Responding to a message by Erica, to Charles on ...
EL>As far as I am aware Whole Language or the Languge Experience approach was 
EL>never intended to be an unsupported way of teaching children to read and 
EL>write. When I was at Uni 1980-82, the emphasis was on processes and 
EL>certainly cueing.
(I am going to assume that by "processes and cueing" you are referring 
to phonics, but I am not really sure.  In my readings, "cueing" may 
actually refer to a sort of "guess at the word, then retest your theory 
by assessing the context of the passage").
First of all, let me state that I am no expert, only a critic.  As for 
the issue you raise, "What is the true definition of whole language 
instruction?",  that has not been completely resolved here in this echo. 
BUT, I can tell you that MANY who practice and teach whole language do 
not use phonics nor word attack skills.  In general, much of what I have 
read suggests that these processes are a "last-resort" skill, and even 
then are seldom used.
I guess the question is - does the "true" whole language process include 
primary instruction and practice in phonics and word-attack skills or, 
has the teacher using these skills actually blended several programs?
EL>The move was away from "Here is Nip. See Nip run." and the stilted style 
of 
EL>phonic based programs that I grew up with.
An awful lot of well-educated people learned to read this way.
EL>Good readers and literature are essential.
Nobody is arguing this point.
EL>CB> "Inventive spelling" shouldn't be allowed past mid-first grade;
EL> 
EL>No! We have just gone past mid-year and I have spent the whole year trying 
EL>to encourage the telling of stories. I teach in a lower socio-economic 
rea
EL>and while I think there is a general trend away from conversation - oral 
EL>language - in society in general, the concept of putting a message on 
paper 
EL>is far more essential than worrying about spelling.
Many would disagree with you, and that is the point of the articles I 
posted.  The point that critics are making is that a word IS a spelling 
and to try to disassociate the word from the letters that constitute 
it's very existence is to teach VERBAL language, not reading or writing. 
 How can it be called reading when a child reads "qnd" from his journal 
and says "dog?"  That's not reading.
EL>Generally 5 and 6 years olds are far more concerned about spelling 
EL>that teachers BUT what is the point of learning to write if you have 
EL>no ideas to communicate.
One can tell a story verbally, but it is of no use if it is gibberish.  
Why is it okay to write a story by writing gibberish?  The child may be 
learning to form ideas, but NOT to read and write.  A person can read 
when they can see that "the" makes the word "the" and they can write 
when someone else can read their words.
EL>So we do lots of story telling (I hate show and tell!)
My wife, who teaches 4th grade, does a form of show and tell everyday 
and says it is the kids' favorite time of day.  Talk about a way to get 
kids to develop their verbal skills and learn public speaking!  Why do 
you dislike it?
EL>Encouraging, encouraging, encouraging.
No one is arguing with that.
EL>Writing is hard and why, if you are five, would you want to go out to 
EL>the teacher and let them tell you all the wrong bits because in year 
EL>1 there will be more wrong bits than right.
Maybe you'd go to the teacher because you want to do it right?  So 
someone else can read it?  How embarrassing to a child to take home "Tlr 
dg pls nq ferg" on a paper and have mom and dad not be able to read what 
you've written!  Why write at all?
EL>Absolutely but there are is a fine line between correction and breaking 
EL>their enthusiasm.
Apparently you believe that the teaching process (correcting, trying to 
get kids to do things the right way) will break a child's enthusiasm?  I 
should think that the children would have more of an enthusiasm about 
learning to do things the right way rather than learning something all 
wrong and being told what a good job (s)he had done.
Speaking as an adult, I would be really angry if one of my professors in 
college had allowed me to go on for years doing things incorrectly, only 
for me to wind up failing two years later for giving the same answers.  
EL>English as a language is a living, breathing thing and unlike other 
EL>protected languages changes from location to location and has changed 
EL>considerably over the centuries. 
I think there are dialects and changes taking place quite often in MOST 
languages.  Leona?
EL>Many people forget that the good readers are always going to have little 
EL>difficulty and that the ones who struggle will do so no matter what method
EL>is used to attempt to teach them to read. I guess that is why people like 
EL>Maire Clay, Libby Handy et al were attempting to use good literatyure to 
EL>tempt those fussy readers in from the cold.
And I haven't read a single article about whole language that suggests 
that better literature can't be a sound improvement on old teaching 
styles.  The disagreement is clearly all about whether word attack 
skills should be taught as a part of the primary reading instruction, or 
they should be reserved for last-resort kinds of instruction.
EL>To me its all swings and round abouts. Give those children every 
opportunity
EL>to become a reader and then don't stomp on their enthusiasm when they 
think,
EL>like the little engine, that they can do it.
And to ME, it's all about teaching children to do things correctly.  
Education is not all about fun and the building of self-esteem, learning 
is about knowledge and understanding.  There are other ways to make it 
interesting and fun rather than rewarding and reinforcing things that 
are incorrect.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* All answers questioned here.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------