CHARLES BEAMS spoke of Whole Language 3 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-02-96
CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
CB> 
CB>DT>It not my purpose here to "convert" anyone to WL but to challenge
CB>DT>what I  consider misconceptions regarding the theory.  I would be
CB>DT>interest in  learning more of Great Britain's WL woes.
CB> 
CB>About a year ago, an article on whole language appeared in Teacher 
CB>Magazine.  I saved it out someplace, but can no longer find it.  It
CB>used  a lot of data from Great Britain, which is abandoning whole
CB>language  after a ten-year national experiment.  As with California,
CB>reading  scores in GB declined consistently throughout the experiment
CB>and the  national curriculum now requires heavy doses of phonics.
CB>(I'll keep  looking for the article.)
I think it would be interesting to see reliable research data the shows 
how a heavy dose of phonics instruction leads to good reading skills.  I
don't think phonics alone will lead to good reading ability.  I also am 
willing to bet there is evidence to show that phonics instruction really
isn't necessary for teaching decoding skills, at least in the heavy 
doses you suggest.  Our language is not that phonetically predictable.  
Many argue this point and suggest that there is about an 85% 
predictability.  I think it's more accurate to suggest about 50%.  We 
have many peculiarities regarding spelling that make it difficult, if 
not
impossible, to phonetically decode words at 85%.  (Mind you I'm talking 
off the top of my head here.....going out on a limb for sake of 
discussion being careful not to venture too far so the limb won't break 
).
One thing that troubles me is that I think you could check with some 
"reliable" research that suggests one thing and I could check with some 
"reliable" research that suggests another.  For example, I have heard 
conflicting statements made regarding phonics instruction.
Another thing that troubles me is the confidence one can put in research
that would suggest WL the culprit for the poor showing in reading skills
among the nation's schools.  How could one factor like WL, especially 
considering the multitude of factors that any study would have to keep 
separate, be isolated to the degree needed to conclude it the root cause
of declining reading skills?  (I hope that sentence made sense)
Forget WL for a moment.  The question I would like to ask seems more to 
the point.  "What are the current practices of those districts where 
reading scores are declining?"  If someone just answers "Whole language"
that tell us nothing.  Next question:  "What does this district think 
are the many components of a good reading program?"  The answer to this 
question will tell us more than a simple "whole language" answer.  I 
think it's more important to focus on the specific components of a 
district's reading program.  
The next question to answer is "What are the teachers doing in their 
classrooms regarding reading instruction?"  If someone answers "Whole 
language" that tells us nothing.  If I say I am a whole language 
teacher, but I don't include literature based instruction in my reading 
program, I'm not a WL teacher.  WL is what it is.  If someone says they 
are WL but they are not applying pure WL ideas, then they simply are 
something else.
I know that you say "pure" WL does not include phonics instruction.  I 
am sure that you found this information from reliable sources.  Yet, 
isn't is puzzling that I have quoted, from WL sources, a contradiction 
to that very idea?  
Whole language instruction utilizes the best research based knowledge 
regarding learning theory.  Many of these ideas are new and confusing to
teachers who have "been around."  I will gather a few book title names 
that not only attempt to explain what WL theory really believes, but 
also shows where the ideas for these beliefs originated.
Many people, including myself, think that WL developed in Australia or 
New Zealand.  I haven't been able to confirm this as of yet, but in that
recent reading workshop I attended I asked about this question and was 
told that it really was Nova Scotia.  
Not that it's origins are important to the debate.  But correct 
information regarding WL practices and beliefs are important.  
 
Take care and I look forward to hearing more from you
Dan
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
Windows: Just another pane in the glass.
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------