom research, I conducted a study which correlated the language proficiency of both mainstream and English as a Second Language (ESL) first graders with their reading and writing proficiency (1989). The study results were predictable and valuable primarily as an exercise; however, the collection of data focused my observations on the process by which ESL students were acquiring both oral and written language. At the time I wrote:

With ESL students, the different areas seem very intertwined. At least at the low levels of English proficiency, reading and writing skills seem tied in with oral proficiency. All areas seem to interact on each other. Even during the short course of the study, I could see a marked difference in the students' ability to express themselves in complete phrases as a result of writing in complete sentences. By the end of the six weeks, every student had composed several sentences independently with only help in spelling....They seemed to get a feeling for making up sentences and began doing them independently, much to my surprise. At the same time, they began to verbalize much more completely.

As a result of writing, students appeared to be more conscious of sentence patterns in their reading which then appeared in both their writing and speech. The study's informal observations led to questions regarding the interaction between the various modalities of language - listening, speaking, reading, writing.

The past few decades have produced a body of literature addressing children's development of oral and written language. Both first (L1) and second (L2) language acquisition theory posit that children develop language by using and interacting with language, by forming hypotheses about language structure and testing them, with their language constantly changing as hypotheses are retained or discarded until it approaches that of the adult or native speaker (Gorbet, 1979; Lindfors, 1987; Brown, 1987). Proponents of holistic approaches to reading and writing apply this theory to literacy (Goodman, 1979).

Much of the research portrays language acquisition as linear in nature, proceeding from listening to speaking to reading to writing. This theory has influenced educational methodology for both first (L1) and second (L2) language learners. With a strong oral language proficiency viewed as a prerequisite to literacy, teachers have been urged to stress language development in the classroom, and reading difficulties have been, at least partially, attributed to language deficiencies (Wilkinson, 1974). The same research has resulted in recommendations to teachers that literacy instruction be delayed until students, both native speakers and limited English proficient (LEP) students, acquire a certain level of English. Other research, however, suggests that language modalities are interactive. Johnson (1985), in "Using Reading and Writing to Improve Oral Language Skills" writes of "many indications of reciprocal processing. Children do not totally develop receptive language before they speak, nor do they read extensively before they try to write (p. 55, 56)." Similar observations are made of second language learners with reading contributing to the comprehensible input provided through oral language and writing allowing additional opportunities to hypothesize about language, especially for those already literate in their first language (Goodman, Goodman & Flores, 1979; Krashen, 1989, 1994).

If the different aspects of language are reciprocal, with each supporting and enhancing the other, the need for an integrated approach in the ESL classroom becomes clear. It is especially crucial for children who have no access to first language instruction and who may be needlessly delayed academically by a postponement of literacy instruction. The purpose of this study is to observe LEP children as they are taught oral and written English simultaneously and to examine the relationship between speaking, reading and writing.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Language acquisition theory directly impacts educational methodology. For second language learners, the assumption that elements of language are acquired sequentially, first in listening, then in speaking, reading and writing has led to the practice of concentrating on oral language in the ESL classroom with literacy acquisition being delayed until a certain level of English has been acquired. This approach remains current today in many programs. If, however, the assumption is not true, if language can develop through both oral and written modalities at the same time, then the practice of literacy delay does a disservice to LEP students in our schools. They are usually academically delayed when they begin school and any further postponement of introducing academics needs to be justifiable.

RESEARCH QUESTION

For children acquiring English as a second language, do grammatical structures develop successively or simultaneously in their oral and written language?

THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS

Second language acquisition theory assumes that children's second language development follows a similar pattern to first language development. Grammar is not formally taught, but as children interact with and use language for communicative purposes, they develop the grammatical structure of the language. In order for this process to occur, the learner must receive language input which is comprehensible but always more advanced than the current level. By observing the grammatical forms being used by the child, error analysis can trace the developing language structure. Miscue analysis, the use of error analysis in reading, to some extent allows the development of receptive language to be observed. As Goodman, Goodman and Flores (1979) point out, "as they become bilingual, the readers will show this in their reading as they do in their speech. Their reading will reflect not only their first language but the extent to which they are coming to control English phonology, grammar, orthography, lexicon and idiom" (p. 31). Error analysis, as opposed to contrastive analysis which contrasts the target language with previously acquired languages, deals only with the language structures of the language being acquired. The theory assumes that a person learning a new language creates a system of rules from the language data received, a system which continually changes as new data are received, until full proficiency is reached. Grammatical errors are not viewed as errors per se but rather as intermediary steps towards the final grammatical form.

STUDY

The research design is an error analysis of language samples taken over approximately eighteen months from second and third grade LEP students in an ESL classroom. Three modalities of language were examined - speaking, reading and writing. Speaking and writing are productive modalities which readily provide output for analysis. Of the two receptive modalities, listening and reading, only reading allows analysis of language acquisition in that a child's developing grammatical structure is reflected as he reads aloud. Writing samples consisted of rough drafts for classroom writing projects. Reading samples were informal reading inventory (IRI) passages marked for miscues. Speech samples included both the story retellings from the IRI and stories generated as students looked at pictures. Student errors were tabulated and examined to see if similar developmental patterns and error types were evident in all three modalities and whether specific structures appeared first in any one modality.

SIGNIFICANCE

The nature of the language acquisition process has considerable implications for ESL methodology. With so many LEP students at risk academically, the issue of whether language acquisition is sequential or simultaneous in oral and written language has importance beyond simple theory. It can direct classroom practice. If children are, in fact, receiving input and constructing hypotheses about language structure through written and oral language simultaneously, similar acquisition patterns should be seen across modalities with reading, as receptive language, being somewhat in advance. By demonstrating that grammatical structures develop in writing much as they do in speech and that oral acquisition of grammatical structures need not precede written acquisition, this study may support proponents of an integrated approach to classroom instruction with children engaged in meaningful interactions simultaneously with all aspects of language.

HYPOTHESES

1. An examination of morphological errors in samples of reading, writing and speech taken from LEP students over a period of fifteen to eighteen months will show a similar sequence in the acquisition of grammatical structures across the modalities.
2. Grammatical structures will appear first in reading.
3. Grammatical structures will not appear in speech before they appear in writing.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. Error: Any deviation in an L2 speaker's language from the grammatical structure used by a native speaker.
2. Miscue: Any deviation from the text in a passage.
3. Grammatical structures: Systematic rules used to produce and understand a language.
4. Morphology: Grammatical structures concerned with word formation and the internal structure of words; a morpheme is the smallest unit of language containing meaning, e.g., plural s.
5. LEP: Students whose first language is not English and who have not reached age equivalency in English proficiency.
6. Modalities: Four aspects of language, two receptive - listening, reading - and two productive - speaking, writing.
7. Reading sample: Oral reading of an IRI passage with no input or prompting other than guidance in finding a lost place.
8. Writing sample: Expressive writing with no assistance in grammatical structure; pre- writing activities and questions to prompt ideas may be used, e.g., Why do you think the alien attacked you?
9. Speech sample: The telling of a story in response to a picture or narrative; questions to help generate language may be used, e.g., What did the dinosaur do next?
10. Oral language: The two oral modalities: receptive - listening, productive: speech.
11. Written language: The two written modalities: receptive - reading, productive - writing.

Go to Chapter 2