Omada 1+1

1+1

of Canada BibliolheQue nationale duCanada

~qufsitionsand Directiondes acquisrtionset BibliographicServicesBranch des sevces blbllographiques 39SWellinglOOSlrOOl 395,IUI!Wellinglon

~AOt,^OnlaJio ~:r-~~0n1~",,)

NOTICE AVIS

The quality of thismicroformis heavily dependent upon the quality of the original thesis sub mitted for microfilming.

Every effort has been made to ensure the high est quality of reprodu ctionpossible.

Ifpages are missing,contactthe university which granted the degree.

Some pages may haveindistinct print especially ifthe original pages were typed with a poor typewriter ribb on or if the university sent us an inferior photocopy.

Reproduction in full orin part of this microform is governed by the Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C·30, and subsequent amendments.

Omada

La qualite de cette microforme depend grandement de la quallte de la these soumlse au microfilmage. Naus avons tout fait pour assurer une qualite superleuredereproduc tion.

S'i1 manque despages,veuillez communiquer avec runrverstte quia confereIe grade.

La quallte d'impression de certaines pages peul laisserit desirer, surtout si les pages

originales ant ete

dactylographh~es it I'aide d'un ruban useou si l'universltenous a faitparvenir une photocopie de qualitelnferieure.

Lareproduction, meme parUelle, de cette rnlcroforme est sournlse

a

AN &VALUA'l'IONOF fBE UTILIZAl'ION OF CUL'l'URALLY RELEVANT MBOLELANGUAGETHEMES WITH GRADE SII:nnwSTUDENTS

INCLUDING A CASE STUDYPROFI LE

by

Janet Byrne-Turpin B.A.(Ed.)

A Theds Submitted in PartialFulfilment of f;he Requirements for the Degree of Master of Education

Department of Curriculum and Instruction Memorialunivereity of Newfoundland

JUly 1993

st.John's Newfoundland

•••

=:~~tviceS

J9SWdngIOnSlreet

~:i:l..OrlIario

~~b1~nalionale Direcliondes acquisitioftset c!esservicesbibIlographlques 395.N8W~

~QnIarioJ

TIlEAUTHOR HAS GRANTED AN IRREVOCABLE NON-EXCLUSIVE UCENCEAllOWlNG TIlE NATIONAL LmRARYOFCANADATO REPRODUCE, LOAN, DISmmUTE DR SELL COPIES OFWSJHER THESIS BY ANYMEANSANDIN ANYFORMOR FORMAT,MAKINGTIDSTHESIS AVAILABLE TOINTERESTED PERSONS.

THEAUTHOR RETAINSOWNERSIflP OFTIlE COPYRIGlIT INmSlHER THESIS.NEITHER TIlETIlESISNOR SUBSTANTIAL EXTRACTS FROMIT MAYBE PRINTEDOROTHERWISE REPRODUCED WITHOUT mSIHER PERMISSION.

L'AUTEUR A ACCORDEliNELICENCE IRREVOCABLE ETNONEXCLUSIVE PERMETTANT A LA OmUOTIlEQUE NATIONALE DU CANADA DE REPRODUIRE, PRETER, DISTRffiUER OU VENDRE DESCOPIES DE SA TIlESE DEQUELQUEMANIERE ET SOUSQUELQUE FORMEQUE CE SOIT POUR MEITREDESEXEMPLAJRES DE eEITE THESE A LA DISPOSITION DES PERSONNE INTERESSEES.

L'AUTEURCONSERVE LAPROPRIETE DU DROIT D'AUTEUR QUl PROTEGE SA THESE.NI LATHESE NI DES EXTRAITS SUBSTANTIELS DE CELLE· CINE DOIVENT ETRE IMPRIMES

ou

AUTREMENT REPRODUlTS SANSSON AUTORISATION.

ISBN O·315~96035-3

Canada

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess, through various informal strategies based primarily on teacher observation, the use of culturally relevant whole language themes with a group of grade six Innu students at peenani.n McKenzie School, Sheshatshit, Labrador. The researcher, as participant observer, used various means to determine the suitabilityof the use of cUlturally relevant whole languagethemes with Innu students.

The evaluation encompassed progress in both language and affective behaviors. The general focus was placed on gathering information from attending students regarding attitudes and responses exhibited during the execution of one culturally relevanttheme. The specific focus was placed. on gathering data about the growth of one child during the course of the theme. A case study format was utilized to report the progress of the individualstudent.

The research methodology inthe study wouldbe classified as naturalistic ra t he r than experimental since Mnatural"

behaviours were observed. The researcher observed, interacted with and analyzed children's actual listening, speaking, reading and writing behaviours. This research orientation is based on the whole language approach to teaching, whare teachers are asked to aaaume the role of researcher in the classroom in order to successfully understand the literacy

i i

needs of their students and to de t e rmine howwhole la ng uag e strategies meet orfai ltomeet those needs.

Recem::nendationsbased onthe findings of this re po r t , rega rd ing he ..,tobe t t er meet the needs of Innustude nts in lan gua geinstruct i o n, are inc luded.

Hi

Ackaowl edgemeat s

The re s e a r c he r would like to acknowledge the con- tributions of Dr. MarcGlassman, supervisor of the thesis, Dr. Frank Wolfe, fOl"mer the sis committee me mber, and Dr.

Marguerite MacKenzie, mos t recent member of the thesis committee. Acknowledgementis. also made of theas s i s t a nc e received byco-workers, Mrs. KathleenNuna,Hr.JimNewtonand former co-worker ,Mrs. Ellenobed, Theresear cher woul dli ke togra t e fu l l y acknowledgeher stude ntsat Pe e na min McKenzie School , Sheshatshi t, wi thout whomthis thesis would no t be possible.

Appreciation is expressed to the many friends and familymembers who, by their manyactsof kindness,he l p e d in the pursuitofthi s thesis overthe ye ars. The researche r wouldespeciallylike tothan k her son ,Clarke, andhusband, Ed, for theirlove, patience, and unde rstandi ngof the time spentaw.ayfromthe familyduri ng thewritingofthisrep ort. The suppo r t of everyoneisgre a tly appreciate d. Fina lly, the researcherwoul dliketo tha nkGod for seeing her through to thecomple t ion of this rep ort I AmenI

iv

'l'ABLEOF CONTEH'l'S

Abstract ••••• • •.•• • .•• • •• • • • •••• ••• •• • •• ••• •• .•• ••• • • ii

Acknowledgements •••••• • • •••• • • • ••• • • •• ••••• •••••••• •• iv

CHAPTER l: NATURE OFTBE STUDY•••.••• •••••• • • •••. ••. Introd uc tion •••• ••••••••••••• •• .•.••• • •• ••••••••

Purpose of the Study ••••••• •• • ••••••• ••••••.••••

Need of theStudy ••••.••• •,••••• •• • •••• •• • •• ••••

Li mit a t i ons of theStudy ••• ••.••••• • •. . .•..••.•• 14 Definitionof Terms... .. ... ... ...•••• •• •• 17

CHAPTER II: REVIEWOF THELITERATURE ••• • •••.• ••• • ••.• 29 Int r odu c t i o n.. . .... ... ... .. . ... ... . . . .. . . 29 FirstandSecondLanguageLi ter a cy••••••• '.' ••• •• 29 Whole Language Approach to Literacy ••••• •.• ••. .• 37 Whole Language ApproachandESL ••••••• •••.• 41 Whole LanguageStJ:ateqiesfor

Native Students ••••.•• ••••••• .•••• ••••••••• 45 The Use ofCulturallyRelevant

Materialswith NativeSt ude nt s •••••••;.. ... 52 WholeLanguage Strategies in ESL..•• • • • • • ••••. • • 55 wr i t i ng •••••••••••••.• • •• •••.•••• ••••• • ••• • 56 Language ExperienceApproac h ••••• • • •••••••• 58

