CHARLES BEAMS Class Size Over-Rated DAN TRIPLETT 07-26-96
CB>Quotes are taken from a message written by Dan to Charles on
CB>07/21/96...  
CB>DT>Actually Whole Language is a theory that developed as a result of 
CB>DT>findings from psycholinguistics (such as Kenneth Goodman's 1968 
CB>DT>*Psycholinguistic* *Nature* *Of* *The* *Reading* *Process* ), 
CB>DT>sociolinguistics, emergent literacy researchers (Marie Clay of New
CB>DT>Zealand was a researcher whose work first appeared in the 1960's),
CB>DT>and  other educational researchers.
CB> 
CB>I have a folder around somewhere in which I've collected a number of 
CB>articles on the subject and I was too lazy to dig it all out.  Just
CB>goes  to show, I should not have relied on my memory. 
I had to look some things up as well.  Don't have the stuff memorized 
but am familiar with the material.
CB> 
CB>DT>From the time the concept of "Whole Language" was developed, there
CB>DT>has been a plethora of research supporting and expanding the ideas
CB>DT>of  the Whole Language approach to literacy development.
CB> 
CB>I have read many more articles opposing Whole Language than I have 
CB>supporting it, but maybe that's just where I'm looking.
I would be interested in hearing about the ideas in these articles.  I 
am supposing there are some legitimate concerns over various practices. 
One that comes to mine is invented spelling.  I have seen how children 
will invent spelling as they do independent writings and as they mature 
as writers they begin to spell words correctly.  Some teachers do not 
teach spelling and there has been some concern that children will grow 
up not knowing how to spell.  What are some of the opposing arguments?  
 
CB>DT>Is it any wonder that scores would decline.  In 1984 R. C.
CB>DT>Auckerman  published _Approaches_ _To_ _Beginning_ _Reading_ which
CB>DT>documented 165  methods, approaches, and systems for teaching
CB>DT>beginning reading!   Research studies has produced conflicting
CB>DT>evidence as to the best method of reading instruction.
CB> 
CB>As Ron McDermott has expressed in another thread, a significant
CB>portion  of the research done in education is poorly designed, so
CB>this is not  surprising.
I don't think I agree with "significant portion" but I do agree with 
your point.
CB> 
CB>DT>Whole Language, as you know, is not a system but more a
CB>DT>perspective  of reading instruction that is compatible with the
CB>DT>psycholinguistic  view of the reading process.
 
CB>What?  Is that ever a great example of "eduspeak!"  Let's see you 
CB>explain THAT quote to the parents .
It would be "eduspeak" if it weren't a true statement.  Actually I have 
"educated"  many parents regarding the whole language perspective on 
reading and language.  They are quite comfortable with the idea.  If one
relates it to learning language, WL makes perfect sense. 
  
CB>I shouldn't make assumptions, but what you seem to be  saying is that
CB>"Whole Language", as originally outlined, was more of an approach
CB>than a  "program" of reading skills to be used in the classroom.  I
CB>would  further assume that this implies that phonics skills were
CB>neither  promoted nor discouraged, but that each teacher, working
CB>with each  child, should teach the skills necessary to help that
CB>child learn to  read.  Yes?
You are probably right although I think there is a greater emphasis on 
teaching phonics now than there was when WL first came on the scene.  I 
think we have learned that the teaching of skills must be meaningful to 
kids but skills are still important.
cb> And that the major focus of the program
CB>was to promote  enjoyment of reading above the promotion of reading
CB>skills (a part of  the "psycho-" in your "psycholinguistic")?
I think the major focus was to keep the learning "natural" as opposed to
clinical.  As for enjoyment, you have hit on a very important aspect of 
Whole Language.
CB> 
CB>DT>Again, Whole Language is a theory or a "perspective" of literacy 
CB>DT>development and is not a "process" or a "program."  People who
CB>DT>describe  it the way you are suggesting don't really understand
CB>DT>what Whole  Language really is.
CB> 
CB>Ahhh!  But maybe they do!  It seems to me that, assuming your 
CB>interpretation of the original "concept" to be accurate, at some
CB>point  Whole Language DID get programmed.  Some interpretation of the
CB>"process"  was translated into a day-to-day operating system and sold
CB>to teachers  as the way to teach reading and to get kids to enjoy
CB>reading.  How else  to explain the near universal understanding of
CB>Whole Language as  promoting "Big Books", "reading" from memory and a
CB>de-emphasis of  spelling and phonics skills?  I am not alone in this
CB>perception and I  can produce reams of articles to prove it.
CB> 
I have to agree with you completely here.  As for Whole Language getting
"programmed" this is a concern of mine.  There are curriculum packages 
that one can buy that are being touted as "Whole Language."  I don't 
need a program (and I haven't used one in 7 years...but then I teach 
kindergarten and that is a different arena) to teach reading.  If I had 
a WL curriculum I would might use it but only as a guide and not as my 
"bible".  Just because a curriculum package is being sold as Whole 
Language doesn't make it one.  I am opposed to work books and work 
sheets (not entirely but since I don't believe that one can learn a 
skill from a worksheet my reason for using a worksheet would not be 
skill development.  As for using worksheets for enrichment, maybe....but 
worksheets can be over used and lead to chronic worksheetitus ).  
Using worksheets depends on the objective.   
 
CB>If few people can understand it and apply it, then what good is it?
CB>As  Ron and I have discussed in the thread on class size, a study (or
CB>program or concept) can only be of value if its results can be 
CB>replicated.  Maybe THAT is one of its weaknesses - that and the fact 
CB>that many teachers stopped teaching reading skills in the name of
CB>making  reading fun.
The teaching of reading skills is important to a well rounded Whole 
Language classroom.  When WL first was introduced some educators assumed
that teaching strategies such as whole word or phonics were to be 
eliminated.  We know that not to be the case.  But there still is some 
debate on this point. (If only they would listen to me!  
    
CB> 
CB>DT>CB>I think phonics instruction, spelling instruction and
CB>DT>CB>instruction in word-recognition skills should  be an important
CB>DT>part of that program. 
CB>DT>They are and Whole Language studies would agree with you (to the
CB>DT>degree  that a "reading program" was not built on such ideas but
CB>DT>were a part of  the concept of literacy development.
CB> 
CB>The common perception of Whole Language among the teachers I know
CB>worked with that  it early-on differs from yours on this point.  They
CB>worked with have  professionaly written Whole Language programs that
CB>also  differ with your interpretation.  I can't explain who is
CB>mis-guided  here, but only that most programs developed from the
CB>concept that I have  seen or had contact with have discouraged
CB>phonics and spelling at least  through the 3rd or 4th grade level.
That's too bad.  It would seem to me that such programs that discourage 
the teaching of phonics and spelling are the ones mis-guided.  The 
material I have read (as recently as 1990 in my Master's program 
textbook) and workshops within the last several years paint a different 
picture.  Skills are not emphasized, but they are not eliminated either.
 
Dan Triplett
dtriplett@juno.com
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------