UNF Digital Commons

UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship

1987

Application of the Language Experience Approach

for Secondary Level Students
Rosanne Arvin
University of North Florida

Suggested Citation
Arvin, Rosanne, "Application of the Language Experience Approach for Secondary Level Students" (1987). UNF Graduate Theses and
Dissertations. 297.
https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/297

This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the
Student Scholarship at UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of UNF Digital Commons. For more information, please
contact Digital Projects.
© 1987 All Rights Reserved
 Application of the Language Experience Approach
for Secondary Level Students

by

Rosanne Arvin

A thesis submitted to the Division of Curriculum and

Instruction in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Education

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN SERVICES

August, 1987

Signature Deleted

Signature Deleted

Signature Deleted
 Applicati~n

2
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness
of the language experience approach (LEA) for teaching reading
and writing skills to functionally illiterate high school
students who were identified as learning disabled. Twenty-one
9th-grade students ages fifteen to sixteen participated.
The students were divided into a control group and an
experimental group. The control group was instructed through
the use of a commercial reading kit, Reader's Workshop I (1974).
The experimental group received instruction using the LEA which
uses student written material to generate reading skill
activities.
To verify effectiveness of the LEA, pre- and posttests of
the .§tanford Diagnostic Reading Test (1976), or SDRT, brown
level, forms A and B and the Sentence Writing Strategy Pretest
(1985), or §WSP, were administered to both the control and
experimental groups.
The results on the subtests of the SDRT indicated no
significant gains or losses of reading skill ability for either
group. The SWSP though, indicated a significant gain in
sentence writing ability of 29 percentage points for the
experimental group while the control group lost 11
percentage points.
It is therefore evident that the language experience
approach can be successful for teaching reading and writing
skills to functionally illiterate high school students because
it integrates reading and writing rather than providing
detached skill instruction.
 Application
3
Application of the Language Experience Approach
for Secondary Level Students
Chapter I: Introduction
Problem Statement
Is the language experience approach effective as a
means of teaching reading and writing skills to functionally
illiterate high school students who have been identified
as learning disabled?
Rationale
Illiteracy, both functional and marginal, is a
critical problem in the United States today. Although
estimates vary, it is judged that approximately 25 million
adults cannot read and write and are therefore considered
functionally illiterate. Another 40 million adults have
only marginal reading and writing skills. This means that
approximately 29 percent of the U. S. population is faced
with a myriad of problems because they cannot read and
write.
This situation has developed for many reasons.
According to Rude and Oehlkers (1984), many of the problem
readers in our schools need not exist and are victims of a
system that in many cases has failed them. Of course, the
educational system need not assume responsibility for all
of today's reading problems; parents and society must share
the blame. Although the responsibility lies with many, the
assumption that "only the schools can make a difference"
persists.
As a result, sta~e and federal agencies fund a
considerable number of special programs in an attempt to
solve the illiteracy problem. Some of these include remedial
 Application
4
reading programs and special education classes of students
identified as learning disabled. This paper will limit the
discussion to illiterate high school students who have been
identified as learning disabled.
By fefinition, students identified as learning disabled
have a dtsorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in using language.
This disorder can result in an imperfect ability to listen,
think, speak, read, write, or spell. Although the criteria
for identification of students as learning disabled varies
from state to state, the procedure most co~only involves
the determination of an average to above-average intelligence
and a marked discrepancy between this potential level and
current achievement. Inherent, then, is the capacity for
learning.
Although an innate ability for learning exists, many
students identified as learning disabled are emerging from
our high schools everyday unable to read and write. Why is
this occurring? According to Harste and Stephens (1986) ,
specific skills and subskills are often the focus of literacy
programs in special education. Additionally, they state
that " ... because these studen·ts have already "failed" and
are expected to continue to do so, special education teachers
are relatively freer than other teachers to experiment with
various instructional approaches." (Harste & Stephens, 1986,
p. 128). This type of experimentation and specific skills/
subskills instruction gives the impression that the programs
are ever-changing and inconsiste~t. The use of a variety of
approaches also seems to give one the idea that there is a
lack of understanding of reading theory and the reading
 Application
5