Dialogu eJournals •••••.••. ••.• ••••.•••..•• • 61 Children'sLiterature••. . . ••••• • •• • • • •.•• •• 62 Reading Aloud•.•••. . .••...••.••• ••.••..•• •• 63 Predi ctableLiterature •• •• •••• ••••••••••.•• 65 Learning Centres•••. .• •• . . • • .•• • • •• ••.• ••• • 61 Computers ••••• ••••• • • •••.••• • • •••••• •.••• •• 70 Evaluation... .. .. . . ... . ... ... 71 Teacherand Student Self Evaluation ••••.••• 79 Conclusion••••• • •• •• •••••••• •••••••• • • •• ••• . .••• 81

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY.• •••• ••• •••• ••••• ••• • • • • ••• 82 In'~roduction.... ... . ... ........... . ...... . .. . .. 82 Population ••.•••• •• •• •••. .•...••.• • •• • •••.••.•. 83 Basis of Selection••••••.••••••••••••• • •• ••••••• 86 Methodology••.• • •. .•••• ••.• .• •••• ••. . ••••.•. . ••• 88 CulturallyRelevantTheme: "Mina " (Berrl e s) •••• 92 Backgroundto the Theme ••.•••• •.• . •• ••••••• 92 Rationale for the Theme ••• • • • • •• •• ••• •. .••• 92

Organizati onof the Theme 92

ni c t at e d Stori es •• • • • ••••• • • •• ••• ••••• ••• • •.•••• 96 Teacher Composed Charts •••• •••••• • •••••••• • 9'1 Group Charts ••• •••• . •.•.•. ••• ••• • • • ••.• •.•• 98 Student Composed Charts •••• • .••• • •• ••.• •••• 99 PictureCharts••••••••• • •• • •••••••••• •.•••• 99 Sentence Structure Through Literature 100

vi

IndividualDic.:tated Sentence s •••.•••.•••• •• 101 Individual Dictated Stories . . .. . ... . ... .. 102

Dictated StoriesRe~d i n g 103

PublishingDictation••••••• • • ••• • ••• •••.• •• 104 Dictationin theFirs t La ngua ge .• • •••• •• •• • 104 LiteratureStrategies ••• •••• ••••• ••• •••• •••.•• •• 104 ReadingAloud ... .. .. . ... .. .. 106 Choral Speaking••• • •••.•• •• •.•••••••••••••• 107 SharedReading •• • • ••.••••••••••••• •••••• ••• lOB Big Books•••.• •• . • •••••••.••••• •• .• • ••••• •• 108

Listening to Lite ::a ture lOB

Listening to First LanguageLiterature ••• •• 109 Literatureand Story Writing ••• • ••• •••••••• 110 ProcessWriting... ... . ... ... . .. . . ... I I I ProcessWriting Method •.• • •.• •• •. ••.• .•• .•• 112 Conferenci ng •• • •• • ••• .•.•••.• •••• ••.•• .. .• • 113 Themes... . . ... ... ... . .... ... ... . .. 11 3 Evaluation •••••••••••• •• ••• • • ••• •••• • •• • • ••••• • • 115

Evaluat ionCriteria for Use of

theThematic Unit.. . . .••••••••.• •••• • • • •• 117

CHAPTERIV: FINDINGS •• • •. • •••••• •..••••••• •• • •••• ••• 120 Introduction ••• .•• •• •••• .•••••• • •• •••••• ••••••• • 12 0 PhaseI: StudentReactionsto ~Berries~

Theme .• • • •• • •• ••• ••• • ••• • ••• • • ••••• ••••• • • ••• • • • 122 Modificationsof the Theme

vii

12 4

Oral Language••.•• .••.••••. . .•• ••• • •• ••• •.• 125 Student Interaction ••••••••.•••• ••• ••• ••••• 127 Read Aloud••• •••••.• ••.•• •.. .•••.•••• •. . .• . 128 Vigne tte s ••• • •••• • • •••• •••••••••••• •••• 128 Using Predictable Literature.. ... . . . .. .. 129 vignettes ••••••••• •• •• •••••••. . .•• •.•• • 130 Writing •• ••• •••. ••.• •.• •••• ••. •••.. ••• • • •••• 13 3 computers .•• • • • •• ••••••• • • • •••• •• •• •• •.• ••• 134 Learning Centres ••••• •••••• ••••• ••••• •• • • • • 135 Summary .• • • • • •• •• •• • • ••• • ••• • • • •• • ••• • •••• • 136 Phase II: Case Study.•• •• •.• .•••••• • •.•• ••••••• 137 Introduction••••• •• •••.••• •• •••••.•.•• • •••• 137 Observations ••••••••• • •• •••••••••• ••• •••••• 138 Attitudinal •• •••• ••• • ••• •• • ••• •• ••••••• 139 OralLanguage•••••••••...•• • • ••.•••• • •• 140 Reading ••••• • •.•• . . • ••. . .•• •. •••.•• . .• . 141 Writing •• •••••••••••••• •• •• ••••• • ••• • • • 14 3 Vignette •••• ••.• •.• •••..•• •••••• • • •.• •. 144 Interactions •••• •• •••• ••• •• •• • •••••• • • • •• •• 147 Group Work ••••••• • • • • • • • • •••. • •• •• •. ••• 147 vignette •.• •• ••.•.• •••. •• • ••.•••.• •.••. 147 Individual Work. . ... ... .. ... . . . . 149 Collaboration ••• •••• •• •.• ••• •.••••• • • •• 150 written Dialogue ••.• • • • •.••.• • • • • •••••• 150 Analysis •• ••.•• • • •• •• • • •• ••• • •• ••• ••• •••••• 152 Reading Inventory ••••••• • • • •• ••••• •• ••• 152 Modified Hiscue h.-,alysis•• •••••• •.•• •.• 152 Writing Sample Comparison •• ••••• • • • ••.• 15 9 Analysisof.Writing Samples•••.• • ••• • .• 160 Process writing ••. . •• • •••• ••• • • •••••• •• 162 Checklist ••• • ••• • • ••• ••• • • • •••• • ••• •• •• 165 Receptive La ngua ge •••• •.•.•• ••.•• •••••• 165

viii

ExpressiveLang uage •• ••• •• •• ••••••• • •• • 166 Skills•• • •••••••• •••• •••••. •••••••••••• 168 Summary . ... .. ... . .... . ... . ... ... .... . 16 9

CHAPTERV: DISCUS S IONOF FI NDI NGS, IMPLI CATI ONS AND nZCOMMENDATIONS•••• •• •• ••••• •• • • ••••••••• ••••••• 173 Introduc tion . . ... .. .... . •• • • • •• ••••••. .••• • .•.•• 17 3 Ut iliza t i o n of the Thome •••.• .•••••••••••• • •.• .• 173 Evaluationof theThe me •.• • • . .• ••••••••• • • • ••••• 18 1 Summary •••• • •• • •••• • •• • • • ••• • • • •••• • ••••••• • •• •• 18 5 Raconunendations •••• •••• ••••• •• ••••••• •• •••• •• • • • 187

Epilogue 193

BIBLIOGRAPHY 19 7

Selected ne r ere nc e e 219

AppendixA••• •• • •••• • ••••••••• ••• •••• • •••• ••••••••• • • 223

AppendixB 235

Appe ndix C 246

AppendixD 247

Appe ndixE••••••

> . •..••••. .•..••. ••. ••••••.••.••

Appendix F 256

AppendixG 260

Appe ndixH•• ••••• •• •• •• ••••• ••••• ••••• • ••••••• •••• • •• 261

Appe ndixI 262

App en dixJ 263

Append ixF; 265

ix

Appendix L ••••••• •• ••• • • • •• •• ••• •••••• •••••••••• ••••• 267 AppendixM••••• ••••• •• •• ••••••• ••• ••• •• ••• •• • •••• •• •• 268 Appendix N••• • ••••• •• ••• •••• ••••••••• • • •• • ••• •••••••• 269

