This article was downloaded by: [University of California Davis]On: 07 November 2014, At: 16:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

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

Whole language teaching aspracticed by kindergartenteachersJoyce L. Kostelnik a , Frank S. Black b & JohnnaTaylor ca Arizona State University Westb University of Tennessee , Martinc Greenfield Elementary , Greenfield, TennesseePublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Joyce L. Kostelnik , Frank S. Black & Johnna Taylor (1998)Whole language teaching as practiced by kindergarten teachers, Reading Researchand Instruction, 37:3, 207-216, DOI: 10.1080/19388079809558265

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388079809558265

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Reading Research and InstructionSpring 1998, 37(3) 207-216

Whole language teaching as practicedby kindergarten teachers

Joyce L. KostelnikArizona State University West

Frank S. BlackUniversity of Tennessee at Martin

Johnna TaylorGreenfield Elementary, Greenfield, Tennessee

ABSTRACT

This research focused on the teaching behavior of a small sample of ruralself-described whole language kindergarten teachers to determine thelevel of consistency between their perceptions of whole language teach-ing and the extent to which whole language concepts were applied in theirclassroom instruction. Locally constructed and pilot-tested forms, "WholeLanguage Checklist Observation Form" and "Focus Group InterviewSchedule," were used to gather evidence of teaching behaviors. Resultsindicate that although these teachers were able to articulate the compo-nents of whole language teaching, they were unable or unwilling to incor-porate many of its most central features into their classroom instruction.Implications for further research are discussed.

Seldom has an education theory been identified with the level of confusionand conflict which surrounds the implementation of the whole language philoso-phy. Advocates of this approach to teaching acknowledge the potential for misin-terpretation and misapplication of the central premises on which whole languageis based (Church, 1994; Engle, 1993; Goodman, 1992; Hoffman, 1992; Pryor,1990; Reid, 1993; Tidwell & Stele, 1992; Waterman, 1991). Primarily, wholelanguage represents a set of beliefs about learning which includes the following:(1) learning occurs through these modes of communication: listening, speaking,reading, and writing, (2) learning takes place in social contexts, (3) teachers aremediators and facilitators rather than dispensers of knowledge, (4) students areparticipants in decision-making and take responsibility for their own learning,(5) classrooms are safe, supportive and learner-centered rather than teacher-cen-tered environments, (6) phonics is not taught separately but is blended holisti-cally into the overall reading instruction, (7) constructing meaning is the central

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

208 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 1998 Vol.37 No. 3

issue in literacy development, and (8) instruction for reading is predominatelyliterature-based (Altwerger, Edelsky, & Flores, 1987; Flynn, 1994; Johnson &Stone, 1991; Newman, 1991; Pearson, 1989; Rich, 1985; Ruddell, 1992). More-over, the application of whole language philosophy tenets, by their very nature,are individually organized and separately implemented by teachers in the fieldbased on their recognition of the needs of their students (Mancus & Hill, 1992;Richards & Gipe, 1990; Willinsky, 1994). Since whole language theory is mostoften applied in elementary classrooms where a main focus is guiding children'sliteracy development, activities frequently involve authentic reading, writing, lis-tening, and speaking (Black, 1993; Cecil, 1993; Burns, Roe, & Ross, 1996; Sher-wood, 1993; Swan, 1992, Vassalto, 1992).

Research about the efficacy of whole language instruction has often focusedon measuring success in reading (Pressley & Rankin, 1994; Richards & Gipe,1990). Other research has compared whole language with other teaching meth-odology, particularly in reading instruction (Bright, 1989; Smith &Wham, 1993;Stice, 1991). Even though teacher beliefs have been discussed (Combs, 1994;Groff, 1991; Hatch, 1991; Smith, 1992; Targovnik, 1993; Tidwell & Stele, 1992;Wakefield, 1992), less is known about how teacher beliefs impact the implemen-tation of whole language instruction (Bruneau, 1992; Gross, 1992; Pace, 1992;Shepperson & Nistler, 1992).