process. Without a sound knowledge of reading theory and the

reading process, the use of a variety of approaches is
haphazard.
Goodman and Burke (19BO) describe reading as a problem-
solving process. Both the reader and author bring to the
printed page their own semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic
cues to build meaning. The reader tries to discover what the
author means while utilizing his/her experiential knowledge.
This process can· never be exact because of the obvious
differences in the language, thoughts, and meanings of an
author, and those of the reader. Although this reading
process is not precise, without meaning, reading cannot
occur.
If success is to be evident and failure reduced, special
education must cease using what Lipson (1986) calls the
mechanical approach. This approach teaches reading solely
through numerous detached drills. Students who learn this
way miss a great deal of reading for understanding ideas and
concepts. By the time students reach high school, they have
probably not experienced much success with the mechanical
'
approach to reading. Since they have not been provided with
the reading skills needed for adequate understanding of
concepts and the writing skills necessary for the production
of ideas, they continue to face failure and in many instances
give up by dropping out of school.
The language experience approach (LEA) , on the other
hand, is sufficiently flexible to provide for both mechanical
detached learning of skills and the top-do\.~ reading process
of gaining meaning from the printed text. The rationale for
the use of this approach according to Cheek and Cheek (1984)
 Application
6
is that by using the student's own oral language as
dictated, reading can be a successful experience.
Moreover, Burmeister (1983) states that "The Language
Experience Approach stresses the development and unity of
all the communication skills--listening, speaking, reading,
and writing ... It makes reading personal and concept-driven"
(p. 522).
It seems that the growing number of illiterate
Americans are products of hit or miss instruction in
special education classrooms. Rather than haphazard
instruction, the LEA seems to possess a theoretical foundation
which is comprehensive in nature. According to Burmeister
(1983), it provides for a means of acquiring sight vocabulary,
basic recoding skills, use of syntactic cues, and semantic
cues as well as an understanding of an author's position and
fallibility. A discussion of the LEA's procedures for
implementation will be included in this paper as well as a
study of its applicable use with functionally illiterate
high school students.
Many textbooks dealing with methods of teaching reading
to secondary school students discuss the use and value of the
LEA but do not provide evidence of its success. The same
holds true throughout a review of the literature. But one
fact remains evident, if a student's language is being
utilized and that language is viewed as acceptable, the
results should be an improved student attitude, improved
reading, and improved writingo
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to determine the effectiveness
of the language experience approach for teaching reading and
 Application
7
writing skills to functionally illiterate high school
students who have been identified as learning disabled.
 Application
8
Definition of Terms
Functional illiteracy - inability to read and write well
enough to qualify for employment
Marginal illiteracy - limited ability to read and write
but this ability is no~ sufficiently
developed to qualify for employment
Language experience approach - a method of reading instruction
which facilitates the student's
oral language to develop
materials for acquiring reading
skills
Detached skill instruction - a method of instruction in which
subskills within a particular
skill area are taught in isolation
of each other
 Application
9
Chapter II: Review of the Literature
Why use language experience?
The Webster New World Dictionary (1974) defines
language as any means of communicating, and experience as
anything 6r everything observed or lived through. Therefore,
when combined, the approach of language-experience is a
method of utilizing listening, speaking, reading, and
writing together with life experiences to create material
to read. Hall and Allen (cited in Wangberg, 1986) state
further that the language experience approach integrates
the development of reading and writing skills and allows
the learner to use experiences, interests, and thoughts
to produce text which will become the basis for further
instruction.
The language experience approach, or LEA, has several
very pertinent advantages for use with secondary school
students. Since the language and experiences of the student
are key components, the students come to realize that what
they say is important and acceptable. These factors can
serve to improve not only the students' reading and writing
but also their attitude toward themselves. Additionally,
Cheek and Cheek (1984) note an advantage for the development
of oral language skills which benefit those from educationally
deficient environments. As with any method, a primary