LIST OFTABLES

Ta b le 1: Dispe r sion of Attenda nce ••••• •••• • •••• ••••• • 85

Table 2: Distributionof Miscue s 156

xi

LIST OFFIGURES

Figure 1: Analysisof Gende r Di s t r i bu t ion... ... B4 Figure2: Distribu tionof Students byAge •••• •• •••••• 84

xii

CHAPTERI 'rBEHATURE OF'rBE STUDY

Int ro duction

Peenamin McKenzie School offers grades Ki nde r ga r t e nto Level III ofthe seco nd aryschoolprogram. The school serves the Innu population of Sheshatshit , Labrador, twenty-five miles by road fr om Happy valley-Goose Bay. The r e are approximately twe l ve hundredpeople in Sheshatshit,according to anar ticleinThe Evening Telegram,July27, 1990, all of whom speak Innu-almunas their mothertongue. The school is cur ren tly operatedunde r the RomanCatholicSchool Boa rdfor Lab r a dor Northin conjunctionwith the Department of Education for Ne wf ou nd l an d andLabrador and theRoman Cat ho lic Sc hool Boar d for Labrador .

However, the InnuNat ion,which isthe governingbody of the Lab rador Innu, is inthe process of negotiat ingfor full administra t iveand financial controlof the loc al al l - grade scho ol in Sheshatshi::. Accor ding to Schuurman(1993b) , there continues to be very little sympathy among the Innu for the high ideals of the early mis s i o na r i e..l to educate and assimi late the m, to make the m fl uen t inEng).i sh and givethe m access to the wideworld of economic growthandemp l oyment oppo r tunities, the suppo se d benef i ts of whic h ha v e never mate rialized. The voices of many In( '1of Sheshats hi t have

expressedanger towardsthe school. The be ginningof formal, insti t ut iona l iz e d, Western educationis se en as thebeginning of theircultu r alde mi s e (Sc huurman, 1993b).

The LabradorInnu wereone ofthe last nomadichunter- gatherersocietiesin North America to bese t t led inthe mid- 1960 'e, relate s Sch uu rma n(1993a ). She explains: "Priorto set tle me ntin 1967, the Innu had persistedin thesub- a rc t i c wildernes s , maintaining a rel a t i ve l y st a b l e pattern of ex i stence for centuries, marke d by their autonomy and identification with the land uponwhi c h they lived, trapped and hu n t e d. Settlement was fol lowedbya rapid de clinein Innuauto nomy andpa tte r nsofsubs iste nce. The Innuhavealso ex perie nc ed soci alandeco nomic marginalizati onby the Settler populatio nbeginni ng in the early 1900' s and continuing, in diff erent fo rm s , up until present " {p , 2- 3 1.

Hunting, trappingand fishing , howe ver , have not end ed for the Innu, despite disruption ca used by the creation of pe rmanent vil lage s, governme ntaldisputes andva r i ou s social problems. Ryan (1988) relate s that most Ionurefer to this ex perienc e of livingoffthe landin thewilds of the bush as

"c oun t ry life .to

Thecul tur eof the Labrador Indians(Le . ,Innu)reflects the i r nomadicwayof life : The Innucuiture and h.nguageset the peopleapar tfromot he r Newfoundlanders and Labradorians . Thisdifference tends to impac tnegativelyon the Innu child's

educationin the "wh i t e" system, as is evidentfr oma high drop-out ra t e ,lo wer academic achievementat each grade level and lower le ve l s of competency in the English languagethan arefoundin the dominant culture(MacKenzie , 1982).

As far as reading development itsel f is concer ned,there ar e many barriers . First, Englishis a secondla ng u age for these children. In Sheshatshit,childrensta r tsc ha alwi t h a minimumof English , sincethe ir Nativela ngua ge , rnnu-edmun , is used almostexclusivelyin the majorityof homes. Only recently,since 1983, havethe s e children been able to receive their first few years of instr uction partly in Innu-aimun.

SinceSeptember 199 1. allprimarygrades,from Kindergarten to gradethree,havebeen taught by Native teachers livingin the village.

Theteachingof Innu children in theirfirst lang uageis seen as a viable course for most who desire to preserve the Nati ve language. Parnell's(1976) re s e arc h suggests thatthi s course is the best for Native childrensocial ly , emo t ionally , and intellectually. Accordingto Savilleand Troike (197 1 ) , theuse of the first languageis thoug htto allowa smoot her transition fro m home to school, thus allowing immediate progr e s s in concept buildingrather thanpostponingit until a newla ngua ge has been acquired. Fu rt hermore , li ngui sti c res e a r c h inre c e nt years have supportedthe idea of haVing second la ng uag e learners maintaintheir first la ng u a ge as a

means of improving learning in the second language (Olivares, 1993).

However, while Innn-aimun is the medium in the primary grades, students receive education in English for the remainder of their school career (i.e,, elementary to high school) • The school has increased the amount of instruction through the medium of Innu-aimun in the elementary grades.

Nevertheless, all other school subjects are taught in English by non-Nativeteachers who usually do not speak or understand much Innn-aimun. Native teacher aides have usually been available only in the primary grades. It can be assumed that students are expected to"p i c k up"English from contact with educational materials and with English-speaking teachers.

Innn-aimun is essentially an oral language with few written materials. A standardized system for writing Innu- aimun has only recently been exeeeed, Many parents may have limited competency with English literacy, and a significant number of children may come to school with little exposure to the reading process. Researchers have reiterated the importance of parents as reading models (Bisset, 1970; Heater, 1980; Smith, 1968) and the availability and range of written materials in the home (Durkin, 1966; Kirkland, 1980; Klein, 1978) as important prerequisites for literacy development.

While literacy usually comes naturally to children raised in literate homes, this natural emergence of literacy mlIy be out

of reach fo rchi ldrenwhoCOllIe fromnon-lit erate backgrou nd s (Hamaya n and Pfleger, 1987) .

Ale o, the fa ct that Innu-aUnun has fewer di s tincti v e soundsand, the refo rs, di ffe r e nt sound -$ymbolrelationships than Engl ish, makes the acquisiti on of English phon e t i c s and or thogr aphy more proble matic (MacKenzi e, 19 8 2) . Si nce the sound~symbolrelationsh i pis differentinEnglis h andInnu- aimun, and Innu-aimun has fewerphoneme sthan Engli sh, then Innu childrenreadingin English mustlear n new sounds before the y can useand/o r re cognizeappropri ate symbol s .

The situa tion is furthercompounder!.by the problems of ir r e gu l a r sch ool att e ndanc e prima r ily due tothe previ ou sly men tionedseason alcampingpa tternspurs ued by manyfandlies.

Accor d i ng toHa cJ{e nzie (19 92) : -A number of famili essti ll spendthre e to six months inthe count ryeveryyear, living off hunting , tra pp ing and fishing- [p, 2331. For BOIfIelnnu families, the tr a ditional educati on a l exreriences (L e. , country life) are preferred over the forma l educ ati o n al experiences (Le., sch ool ) which are stil l co nside red relatively new. Vardy (19 83) docum ented 1952 asthe firs t year children in Sheshatshit were eve r taught in ill.school setting. At that time. Father Piereon, thecOfl:lmunity priest , taught twenty-fivechilaren the rudiments of geography,math, religionandEnql i ah from his residence. Twoyearslater, in 1954, a schonl building wa s constructed in the communit y.

According to vardy (198 3 ): "Parents were not expected to remain an the village if only to ke e p their children in schooL Rather,theschoolexistedprimari lyfor the children offami l ie s who stayed in the village" (p. 12).