The purpose of this research was to contribute to the whole language researchknowledge base by attempting to further clarify the relationship between teachers'understanding of whole language and the extent to which they practiced it intheir instruction. It focused on the teaching behaviors of a small sample of ruralkindergarten teachers with regard to their perceptions of what whole language is,the extent to which they applied its concepts in their teaching, and their primaryconcerns about whole language instruction.

METHOD

SubjectsEleven kindergarten teachers in a small rural southeastern school district were

selected to participate in this study. The district consisted of six schools withkindergarten programs and a total population of 22 female kindergarten teachers.To ensure representation from each school, two teachers were randomly selectedfrom each school where there were three or more kindergarten teachers. Wherethere were less than three teachers per building, all were automatically included inthe study. One teacher was included in the sample from a school with only onekindergarten class. The majority of the teachers had baccalaureate degrees and10 to 20 years of teaching experience. Class sizes ranged from 18-20 students.

The subjects were divided into two groups. Focus Group A (FGA) consistedof five randomly assigned teachers plus the teacher from the single kindergartenclass school. The remaining teachers composed Focus Group B (FGB).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Whole language teaching 209

InstrumentationThe Whole Language Checklist Observation Form (Appendix A) and the

Focus Group Interview Schedule (Appendix B) were used to collect data for thisstudy. Both of these instruments were locally constructed and pilot tested. The15 item Observation Form was designed to identify the teachers' understandingof whole language and its most common components such as print-rich environ-ments, integration of language instruction, holistic instruction and child-centeredclassroom orientations (Altwerger, Edelsky, & Flores, 1987; Flynn, 1994; John-son & Stone, 1991; Newman, 1991; Pearson, 1989; Rich, 1985; Ruddell, 1992).The Interview Schedule consisted of 10 items and was designed to identifyteacher perceptions, needs, concerns, and characteristics of their current practiceas they relate to whole language instruction.

Procedures

Each group, FGA and FGB, was interviewed separately by the same researcherusing the Focus Group Interview Schedule. The interviews were recorded usingnotes and audio tape. Transcribed tape and notes were then analyzed to identifythemes and categories among subject responses. These were clustered as to thesimilarity of view points that emerged regarding the three research questions:perceptions of what whole language is, application of whole language concepts,and concerns about whole language instruction.

To observe the extent of consistency between what subjects said they doregarding whole language and what they "actually" do in the classroom, FGAteachers were observed teaching. Specifically, following the interviews, unan-nounced classroom observations using the Whole Language Checklist Observa-tion Form were conducted. Each of the six teachers was observed for one threehour period. Because these schools serve as clinical sites for early field experi-ence for preservice students, teachers and students were accustomed to havingobservers present in the classroom.

RESULTS

InterviewsHow do teachers define whole language? Interview responses in FGA and

FGB were consistent. No formal definition was given. Instead, teachers expressedtheir understanding of whole language in general terms. They most commonlyreferred to it as an integration of learning into thematic wholes. They associatedit with using big books, teaching subjects themed units including language artswith content area subjects, and student-centered classroom orientations. Exam-ples of their definitions of whole language were:

Incorporating the language experience into all academic areas usingtheme based units throughout all subject areas.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

210 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 1998 Vol.37 No. 3

Teaching through the involvement of multiple subjects around oneappealing topic.

To what extent do teachers apply whole language concepts in their teaching?Both focus groups reported the use of big books and phonic teaching within sub-jects as the whole language activities they most frequently engaged in with stu-dents. Interestingly, while they taught phonics in a separate structured program theyalso attempted to integrate it into other lessons. A heavy reliance on print materialaccompanying basal readers supplemented by newspapers, charts, and labelingwere noted by both groups of teachers. These whole language characteristicswhich were reported to be major components of the teachers' instruction—the-matic units, learning centers, and shared reading teaching strategies—are allstrongly emphasized within the school district.

What concerns teachers most about using whole language concepts in theirteaching? Overwhelmingly, teachers in both groups cited a need for more wholelanguage training.

I kind of know what whole language is, but I'm not very clear about it.

I wish I had more information about whole language. I haven't had theopportunity since I've been out of school to learn much about it.

