Talk:Whole language

message: Speaking as a language teacher, this page seems very biased toward a part-to-whole, discrete approach like phonics vs a whole-to-part, immersive approach like Whole Language. This would be analogous to a chef throwing out all cookbooks requiring more than 20 ingredients per recipe and two hours of prep time in favour of simple, quick dishes. I can't help wondering if the main author(s) of this article might be politically motivated, as a phonics-based approach has tended to be the baby of the right wing. Since the late 1980s, language teachers have adopted an eclectic approach to language teaching, with elements from a wide range of approaches and methodologies; phonics is but one cookbook in my stack of effective cookbooks. Food for thought.
This page needs significant work. Having been taught by phonics myself I have no understanding of what this alternative is, and why people advocate it, so I can't help directly. However, as a start I can at least point out why the bullet-points on this page don't tell me anything
* literate classroom environment
What's a "literate environment"? Three things come to mind: a) the teachers are literate, which should a prerequisite for any literacy program, b) the pupils are literate, which means that you don't need a literacy program at all, or c) the walls are talking to you.
* reading to and with students
Surely you can't teach literacy without reading, so this should be a characteristic of any literacy program. It's certainly a characteristic of phonics.
* individualized instruction
This is just a resourcing issue, not a different style of teaching.
* independent reading
Again, surely you can't teach literacy without reading. I'd expect all programs to have this.
* students as authors
And you can't teach literacy without writing. Nothing special.
_____
This article is biased and NOT VERIFIABLE. Please revise.
* integrating literacy skills into curriculum across disciplines
What, like reading textbooks and writing things on a board? Were there schools that just talked phonics in an isolated setting and then threw away the blackboard and didn't use any textbooks? Or is there something more to this?
* increased parent involvement
This, again, is a resourcing issue, not really a style of teaching. Ideally you'd get parents to help out with teaching all parts of the curriculum.
I'm not attacking Whole Language, I think the problem is that the article doesn't explain what Whole Language is.
Ben Arnold 7 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
This article is written at too advanced a level to be helpful to people seeking an introduction to the topic.  It assumes a background in related topics that many people are not likely to have.  Terms need to be explained, rather than used assuming that the reader understands them.
Rainexpert (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: article needs work

message: "Arguing against the pictographic point of view aforementioned, some employ the following simile: teaching a phonetic language using Whole Language is like teaching people to read Chinese without teaching them how to write the letters. This would, they hold, hamper one's ability to remember and distinguish between letters."
:Aside from the awkward sentence structures, this implies that the Chinese written language has letters - obviously it does not.  While it does have pronunciation systems to aid in its teaching that either have letters (pinyin) or something similar (zhuyin), I find that this para doesn't seem to add much to the article, and I'd rather take it out than make the corrective edits.  Perhaps someone else wants to put this back in cleaner and correct form?  --Ur Wurst Enema 06:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should also add that while I'm no linguist I do agree with the general idea of the removed para.  It would be pretty hard to be literate in Chinese without learning either pinyin or zhuyin.  --Ur Wurst Enema 06:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removed

message: National Geographic Channel has an item that demonstrates that so long as the first and last letters of a word are correct, the letters in between can be randomised without affecting the meaning.
 Nioatanl Gorghpeaic Cnenahl has an ietm that datsntoarems taht so lnog as the frsit and lsat 
 lteerts of a wrod are cerorct, the lteters in beweten can be romdanised wuhtiot atecffnig 
 the minneag.
This claim is superficially true, but what you cannot be sure of is whether two or more words share the same random pattern.  Should pairs of words share the same pattern, sometimes this might lead to loss of meaning, while other times this might lead to a completely wrong and dangerous meaning. It may also be true that the longer words are the harder they are to decode, in which case the reader may get stuck. Since Microsoft Word doesn't have a word-randomising function, the randomisation has to be done by hand, which is slow and difficult.
It is hard to think of dangerous word pair examples, however the onus in on the advocates of National Graphic randomised intermediate letters to show that such problems will never occur.
Tabletop 04:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Geographic Channel randomised intermediate letters 

message: I made major changes to the text of this article.  I retained from the original author's work the clear substantive points made but took pains to reframe the article so that this controversial subject is treated neutrally.  I do hope that I have accomplished that task.  It SHOULD be clear that this is an area over which there is considerable debate, rancor, and disagreement.  It SHOULD be clear that whole language has important benefits and that many have raised concerns.  It SHOULD NOT seem like an endorsement of whole language or like it is supporting the "non-whole language" view.  
As the previous poster suggested, I included some basic epistemological background.  I am happy to discuss further revisions and share my understanding of this area with those interested.
--Kearnsdm 09:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Revision 