Today, asinthe past,pa r e nt s are not ex pectedto stay in the village inorder to al low the ir children to attend schoo L Whilepreservationof the traditiona lwayof lifeis accepted and encouraged by the school and community as an important aspectof the Innu child's education, it CAnha ve adverse effects on fonnaleducationingeneral and onre adi ng perfonnancein particular .

Due to the school's practice of "s oc i al promotion,"

whereby students are often placed ingr ad e s thatcorrespond more closelywith theirage rathe rthantotheir actua l level ofcompe t e nc y, ir regularattenders oftenfi nd themselves in grade levelswherethey are unable to cope withthe assigned curriculum andre q ui r e alternative ins truc t i o n at the ir own level of competency. The evaluationphilosophy inthe school policy handbookfo rPe e nami nMc Ke nzi e Sch oo l re c ogn ize s that

"promo tion of all st udents .••based on individual student needs•••in no way makesfhill job ofthe teacher easier. If anythi ng, i t will make the classroom situation stratified. We will have to continue to strive ~o find solutionsfor ourprese ntprob lems" (und ated ).

In 1986 the research ercommencedwork intheInnu village of Sheshatshi tas teacher of a "s pe c i a l"classof elementary students functioning wit~ a very lowreading level. The researc herwas facedwith the taskof providing a language arts program for the se elementary students "'hiLe lacking sufficienthigh-intere st,low-vocabularyreading material that was culturallyrelevant and that compensatedfor the barriers to English reading development previously out line d . In responseto thisproblem, there s e arc her proceededto develop various culturally relevant thematic language units which wouldrel~teto the backgJ:'Qund,experiences and intere st sof these Innu students .

The topics, based on Innu lifestyle, both past and present, were ones thought to promote anappreciationfor, understandingof snd a pride in their own Na t i v e culture . Veryimportantly, th e y were designed to provide purposeful , personallymeaningf uland interesti ngopport unities for the development of the communication sk il ls of list e ni ng , speaking, reading and wri t i ng by way of a teaching approach called the "who l ela ngua ge approach " (Goodman, 1986). The units were de velop e d ac cording to the pr inciples and etrategiesof thewholelanguage approachoutlinedby Heald- Taylor (1986). The students participated in English, the la ngu s ge of instruc tion for the elementary gr a des to Level III.

InSe ptember1991,the re s e arch erwo r ked on ahalf-ti me basis and wasre spons ible for the teachi ng of Langu ag eArts and Soc i a l Stud ies ,along withReligionandFamilyLife, in a regular gr adesixclassat Shee ha t s hi t . Ma th ,Sci ence,Health Scien ce andArtwas taught byanotherteac her theot he r half of thetime . The Spri nt Rea ding Skills Se ' ies, app roved for use in the element ary and juniorhighclass e s at She s ha t s hit, andthe SocialStudie sprogram,asspecifi e d by the Department of Education for allof Newf oundlandand La b rado r , did not conta in conte nt sp ecificallyreLev en t;to the lnnu cul t u re.

The re s e arc herimplementedthede velopedthematicunits a8a means of supplementi ng the existingLdng ua ge Artsan dSocial Studie sprogra ms,the r ebyprovidinga mor ecul t u ral ly re leva nt and pers on ally meaningful curricu l uminthese are a s. Other curr i cu lar areaswere includedasthey relatedtothe the me s bei ngexplored .

Purpo••of thestudy

The pu r poseof t::he st u dy wasto eeeeset throughtheuse ofverdeae inf orm al st ra tegi es , ba s e d on tea c he robservat ion , the us e of the int egrated and culturally re levan t whole la ng uag e the meunits . The stu d y ende av our ed to est ablish whether the inclusion of thematic unit s reflecting lonu personal and cu l t ur a l exp e rie nces and based on the whole

language strategies outlined by Heald-Taylor (1986) promoted language growth (L. e. , listening, speaking reading and writing) and increased student interest and involvement for the grade six Innu students involved in the study.

In assessing the suitability of the use of whole l ...nguage for the-annu situation in Sheshatshit, the researcher will also endeavor to ascertain whether the use of the whole languag'9 approach meets, or fails to meet, the requirements that the people of Sheshatshit have articulated for the education of their own children. These issues will be summarh:ed in the next section.

Heed ofthe Study

Schuurman (1993bl recently conducted research in1rolving

. ,

interviews with 80 parents in conjunction with the Innu Nation and the Innu Resource Centre in Sheshatshit focusing on the perceptions and expectations of community members regarding local control of Peenamin McKenzie School. More than half of th.e respondents indicated that they agreed with a change to bring the operation of the school under local control.

In her unpUblished thesis, Schuurman (1993b) found that, universally, community members wanted the school to change to include more Innu cui;"re. It was felt by some that the school should take responsibility for teaching Innu life

10 skills, like chopp i n g wood, and val ues, li k e respecting elders . A number of re s pond e rlts felt that English was JI.eces sary in orderto funct i on in a non·I nnuworld. Some thought that the curriculum shouldcontainequa l amounts of Innu culture ar..d language and Englishso that childrencould make a cho i ce eitherto live in the cou ntry or go on to get jobs outside the vi l l a g e. The Scho ol Poli c y Handbook for PeenaminMcKenzie School (undated ) similarly states: "Whe n ourst ud e nts graduate we hope theywillbe In nn equippedto live the way of life they choose inthe environment around them".

It was felt also th a t the sc h o o l schedule should be mod ified to ecccemodat.e the seasonal hunting, fishing and trapping patterns of the Innu. It was recognized tha t the studen tshadproblemswith discipline and fightingar ou nd the school that resulted mainly from conflicts at ho me. The directionthe cc..mmunityhoped tobe movi ngtowards was a more holistic approach to educat...on, whi c h would meet the educational, emotionaland employment ne eds of the community (Schuurman, 1993b).

As far aswork with the students in the classroomin ccnee-r-ed ,present-daypedagogy recognize sthat children learn best when they are involved in observirlg, creating , manipulating objects and communi c ati ng about topics and activiti eswhich aregem:.dnelyinterestingandmeaningfulto them..As Baskwilland nhitJnan (1988) expre ss, "learne rslearn

11 most eaGil}" the material they are interested in, stuff that' 8 meaningful to them" (p. 22).

specifically, a reader' III background knowledge is assumed to be a major factor in English as a Second Language (E.S.L.) and foreign language comprehension (xreeben and Terrell, 1983). Reading comprehension is understood as an interactive process between the text, the reader and prior knowledge (including life experience, Cliitural knowledge and knowledge of other texts). According to Goodman (1979), when readers encounter new information, they attempt to understandit by fitting it illwith what they already know about the world. Thus, the background knowledge that readers bring to the reading task may be as important in understanding ~1ritten material as is the information in the text.

Instructional materials can be developed which relate to the students' experiences. Foerster and Little Soldier (1980), in their article, "Cl a s s r oom Communication and the Indian Child,R make a plea for building cultural relevance into the school language program as a means of enhancing self- concept and pride in the identity of the child, as well as generating more complex and elaborate language within the classroom. According to Parnell (1976), neglect of Native culture is one of the main factors which leads t~,poor performance in sc·.lool for native. childrenl "educational experts have known for years the importance of inclUding

12 ne.t Lve culture when at t empt i ngto give the nativechild the be s t education re a sona bly po~sible· (p. 25). The schoo l policy handbook for Peenamin McKenzie School mentions the imp ort a nc e of the Innu childunderstandinghis/her cultural heritage••• "We tryto makecou r sea suchas Social Studies, History,Home Economics and Indust rialArts pertain to Native cu lture." Furthermore, one of the aims forPe e n a rni n McKenzie School outline d in the 8(",1001 philosophy is "t o promote involvementof teachers in thedevelopmentof the curriculum"

(undated) •

Of the lan gu aq~ e.rts programs developed for Native Ind i a ns , such as the Circlepr ogra m (FitzhenryandWhiteside, 1985), few are specifically gearedto elementary students.

