Quotes are taken from a message written by Dan to Charles on 07/21/96...
DT>Actually Whole Language is a theory that developed as a result of 
DT>findings from psycholinguistics (such as Kenneth Goodman's 1968 
DT>*Psycholinguistic* *Nature* *Of* *The* *Reading* *Process* ), 
DT>sociolinguistics, emergent literacy researchers (Marie Clay of New 
DT>Zealand was a researcher whose work first appeared in the 1960's), 
DT>and  other educational researchers.
I have a folder around somewhere in which I've collected a number of 
articles on the subject and I was too lazy to dig it all out.  Just goes 
to show, I should not have relied on my memory. 
DT>From the time the concept of "Whole Language" was developed, there 
DT>has been a plethora of research supporting and expanding the ideas of 
DT>the Whole Language approach to literacy development.
I have read many more articles opposing Whole Language than I have 
supporting it, but maybe that's just where I'm looking.
DT>Is it any wonder that scores would decline.  In 1984 R. C. Auckerman 
DT>published _Approaches_ _To_ _Beginning_ _Reading_ which documented 165 
DT>methods, approaches, and systems for teaching beginning reading!  
DT>Research studies has produced conflicting evidence as to the best method
DT>of reading instruction.
As Ron McDermott has expressed in another thread, a significant portion 
of the research done in education is poorly designed, so this is not 
surprising.
DT>Whole Language, as you know, is not a system but more a perspective 
DT>of reading instruction that is compatible with the psycholinguistic 
DT>view of the reading process.
What?  Is that ever a great example of "eduspeak!"  Let's see you 
explain THAT quote to the parents .
I shouldn't make assumptions, but what you seem to be saying is that 
"Whole Language", as originally outlined, was more of an approach than a 
"program" of reading skills to be used in the classroom.  I would 
further assume that this implies that phonics skills were neither 
promoted nor discouraged, but that each teacher, working with each 
child, should teach the skills necessary to help that child learn to 
read.  Yes? And that the major focus of the program was to promote 
enjoyment of reading above the promotion of reading skills (a part of 
the "psycho-" in your "psycholinguistic")?
DT>Again, Whole Language is a theory or a "perspective" of literacy 
DT>development and is not a "process" or a "program."  People who describe 
DT>it the way you are suggesting don't really understand what Whole 
DT>Language really is.
Ahhh!  But maybe they do!  It seems to me that, assuming your 
interpretation of the original "concept" to be accurate, at some point 
Whole Language DID get programmed.  Some interpretation of the "process" 
was translated into a day-to-day operating system and sold to teachers 
as the way to teach reading and to get kids to enjoy reading.  How else 
to explain the near universal understanding of Whole Language as 
promoting "Big Books", "reading" from memory and a de-emphasis of 
spelling and phonics skills?  I am not alone in this perception and I 
can produce reams of articles to prove it.
DT>I wonder how many other important "factors" contributed to this decline.
Since no large scale studies have ever been done, I'd guess it could be 
a pretty significant number.
DT>One factor that comes to mind is the confusion over what Whole Language 
DT>really is all about.  I would guess that in addition to the 165 reading 
DT>methods that were out there, many teachers simply applied "reading 
DT>methods" there were familiar with and called it whole language.  I think
DT>it is a leap to suggest that Whole Language is the culprit.  
If few people can understand it and apply it, then what good is it?  As 
Ron and I have discussed in the thread on class size, a study (or 
program or concept) can only be of value if its results can be 
replicated.  Maybe THAT is one of its weaknesses - that and the fact 
that many teachers stopped teaching reading skills in the name of making 
reading fun.
DT>CB>I think phonics instruction, spelling instruction and instruction in
DT>CB>word-recognition skills should  be an important part of that program.
DT>
DT>They are and Whole Language studies would agree with you (to the degree 
DT>that a "reading program" was not built on such ideas but were a part of 
DT>the concept of literacy development.
The common perception of Whole Language among the teachers I know that 
worked with it early-on differs from yours on this point.  They have 
worked with professionaly written Whole Language programs that also 
differ with your interpretation.  I can't explain who is mis-guided 
here, but only that most programs developed from the concept that I have 
seen or had contact with have discouraged phonics and spelling at least 
through the 3rd or 4th grade level.
DT>I believe that literature-based instruction will continue to flourish in
DT>those districts where Whole Language is correctly understood.
Which may be very few in number.
Chuck
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------