concern is maintaining student interest. Using language
experience, students are not forced to confront textbook
language and autho~'s experiences for which they have no
foundation to understand. Instead, the interest level of
the student is maintained because the content of the material
is their own. A final and possibly most noteworthy advantage
 Application
10
of the LEA for students identified as learning disabled is
its coordination of the learning modalities; auditory in
dictating the story, visual in seeing the words, and
kinesthetic in copying or writing the story.
The LEA has had limited use as a tool for teaching
students to read due to some common misconceptions. Krening
(1983) focuses on six of the most prevalent misconceptions
and exposes them to the facts of research and practical
experience. Her results include the following: (1) The LEA
does teach basic communication skills as well as the
mechanics of communication; (2) it forces the teacher to
organize and structure, to think about,what he or she is
doing and why he or she is doing it; (3) language experience
stimulates a perpetual growth--it is for all age~; (4) the
growth of language arts and reading skills are stimulated
through purposeful use; (5) it helps create independent,
autonomous readers because students learn how to master
reading as a process; and (6) it is not a method of teaching
limited to experienced teachers. Use of language experience
then can be a highly rewarding· experience for both teacher
and student.
Theoretical Foundation of the LEA
According to Smith, Otto, and Hansen (1978), all the
current theories of the reading process are nothing more
than approximations of a mysterious act that we do not
understand. Nevertheless, knowledge of the reading process
is an important aspect of tee~hing. It helps to develop an
undeLstanding of what is going on in the mind of a person
who is reading and helps to expand an awareness of
philosophies that have governed the formation of reading
 Application
11
materials.
In reviewing the literature, it seems that the
interactive process model of reading provides the theoretical
foundation of the language experience approach. This model
is best described as a problem-solving process. It consists
of a combination of the botton-up and top-down process
models. The botton-up process is a text-bound, text-driven
model in which receding is an important aspect while the top-
down process is a concept-bound, concept-driven model in which
comprehension is the key element.
The process begins with the reader's interaction with the
thoughts and language of the author. The reader attempts to
understand the author's meaning by using his or her own
knowledge of language and experiences as a foundation.
The first strategy employed by the reader is the
predicting stra~egy. During this stage, the reader uses
graphophonic, syntactic, and semantic cues to make tentative
decisions about what is to come next in the reading.
The second strategy, confirming, occurs as predictions
are made. At this point, the reader tests the hypotheses to
see if they are meaningful. Goodman and Burke (1980) state
that readers ask themselves two questions to test their
predictions: Does this sound like language to me? and does
this make sense to me? If the reader answers yes, he/she
continues to read. If the reader answers no, he/she can
choose several options: (1) stop and rethink the problem;
(2) reread and attempt to pick up more ~ues; (3) continue
reading to builu up additional context; or (4) stop reading
because the material is too difficult.
Integrating is the last strategy which allows the reader
 Application
12
to connect the purpose for reading and the relationship of
what is being read to his or her view of the world. As a
result of the integrating strategy, the .reader may choose to
accept, deny, or change his or her view.
Rude and Oehlkers (1984) state that the LEA is
sufficiently flexible to provide for both top-down and
bottom-up processing. To help students acquire a sight
vocabulary, to teach them to take advantage of context in
identifying and remembering words, and to help them
develop fluency in reading simple material are three noted
objectives of the LEA. All of these objectives require
the use of the predicting, confirming, and integrating
strategies of the interactive process model of reading.
In the LEA, according to Cohn (1984) , language and
subject familiarity assists the learner in sampling and
drawing upon syntactic and semantic information to better
understand what is being read and thereby to predict from
the reading matter enough to confirm a guess as to what is
coming next. Integrating occurs most naturally because
of the reader's participation in development of the text.
In summary, the theoretical basis for the LEA suggests
that reading is a constant interaction between the thoughts
and language of the author and reader. The LEA is a method
of reading instruction which simplifies the process by
combining the role of writer and reader into one. As stated
by Marino (cited in Vacca, 1980), the reader is freed from
the necessity of finding a match between his or he~