AccordingtoVardy(1983),no single program could be adapted fo r Innu students without major modifications . His examination of EngliElh lan guag e teaching practices in Sheshats hit fr o m 1951 to 1982 reve a l ed that in the past educators -s oug ht a ready-madeprogram tha t could be adapted easily to the unique teaching situationof Sheshatshit. Of course, it ^WAS eventual ly accepted that no such program existed" [p, 39).

Sincp.no commerciallyavailable programcouldbe easily adapted to meet the needs of thes e unique students , the re s e arc h er developedonetha t incorpora tedthe who le lang uag e approac handho l ds many possibilities for the develop mentof

13 cult u r al l y relevant themes. Additionally, the themes deal ....·:thasp ectsof Nativecu lture, both past and present,wh ich would adequately supp lement th e Social Studies program, providing relevance for rnn u students. In this way, the sUbjects of Social Studies and Lang ua ge Ar t s could be efficientlyand effective lyinte g ratedto make the most of the sc hool da y and to create a cla s sroom experience more personal lymeaningfuland educationa llyworthwhile.

The eval uation encompasses progress in lang u a ge and affective behaviors. Informalstra t e g i e s assessingthe useof the developed theme through evaluation procedu res based on observational te c hni q u e s wereemployed. Thistypeofinf orm al assessmentis well documented in the lit e r at ur e. Gooduan (1978) po int s out the meaningfulnessof whatshe cal ls-k i d- watching" as a method of evalua tingthe childIs learni ng as opposedto the use of standardized tests which are child- remov ed and administ ration- focused. Farris(1989)recommends that eval ua t i o n in the whole language program rel y heavily uponte a c he r observation , in f orma l checklists and anecd o tal records. Balaj t hy(1988) re i t era t e s :

Whole la ng u a gete a c he r s have turned to the modelof teacherasinf orma l researche r••• More frequently , teachers engage in" an observationa l form of research togain insight intostudentperformance

14 and development, letting children become the teachers of how they learn. (p. 8)

Fagan(1990) emphasizes that the child must be the center inevaluatingwhether some decision oractivity is meaningful. According to Baskwill and Whitman (198 6) assessment means gathering and recording information, evaluating that information in terms of an individual's progress. Graves (1975 ) recognized the need for act ual observation of behaviours of writers while they ar e in the process of writing. He suggested:"A case study approach in the field of comparativeresearch is most often recommended whenentering virgin territory in which little ha s beeninvestigated" [p , 229). Sinceitisaccepted thatre a d i ng , writing,listening and speaking are interrelated and reciprocal (Br own, 1973;

Dale, 1976; Halliday, 1979; Barste, Burke' Woodward, 19811, a. case study format was utilizedtore c or d and assess various as p e c t s of language growth(Le. , listening,speaking,re a di ng and writing) forone child.

Li mita tioDs of th. study

The culturallyrelevant the me s were initiallyde velop e d for u-se with st ude nt s in a "s pe c i al" class who were functioningat beginningreading levels. Therefore, He ald- Taylor's(1986) whole language strategies forE.S.L.student s

15 in the primary grades were incorporated during the development of the themes. However, during the 1991-92 school year, the developed units were implemented with a "regular^M group of grade six students of varying ranges of reading ability. Due to the school'B practice of sometimes placing students in grade levels that coincidemo r e closely with their age level than their actual ability level, i t was expected that this heterogeneously grouped class of students would vary greatly in reading ability. While some students were proficient readers. others were at the beginning reading levels.

Fortunately, one important feature of the whole language approach is that it allows students of mixed ability to respond within the context of the theme at their own level of competency (Heald-Taylor, 1986). Nevertheless, the content and approaches suggested needed to be further adapted to meet the needs of the particular group.

A significant limitation to thisstudy is thatsi nc e , as mentioned earlier, tIleresearcher was only teaching on a half- time basis, and did not have opportunities for first-hand interactions, observations and analysis regarding students prOgresll during the other half of their school subjects (Le., Hath, Science, Health andArt), this reduced the quantity and quality of experienc es for the researcher as participant- observer. The researcher was required to rely collaboration with other teachers involved with the

16 instruction of the students used in the study. Nanetholen, the rese archer was undoubtedly limited in obtaining a comprehensive view of the student based on first-hand experiences.

Another limitation of the study was the irregular attendance pattern of the st ude nt s. This prevented continuity in the evaluation of the developed theme. Therefore, a general evaluation of the theme unit was presented ,and a case study format was utilized to outline the specific langUAge and behavioraldevelopmentof the most regularattenderduring the courseof the bhea.e ,

The researcherIs approach is based on a.whole language approach to teac hing,where teachersaze asked to assumethe role of re searcher. Balajthy (1988 I exp l ain s: "If the individualteacher must play the central rolein~acilitatin9' learningexperiences basedon t.heobservational attitudeof a eeeearcher , that eeecber mus t be committed to the whole language approach" [p, 9).

The main type of evaluation recommended for the whole language approachis observation. The students' propenBity for reading is to be noted. However, since the students used their Nativelanguage (Le., Innu-aimun) in discussing thsh reading and writing ....ith each other, and no translator was available to assist in ttanslation, the reeeereber found i t difficult to determine if or how the students approached this,

17 since rnnu-edeun was virtually incomprehensible to the rese arc h e r.

The themes themselves were deve l o p e d by the re s e a r c h e r basedon her experience as a teacher in the school for more than five years. Advocates of thewhol e language appro a c h sugge s t that the topics mayalsooriginatefromthe students' owninte rests. Whilesuchstudent-initiatedthemesshou l d be incl ude d in the whole la ngu age approach, the ones to be presented in thi s thesis are te a c her·-i ni tia t ed, with some as s i s t a n c e fr om Native teachers andothersin the school ,and ba s e d on the researchers' developing understa ndi ng of the culture and students.

Defi n it.ionof Terms

In.ml - me a ns "thepeopl e"in Innu -aimun. The 'tnnu are the originalinhabitantsofNit assinan, a countryreferredtoby Euro-Canadians the Quebec-Labrador peninsula.

Approximately 10, 000in nUmber, the majorityof lnnuare based in the Quebec portionofNita s s i na n . Twornnu communities , Sbeshatsbit and Uts himas s it , are loc ate d in the Labrador portionof Nitassinan. The Labrador lnnu are referredto as the Montagnais-Naskapi Indian s , implying two distinct culture s . However, they are pa rt of the same culture, and speak the same language, lnn u-a i Ulun (Armitage, 1990). This

18 report focuses specifically on the IORU people of ShOBhatshit, Labrador.

"Innu" is tho preferred term usedbythe Montagnais-Naskapi of Labrador. While the terms MIndian" and "Native" are used throughout the literature, the ,r e s e a r c he r will use ~,,~

preferred term"I n nu" when referring to the aboriginal l"H't'le- who are the focus of this report.

Culture - Reyhner (1986) defines culture as "the values and every aspect of local life unique to a group of people" (p.

S). According to Schuurman (1993), Innu culture is defined 118

"the country" and "c ount r y " refers to living in tents in the wide open spaces beyond the community, hunting, trapping and practicing old traditions. "Though the meanings of 'culture' are in flux as pieces of the past disappear, and others reappear with the adoption of modern technology, the changes However, there persists a common language, dress, diet, caribou and the drum in which the spirit of the Innu remain" (p. 9-10).

