Hi Charles,
You said/quoted to Dan T.
  >an article by Jill Stewart that appeared in the "LA Weekly" (no date
  >available, source was http:/www.kidsource.com):
How reputable was this source? Sorry, don't know what LA stands for
- Los Angeles or Language Arts? Also who is Jill Stewart? Just
curious...
  >noted.  Ominously, the Federation noted, the primary tenet of whole
  >language philosophy, that learning to read is akin to learning to speak,
  >"is accepted by no responsible linguist, psychologist or cognitive
  >scientist in the research community.""
I think that was taken the wrong way. I don't believe that any Whole
Language advocate (and I could be wrong here) believes that reading is
learned in the same way as learning to speak - at least not in the way a
linguist,etc. would. All children speak it is genetically built into us
- which is why all babies, regardless of nationality, make the same
first sounds.
I believe that WL meaning of this is that children learn by doing and
hearing - that is they see/hear and practise that. (I'm not putting this
very clearly - Dan will do a better job. )
CB>Also from the article by Jill Smith, comes information on the success of
  >perhaps the largest study of the impact of whole language of all such
  >studies...
CB>"But whole language, which sounds so promising when described by its
  >proponents, has proved to be a near-disaster when applied to--and
  >by--real people.  In the eight years since whole language first appeared
  >in the state's gradeschools, California's fourth-grade reading scores
  >have plummeted to near the bottom nationally, according to the National
  >Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).  Indeed, California's fourth
  >graders are now such poor readers that only the children in Louisiana
  >and Guam--both hampered by pitifully backward education systems--get
  >worse reading scores."
I've discussed this with Donna Ransdale and with a teacher who practises
Whole Language in Orange County (I visited her classroom when I was
visiting my parents in the March Break). For a start California's
teachers were never instructed in what Whole Language really was all
about. It was you have to do this so do it. Many teachers did it but
didn't know what they were doing. They were/are also under the
misconception that Whole Language means you don't teach reading
skills.....Wrong!
I wrote about this before but it appears that my messages went into Fido
Black space.... which is unfortunate since it took me ages to write and
I'm not about to do it again. (Unfortunately, I have not been saving my
replies like I used to do - maybe I should start again due to numerous
feed problems on my BBS these past few months) :(
I will repeat, briefly, however the following. REading Skills such as
phonics ARE taught in a Whole Language program. They are however, not
taught in the same manner or context as traditionally taught. If you
want more info ask   (Dan will probably do a better job... - I am not
so up to date on all this - it's been a long time since I read or
discussed it and right now I only teach "sub" - still waiting for a full
time contract - hiring problems here).
CB>The following paragraph is taken from "Action Reading" at
  >http:/azbiz.net/ats/reading/aread3a.html
  >Hospital.  These forty professors and MD's noted the correspondence
  >between the increased use of Whole Language and the decline in students
  >reading scores."
Now, isn't that interesting because the studies I've read said there is
no difference - at least in learning to read - between Whole Language or
Traditional (phonics) methods except for children who learn the WL way
are more likely to enjoy the process.  Again I would point to the
misconception and possibly inefficiency in teaching Whole Language
programs in the U.S. (and even probably in Canada).
CB>"Reading scholar Marilyn Adams was completing a book, "Beginning to
  >Read", which detailed widespread findings that small children have a
  >tough time with the "miscue and review" method, which encourages a child
  >to guess at words from context, then learn later by revising their
  >errors.  "Science has consistently, firmly and indisputably refuted
  >these hypothesis,: Adams wrote.  The new research confirmed a huge body
  >of studies from the 1960's through the 1980's, which showed that
  >gradeschoolers must very directly and clearly be shown how to decode and
  >sound out each letter and word on their own.  Without being explicitly
  >and systematically taught that basic ability, the studies said, all but
  >the most exceptional children were doomed to a long struggle with the
  >printed page."
Whole Language does not completely dismiss decoding it is "part" of the
reading process but not "all" of it. WL teaches initial sounds etc.
(that is phonics) and the children are taught to look at the beginning,
middle or end consonants to help them figure out an unknown word - as
(Continued to next message)
---
 þ QMPro 1.53 þ And now for another....Useless Fact...
---------------