experience and the experi~~ce of the author because his or

her own language and knowledge of the world has been employed.
The resulting materials used to enhance reading instruction
 Application
13
facilitate reading success.
 Application
14
Chapter III: Design of the Study
Purpose
The purpose of this paper was to determine the
effectiveness of the language experience approach for
teaching reading and writing skills to functionally
illiterate high school students who had been identified
as learning disabled.
Method
To carry out the purposes of this paper, two types
of tests were administered; a norm-referenced test and a
criterion-referenced test. A comparison of pre- and
posttest scores were made to verify gains.
Subjects
Twenty-one 9th-grade high school students who had
been identified as learning disabled by a school psychologist
participated. There were seven girls and fourteen boys
ages fifteen to sixteen. The study was conducted during
a class entitled Learning Strategies, in which improvement
of reading and study skills are primary objectives.
Materials
To determine entrance level reading ability of the
students, the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (1976), brown
level, form A was administered as a pretest. To determine
the effects of language experience, the Stanford Diagnostic
Reading Test (1976), brown level, form B was used as a
posttest. Both internal consistency reliability and
alternate-form reliability coefficients are provided in the
manual. The reliability coefficients range from .90 to .97
and from .75 to .89 respectively, depending upon the subtest
analyzed. The test is considered to have content validity
 Application
15
because it is measuring common objectives of reading
programs throughout the country.
Writing skills, the second proposed area positively
affected by the use of the language experience approach,
was pre- and posttested with a criterion-referenced
measurement developed by Schumaker and Sheldon (1985) .
This evaluative tool, the Sentence Writing Strategy Pretest,
was developed to provide teachers with an instrument for
quantifying students' writing skills in terms of ability to
produce simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex
sentences. The test was selected for use because three
scores could be obtained: the percentage of simple, compound,
complex, and compound-complex sentences produced correctly;
the percentage of compound, complex, and compound-complex
sentences produced correctly; and the percentage of the
three complicated types of sentences produced and punctuated
correctly.
Procedure
Pretesting. The pretesting of the Stanford Diagnostic
Reading Test, or SDRT, was done over a three day period with
the 21 students to determine which students would be part of
the experimental group. The results of the subtests; auditory
vocabulary, reading comprehension, and reading rate were
analyzed in terms of stanines. Those students whose stanines
fell below four were identified as illiterate in reading
ability. Although the phonetic and structural analysis
subtests were administered, they were not considered in
determining whether a student was to be part of the
experimental group. Out of ten students in the experimental
group, seven had stanines below four. Of those selected
 Application
16
for the control group, four out of eleven students had
stanines below four,
The Sentence Writing Strategy Pretest, or SWSP, was
administered in one day. The students were provided with
a variety of topics and asked to s€lect one which interested
them. They were directed to write a minimum of six
sentences concerning their topic and to use a variety of
sentences including simple, compound, complex, and compound-
complex.
The results of the SWSP were used in conjunction with
the SDRT to determine literacy. According to Schumaker and
Sheldon (1985), students who score the following percentages
are considered adequate sentence writers: (1) Complete
sentences-simple, compound, complex, compound-complex: 100%;
(2) Complicated sentences-compound, complex, compound-
complex: 50%1 and (3) complicated sentences punctuated
correctly: 66% .. Those students who scored below 70% in
area one, were identified as possible candidates for the
experimental group.
Statistics. Although a variety of statistics are
generated from administration of the SDRT, stanines and
percentile ranks were used for comparative purposes of
this study. Stanines are derived scores which facilitate
grouping of students in terms of above-average (stanines
7, 8, 9), average (stanines 4, 5, 6), and below-average
(stanines 1, 2, 3). Percentile ranks give a student's
rAlative position and provides for both intra- and
interindividual comparisons. In other words, each
subtest can be compared with other 9th~graders and the
scores in each subtest can be compared with each other.
 Application
17
The Experimental and Control Group. The control
group continued development of reading and writing skills
through use of the Reader's Digest Educational Division-
Reader's Workshop I (1974). A minimum of two skill cards
in areas of dictionary usage, definitions, main idea,
recall, sentence analysis, writer's purpose, sequence, and
other reading skills were completed daily. The cards were
graded according to percentage correct and feedback was
provided concerning areas of weaknesses.
The experimental group received instruction using the
language experience approach as described in the next
section. A minimum of 40 minutes was devoted to this
approach daily. The students were not required to work in
the Reader's Digest Workshop I or on any other extraneous
reading activities.
The Language Experience Approach. The language
experience approach, or LEA, can be done either individually
or in a group situation, but the objectve of this paper
was to demonstrate the procedure to be used in group
instruction. More specifically, the procedure described
here has been designed for use with a group of high school
students identified as learning disabled.
Initially, it is. beneficial for the teacher to conduct
an interest inventory through group discussion to determine
common interests among the group. Once this has been
completed, the teacher initiates the procedure by providing
stimulus for the students. The stimulus can be a list of
topics, a picture, a series of pictures, or a magazine or
newspaper article (read to the group by the teacher)
relating to an area of interest. Students are then asked
 Application
18
to give their comments. As each student speaks, the
teacher selects key words and writes these on the board.
After opportunity has been given for each student to
contribute to the discussion, the key words are reviewed.
If any student suggests additional key words that a~e

pertinent, they are added.