Culturally Relevant - refers to the teaching materials and methods appropriate to the background, experience and interests of the culture being addressed. One attempt to counteract the negative educational experience of 80 many

"

Native childrenis to adaptIl curriculum to include various materials and teaching methods appropriate to the background and experience of the Nal.ivecbild (Dawson, 1988). Forel:lter and Little Soldier (1980 I suggest that the teachercan and should modify language lessons to include the home culture of the child as a means of generating more languagebyutilizing ccmtexts whichar e personallymeaningful for pupils. Tanguay (1984) additionally maintains: "The teaching of native studies, native language,and native culture is instilling in students a pride in their heritage and respect for their culture"[p ,831. According to MacKenzie (1982), the culture of the Innn reflects their nomadic way of life in the past.

Participant Observation - Ie a research method used in ethnographi., studies (Galindo, 1989). The research methodology of participant observation is highly suitable for classroom teachers because they already assume a real role.

St~dents expect the teacher to be interested in their development and involved in their school work (Woods, 1986).

Participant-Observer - a "kid-watcher," or one who derives information from children when they are involved in actual reading and writing authentic and extended texts (Jacobson, 1989).

Woods (1986) points out that there is a difference between being a participant-observer and being a classroom

20 teacher. Galindo (1989) suggests: "In order to be a participant observer a teacher must first be aware of the .d i f f e r e nc Qs that exist between being an ordinary participant

in an event and a participant-observer" (p. 57). In his book, Participant Observation, Spradley (1980) explains the difference:

The participant-observer comes to the social situation with two purposes: (1) to engage in activitiesappropriate to the situation and (2J to observe the activities, people and physical aspects of the situation. (p.54)

Galindo (1989) elaborates:

Participant observation consist, 0:.10ng a continuum moving from passive participation at one end (being present at the scene but not interacting with anyone else) to active participation at about the midpoint (doing what the other people are doing) to ccrnplete participant observation (studying a situation in which the researcher is aL"o:ladyaD ordinary participant). The continuum moves from only observing interaction to full participation in the interaction. (p , 58)

sec on d 21

~ - refers to the teaching of English language.

l i-refersto the fir st (Na tive ) language .

g -refers tothe second languageor the domi na ntlanguag e of the majority culture.

~- meansLimitedEnglish Proficiency.

'lb. Whole Language Approacb

Defin i t ion s of whole language are somewh a t elusive (Eldrbdge,1991). Thecon f u s i o nsur r ou n d ing whol e langu a g eis prob ablyduc tothe ins i s t ence on thepartof who le langua ge proponents that whole language is no t a pr ogram, but a philosophy about literacy instruction (Altweger , Ed e lsky &

Flores, 1981; Newma n, 1985 ) .

Wh i l" Ne wman (19 85 ) believe s th at the who l e lan g uage approach is so complex and comprehen sive that i t defies definition,Eldre dge (1991) offers these~pecif i cclas s r oom practices generally associat ed with the philo s op hy , and accepted bywholelanguage advocate s :

Rather than teac hing reading , writing, spe l ling and handwriting as separate su b j e c ts , whole lan guage tea chers integrate the te aching of the language ar t s into a si ng le period. They recognize the int err e lat e d ness of reading , writing, speaking and listening. They recogniz e that all these language processesareusedas an individual attenrl+.sto

22 communicate with others, and growth in one area facilitates growth in the others.

Children'sownlanguage prodnctions are used to help tbem make the transition from oral to written language. Children are given opportunities to write messages, letters, stories, using their individualvocabulary And syntax knowledge, even beforethey can read,write or spell accurately.

Whole langUAge teachers encourage students to ....rite ae soon as they enterschool. They believe that writing skills developfrom children'8scribbling to inventedspellings and eventually on to mature writing. Children may dictate experiences or stories to teachers or other literate individuals, to be written on charts for reading, as in the

"La ngua gs ExperienceApproach~to reading instruction, but the

major emphasis in a whole language classroom is on children doing their own writing.

In addition to using children' s written products for reading literaturebooks are widely used in whole language classrooms. Whole language teachers do not agree with l1oc a bu l a ry - a nd - s ynt a x controlled stories. The best children ' . literature available to teachers is read to, and with, children. Teachers use storiescontaining "naturaltext~and predictable language patterns.

Literacy instruction is organized around theme. or units of study that are of interest to students. Children read or

23 writeabout these epec ial topicsor themes. Li ste ning and speaking oppo r t un i tie sar e providedfor them whilethey stud y a topic or t.heme in depth. Music , art., social st ud ies, and other interdi s ciplinary ac t i viti esmay also beintegratedinto the study of themes .

In wholelanguage,thesucces sof lang uagele arning and la ngu a ge use is largely based on the crit e r i a of personal relevance . Wholelanguagsadvocate s cl aim that whe nchil d re n are giv en oppo rt uni ties to en j oy good li teratur e, create st o rie s, write le t t ers, keep pers on a l journals , and sha r e the irwrittenprodu cts wi thot he r'J , language le arningbe comes intrinsicallyrewarding_

Social inte r ac t i o n in who le language classrooms is esse ntid.l and visib l e . Who le lang uag eteachers belie v e that li t e r a cy deve lopment is depe nden t upo n opport uni t ies to communicate, and c01lUnun icati o n is notposs ibl e witho ut some social int e r action. Therefore,childr enneedopportunit i e sto in t e r a c t socially with ot he r s as they learn to use the la nguage skillsneededfor effective communi c ation ; that is, they need opportunititlll to write, re a d, listenand speakto

In whol e language classrooms, children are givErn the oppo r t u n i ties tobothteachandlearn from ea ch ot h e r~ They often workcollaborativelywitha common interest or goa l .

24 They react to each other's writtenproducts, and they share favorite books with eachothel:;.

Literacy instruction in whole language classrooms is student-centred ra t hertha n teacher-centred. Whole lauguage teachers do not believethatreading instruction should be orgro.nizedarounda sequence of skills typicallycharacteristic of a basal reader approach to re ad ing. Theybe l i e ve that literacy instruction should be based upon recreational!

functional reading and writing opportunities that centreon children'sinterests.

Whole language teachers involve children in holistic reading and writing activities. The focus of re a d i ng instruction is on the readingof holistictext (Le., stories and expository text materials) rather than on the skills related to reading. The focus of writinginstruction is on holistic writing products rather than spelling, handwriting, grammar, and other individual skills related to the ....riting process. Whole language advocates do not teach skillsin isolation but believe that skillsinstruction should grow out of holistic la ngu a ge experiences ba s ed on studentsI

recognizable needs.

Empowerment - Delpit (19881 points out that empowe rme n t through literacy necessitates having control over lan g UAge use, and considers i t a disservice if individuals are not

25 provided with sufficient lanquBg8 competency "t ha t they can meet the pcneeaeora elf power" (p. 24). This definition of empowerment through literacy can be said to speak to the rnnu situation . Empowerment for the Innu maybe linked to their ability to be literate in the majority language. The empowered leaders who now battlethe oppression which the InRU endured in t.he past, and who strive tocreate new political and cultural formsfor the future,are those who areeducated and competent in English, as well as their Native languaqe (Schuurman,1993al. However, Fagan (1992) Buggeststhat"for some people, literacy issi mp l ynot relevanttotheir lives"

(p. 24). Thincan also besa i d for SOllie Innupeople in that for thosewhowishto pursue the traditionalInnu way of life, literacy maynot be relevant.

Thenot i o n of empowentlent for whole languageproponents, like Gunderson(1989), is linked tothe notionof"owne r s h i p "

for both the teacher and the student. Be explains: In most schooh, students do what the teachers tell them to do, and teachers do what the principal tellstb••todo ••• Whole langua9'e teachers bef Levc they shoulrl be free to make instructional decisions based on their students·needsand interests. More than that,it is theirresponsibility to do so •••In

2.

the same spirit, whole language teachers empower their studentsby giving them the responsibility of managing their own learning. (po IS)

Willinsky (1990), in his text entitled The New Literacy, similarly promotes literacy as empowering in that it shifts authority from the text and teacher to that of the student to make reading and writing more personallymeaningful.