In my college classes we didn't even talk about whole language much.Maybe my college instructors weren't very informed or comfortablewith it.

They also expressed concerns regarding preparation time.

I don't have enough time to create child-centered activities.

It really takes lots more time to make a class child-centered. I don't havethat kind of time.

They identified their teaching orientation as teacher-centered and expressed agreat deal of concern about their ability to maintain classroom control in child-centered environments.

I don't want to give up control to students.

I don't want to look unorganized or have a class get rowdy or out ofcontrol.

It really takes lots more time to make a class child-centered. It's diffi-cult to prepare for instruction if students choose things differently thanwhat I was planning for.

It requires too much spontaneous change in instruction, if I'm not surewhat direction the students interests are going to go.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Whole language teaching 211

How can I adequately prepare for a good class, if I don't know thedirection things are going to go?

With regard to what would help them develop a better whole language program,the following were typical responses:

A better understanding of how to run (manage) learning centers

Having readily available materials and a smaller class.

Also, when asked to identify limitations to whole language program implemen-tation, teachers most commonly responded:

Too many children per teacher to keep activities flowing.

The difference in student ability and learning styles.

ObservationsResults from the observation of the FGA teachers (Table 1) tended to support

the interview results of both groups. All six teachers observed emphasized theuse of print-rich material. Five of them utilized instructional integration. Onlytwo were observed practicing holistic language instructional orientations. Child-centered and holistic learning instructional orientations were not characteristicof these teachers' instruction. On the other hand, thematic unit presentations,learning centers, and shared reading instructional strategies were practiced by allof these teachers.

Table 1

Observation Results by Teaching Characteristics

Characteristics

Print-rich environmentIntegrationHolistic learningChild-centeredThematic unitsLearning centersShared reading

Practiced *

6522565

*Number of teachers in Focus Group A (FGA) found practicing this characteristic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

212 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 1998 Vol.37 No. 3

Discussion

Teacher behavior is obviously key to the success of any teaching approach.The findings of this study suggest that these teachers have a clear perception andunderstanding of the general thinking about what whole language is and are con-sciously practicing some of its characteristics especially as evidenced by theemphasis on print-rich milieus and integration of subject-matter, both of whichare consistent with the work of Pearson (1989), and Altwerger, Edelsky, and Flores(1987) respectively.

Interestingly, holistic and child-centered instruction were among the leastpracticed by the teachers. The child-centered finding was particularly surprisingsince it is considered to be one of the central and most common components ofwhole language instruction (Rich, 1985) and the teachers identified it in theirdefinition of whole language. Only in two instances were teachers observed en-gaging in instructional behaviors that allowed students some choice about theactivities in which they participated. In one of these two instances, the teacherwas observed sitting quietly with one group of students involved in deciding on atopic to write a group story about, while the rest of the class was engaged inindividual or group work concerning topics they had already selected.

Classroom management is clearly a matter of concern to these teachers. It isnot likely that they will feel comfortable moving beyond the "safest" aspects ofwhole language until they develop management skills that enable them to maintainthe level of classroom control they feel they must have. For these teachers student-centered instruction and teacher control must occur simultaneously.

Equally of interest was the apparent comfort these teachers feel with inte-gration of subjects as compared to holistic instruction. All of them integrated theinstruction of language arts such as reading and spelling. Many did so throughthe use of thematic unit instruction and learning centers. But the integration andholistic orientation tended to stop when it came to social studies, mathematics,and science subjects. These subjects were taught as distinct topics by the major-ity of these teachers. This was also the case with holistic phonics instructionwhich was infrequently observed. It appears that the more skill oriented the topicthe less likely teachers are to engage in holistic teaching. Could this be a controlfactor again? Could it be that teachers feel pressured to control student time ontasks in these areas in an attempt to maximize student learning and/or performanceon standardize tests for accountability reasons? Do they have the time to explorealternative instructional approaches such as holistic science, mathematics, or socialscience teaching given the increasing demands for more and more material to becovered in a school year?

