CHARLES BEAMS spoke of Whole Language 1      1/ to RUTH LEBLANC on 08-16-
96
CB>Quotes are taken from a message written by Ruth to Charles on
CB>08/11/96...
CB>RL>I think that was taken the wrong way. I don't believe that any
CB>RL>Whole Language advocate (and I could be wrong here) believes that
CB>RL>reading is learned in the same way as learning to speak - at least
CB>RL>not in the way a linguist,etc. would.
CB>I responded with that quote because it directly addressed some
CB>comments  Dan Triplett had made.
The comments regarding a connection with how learning to speak was my 
own analogy.  In my view, learning to read (and I believe linguists 
would agree) has everything to do with language acquisition.  
CB>RL>They were/are also under the misconception that Whole Language
CB>RL>means  you don't teach reading skills.....Wrong!
CB>The issue is debatable, I guess. What do you mean by "reading
CB>skills?"  Most of the articles I found were pretty consistent in
CB>defining whole  language and they virtually all indicated that the
CB>reading skills used  were "guess and retest" sorts of activities, not
CB>phonics.
These articles were written by by people who are against Whole Language.  
The reason some of the groups you cited exist is to combat the inclusion 
of Whole Language in the schools.  Yet when I read articles in 
professional journals and when I go back and read the text book on whole 
language, when I go to work shops on whole language, none of what the 
opponents of WL are saying is being taught.  
I'll get into more about these groups later as I uncover their hidden 
agenda (Such as the Action Reading people you mentioned....they have a 
stake in all this controversy and it is a bit self-serving).
CB>RL>REading Skills such as phonics ARE taught in a Whole Language 
CB>RL>program. They are however, not taught in the same manner or
CB>RL>context  as traditionally taught.
CB>This is not consistent with the reading I have done.  Most of the 
CB>authors would argue that if you are teaching phonics, you are not 
CB>teaching using the whole language philosophy.
Then ALL of these authors don't have a real understanding of WL.  They 
are simply commenting on what they have seen in their respective school 
districts which was, I would guess, literacy programs in the name of WL 
which were anything but.
CB>RL>Now, isn't that interesting because the studies I've read said
CB>RL>there is no difference - at least in learning to read - between
CB>RL>Whole Language or Traditional (phonics) methods except for
CB>RL>children who learn the WL way are more likely to enjoy the
CB>RL>process.  Again I would point to the misconception and possibly
CB>RL>inefficiency in teaching Whole Language programs in the U.S. (and
CB>RL>even probably in Canada).
CB>Dan too has mentioned that whole language is based on research.  No
CB>one  has yet posted any of that research here, but I'd enjoy reading
CB>a little  of it if you can find it.  As quoted in my article, the
CB>American  Federation of Teachers was unable to find well constructed
CB>research that  supports whole language.
The concepts contained in WL are research based.  One such concept is 
the psycholinguistic view of the reading process.  I mentioned this in 
my original post.
More later.......
Dan Triplett
dtriplett@juno.com
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
BEST SELLERS: "Speling Maid Eezy" by Dan Quayle.
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------