Details

Published: 07 February 2014

Hits: 19887

This section comprises a collection of quotes intended to illustrate the set of beliefs that drove whole language practices. In my previous blog on whole language, I argued that many of the practices derived from those beliefs are contrary to what is known about teaching effectiveness and, in particular, what promotes reading development.

 Dr Kerry Hempenstall, Senior Industry Fellow, School of Education, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

My blogs can be viewed on-line or downloaded as a Word file or PDF at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/olxpifutwcgvg8j/AABU8YNr4ZxiXPXzvHrrirR8a?dl=0

What is whole language anyway? Hmm, it’s hard to say.

Bergeron (1990), after a review of the major writers, concluded "one cannot draw from the literature a concise definition for whole language because no such definition was found to exist" (p. 318).

Bergeron, B. S. (1990). What does the term whole language mean? Constructing a definition from the literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 301-329.

Watson (1989) suggested that "advocates reject a dictionary-type definition" and each teacher evolves his or her own version of whole language instruction, leading to "significant and important differences”.

Jeynes, W.H., & Littell, S.W. (2000). A meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of whole language instruction on the literacy of low-SES students. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 21-38.

Whole language beliefs inconsistent with research findings:

1. Whole language belief: That reading is natural, and instruction is unnecessary and unhelpful.

Read more ...