New Literacy consIsts of those strategies in the teaching of reading and writing whichattempt to shift the control of literacy from the teacher to the student~ literacy is promoted in such programs as a social process with language that can, from the very beginning, extend the student ·s range of me a ni ng and connection. (po8)

Literacy - According to Fagan (1992), "a key problemin discussing literacy•• • and its implicationsis the lack of a clear cut definition as to what i t means" (po 18). Fagan (1992) goes on to state: -Anunderstanding of literacy ••.will depend on the context and goals .•• (p. 23).

Willinsky(1990 ) , also appears to be uncertain about offering a precise definition of literacy. However, he stands against a definition of literacy which iii! defined as the ability to perform at a certain levelon a standardized test and which asks education for preparation and practice of that

27 ability. "It is tores i s t treatingliteracysimp l y as competencethatpe op l e haveor do not have at somearbitrary level" (p. B). Willinsky (1990) takes the notionofl it era c y fromthatof a skill to thatof a purposefulactivity. Be offers:

Literacy is not a se r i e s of subskills that are ma s t ere d and applied in isolated exercises;

rat he r •••students use li t e r a c y to solve problems th a tthe y have hadBornehand in selecting;theyuse li t e r a c y to discover, co nne c t, respond and confront. (p. 153)

More ove r , Wl11insky (1990) maint ains: "Advoca t e s •••have bravely chosen tocarve out are s e a rchpat h that is congruent with their understanding of li t e r a cy , tending to fa vo r qualitative , collaborative and ca s e studies which turn studentsintoinformants, rathe r than sUbjects" (p. 164).

LanguageGrowth- is used in the context of wholelanguageas ame a n sof assess ingstudent progress. Whilewholela ng ua ge teachersgenera l ly be l i e ve that grades are not useful fo r indicatinglanguagegrowth(Gunde rson,1989).whole la ng ua ge advocatesmai ntai n tha t growth in language is documentable (Hood, 198 9 ). Wortman and Haussler (19891 profess:

"Evaluationisde s cript i ve , qua l i tative, andlo ngi tudinal, and invo lvessamples of students' work" (p. 46 ). Kitagawa (1989)

28 asserts : "Ki d - wa t c hi ng , ~friting folders, informal miscue analysis, and anecdotal records are the least intrusive and mostrepresentationaldocumentation of language learning" (p. 1091·

Woodleyand Woodley (19 89 ) state: "A basic tenet of a whole language philosophy is that children develop at different rates and in different ....ays .. [p , 75). Mickelson (1990) relatesI "Ch ild r e n are not comparedto each other but are evaluated on their personal growth towards linguistic compe t e nc e " {p, 4} . In terms of whole language, language growth refers to the growth of one person, which is the rationale for the focus on the casestudy participant in this study.

CHAP'l'ER II RZVln or'l'HE LI!1'ERATURJ:

latroductioD

!1'he followingreviewof literaturewill examineliteracy development in a pexeon'II first and second language, the features of the whole languageapproachtolitera c y , recent pedagogicalapproachesin Englishas a Second Language and how the whole languageapproac h can be ap:?liedto theteaching of English as a sec o nd Language and totheteachingof Nativ e students. Va r i ous strategies reeeeeended in wholelanguage, including utilization of the Language Experience Approa ch, dialogue journal , children 's literature, as well use of the computer and learningcentersin wholelangu ageprograms,wi l l be disc ussed. Finally, ":he process ofevalua t ion in whole languagewill be presented.

r!:ntaDdSecoadLanguageLi t e r a c y

Fromtheories and researchin first languageacquisition, conclusions can be drawn for sec ond language tea ching and learning. While there are undoubtedly importan t cog ni t i v e, affective, neurologicaland physicaldifferen cesbetween the acquisition of a first and a se co nd language, and between children and adults, thereare alsoimportant simi l a r i t i e s . Both childrenas well as adults acquirelangu.agesfrom similar

3D types of experiences and at essentially similar rates when conditions are optimal (Krahnlte ar.d Christison, 1983).

According to Samayan and Pfleger (1987), three principles emerge in the development of literacy in young children:

1. Introduction to literacy muat be meaningful (Goodman, 1986). Children should be .a b l e to predict what lies ahead when reading or being read to from the rich context that is provided by good reading material. Reading something that does make sense is much easier tihan reading something that does notl Similarly, children should begin to write for a meaningful purpose - expressing a thought or feeling. writing to communicate is much easier than writing for no obvious intrinsic

2. The link between oral language and print is easier to make when awareness of i t emerges naturallyrather than when that linkisexplicitly taught. Children Beem to pick up the associations between symbols and sounds rather easily from their environment. In contrast, when rules that govern written language are formally taught to children, the process isII.tedious one that is not a1waye highly succeuful. (Holdaway, 1979)

3. Affect plays an invaluable role in reading and writing.

A chiicl who enjoys readingismotivated to read; will readmore~ and by doing so, will be a better reader.

31 Similarly, a child who enjoys writing is motivated to write, will write more, and by doing eo, will become a better writer. since reading and writing interrelated, writing frequently improves reading and vice vecee , (Smith, 1978)

Goodman (1967, 1976) sees normal Ll (Le., first language I readers4Spredicting the meaning of a textbyusing their background knowledge and other strategies. He proposes that a reader samples from the incoming data (i.e., print) only that information which can be acoommodated in his or her current hypothesis. The reader may define this hypothesis by using semantic, syntactic and phonological cues from the text, which may entail a rejection of the initial hypothesis and the adoption of a revised one. Goodman calls this process of sampling, prediction and confirmation a "psycholinguistic guessing game."

It is assumed by Dlany researchers (e.g.,Goodman, 1973) that the reading process will be similar for all those languages known by a particular individual with minor adjustment having to be made for syntactical and orthographic variations in his/hernon-native language. Murtagh (1989), also reports that evidence has shewn that difficulties at the orthographic and syntactic levels are characteristic of beginning second languagB readers. The implication, however,

32 is that once literacy skills are acquired in one language they should transfer easily to a second language.

Murtagh (1989), in summing up 80rne of the existing data to form an explanatory model of the L2(Le., second language) reading process as a basis for improving reading instruction and for evaluating reading progress, relates: M'Ihere Is plenty of evidence to support the common notion that reading in the second language involves many 0,£the same skills as native language reading" [p, 102) .

Evidence from studies of bilingual education of children lends some support to theories ttlat literacy in second language is similar to the fIrst. Children in Canadian immersion programs who initially learned to read in a second language first (Le., French) eventually read their first language (i.e., English) as well as their monolingual peers (LambertIiTucker, 1972; Barek' Swain, 1975; Genesee, 1979).

This appr.oach, however, is not suitable for all populations.

The issue of reading in the context of immersion is extremely complicated (Murtagh, 1989). Factore such as the status of the second language in the community, the socio-economic and linguistic background of the student and the motivational forces, such as parental Lnvctveeene, influence Hteracy development in the non-native language (Cummins, 1977;

Genesee, 1979). In certain circumstancesft might be more sensible to teach children to read in their native language

33 before reading in a second language. Forexample, a studyof Nav a jo Indian children (Rosier , Holm, 1980) found that instruction through the medium of the mother tongu e (i.e., Navaj o)was better at promoting readingskills in Navajoand in Englis hthaninstructionthrough Bnglish. Olivares (19931 concurs that in the long run LEP students with a well de ve loped firstla ngu agewill performbett erlinguisticallyin L2 thanthos e students whodi scontinuetheirde velopmentinLl and discard it' sus e . Becausethe language -le arni ng skills develop e d in Ll can be transferredto thelearnlngproces sin L2 ('l'ho n la, 19B1 ) an d beoause research de e..Istra tes that bilingualchildren have mor e and hig h e r cognitiveskills tha n monolingual children (Ba ker,1988),educators in recent ye ars have supportedthe ide a ofha v ing LEP learnersmaintai n their firstla nguageasame a ns ofimprovi ngin theseco nd languag e. Native language liter.acy affe ct s the wa y L2 literacy develops, Hama ya n and Pfleger (19B7 )report. Studentsalre ady literatein their first language are abletotransfermany of the skillstheyhav e at t b.i!l e d throuqhnativelanguage reading to the sec ..snd language . Theymay no t need to be led thr ough the initial stagesof literac yin whichthe awareness of the co nnec t ion between oral languag e and print emerge s. They would have already achieved this awaren e s s in their nat i ve language and ....oul d transfer those ski lls, along with many others,to learningto read in the second language.

