SHEILA KING Class Size Over-Rated DAN TRIPLETT 07-22-96
SK>-> Again, Whole Language is a theory or a "perspective" of literacy
SK>-> development and is not a "process" or a "program."  People who
SK>-> describe it the way you are suggesting don't really understand
SK>-> what Whole Language really is.
SK> 
SK>Why don't you explain it, then. I would be glad to hear more about
SK>it.  
I will try.  I have spent several years both as an undergraduate and on 
work toward my master's degree studying whole language.  Even with 7 
years experience in early childhood I am still learning.  It will be 
difficult to explain what is meant by "whole language" because the 
reader must have some understanding of certain terms.  If something I 
say is confusing, ask and I will try to clarify.   It is important to me 
that others would have a correct view of whole language -- what it is 
and what it is not.  Since books have been written about whole language, 
my post may be a bit inadequate.
*First:*
Educators, like other professionals, have developed "jargon" to describe 
what we do in our profession.  Whole Language simply is a term that is 
used to describe instruction that stems from extensive research of the 
natural acquisition and development of literacy.  Kenneth Goodman's 
research in the 60,s studied the "psycholinguistic nature of the reading 
process."  His purpose in researching was not to study instructional 
methods but the connection between thought (psyche) and language 
(linguistics) as it applies to the act of reading.  Other researchers 
were to follow Goodman and would verify and expand on Goodman's work.  
Such research led to the development of a Whole Language approach to 
literacy.  There are too many other researcher to mention but the work 
has been extensive.  A study of early childhood development and 
language/literacy acquisition would yield  a vast array of research 
material.  It would be evident from reading such research (going back to 
the beginning with the Goodman studies and Marie Clay of New Zealand 
whose work surfaced in the 60,s) that Whole Language sits on a solid 
research foundation.
It would be difficult to describe Whole Language in a few short 
sentences.  It is not a methodology or a program.  It is a perspective 
of language and literacy acquisition that includes listening, speaking, 
reading, and writing skills.  These elements of language/literacy are 
integrated into the classroom atmosphere and curriculum.  Whole language 
does NOT eliminate teaching strategies such as sight- or - whole word 
approach or phonics.  A literate classroom environment is created by 
incorporating the best tools available to the help teach the components 
of literacy. 
Components include: Language experience approach where children dictate 
thoughts to the teacher; sight-whole word and phonics; exposure to 
quality literature; daily reading aloud to the class from quality 
literature; a book corner in the room; games that help with memory 
practice and other skill development; children write about their own 
experiences, create stories and poems; the classroom is "print rich" 
(print in every area of the classroom) -- there are posters and other 
things that the children can "read;" socialization opportunities; drama; 
(others may be able to add to this list)
A whole language classroom is an environment where students are immersed 
in language --  both spoken and written, and there is an emphasis on 
listening, speaking, reading and writing.  The foundation of literacy is 
language so in an early childhood classroom there is an emphasis on 
language experiences (stories, songs, nursery rhymes), listening, 
talking, sharing ideas, drama).  All activities throughout the day offer 
opportunities for literacy development.
A basic skills curriculum is rejected in whole language because when 
language is broken down in small bits the meaning for young children is 
lost.  In whole language, the basic skills would be taught after many 
"whole" experiences.  For example, in my classroom when I want to teach 
a new song I simply sing it "whole."  I play the song throughout the day 
and with no effort the song is learned.  If actions go along with the 
song I could teach them after the whole is learned.  Unfamiliar 
vocabulary would be important to learn and any words in the song that 
could be unfamiliar would be discussed.  The purpose would be to provide 
meaning for each child.
Reading is taught in much the same way.  Rather than isolating basic 
skills, children have reading experiences.  They use print daily, are 
exposed to books, write letters, journals, and other reading and writing 
activities.  Through these activities children "teach themselves" about 
the forms, functions, and conventions of print. (When I say "teach 
themselves" I mean like learning to speak is self taught)
 
Much like a baby acquires language, through the modeling of parents and 
siblings, to the beginning stages of "baby talk" to first words, close 
approximations, simple sentences to complete sentences, all learned in a 
"natural " way, reading skills can be "acquired" in similar fashion.  
Whole language touches every area of the curriculum and as I said 
before, is a perspective on learning rather than a methodology.  A whole 
language approach in any classroom would provide time for learning basic 
skills but many basic skills and writing/reading conventions would be 
learned by doing.  Basic skills are important and are not thrown out, 
but are only a "part" of whole language.
I could go on but this is getting long now.  Hope this explains and 
clarifies some things about whole language.
Dan Triplett
dtriplett@juno.com  
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------