SHEILA KING spoke of Whole Language 1      1/ to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-02-
96
SK>-> I don't think that there has been research on Whole Language in
SK>-> the way that you or Chuck may be
SK>-> suggesting.  Whole language is based on many studies.  Whole
SK>-> language is the philosophy that sprang from these studies (or
SK>-> research).  If whole language were a methodology then it could be
SK>-> studied.  It is not a methodology.  It is a way of thinking or a
SK>-> foundation that drives ones educational philosophy.
SK>I wonder that research couldn't still be conducted on Whole Language,
SK>even though it is a philosophy and not a methodology. The important
SK>thing would be a control group and measuring through some instrument
SK>before and after what the effects had been.
But it _is_ research based.  The philosophy grew out of research.  I do 
believe that one can conduct a study that would show the validity of WL 
view of learning.  In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that such studies 
have been conducted.  I am hoping to find some.  I think they are needed 
to support the ideas of WL and gain public acceptance.  
SK>As you write, you doubt there is research of this type on Whole
SK>Language. If so (and this is what the AFT writes), then this is too
SK>bad and someone should correct the situation. 
I did say that there may not be research in the way you suggest.  But 
invented (transitional) spelling is a researched based idea and did not 
spring up just because someone thought it was a cool thing to do in the 
classroom.  Researchers consistently observe a pattern of spelling 
development when children are given the opportunity to write in early 
childhood classrooms.  If the observations are consistent, isn't this a 
valid practice?  Also, spelling is "transitional" and spelling in these 
students have been seen to improve over time (by grade 3) and correct 
spelling is emphasized in the editing process (like the real world).  
Whole Language
SK>advocates would only have more evidence to support their claims and
SK>have an easier time convincing skeptics with scientifically conducted
SK>research supporting their claims.
If you get ahold of Brian Cambourn's books they may shed some light on 
the subject of research.  I am trying to find out what is out there as 
well.  I have yet to contact the Center for the improvement of Learning 
which I am told has some material of interest.  There are some other 
book titles I'm looking into as well.
SK>As you wrote in a previous message, you yourself are not on the far
SK>right of the WL continuum. But I have dialogued with teachers who
SK>are, I've read articles about and by such teachers, and a lot of them
SK>are doing crazy things in their classroom and damaging kids. Maybe
SK>they aren't practicing the Whole Language philosophy "correctly" as
SK>you would say, and I agree that this is very likely. Nevertheless, it
SK>goes on.
I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to but would like to 
hear about them.  I don't doubt such things exist.  I would also argue 
that since the birth of public education there have been many "crazy" 
ideas that individual teachers or districts have adopted.
SK>My main point in this conversation is that (1) I wanted to understand
SK>better the definition of Whole Language. I think that has been
SK>accomplished. I still think that there are wide discrepancies in the
SK>field of education on how one teacher vs. another may define it, but
SK>I've learned a lot about it in this discussion. (2) to find out if
SK>Whole Language is really beneficial, damaging, or neutral in teaching
SK>students how to read vs. more traditional instruction. In order to be
SK>convinced on this one, I would want to see real scientific research
SK>on the matter. I suppose we may not resolve the second issue here.
I have one for you....show how "traditional" teaching methods produce 
results where children are learning to read etc.  Not every teacher in 
America is using WL philosophies.  From where are the children coming 
from who have reading deficits?  I have read articles where traditional 
teaching methods have been a failure as well.  Are you suggesting that 
when we were once a nation of "traditional" teachers we were doing a 
better job educationally?  Current research data does not support this 
view I don't think....
Keep those card and letters coming!
Dan
SK>Sheila
SK>--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
Pardon Me For Jumping In....but I just had to say.....
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------