Re: whole language question
- Subject: Re: whole language question
- From: Gloria Pipkin <gpipkin@I-1.NET>
- Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 09:33:12 -0600
- Reply-to: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
- Sender: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
A "rigid (ie-scripted) whole language program" is an oxymoron. There's no such thing.
----- Original Message -----
From: Teresa or J Glenn
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: whole language question
True whole language does teach phonics, as in letter sounds, does it not? I need to be able to differentiate between poor teachers and poor teaching strategy.
I'll be honest with you: I'm trained as a high school English teacher & have had very little in the way of whole language versus phonics. It is, however, my understanding that a good teacher of *either* form would include parts of BOTH the whole language AND the phonics approach.
The students that I am currently teaching had a very rigid (ie-- scripted) whole language program and they (a) cannot read anything very complex; (b) hate reading; and (c) cannot spell anything, including extremely short & well-worn words like really (relly, reilly, realy, reely, rally, etc.) and very (vary, viry, virry, varry, veery, etc.). I have to wonder.
My daughter is in first grade and is doing the Success For All program. Her vocabulary from this week (she's in a 3.2 reading group-- third grade, second semester) included bouquet, antagonized and transparent.
So yes, it sounds familiar.
Post a Message to arn-l: