[AAACE-NLA] Whole Language

[AWilder106@aol.com]

Dear Helen,

Holy Toledo, what a question.  There is partisanship so extreme for some on this question that  "religious wars" comes to mind.

In brief--and others will add  responses, I am sure:

1)  Phonics looks at small parts of words and builds up from small sound/symbol units to larger units--words.  The emphasis is on skill mastery, so decoding nonsense words, using phonics techniques may be a regular part of learning and mastery.  In teaching, one moves from the most regular sound/symbol relationships (about  85% of English) to the least regular. 

2)  In whole language the emphasis is on reading as meaning. No one reads  to master syllables, but to pull meaning out of text.  The emphasis is holistic, sounding out words for meaning, then dipping down and teaching specific skills that the student has trouble with.  Reading is understood as a language, meaning-making skill.

As you can see, in ordinary teaching both types of approaches are probably used.  In fact, if you go back far enough to the models that proponents  of  each "method" use, you will find out that they use similar  models. (ref:  Goodman; Wolf, Purcell-Gates)

Often the term "balanced" is used to mean that the speaker melds both approaches in daily work, so  "balanced" turns into a code word thought by some to indicate  unprincipled compromise;  others view it as an accurate description of daily work.  As  I said, there are extreme views on the topic.  Then there is a big gray area where actual teachers teach the best ways they can figure  out.

Andrea