Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
DT>CB>The fact that there are also  many who *do* teach those skills 
DT>CB>does not deny that there are many who  don't.
DT>
DT>I must admit that I am beginning to see this picture as well.
Thank you.  That is what I am trying to get at.  Whole language is a 
process that is not well defined and, when it includes the complete 
rejection of word-attack skills as a teaching strategy, it costs many 
children the chance to become good readers.
Perhaps some of the confusion comes from the founders of the whole 
language process themselves...
     "The term "whole language" was coined by Dr. Kenneth Goodman
     of the University of Arizona in the early 1980's. Whole language
     developed into much more than just a reading program. It is an
     educational philosophy in its own right, like OBE. It attempts
     to cover the whole gamut of language learning, including
     reading, writing and speaking.  Much of the philosophy is
     derived from that used in developmentally appropriate practices
     teaching.  Parts of whole language have been shown to be of
     value, but the methods used for actually learning to read are a
     major point of debate. Goodman believed that learning written
     language occurs naturally, in the same way we acquire spoken
     language. He thought children could learn to read primarily
     by figuring out the meaning of words from an analysis of the
     context in which they occurred.  Good readers don't read word
     by word, Goodman argued, "[t]hey construct meaning from the
     [entire] text. Indeed, accuracy is not an essential goal of
     reading"
In the above paragraph, taken from a previously posted article, "What Is 
Whole Language?", it seems clear that Goodman's main focus is not on 
phonics instruction.
DT>I think that work sheets tend to isolate specific skills and provide an 
DT>artificial experience.
I think that you are using a very narrow definition of "work sheets," 
but even if I were to agree with you, the notion that teaching a subject 
by breaking complex processes down into specific skills, then assembling 
those skills into the whole (convergent thinking) is a legitimate 
instructional technique.  Certainly, not all children learn best that 
way, but many do.  I see nothing artificial about this process.
DT>Children learn better through experiences that are meaningful.
Don't we all .  But if we only taught children what is meaningful to 
them at any given time and not what we know, as older and wiser adults, 
to be skills that they will need later in life, we might as well adopt 
the Illich plan of abandoning formal schooling and let everyone fend for 
him/herself.
DT>If I want to teach spelling I can provide a list of spelling words, 
DT>test, study, and then retest.  I was taught in college that this is the 
DT>best way to teach spelling.  But children who score well on spelling 
DT>tests don't always spell correctly on written work.
Are you sure that they don't at least spell *better* than those who do 
orly?
DT>However if I want to teach the long or shout vowel sounds, consonant 
DT>digraphs.  We could read a story such as *Where* *The* *Wild* 
DT>*Things* *Are*  by Marice Sendack and use it for phonics and word 
DT>studies.  This sort of activity is far more meaningful and lasting 
DT>than a spelling test. (I equate this with a work sheet)
You say this as if they were exclusionary practices.  Why can't you do 
both?  We did when I was in school.  Maybe there's some value in each.  
Again, a good subject for some research.
DT>Children who don't understand this concept yet will draw lines from a 
DT>letter to a picture with no understanding of what they are doing.  They 
DT>have learned nothing.
Is there a teacher in the classroom?  For those who did the matching and 
understood it, they had a skill reinforced (and certainly one does not 
want to over do the practice of skills the children have already 
mastered).  For those who *didn't* understand the process, then it's 
time for the teacher to sit one-on-one with the child to do some further 
instruction.

Thanks for your posting.  I didn't ask for a clarification just so I 
could rip apart everything you had to say - certainly if we have 
teachers who teach children to read without any word attack skills, 
there were previously some who badly overused the drill and work sheet 
approach.
My position is simply that there is nothing wrong with the occasional 
work sheet, whether it's on a sheet of paper or on a computer, for 
practice, reinforcement and evaluation.  To deny this as a tool is to 
limit your instructional options and reduce your effectiveness.
DT>ok...Im done now...  
I don't think so. ;-)  When I logged in to grab this mail, it looked 
like you had several more messages in the packet to me.
___
* UniQWK #5290* 'twit *.*' typed the moderator, smiling...
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------