Yes, that’s right, this is a chapter about whole language. But hasn’t whole language been debunked? That’s the term used by SoR enthusiasts for things with which they don’t understand. “It’s debunked,” they tell me. “Whole language has been debunked. Balanced literacy has been debunked. Three cueing has been debunked. Ken Goodman has been debunked. The theory of gravity has been debunked.” I’m just waiting to get my official debunking notice in the mail. I’m anticipating the day when somebody will slap my forehead, sprinkle bath salts on me, and yell, “In the name of Emily Hanford and all that is holy, I debunk you!” But alas, alack, perhaps I’m far too insignificant to be debunked. Currently I am undebunked … or simply bunked. Perhaps, if I work real hard, someday I too can be significant enough to be debunked. We can dream, yes? Whole vs. Part In the last chapter it was stated that teaching component parts in isolation is not nearly as effective as addressing the various interdependent and interacting elements holistically within a meaningful context. Let’s unpack this a bit more. Part-to-whole Structured literacy is based on the idea that people learn complex things best by mastering each little part separately and then putting the parts together to create the whole. This is called part-to-whole instruction or Humpty-Dumptianism. Applied to reading, you would pull apart each of the eight strands of Scarborough’s reading rope, then teach all the little subparts related to each of the eight strands (one little subpart at a time) until all the eight strands and their corresponding subparts were mastered. The theory is that at some point, children would be able to put all the subparts back together again and engage in the act of reading. It just makes good sense, yes? There are 26 letters used to make the 44 phonemes found in the English language. These 44 phonemes are represented by over 280 letter-sound combinations. You teach children how to “decode” by first teaching them how to put together all the 280 letter-sound combinations so they can apply them to all the words they will ever encounter. It just makes good sense, yes? The idea is that children eventually develop what’s called an orthographic map in their head. Orthographic mapping refers to the words stored in long term memory based on letter patterns (Ehri). Think of a storage locker in your head. Here, all the short-a-words would be stored in one section of the locker. Within this section, there would be boxes of /at/ words, /ap/ words, /ab/ words, and such. You’d also have a section of short /e/ words with boxes filled with /ed/ words, /be/ words, /eg/ words, /ell/ words, /en/ words, and such. There’d be other boxes of words laying around with VC syllables, diagraph blends, schwa sounds, r-controlled syllables, r-controlled vowels, and ck endings. There’d be boxes filled with silent /g/ words, VCV words, protector rule words, and … you get the picture. You’d have a whole bunch of different boxes in a whole bunch of different sections with a whole bunch of different words, all neatly organized based on letter patterns. Then, when you encounter a word while reading, you would just go to the right section, find the right box, match the word on the page with the word in one of the boxes, attach a meaning to it, see if the word made sense in the sentence, and there you go. You’re reading. Simple as that. It just makes good sense, yes? Orthographic mapping is a perfectly fine theory, yes? Well, yes and no and yes and no. Orthographic mapping makes perfect sense to an adult mind with years and years of reading experience and a good grasp of the whole. To Louisa Moats and all her LETRS minions, it makes good sense (and good profit). But to a six-year-old kid? Not so much. It’s a bit of an abstraction and it gets in the way of reading. And, as we’ll see in the next chapter, orthographic mapping may be a thing, but semantic mapping (called semantic memory) is much more of a thing. Meaning that when we encounter a word like ‘cat’, our brain doesn’t make connections with similar orthographic things like other short /a/ words or /at/ phonogram words. Our brain makes connections with semantic things like kitty, paws, furry, pet, and puppy. That’s because reading is not simply recognizing letter patterns; rather, it’s using letter patterns and a bunch of other information to create meaning. In the same way, listening isn’t about recognizing phoneme patterns; rather, it’s about using phoneme patterns and a whole bunch of other information to create meaning. Reading and listening are all about meaning and creating meaning. They are meaningful vs. meaningless. Whole-to-Part Part-to-whole structured literacy approaches to reading instruction are limited (cite). Besides research supporting a balanced approach (cite), we know this in part because we know that complex learning of any kind occurs best when it is whole-to-part vs. part-to-whole (Donnelly & Davidoff, 1999; Helmut, 2005; Julia, 2006; Lim, Reiser, & Olina, 2009; Tanaka & Gauthier, 1997). That is, we learn complex things best if we are able to get a sense of the whole first, then we are taught individual parts within the context of the whole. As an example, if we’re given a puzzle, one puzzle piece at a time, we will eventually figure out how all the puzzle pieces fit together, but it will take a lot of time and energy and won’t be very efficient. However, if we’re able to look at the picture on the front of the box first and then we’re given the puzzle pieces, we have a sense of where the puzzle pieces go. It takes much less time and is much more efficient. We’re able to use context. Each puzzle piece will have some meaning. Does that mean structured literacy has been “debunked”? No. Real reading science doesn’t go around debunking things. Things are not that black and white. A structured approach may work for some children at some levels for some purposes. But it’s a bit of a stretch to infer that it’s therefore best for all children at all levels for all reading purposes. This means that to enable all children to achieve their full literacy potential you must immerse them in authentic reading and writing experiences first, then explicitly teaching the necessary skills within this context (cite). Here children are able to see the big picture as context for the subskills related to reading and writing. In other words, it makes sense. This means also that any type of word work or phonics instruction should occur, to the greatest extent possible, within the context of authentic texts or sentences. Making Sense Young children need to read books. “What the hell?” you say. “How can kids read if they can’t read? That don’t make no sense at all.” Well, here’s the thing: children can create meaning with text before they have had any formal decoding instruction. In a brilliant series of studies, Emilia Ferreiro and Ana Tebersosky (1979) found that young pre-decoding children were engaged in meaning-making behaviors with print prior to any formalized decoding instruction. This was their natural inclination. It was a sense-making endeavor. When formalized reading instruction began, it became senseless and it was harder for them. It wasn’t about stories and characters anymore. It was about putting certain sounds to certain symbols and putting symbols together. To read, pre-decoding children use picture clues, knowledge of story grammar, and background knowledge to create meaning with print as they look at books. In group settings, pre-decoding children can read using choral reading and echo reading. Short bits of direct, explicit, systematic phonics instruction takes place within this context. Children and teachers do shared writing and re-read their stories. Short bits of direct, explicit, systematic phonics instruction takes place within this context. Temporary spelling is used to write stories and letters. Short bits of direct, explicit, systematic phonics instruction takes place within this context. Sentence strips and sentence anagrams are also used for developmentally appropriate writing and reading instruction. Short bits of direct, explicit, systematic phonics instruction takes place within this context. And letter games, art projects, science activities, and play activities are designed to capture young children’s natural inclination to play and explore the world around them and at the same time, reinforce letter-sound correspondences. This is called developmentally appropriate instruction. It’s magic! It’s a miracle!