SHEILA KING spoke of Whole Language 1      1/ to DAN TRIPLETT on 08-27-
96
SK>-> These articles were written by by people who are against Whole
SK>-> Language.
SK>I almost mentioned in a message to Chuck, but never got around to it,
SK>that one must be careful about considering a search on the Web to be
SK>a _thorough_ search. Often one will find that a particular topic is
SK>represented on the Web in an imbalanced fashion, heavily on one side
SK>or the other.
SK>However, I don't see how you can make that claim about the article by
SK>Jill Stewart. As a reporter, shouldn't she have been impartial?
She could be but that doesn't mean that simply because she is a reporter 
her reporting is unbiased. 
SK>-> The concepts contained in WL are research based.  One such concept
SK>-> is the psycholinguistic view of the reading process.  I mentioned
SK>-> this in my original post.
SK>Yes, you did mention this before. However, Chuck has cited actual
SK>studies and researchers in his articles which refute many of the
SK>claims of Whole Language. Other than your generic statement that
SK>"Whole Language is based on research", I've not seen you similarly
SK>cite any research supporting Whole Language.
I must admit that this whole language thing is a time consumer.  I have 
sent for some material to help here.  I don't think that there has been 
research on Whole Language in the way that you or Chuck may be 
suggesting.  Whole language is based on many studies.  Whole language is 
the philosophy that sprang from these studies (or research).  If whole 
language were a methodology then it could be studied.  It is not a 
methodology.  It is a way of thinking or a foundation that drives ones 
educational philosophy.  In future posts I will try to show how this is 
true.  (First I have to find the stuff ....  "Oh bother." said Pooh)
Dan  
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
After Clinton, *everyone* looks qualified to be President!
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------