Whole Language

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 374.

The term "whole language" does not refer only to providing interesting comprehensible texts and helping children understand less comprehensible texts. It involves instilling a love of literature, problem-solving and critical thinking, collaboration, authenticity, personalized learning, and much more (Goodman, Bird, and Goodman, 1991). In terms of the process of literacy development, however, the Comprehension Hypothesis is a central part of whole language.

In this paper I examine some recent research dealing with two fundamental points of contention between the two sides of this debate.

1. The complexity issue: Whole language advocates claim that the rules of phonics are complex and have numerous exceptions. For this reason many are unteachable (Smith, 1994). Skill-building advocates claim that this is not the case. Shanahan (2001), for examples, defends giving phonics instruction a major role in reading instruction because "more than 90 percent of English words are phonetically regular" (p. 70). He does not, however, cite research supporting this claim.

2. The method comparison issue: Skill-Building advocates claim that those in phonics-based classes outperform those in whole language classes (National Reading Panel, 2000). Whole language advocates argue that when whole language is defined correctly, when it includes real reading, students in these classes do better on test of reading comprehension, with no difference on skills tests (Krashen, 1999).