Next, the students are asked to think about a story
they would like to write which would be related to the
stimulus and key words. To facilitate the recording of
ideas in a logical sequence, the students work on developing
an outline. The outline may take on any form. The
standard form uses Roman numerals, capital letters, and
arabic numerals in which each are indented respectively.
An organizational sheet may have a list of question words
for which the details of the story will provide the answers.
Or the teacher may decide to map out a series of boxes so
that the students can sequentially order events which they
envision will occur in their story. Learning to condense
thoughts into a few words will help students identify phrases
around which to build sentences.
When the students, individually, have completed their
outline or organizational sheet, they read the product to
themselves and then aloud to the teacher. At this point,
the student and teacher discuss the information; any hazy
areas are refined and any that need additional information
are expanded. Spelling is also corrected.
The students are now prepared to write a first draft of
their individual stories. When this draft is completed, the
student first reads it silently, then aloud to the teacher
and if the student wishes, he or she may read the story
 Application
19
to another student. At any time during these readings,
the student may elect to make changes but the teacher
should not stifle attempts at written language by
controlling vocabulary, sentence length, dialectal or
syntactical language. It is deemed necessary though, to
correct spelling.
When the student is satisfied with the first draft,
the final copy is rewritten. Again, the student checks
the copy first by silent reading, then an oral reading to
the teacher. The students' stories are now ready for
"publication". The final drafts are reproduced for use as
class reading activities.
Once this initial activity has been completed by at
least two students, the structure of the class may appear
chaotic but it is in fact at this point that the class
becomes involved in shared learning. As published copies
become available, each student selects a story written
by one of their classmates or themselves. They read the
story silently and then seek out the author. The author
reads the story aloud to the student. The student offers
comments to the author and changes are made if needed.
The student is now prepared to create a word bank.
The student rereads the story and notes any words which
have caused difficulty. On one side of a 3" x 5" index
card, the student writes the word and author of the story.
On the other side, the student copies the sentence in which
the word is used. This is required so that the student
will havb context clues available for future reference.
All word cards are alphabetized and maintained for use in
later stories.
 Application
20
The student now places the story in his or her
folder and obtains a cloze activity from the teacher.
When completed, the cloze act~vity is self-corrected,
students add any words that were particularly difficult
to their word bank, and seek any needed assistance.
The teacher now listens to the student read the
story aloud and asks several comprehension questions. If
the teacher determines that the student has made sufficient
progress, the student may select another story and repeat
the process. If the student needs additional help with
the story, the teacher applies one or several of the
following options: (1) ask the author to read the story
on tape so that the student may reread and listen to the
story; (2) supply a sentence by sentence copy of the story
in which key words are omitted that the student must find
in the story and complete; (3) supply written comprehension
questions so the student may use context clues for
understanding; or (4) provide strategies and activities
for decoding hard-to-read words.
When students' interests begin to wane with this first
story, the teacher may decide to cease activities with this
story and start new "publications". A new stimulus is
provided and the process continues. A word bank is now
available to select words for new stories.
Throughout the discussions, completion of outlines,
and story writings, students can and should be encouraged
to assist each other. This often provides ~ supportive
atmosphere for the group.
The results of a stimulus discussion.does not always
need to be a story. The teacher may elect to guide the
 Application
21
students in one of many directions to expand the writing
experiences. Mallett (cited in Vacca, 1980) mentions
these activities for intermediate and junior high school
students: (1) writing and producing a play; (2) creating
a radio program; (3) make a class newspaper; (4) writing
a letter to the editor; (5) writing captions for pictures;
(6) evaluating advertisements; (7) making up advertisements;
(8) writing a horoscope; (9) writing an "Ann Landers"
column; (10) making up a petition; (11) writing a diary;
or (12) creating a map "of your life".
The group oriented procedure of the LEA allows the
students to learn, read, and write about areas of mutual
interest without confinement to specific books or
worksheets. Acknowledgement for ideas in the procedure
presented go to Russell G. Stauffer (1970), Regina L. Cohn
(1981), and John T. Becker (1972).
 Application
22
Chapter IV: Results
Purpose
The purpose of this paper was to determine the
effectiveness of the language experience approach for
teaching reading and writing skills to functionally
illiterate high school students who were identified as
learning disabled.
Subjects
Twenty-one 9th-grade high school students who had
been identified as learning disabled by a school
psychologist participated. Seven girls and fourteen
boys ages fifteen to sixteen were involved in the study
that was conducted from March 1987 to June 1987 during a
class entitled Learning Strategies, in which improvement
of reading and writing skills are primary objectives.
Materials
The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (1976), or SDRT,
brown level, form A was administered as a pretest to
determine entrance level reading ability. To posttest and
to judge the effectiveness of language experience, the
SDRT, brown level, form B was administered. The SDRT
provided scores in five reading skill areas.
Concurrently, the criterion-referenced measurement, the
Sentence Writing Strategy Pretest (1985), or SWSP, was used
as a pre- and posttest to quantify students' writing skills.
The writing skills were measured in terms of ability to
produce simple, compound, complex, and com~ound-complex