message: An example of the National Geographic randomized intermediate spelling going haywire has surfaced.  This week's Economist newspaper has a heading that read:
* Tanzania - Bye bye poverty.
but due to greater familiarity with another place it was read as
* Tasmania - Bye bye poverty.
OK, its not a perfect transposition, as an N is swapped with a M, and a S is swapped with a Z.
Nonetheless, such misunderstandings are asking for trouble in the long run.  National Geographic fails to warn of any problems.
Tabletop 04:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Geographic Channel randomised intermediate letters goes haywire 

message: When using NGRIL, your eyes sometimes jump to conclusions:
* Ivan Lazarev was of Armenian origin.
* Ivan Lazarev was of American origin.
Tabletop 04:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Geographic Randomised Letters - Jump to conclusions 

message: Very little of this article carries any citations and what is here goes far beyond synthesis of the provided documentation. I am tagging the entire page as original research and needing citation, pending a mass wipe of the unsupported claims, as I myself have not done sufficient research to cite/rewrite. For instance, the "Overview" contains a list of attributes that seem applicable to all reading education and are not clearly related specifically to whole language. This opacity would be easily resolved by providing a source for the list.
Yourself In Person (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refimprove and OR 

message: I re-wrote the lede, adding what I think is a clearer statement of the fundamental principle underlying the whole language philosophy of reading, noting (with lots of relevant sourcing) that the principle has been discredited by both psychologists and linguists.  I also summarized the current state of knowledge regarding the effects of the use of whole language based methods vs direct instruction in phonics on learning to read .
I also added a description of the recent events in Bethlehem PA ( https://www.npr.org/2019/01/02/677722959/why-millions-of-kids-cant-read-and-what-better-teaching-can-do-about-it )as an informative example of a district's experiences with the transition from the use of whole language approaches to phonics-focused approaches. Regutten (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited Lede 

message: The use of the word "discredited" in the first sentence doesn't serve the overall tone and sentiment of the piece. I removed the word to allow the research to speak for itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdHistory101 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucy M Calkins' name appears nowhere in this article. Very odd. Hasn't she done loads to discredit Whole Language and its subsequent re-brandings? In Sept 2023 Columbia's affiliated teacher college "dissolved" her program and put her on sabbatical (i.e. into exile post public disgrace). 6lbr (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @6lbr, can you provide any references to support your claims? Also, please keep your comments constructive and avoid language that unnecessarily disparages Wikipedia. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Discredited"  

message: I disagree that this article is unbalanced. The refs are thorough and the research is solid. It's certainly not glowing, but the information is clear. The editor that added the "Unbalanced" tag has done no other edits, and has given no justification for the addition of this tag. If they don't add some rationale, I'll be removing the tag. peterl (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced? 

message: As a former teacher of language arts, and a current professional in the field of teacher training, this article certainly IS "unbalanced." Leading with "discredited" is just one example of this unbalanced POV. I will be rewriting that description shortly, using widely accepted definitions of "whole language" used in education circles, and not the anti-whole language propagandistic description currently used. Kevin Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 22:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The seven strong references that were removed all support the use of that word. Please don't remove seven strong references. If there are other viewpoints that are not represented, and there are reliable sources for those, then feel free to add those. peterl (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The references in question are cited in other parts of the article. And it doesn't MATTER if you "disagree." Many of those "references" are to sources with academic axes to grind against the theory. Either way, you don't lead with "discredited" in an article about a theory still in wide practice in educational circles. Don't remove the tag without far more justification than this. Kevin Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 20:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Whether I disagree or not is not relevant. What I disagree with is your edit.  What is relevant are valid, academic, well researched references. And the article leads with seven of those. There are seven good references that support the term "discredited". Is that unbalanced? Not if there is very good support for that statement - and there is. That the theory is still in wide practice is not relevant to this discussion. I could accept "discredited but widely practiced", but it's very clear that the theory is discredited. I acknowledge your background in education; like my background, unless one of your published works is being referenced, or there is a conflict of interest, your background is not relevant. You state that they have "academic axes to grind" - what is your support for that? I don't understand your "far more justification than this" statement - there's seven very good, clear references supporting that statement - and yes, there is more in the body. I'm restoring the "discredited" with refs, but will leave the "may be unbalanced tag. Feel free to discuss the "not discredited" viewpoint here. peterl (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced Tag