CHARLES BEAMS spoke of Whole Language 1 to SHEILA KING on 08-16-96
CB>Quotes are taken from a message written by Sheila to Charles on
CB>08/12/96...
CB>SK>One thing we should acknowledge, however, is that what is _called_
CB>SK>Whole Language in the state of California is not necessarily what
CB>SK>Dan Triplett is promoting.
CB>SK>Recall that Donna Randsell related that as a substitute in San
CB>SK>Diego schools she was exressly prohibited from teaching _any_
CB>SK>phonics. This is not in line with what Dan is describing as Whole
CB>SK>Language, and so it doesn't really refute that his method of
CB>SK>instruction is appropriate.
CB>Based on the articles I was able to collect, it appeared that the
CB>state  of California did a significant amount of research into the
CB>nature of  Whole Language.  I would guess that what is being promoted
CB>as WL in  California is much closer to the real intent of the
CB>philosophy than what  Dan is promoting.  But that's just a guess.
I didn't get the impression that California did significant research 
into the nature of WL.  If they had, they could not possibly have missed 
the part that phonics plays in a WL classroom.  California, like many 
other well-intentioned folks, simply do not understand the underlying 
ideas that are foundational to a Whole Language perspective.  Drill and 
practice is out.  Such an approach is far too structured for young 
children.   
CB>SK>What this says to me, is that there are many things masquerading
CB>SK>around the country as "whole language" and this only adds to the
CB>SK>confusion and probable failure of the "method"
CB>I'm not sure that's true.  What I read, in several of the articles, 
CB>suggests that phonics and "word-attack skills" are used only as a
CB>last  resort in most WL instructional programs.  It is only when
CB>right minded  people try to blend a variety of reading philosophies
CB>that we reach the  level Dan appears to have achieved.  From another
CB>article I found,  "Phonics Vs. Whole Language", no author's name
CB>given, at  http://www.learningpyramid.com/phonics.html...
From a recent college textbook about early childhood education 
(Copyright 1990) consider the following:
"Some people mistakenly believe that as soon as you advocate the whole-
language approach to literacy, you assume that teaching strategies in 
reading such as the sight- or whole-word approach and the phonics 
approach are eliminated.  With the whole-language approach to literacy 
development, we feel that teachers create a literate environment and 
then use the best tools available to teach the components of literacy. 
These tools include........the sight- or whole-word approach, where 
children see the representation of the whole word and begin to read it; 
or phonics, where children learn the letter sound in order to facilitate 
sounding out the words as they read." 
CB>===================
CB>"-The whole language method of teaching reading is to expose children
CB>to  meaningful stories in learning to read.
CB>-Many whole language teachers do not teach decoding skills for
CB>sounding  out unfamiliar words.  Students are instructed to read the
CB>story to  derive context clues for unfamiliar words or new
CB>vocabulary.
This is a reflection on those teachers and not the concept of WL.  I am 
on a WL listserv and we have had this discussion and all agree that 
phonics and decoding skills are important.  
more to come.....
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
A student who changes the course of history is probably taking an exam.
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------