CHARLES BEAMS spoke of Whole Language 1      1/ to DAN TRIPLETT on 08-26-
96
CB>DT>I'll get into more about these groups later as I uncover their
CB>DT>hidden  agenda (Such as the Action Reading people you
CB>DT>mentioned....they have a  stake in all this controversy and it is
CB>DT>a bit self-serving).
CB>Uncovering their agendas won't really impress me very much - many
CB>people  who have a bias still have legitimate points to make.  I
CB>*WOULD* be  impressed with articles citing (describing) research in
CB>which children  taught using whole language programs have excelled in
CB>reading,  especially if they are on the same scale as the results
CB>from Great  Britain or California.
Action Reading is a program that one can purchase for use in the home.  
It is marketed on TV's ubiquitous commercials.  They are a phonics based 
program and they are in the business of selling a product (which they 
believe in) and making some money.  I would hardly consider them a 
reliable source for information regarding Whole Language.
The American Federation of Teacher, which is on record of opposing WL, 
is a smaller? teacher's union.  I don't believe that the NEA holds to 
the same positions regarding WL.  Why would one be so impressed with 
what they have to say (The AFT)?
CB>DT>Then ALL of these authors don't have a real understanding of WL.
CB>DT>They  are simply commenting on what they have seen in their
CB>DT>respective school  districts which was, I would guess, literacy
CB>DT>programs in the name of WL  which were anything but.
CB>Much of what I have read suggests that the devotion of whole language
CB>theorists to their program is remarkable, especially given the lack
CB>of  credible evidence that the process can be made to work on a large
CB>scale.   I continue to marvel that you would suggest that *ALL* of
CB>those who  disagree with you are wrong, but that you are right in
CB>defining whole language.
Marvel away....you need to get away from the idea that WL is a process.  
It is not and never has been.  I don't mind that you should marvel when 
I suggest that those who have a erroneous view of WL are incorrect and I 
am right.  I have quoted from WL publications be they books or articles 
appearing in WL journals.  My ideas are not opinions only, I have 
studied (and continue to study) what WL theorists say WL is.  The 
authors whose quotes you provide may be sincere in their definition of 
WL but they are sincerely wrong.  They are interpreting things 
incorrectly.  So when you suggest something about WL that is not true, 
even though you are quoting someone else, naturally I will say -- wrong.  
I am not trying to be right or wrong here, I know what the WL proponents 
say a WL class looks like and practices.  
CB>DT>The concepts contained in WL are research based.  One such concept
CB>DT>is  the psycholinguistic view of the reading process.  I mentioned
CB>DT>this in  my original post.
CB>And two of the articles I posted soundly refuted that claim,
CB>including  one which quoted a study by the American Federation of
CB>Teachers, which  noted that no such credible research exists.  And as
CB>noted in the  article I posted, "What is Whole Language?", 
You must have more faith in the opinions of a relatively obscure 
teacher's union than you do in what whole-language theorists have to say 
on the matter.  What makes their claims more credible then the WL 
theorists themselves?  
CB>     "Psycholinguistics is a relatively new branch of science which
CB>     studies the psychology and physical development of oral language
CB>     in young children.  It does not deal in any direct way with
CB>     reading acquisition."
According to whom??  Kenneth Goodman's research studied the process of 
reading from a psycholinguistic perspective.  He was interested in the 
relationship between thought and language (psyche and linguistics) as it 
applies to reading.  He described reading not as a letter by letter, 
word by word decoding process, but rather a "psycholinguistic guessing 
game (Goodman 1982 p33) whereby the reader uses graphophonic, syntatic, 
and semantic clues simultaneously to construct meaning from print.  
Beginning with the prediction of what the information is about and 
knowledge of how language works, the reader selectively samples from the 
print and, using all three cuing systems simultaneously, constructs 
meaning.  
Goodman, K. S. (1968).  The psycholinguistic nature of the reading
   process.  In K.S. Goodman (Ed.), *The* *psycholinguistic* *nature*
  *of* *the* *reading* *process* (pp. 13-26).  Detroit: Wayne State
   university.
Other educators and psycholinguists conducted their own studies of the 
reading process, and these not only verified but expanded on Goodman's 
initial research (Clay, 1972; Ferreiro, 1986; Y. Goodman, 1986; Harste, 
Woodward, & Burke, 1984; Taylor, 1983)
Clay, M. M. (1972). Reading: *The* *patterning* *of* *complex*
 *behavior.*  London: Heinmann.
Ferreiro, E. (1986). The interplay between information and assimilation
  in beginning literacy.  In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), *Emergent*
 *literacy:* *Writing* *and* *reading* (pp.15-49). Norwood, NJ:Ablex
Goodman, Y. M. (1986). Children coming to know literacy. In W. H. Teale
  & E. Sulzby (Eds.), *Emergent* *literacy:* *Writing* *and* *reading*
  (pp. 1-14).  Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Harste, J., Woodward, V., & Burke, C. (1984).  *Language* *stories*
 *and* *literacy* *lessons.*  Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Taylor, D. (1983). *Family* *literacy:* *young* *children* *learn* *to*
 *read* *and* *write.* Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Kenneth Goodman's original study was 1968 (and probably began much 
earlier) with subsequent studies following.  Hardly seems the "new" 
science that is claimed.  It's been nearly 30 years.  How much more time 
is needed?
Dan
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
* To tell the sex of a chromosome, pull down its genes. *
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------