CHARLES BEAMS spoke of The Real Story 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-01-96
CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
CB>Perhaps some of the confusion comes from the founders of the whole 
CB>language process themselves...
CB> 
CB>     "The term "whole language" was coined by Dr. Kenneth Goodman
CB>     of the University of Arizona in the early 1980's. Whole language
CB>     developed into much more than just a reading program. It is an
CB>     educational philosophy in its own right, like OBE. It attempts
CB>     to cover the whole gamut of language learning, including
CB>     reading, writing and speaking.  Much of the philosophy is
CB>     derived from that used in developmentally appropriate practices
CB>     teaching.  Parts of whole language have been shown to be of
CB>     value, but the methods used for actually learning to read are a
CB>     major point of debate. Goodman believed that learning written
CB>     language occurs naturally, in the same way we acquire spoken
CB>     language. He thought children could learn to read primarily
CB>     by figuring out the meaning of words from an analysis of the
CB>     context in which they occurred.  Good readers don't read word
CB>     by word, Goodman argued, "[t]hey construct meaning from the
CB>     [entire] text. Indeed, accuracy is not an essential goal of
CB>     reading"
CB> 
CB> 
CB>In the above paragraph, taken from a previously posted article, "What
CB>Is  Whole Language?", it seems clear that Goodman's main focus is not
CB>on  phonics instruction.
I think that is probably true in WL that phonics is not considered 
"foundational" to reading success.  I tend to agree with that.  I think 
this view is shared by many respected "WL theorists" (I don't know what 
else to call them so this is my phrase.  I refer to those that have 
published works regarding reading and WL).
CB>DT>I think that work sheets tend to isolate specific skills and
CB>DT>provide an  artificial experience.
CB> 
CB>I think that you are using a very narrow definition of "work sheets,"
Perhaps..but I used the word "tend" because I wanted to get away from a 
blanket statement.  
CB>but even if I were to agree with you, the notion that teaching a
CB>subject  by breaking complex processes down into specific skills,
CB>then assembling  those skills into the whole (convergent thinking) is
CB>a legitimate  instructional technique.  Certainly, not all children
CB>learn best that  way, but many do.  I see nothing artificial about
CB>this process.  
If you were more specific I could comment more here.  It would be 
artificial where a more concrete experience would accomplish the same 
things.  If I want to teach fractions I can do it abstractly on work 
sheets that "show" using diagrams certain examples about whole, half, 
fourths, and so on.  I also could provide manipulative that children 
could "touch" and "see" and manipulate in various way to create 
fractions that one can see.  Pattern blocks can accomplish this very 
well.  It might be well to use food such as a real pie (as opposed to a 
picture of a pie.)  
CB>DT>Children learn better through experiences that are meaningful.
CB> 
CB>Don't we all .  But if we only taught children what is meaningful
CB>to  them at any given time and not what we know, as older and wiser
CB>adults,  to be skills that they will need later in life, we might as
CB>well adopt  the Illich plan of abandoning formal schooling and let
CB>everyone fend for  him/herself.
I don't mean to teach only skills that children consider meaningful, I 
mean to teach those skills that we as older and wiser adults know they 
will need later in life in more meaningful ways.  Engage the learner!
CB> 
CB>DT>If I want to teach spelling I can provide a list of spelling
CB>DT>words,  test, study, and then retest.  I was taught in college
CB>DT>that this is the  best way to teach spelling.  But children who
CB>DT>score well on spelling  tests don't always spell correctly on
CB>DT>written work. 
CB>Are you sure that they don't at least spell *better* than those who
CB>do poorly?  
They may, but the point is that this approach, which seems to teach 
spelling, falls short.  What is the goal of these spelling tests if not 
to teach children how to spell correctly for their written work.
CB>DT>However if I want to teach the long or shout vowel sounds,
CB>DT>consonant  digraphs.  We could read a story such as *Where* *The*
CB>DT>*Wild*  *Things* *Are*  by Marice Sendack and use it for phonics
CB>DT>and word  studies.  This sort of activity is far more meaningful
CB>DT>and lasting  than a spelling test. (I equate this with a work
CB>DT>sheet) 
CB>You say this as if they were exclusionary practices.  Why can't you
CB>do  both?  We did when I was in school.  Maybe there's some value in
CB>each.   Again, a good subject for some research.
Agreed
CB> 
CB>DT>Children who don't understand this concept yet will draw lines
CB>DT>from a  letter to a picture with no understanding of what they are
CB>DT>doing.  They  have learned nothing.
CB> 
CB>Is there a teacher in the classroom?  For those who did the matching
CB>and  understood it, they had a skill reinforced (and certainly one
CB>does not  want to over do the practice of skills the children have
CB>already  mastered).  For those who *didn't* understand the process,
CB>then it's  time for the teacher to sit one-on-one with the child to
CB>do some further  instruction.
Here is where we part company.  If a child can do the work sheet, then 
they know the skill.  Doing the work sheet is a waste of time.  This 
child needs enrichment and not from a work sheet.  The child who cannot 
do the task shouldn't do the work sheet either because it is beyond 
their level of comprehension.  I am fully aware of the ability levels of 
the kids in my classroom.  I observe them in a variety of situations and
I do sit one-on-one with those who need individual instruction.  For me,
the work sheet part is unnecessary.  But I am speaking of this specific 
kind of work sheet and am not saying ALL work sheets.  Just ALL work 
worksheets of this type.  
CB> 
CB>My position is simply that there is nothing wrong with the occasional
CB>work sheet, whether it's on a sheet of paper or on a computer, for 
CB>practice, reinforcement and evaluation.  To deny this as a tool is to
CB>limit your instructional options and reduce your effectiveness.
This is probably more true for the upper grades I would think.
Dan
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
... If you just have to have the last word, make it Good-Bye!
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------