Samayan andPfl e ger(19871agree thatdevelopingliteracy in a second langu age (L2) followa the same course of development as the firs t language. However, they sa y two addi tiona l fa c t o r e may play a dg nific1:.nt role in the de velopment of lite rac y in L2: age and level of native language literac y. Age 1lI8kes a difference in howL2 literacy develops:older students,particularly thCJaewho are able to think logically aboutabstract notions(ages11-151 are better prepared to focusana l yt i c a l l y on the fOOl of languageand,as suc h , are betterable to benefit from explanations of langu'.I.ge rules and taskstha t pro&:)te readingandwri t i ng simply for thesakeof read i ng and wri ting. You nge r otudents , who are unab l e to benefit from such instruction, lDay ac tually be turne d off by the pre vi ously menti oned met hod of teaching li teracyand may de velo(.lnegativeatti tudes towardsread ing and writing , re sult i ng inbad liter acy habit s . with non- lite r ate stude nts , howe ver, eve nthos e whoare older, li t.eracy muo t be allowed to emerge in the natural st a ge s . Thu., t.e achingreadi ngand wr i ting in L2 muatbebased~nthe Bame principlesthat.underlie the development of literacyinyoung children.

Olivares (1993) agrees that the age of a learnerisan importantfactorwhenit comes to L2:

Ave ry youngchild willacquirethe secondlanguage differently thananolder child will. Linguistic

35 research has proven that even tho ug h younger children seemto acquire L2 ec onex than ol de r children and are often able to spe ak the ne w language without an accent af t e r ill few months, older children and adults are actually "mor e efficient la ngu age learners " (Ba ku a t a and Snow, 1986) • The commo n myth tha t younger chil d r e nare betterthan older children at pickingup a second la ng uAge is the re sult of focusing obse rvati on on pronunciation and phonics, whi c h ar e mainly functions of languagB ac q ui sitio n. When the compari s on is mad e with ot he r aspects of language prof icienc y - suc h asthe typeof langu age abi lity De ed ed to succe ed in Bchool- ol de r children come out ahe ad . (p. 5)

Collier (198 7) relatesthatchildr e nbe twee nthe agesof eight and twelveyearsof agEllearna secondlanguagefaster than children between the age s of four and seven ye ars , possiblybecause ol de r childre nhav e mor e cognitive matu ri ty and Dlore skill with the first language to draw on in developingan effectivesecond-la nguagelearning proces s.

AccordingtoSimic h- Dudge on (1996) ,curr entlyused mode ls of teaching reading and writing to LEP (Li mi ted E.n~lish Proficiency )learners sugge s t s twobasicmodels: the skills- based and the whole language. The skills-based approach,

36 narrowlyreferredtoas the phonics approach,is characterized bythe assumption thatlearner~le a r n howto readbymastering discrete elemente of language at the onset of reading instruction. Simich -Dudgeon(1986) explains that thewhol e language approach is based en the assumption that the int r oduc t i o n to reading mustbe meaningful and shoul d be developed from real communicative si t ua t i o ns inth e life of the learners.

Sama y a n and Pfleger (1987) relate that traditional methods of teachingE.S. t. (English as a Sec ond La ng u a ge) have not been based on the natural ways in which readi ng and writing specifically develop or on how language develops. These methods strip the act of re a d i ng of meaning, do not build on the learners' oral language and consequentlyiqnore the strong relationship th a t existsbetween oral and written language. Finally, they make reading and writing dull.

Hamayan and Pfley'sr(1987) summari z e by stating:

The need fer l i teracyto emergein a naturalwayis crucial in light of the factthat the introduction toli t e rac y in school through traditional methods noton l y does not encourage the natural evo! ution of reading and writing, but sometimes ccunce recta

it. (p.5)

':'he fa ilu r e of traditional sec o nd la n gua g e teaching

methods in promoting literacy among childrenfrom non-literate

J7 or low-literacy backgrounds hall: caused many teachers to discontinue theUlle of trad.itional methods, and to turn to more innovative methods whicb take into account. the child's total language needs and which promote the enjoyment of reading and writing. According to Bamayan and Pfleger (1987):

A whole lang-uage approach to teaching literacy in the second language does just that, and since it includes the use of different methodologies and strategies,i t has an added flexibility that allows teachers to find the combination of activities with which they feel most. comfortable. (p.5)

Many similarities exist between the whole language approach and che teaching of English as a Second Language (E.S.L.I, wbere the four language skills [Lse,, listening, speaking, reading and writing) are taught as an integrated.

whole. Inboth, the teacher's role includes facilitating and modelling language use and cresting an environment where it is almost impossible not to learn.

Ifbole LanguageApproachto Literacy

The whole language approach is based on recent psycho - linguistic research in language acquisition (Smith, _1971~

Chomsky, 1972; x, Goodman, 1972, 1974, 1977; Clay, 1977;

3.

Kraehen,1977 ,1978JGraves, 19781Holdaway, 1979 ;Y. Goodman, 1980; and Terrell, 1985).

Mos t of the current methodologies for sec ond language reading are based onthe psycho l inguistic comp on e nt s of the na t i ve (Le ., first) language reading process . One of the most importantinsightsof the psycholinguisticmodelisthat the reader is anactive participantin the readingproc ee a, interactingwiththe text inva riou s way s , dependingonthe re ad erIs knowl ed ge of thelanguage and subject matter , and the reade r ' s nee ds withregardstothetext (Mur t a gh, 1989). The psycho l inguis t ic model of reading distinguishes several linguisti cproce ssinglevels - tbe graphemic (Le. , letter- based). pho nemic (i. e., sound-based ), le x ical , sy nta c tic, semantic and discourse . Experi ments ha ve demonstrated the op e r a t ion of all these lev els in the re a ding proces s (Rume l h a r t , 1977) .

Wholelanguage as apedagogj ~altheory has the following 10compo ne nt s , accordingtoRupp(19 8 6):

1. Makes us e of whole, me aningful reading material.

2. j'oc u ee e on comprehen sionandcommuni c a t i o n.

3. Utiliz e s and dependson quality child r e n' s lit erature.

4. Helps child r e n learn toint egrat e and~a:a cue i ng sys t ems (graphoph on ic, syntactic, semantic , background andexp e rience ) .

"

50 Treats literacy learning as a language development process.

6. Encourages risk taking, hypothesis testing, self- monitoring.

7. Treats lIteracyI1Sa means to an end.

a.

and experiences for comprehension.

10. Promotes reading- and writing as enjoyable, useful and purposeful activities.

The whole language approachisa teaching approach whioh combines the communication skills of listening, spe a k i ng, reading and writin'J. The instructional philosophy is based on recent psycholinguistic research on how children learn language and literacy. The pBychology of learning teaches us that we learn from whole to parts (Goodman,1986). Altwerger, Edelsky and Flores (1987) explain:

The key theoretical premise for whole language is that, the world over, babies acquire a language i;hr oug h actually using it, not through practising it s separate parts until some later date when the parts are assembled and the totality is finally used. The major assumptionis that the model of acquisition through real use (not.through practice exercises)isthe best model for thinking about and