Implications

The restricted sample and qualitative nature of this study prohibit any broadgeneralizations based on its findings. However, its results do suggest issues thatshould be considered by whole language advocates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Whole language teaching 213

Implications for Meeting Teachers'Whole Language Education NeedsFew would argue that the whole language philosophy is not well known in

education today. One has only to look at the raging debates over the level of def-inition specificity—whether one calls it a philosophy or strategy—to appreciatethe on-going awareness of this educational movement. However, as is noted inthis study and suggested in others, a more hands-on approach to concept imple-mentation appears sorely needed. Whole language supporters should considershifting their emphasis more rapidly beyond advocacy to concept demonstration.This approach with a special emphasis on classroom management is likely tobetter meet the needs of practicing teachers. Further, it seems that whole languagedemonstration projects that are provided in a way that capitalize on teachers'competence, commitment to and familiarity with existing teaching strategies suchas thematic units and learning centers are likely to be the most successful.

Additionally, since the teachers involved in this study were individuals whohad been teaching from 10 to 20 years, any university courses they may have hadin their preservice preparation for teaching were unlikely to have a whole languageorientation. Their understanding of whole language, therefore, would be limitedto information presented through in-service activities, or their own efforts to readabout and implement whole language strategies as described in the professionalliterature. Their obvious interest in whole language, evidenced by their self-iden-tifications as whole language teachers, could be supported by school districtscollaborating with each other and with universities to share current theory andmethodology developments with these teachers.

Implications for ResearchFuture studies should include larger samples but remain qualitative oriented

so as to continue efforts to clarify the definition of whole language particularlyin operational terms. At this stage in the development of the whole languagemovement, these efforts perhaps best lend themselves to context specific situa-tions as noted by Willinsky (1994). Therefore, specific attention should be paidto investigating what aspects of the whole language philosophy tend to be effectiveand under what conditions. For example, we have seen in this study that print-richand integration orientations tend to work well with thematic unit, learning center,and shared reading instructional strategies in kindergarten learning environments.This context specific research approach is further underscored by Goodman(1990) who also observed that "some fundamental questions can be studied inwhole-language classrooms in ways that were not possible before because of theauthenticity of the language transactions and the integration around themes andproblem solving"(p. 216).

In sum, it is hoped that this exploration of the whole language concept asperceived and practiced by kindergarten teachers contributes to an accelerationin reports that serve to enlighten our understanding of what works as well as whatdoes not work with regard to whole language. It is only with this kind of direc-tion will we realize the full potential of whole language in our classrooms.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

214 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 1998 Vol.37 No. 3

REFERENCES

Altwerger, B., Edelsky, C , & Flores, B. M. (1987). Whole language: What's new? TheReading Teacher, 2(41), 144-155.

Black, S. (1993). From whole to part. Executive Educator, 15(10), 35-38.Bruneau, B. J. (1992). A case study of kindergarten teachers in the process of initiating a

whole language literacy program. Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 33-41.Church, S. M. (1994). Is whole language really warm and fuzzy? Reading Teacher, 47(5),

362-370.Combs, M. (1994). Implementing a holistic reading series in first grade: Experiences with

a conversation group. Reading Horizons, 34(3), 196-207.Engle, B. S. (1993, November). Valuing children: Authentic assessment based on obser-

vation, reflection and documentation. Paper presented at the meeting of the NewEngland Kindergarten Conference, Cambridge, MA.

Goodman, K. S. (1986). What's whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann.Goodman, K. S. (1989). Whole-language research: Foundations and development. The

Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 207-221.Goodman, K. S. (1992). I didn't found whole language (Distinguished educator series).

Reading Teacher, 46(3), 188-199.Groff, P. (1991). Teachers' opinions of the whole language approach to reading instruc-

tion. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 83-95.Hatch, J. A. (1991, May). Out from between a rock and a hard place: Whole language in

Tennessee. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Reading Association,Las Vegas, NV.

Johnson, B., & Stone, E. (1991). Is whole language restructuring our classroom? Contem-porary Education, 62(2), 102-104.

