Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
DT>I think it would be interesting to see reliable research data the shows 
DT>how a heavy dose of phonics instruction leads to good reading skills.  I
DT>don't think phonics alone will lead to good reading ability.  I also am 
DT>willing to bet there is evidence to show that phonics instruction really
DT>isn't necessary for teaching decoding skills, at least in the heavy 
DT>doses you suggest.  Our language is not that phonetically predictable.  
DT>Many argue this point and suggest that there is about an 85% 
DT>predictability.  I think it's more accurate to suggest about 50%.  We 
DT>have many peculiarities regarding spelling that make it difficult, if 
DT>not impossible, to phonetically decode words at 85%.  (Mind you I'm 
talking 
DT>off the top of my head here.....going out on a limb for sake of 
DT>discussion being careful not to venture too far so the limb won't break 
DT>).
I was going to suggest that the crux of our disagreement was a matter of 
degree until you suggested that heavy doses of phonics were not 
necessary.  I believe that phonics instruction should be a strong 
component of any reading program.  Not the entire program, mind you, 
but a big part of it.  I wish I had both the time and the energy to 
research all of this further, but I do not.
DT>One thing that troubles me is that I think you could check with some 
DT>"reliable" research that suggests one thing and I could check with some 
DT>"reliable" research that suggests another.  For example, I have heard 
DT>conflicting statements made regarding phonics instruction.
I'm sure there is some conflicting research.  Reading each study in 
detail to determine the reliability of the experiment takes a LOT of time.
DT>Another thing that troubles me is the confidence one can put in research
DT>that would suggest WL the culprit for the poor showing in reading skills
DT>among the nation's schools.  How could one factor like WL, especially 
DT>considering the multitude of factors that any study would have to keep 
DT>separate, be isolated to the degree needed to conclude it the root cause
DT>of declining reading skills?  (I hope that sentence made sense)
I'm not sure that WL can be ruled to be the culprit without a doubt.  
From what I have read, the balance of the studies tips toward WL being 
the culprit, BUT those studies need to be repeated, and repeated again.  
If *anything* is going to tip the scales, it will be the larger 
experiments - e.g., California and Great Britain.  The mere size of the 
samples involved is liable to wash out any other factors.
DT>Forget WL for a moment.  The question I would like to ask seems more to 
DT>the point.  "What are the current practices of those districts where 
DT>reading scores are declining?"  If someone just answers "Whole language"
DT>that tell us nothing.  Next question:  "What does this district think 
DT>are the many components of a good reading program?"  The answer to this 
DT>question will tell us more than a simple "whole language" answer.  I 
DT>think it's more important to focus on the specific components of a 
DT>district's reading program.  
You're probably right.  We've seen that you utilize some word-attack 
instruction in your reading program and some do not.  Talking about 
generic WL is confusing.
DT>I know that you say "pure" WL does not include phonics instruction.  I 
DT>am sure that you found this information from reliable sources.  Yet, 
DT>isn't is puzzling that I have quoted, from WL sources, a contradiction 
DT>to that very idea?  
Yes.  Is this not all due to the fact that whole language is a 
philosophy and not a process (your words, I believe)?  It is interpreted 
in many different fashions by many different states, districts and teachers.
DT>Whole language instruction utilizes the best research based knowledge 
DT>regarding learning theory.  Many of these ideas are new and confusing to
DT>teachers who have "been around."  I will gather a few book title names 
DT>that not only attempt to explain what WL theory really believes, but 
DT>also shows where the ideas for these beliefs originated.
Okay.
DT>Many people, including myself, think that WL developed in Australia or 
DT>New Zealand.  I haven't been able to confirm this as of yet, but in that
DT>recent reading workshop I attended I asked about this question and was 
DT>told that it really was Nova Scotia.  
Based on what I have read, it seems that work was going on in many 
different locations at the same time.  It's quite possible that the 
philosophy is somewhat different based on the locale.
Later!
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* All answers questioned here.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------