How should reading be taught?

issue revision:

---

sweet. let's do it

---

Jacki's revision sounds great, lets get this approved.

wow, i really know absolutely nothing about teaching reading skills.  i read this on wiki.  it helped.  we should include it along with esperanto's links in the research feature.  finally, lose the "to young people".  it's superfluous, i think.  and maybe tone it down a bit.

How should reading education be taught?

Phonetics Approach

Whole Language Approach

I'm fine with dumping the "hybrid" option. it's implicit and unnecessary.

fine.  use the research function as a resource.  do we need "hybrid of both" for completeness or can we dump it.  it is not a real issue one of your "stands" is both.

I think we're getting a little carried away with the specifics here. This is a pretty straightforward debate, with two different methods that are basically diametrically opposed. Obviously at the end of the process, you're going to learn to read and write one way or another, so there's some crossover in the methods. Instead of trying to concisely define 'whole language' in the answer key, I'd rather put up some research links and let people figure it out themselves, because if they don't already know what it means, they're probably going to do some research anyway, if faced with a  choice like:

• phonics
• focus on meaning and context

because, what the hell does that mean? all of this is a roundabout way of saying, how about this:

What is the best way to learn to read?

• Phonics
• Whole language

It's concise and clear and easy to read. This is kind of a wonky issue to begin with, I don't think we need to spoon-feed people, but it is an issue I've read a fair amount about in mainstream publications, with regard to NCLB in particular. What do you say?

too technical.  define whole language.  i do not not like "a little of both" stands.  we want to pin people down when they take a stand.

If everyone thinks this is an issue that would garner a lot of debate. I'm somewhat hesitant, but if it'd draw the teachers, sure, why not!

That was "shouldn't learn by reading"  I wish I could revise these comments sometimes.

i think it would be a relevant issue.  I don't know what to do about clarifying "Whole Language" in a short statement.  Maybe "Practical reading experience, learn by doing"?

Maybe it would even be better if we just ask:

Should reading instruction include rigorous study of grammar, punctuation, and phonetic spelling?

• Yes
• No

No one is going to argue that kids should learn by reading; the real question is whether or not they need formal lessons in language rules as well.

Yeah, I don't really like this question as worded either, I just wanted to see if anybody even cared about it and go from there. Well, Whicker cares, at least.

He's right; pure whole language isn't really possible in English, and you'd have to be kind of insane to really want that. I think he takes an interesting approach, because the debate for us is really how rigorous the focus on grammar, spelling and phonics should be. I'd like to split the difference with him, something like this:

Where should the primary emphasis be in reading education?
 -Rigorous practice of grammar, spelling and phonics
 -"Whole language" (Learning language through meaning and context)

Any takers? Do we need to try and define whole language in the issue?

I like this issue, but I agree that it is a little clunky.  I have looked quite a lot at this debate.

Whole language method is one that argues that learning comes by doing.  Rather than breaking language down into letters, words, clauses, phrases, and teaching children how language functions, it advises that we teach children to read and write and by reading and writing they will learn how language works.

This brings up an interesting problem.  Whole language and phonics are not seperated enough.  While whole language is opposed to formally teaching phonics, English is a phonetic language (for the most part) and it is impossible to teach reading without some phonics.

Also, Phonics isn't the only category in oppostion to whole language.  Whole language also goes against formal grammar lessons.  It proscribes that instead of doing sentence diagrams and learning to break sentences down into subject, predicate, object; and main clauses, subordinate clauses, verbals, and prepositional phrases, the student learns how language functions by reading.  In other words, whole language asserts that by reading and writing the student will pick up on how sentences are constructed.

I was taught by whole language method.  I hate it.  I have spent the last three years trying to correct the effects of that system.  I wish I had benefited from a teacher who made me diagram sentences until I was sick of it.  Then I wouldn't have had to teach myself grammar and punctuation.

Spelling is another shade of this issue.  Whole language method also calls for whole word spelling as apposed to phonics.  Whole word spelling requires children to memorize the spelling of every word in the Enlish lexicon.  Phonics teaches the rules of spelling so that children only have to memorize the exceptions.

Lastly, a more formal, classical method does not exclude an immersion in reading and writing.

The answer to the question as it stand would, for me, have to be a hybrid of both.  There is no way to completely separate them.  The more formal system would provide everything the whole language system does, but would also require tedious memorization of formal rules and functions of language.  The whole language system would have to teach some phonics, grammar, and punctuation, even if it does so with a minimum of formality.

I think the question really is:

Should schools teach rigorous formal grammar?

and then

Should spelling curriculum be formal phonetic spelling or whole word spelling?

Whole language is a term used by reading teachers to describe an instructional philosophy which focuses on reading as an activity best taught in a broader context of meaning. Rather than focusing on reading as a mechanical skill, it is taught as an ongoing part of every student's existing language and life experience. Building on language skills each student already possesses, reading and writing are seen as a part of a broader "whole language" spectrum.

This is the latest debate in early childhood literacy, it's been going on at least since I was a kid. I don't know if there's any way to simplify it; "whole language" is what it's called. We could put it in quotes, if that would help.

I agree this issue isn't exactly a crowd-pleaser, but it was getting some heat around the time of NCLB. I remember reading a few articles in Salon and places like that about how conservatives in education were pushing hard for a return to phonics. I think there's something to it. Do people agree, or is this a reach?

i'm afraid the radio buttons are too obscure.  can we simply them a bit.  i do not know what "whole language" means.