Mancus, D. S., & Hill, A. (1992). Teacher's transition to whole language: Learning to letthe child lead. National Association of Laboratory Schools Journal, 17(1), 1-23.

McKenna, M., Robinson, R., & Miller, J. (1990). Whole language: A research agenda forthe nineties. Educational Researcher, 19, 3-6.

Newman, J. M. (1991). Whole language: A changed universe. Contemporary Education,62(2), 70-75.

Norman, G., Blanton, W., & McLaughlin, T. (1994). The rhetoric of whole language.Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 308-329.

Pace, G. (1992). Stories of teacher-initiated change from traditional to whole-languageliteracy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 92(4), 461-476.

Pearson, P. D. (1989). Reading the whole language movement. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 90, 231-241.

Pressley, M., & Rankin, J. (1994). More about whole language methods of reading in-struction for students at risk for early reading failure. Learning Disabilities Researchand Practice, 9(3), 157-168.

Pryor, E. G. (1990). Whole language rhetoric: Clarifying misconceptions. Ohio ReadingTeacher, 25(1), 15-22.

Reid, D. K. (1993). First invited response: Another vision of "Visions and Revisions,"Remedial and Special Education (RASE), 14(4), 14-16.

Rich, S. (1985). Restoring power to teachers: The impact of whole language. LanguageAm, 2(62), 717-723.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Whole language teaching 215

Ruddell, R. B. (1992). A whole language and literature perspective: Creating a meaning-making instructional environment, Language Arts, 69(8), 612-620.

Shepperson, G., & Nistler, R. J. (1992). Whole language collaboration project: Imple-menting change in one elementary school, Reading Horizons, 33(1), 55-66.

Smith, M. C , & Wham, M. A. (1993). The dialects of the whole language versus tradi-tional instruction debate. Reading Psychology, 14(3), 205-227.

Tidwell, D. L., & Stele, J. L. (1992, December). / teach what I know: An examination ofteachers' beliefs about whole language. Paper presented at the meeting of theNational Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Wakefield, A. P. (1992). An investigation of teaching style and orientation to readinginstruction. Reading Improvement, 29(3), 183-187.

Waterman, D. C. (1991). Whole language: Why not? Contemporary Education, 62(2),115-119.

Willinsky, J. (1994). Theory and meaning in whole language: Enjoying Norman, Blanton,and McLaughlin. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 334-339.

APPENDIX A

Whole Language Checklist Observation Form

A. Classroom is a print-rich environment including books, magazines,newspapers, directories, posters, signs, packages, etc.

B. Teacher uses thematic units. List:C. Teacher uses holistic learning.D. Learning centers in the classroom. List:E. The characteristics are classroom is child-centered rather than teacher cen-

tered. Students' work displayed as bulletin boards; student made books, etc.List:

F. Teacher is viewed as a facilitator—guides the students' learning, notdictates it. List instances occurring:

G. Use student selected texts in place of basal reading texts. List:H. All language arts are related and taught together. Language, spelling, and

reading taught as integrated lessons.I. Classroom uses shared reading. List stories read:J. Teacher blends phonics into a holistic approach rather than teach separately.

Phonics is not taught as a separate lesson.K. Lacks direct instruction of specific skills, integrates skills such as phonics

into other lessons. Lists:L. Uses mathematics, language, art, music, drama, and other communication

systems as vehicles for exploration. List:M. Uses cooperative activities. List:N. Students are allowed to publish their work. Student libraries, etc. List:O. Students use invented spelling.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

216 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 1998 Vol. 37 No. 3

APPENDIX B

Whole Language Focus Group Interview Schedule

1. What is Whole Language?2. What are some characteristics of whole language?3. Which of these do you use in your classroom?4. Do you use phonics in a structured program or integrate within other lessons?5. What would better assist you in creating a better whole language program if you

chose to implement one?6. What are limitations that may keep you from fully implementing a whole language

program?7. What type of textbooks do you use in your classroom?8. What is the best teaching method you currently use that enables your students to

have a good understanding of print awareness?9. Is your classroom more child-centered or teacher-centered?

10. What type of assessment do you use?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

16:

42 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014