sentences.
Results
A comparison of the pre- and posttest scores of the
 Application
23
SDRT was done by averaging the stanines of the control
and experimental groups respectively. The resulting
stanines, which are derived scores that facilitate
grouping in terms of above-average (stanines 7, 8, 9),
average (stanines 4, 5, 6), and below-average (stanines
1, 2, 3), are provided in Table 1.
Data resulting from the administration of the SWSP
is shown in Table 2. The SWSP g~nerated three percentage
scores for each student. The average of these
percentages for the control and experimental groups
respectively are given.
Table 1
Mean Stanines of SDRT Subtests for Brown Level, Form A and B

Control Group Experimental Group

Form A Form B Form A Form B
3/87 6/87 3/87 6/87

Phonetic Analysis 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.6

Structural Analysis 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.4
Auditory Vocabulary 5.0 4.6 3.1 2.6
Reading Comprehension 3.9 4.0 2.9 2.7
Reading Rate 3.6 3.7 2.9 2.7
 Application
24
Table 2
Average Percentages of the SWSP

Control Group Experimental Group

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
3/87 6/87 3/87 6/87

1. Simple, compound,
complex, & compound- 64 53 42 71
complex sentences
2 . Compound, complex,
& compound-complex 9 6 4 10
sentences

3. Compound, complex,
& compound-complex
30 22 10 10
sentences punctuated
correctly

Discussion
An analysis of the mean stanines of the SDRT indicate no
significant improvement or loss for either group during the
three month period that the study was conducted. The subtests
show that the groups each maintained an average or below-
average status respectively.
Conversely, average percentages of the SWSP show
significant gains in the sentence writing ability of the
experimental group. In area one, this group gained 29
percentage points as opposed to a gain of 11 percentage
points for the control group. In area two, the gain was
6 opposed to 3 and in area three the average stayed the
same for the experimental group while it dropped 8
 Application
25
percentage points for the control group.
In summary, the implementation of the language
experience approach produced· no significant gains or
losses in reading ability but did result in substantial
improvement of writing ability for the experimental group.
The control group, on the other hand, who were provided
instruction through the use of a commercial reading
kit, maintained average reading ability but demonstrated
a significant loss in writing skills.
 Application
26
Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations
It is evident that the use of the language experience
approach, or LEA, can be successful for teaching reading
and writing skills to functionally illiterate high school
students who have been identified as learning disabled.
Rather than detached skill instruction such as that provided
by the Reader's Workshop I, the LEA integrates skills such
as the use of syntactic cues, basic receding, acquisition
of sight vocabulary, capitalization, punctuation, and the
importance of semantics when writing. Beyond this
integration of skills, the LEA is most effective in
contributing to ~ positive self-esteem and cooperative
environment in which students rely on and enjoy working
with each other.
Several factors can be attributed to the fact that the
mean stanine averages on the SDRT posttest showed no
significant gains or losses for the experimental group.
First, instruction was interrupted twice during the three
month period of implementation; one week for spring
vacation 'and one week for county-wide standardized testing.
These factors disturbed the flow and structure of instruction
which had to be revived each time. If the instruction
period had been six months to a year, these interruptions
would probably not have effected the momentum. Second, the
students were not exposed to a variety of specific
reading skill activities due to the time element. Most
often, comprehension skills were covered through the use of
the cloze procedure and questioning activities but time
did not allow for other skill areas to be sufficiently
developed. The third and final factor can be associated
 Application
27
with a characteristic of the SDRT; the fill-in-the-bubble
type answer sheet. It has been observed that, typically,
learning disabled students dislike this format because
it requires additional concentration that distracts from
the test items.
Although the control group demonstrated some minor
improvements in several subtests of the SDRT, none were
