Most ardent whole language supporters decry the use of standardized
testing to measure reading skills and comprehension. They reject rigorous
research studies as an "outrageous effort to impose an old paradigm
on the movement". Carol Edelsky, of Arizona State University, states
that "test-score evidence doesn't tell you what students actually
do when they read." She favors a qualitative approach called "kid-watching",
which uses devices such as free-form essays and portfolios to measure student
progress over time. Unfortunately, such methods are extremely subjective
and prone to errors of interpretation. It is interesting that the whole
language zealots do not feel their method teaches reading well enough to
pass the simple cognitive problems presented on a standardized test. Some
of the more extreme whole language supporters have even suggested that
phonics is a political tool of the radical right. Such a statement appeared
in the book "Whole Language" published by the National Education
Association.
Another scientific blow to the whole language argument has come from
linguists and psycholinguists. Psycholinguistics is frequently cited as
providing scientific support for the whole language method. The Massachusetts
Department of Education recently wrote a set of guidelines for language
instruction in public schools. The guidelines were written strictly from
a whole language, non-phonics perspective. A group of 40 researchers, headed
by Dr. David Pesetsky of the MIT linguistics department, wrote a strong
letter to the department of education documenting their disagreement with
the guidelines. The letter states the following:
"The proposed content chapter [of the curriculum guidelines] replaces
the common-sense view of reading as the decoding of notated speech with
a surprising view of reading as directly "constructing meaning'".
According to the document, '"constructing meaning'" is a process
that can be achieved using many 'strategies' (guessing, contextual cues,
etc.). In this view, the decoding of written words plays a relatively minor
role in reading compared to strategies such as contextual guessing. This
treats the alphabetic nature of our writing system as little more than
an accident, when in fact it is the most important property of written
English -- a linguistic achievement of historic importance."
"The authors of the draft Content Chapter claim that research on
language supports their views of reading. The document asserts that research
on language has moved from the investigation of particular "components
of language -- phonological and grammatical units" to the investigation
of '"its primary function -- communications". These supposed
developments in linguistic research are used as arguments for a comparable
view of reading. We are entirely unaware of any such shift in research."
"We want to alert the educational authorities of Massachusetts
to the fact that the view of language research presented in this document
is inaccurate, and that the claimed consequences for reading instruction
should therefore be subjected to serious re-examination. The facts are
as follows. Language research continues to focus on the components of 
language,
because this focus reflects the "modular" nature of language
itself. Written language is a notation for the structures and units of
one of these components. Sound methodology in reading instruction must
begin with these realities. Anything else will shortchange those students
whom these standards are supposed to help."
"As linguists, we are concerned that the Commonwealth, through
its powers to set standards for schools, should presume to legislate an
erroneous view of how human language works, a view that runs counter to
most of the major scientific results of more than 100 years of linguistics
and psycholinguistics. We are even more concerned that uninformed thinking
about language should lie at the heart of a "standards" document
for Massachusetts schools."
Essentially this letter states that there is no scientific basis in
linguistics or psycholinguistics to support a non-phonics whole language
approach. It should be noted that one of the members of the MIT faculty
who works with Dr. Pesetsky is none other than Noam Chomsky, considered
to be the most influential thinker in psycholinguistics in this century.
His book on the subject, in 1957, caused tremendous new interest in the
subject and has led to much recent research.
It is clear that much of the reading theory in whole language is flawed
and incorrect. But is there anything of value in it? The answer is yes.
Everyone agrees that phonics alone is not sufficient to promote strong
reading skills. Children need to have both direct skills instruction and
be exposed to interesting reading materials that reinforce those skills.
The emphasis on early writing is also a sound practice followed by many
other teaching methodologies. Combining reading and writing allows the
students to use phonetic skills to facilitate spelling. The writing process
reinforces the reading skills and helps develop thinking skills in young
children. For those interested in an integrated phonics-literature approach,
I would recommend the excellent book "Beginning to Read" by Marilyn
J. Adams. It contains a synthesis, up to about 1990, of the best research
and information that is known on the subject of reading. Sadly, she has
been viciously denounced by Kenneth Goodman and other whole language zealots.
(continued...)
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* An atheist is one who has no invisible means of support.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------