significant. Moreover, the SWSP showed a marked reduction
in sentence writing ability for this group. Consequently,
the use of the Reader's Workshop I proved to be an
ineffective tool for teaching reading and writing skills.
The LEA, on the other hand, proved to be successful
in improving the sentence writing ability of the
experimental group. The average percentage of complete
simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences
increased from 42% to 71% while it decreased from 64% to
53% for the control group.
Moreover, the students involved with language
experience developed a cooperative atmosphere. They
·monitored each other's writing before presenting it to
the teacher. This joint effort resulted in not only better
written material, but a mutual understanding of individual
differences and a sensitivity toward peers. The students
rarely insulted another's work and more often than not
provided constructive criticism that was readily accepted.
For future use of the LEA with high school students
identified as learning disabled, the following
recommendations should be considered: (1) time, (2) the
generation of a variety of reading skill activities, (3) an
audience for the students' written materials, and (4) the
 Application
28
use of computer software designed to generate the written
text and reading skill activities so that the teacher has
more time for individual instruction.
It is suggested that at least one year be devoted to
instruction using the LEA in order for its benefits to be
fully realized. This minimum is proposed so that the
students have ample time to increase their reading skills
and thereby become confident enough to expand their
writing by creating texts for audiences other than
classroom peers. For example, the students might
contribute to the school newspaper, or write stories or
plays that could be presented to elementary school
children. The possibilities are infinite.
The final recommendation involves the purcbase of
computer software which has a word processor and is capable
of generating word lists and reading skill activities for
individual students. Such software is available through
The Graduate School, University of New Orleans, AD 205,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 70148. It is titled, LEAP I.
Used efficiently, computer software can free the teacher
to use valuable student time more effectively.
 Application
29
References
Becker, J. T. (1972). Language experience attack on
adolescent literacy. Journal of Reading, ~' 115-119.

Burmeister, L. (1983). Foundations and strategies for

teaching children to read. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cohn, R. L. (1981, April). Experiences to reading. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the International
Reading Association, New Orleans, LA.

Collins-Cheek, M. & Cheek, E. H., Jr. (1984). Diagnostic-

prescriptive reading instruction. Dubuque, IA: Wm.
c. Brown.
Goodman, Y. M., & Burke, c. (1980). Reading strategies: A
focus on comprehension. New York, NY: Richard c. Owens.

Harste, J., & Stephens, D. (1986). Literacy in the secondary

special education classroom. Theory Into Practice, ~'
128-133.

Karlsen, B., Madden, R., & Gardner, E. F. (1976). Stanford

Diagnostic Reading Test. New Y10trk, NY: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.

Krening, N. (1983, April). Language experience ... fact and

fiction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Council English, Seattle, WA.

Lipson, A. M. (1986). Can illiteracy be prevented? Academic

Therapy, ~' 591-597.

Mallett, W. G. (1980). Language experience activities for the

intermediate and junior high school student. The Journal
of Language Experience, ~' 45-48.

Reader's Digest Educational Division-Reader's Workshop I.

(1974). Pleasantville, NY: Educational Development.

Rude, R. T., & Oehlkers, W. J. (1984). Helping students

with reading problems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
 Application

30

Schumaker, J. B. , & Sheldon, J .· ( 19·8 5) . The sentence

writing strategy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.

Smith, R. J., Otto, W., & Hansen, L. (1978). The school

reading program. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Stauffer, R. G. (1970). The language-experience approach

to the teaching of reading. New York, NY: Harper-Row.

Wangberg, E. G. (1986). An interactive, language experience

based microcomputer approach to reduce adult illiteracy.
Lifelong Learning, 1, 8-12.
Webster's new world dictionary. (1974). Cleveland, OH:
Collins-World.