This is the Reading Instruction Show. I'm your host, Dr. Eddie Johnson,
the title of today's podcast, another educational
ununderstanding and it's related to whole language.
Now part one of this podcast series looked at the manufactured
educational crisis in the United States and beyond around the world
and the great untruth that reading test scores are plummeting.
This of course is all nonsense twaddle and poppycock.
This current podcast looks at another
ununderstanding that has been fabricated out of tiny bits of ignorance and
misconceptions and intellectual sloth.
This is the fallacy that whole language has somehow been debunked.
The fallacy that whole language is a failure.
The fallacy that research has proven whole language to be ineffective.
I would again respond nonsense twaddle and poppycock.
So much nonsense twaddle and poppycock to address where does one begin?
In this podcast, I will first do a little bit of d-debunking of the great
ununderstanding related to whole language and then I will provide a bit
of information that might help us to understand what whole language actually is.
So let's look at five common statements related to whole language.
To begin my debunking, I must first unpack a couple of common statements attributed to whole language.
So in this sense, I will debunk the debunking or do a little bit of undemunking.
Undebunking statement number one, whole language has been debunked.
Well, everyone knows this, right?
What people say this or write this and other people repeat what someone has said or written.
But the saying or writing qualify as actual debunking.
Does repeating what someone else's debunking statement says qualify as debunking?
If so, who did the debunker aiding?
What kind of debunkerizer was used?
What exactly was debunked?
Was it fully debunked, semi debunked or partially debunked?
Was the debunking statistically significant?
Was it peer reviewed debunking done by professional debunkers?
Do debunkers need to be licensed or certified?
Can just anybody debunk or do you need special training?
Can I debunk?
If so, I hereby debunk the theory of gravity.
There it's been debunked.
I hereby debunk skills based reading instruction.
There it's debunked.
I hereby debunk those who debunk whole language.
There you go. You've all been debunked.
The second statement to unpack.
Scientists have proven that whole language doesn't work.
Okay, this is another common statement that I hear and it's making a pretty broad claim.
Scientists have proven that whole language doesn't work.
Well, what kind of scientists?
Soybean scientists, nuclear scientists, animal husbandry scientists?
What was their expertise?
Were these scientists wearing white lab coats?
And how did they determine that whole language doesn't work?
Did they have control and experimental groups with comparable populations?
Were all the variables accounted for?
Was it true experimental design with randomized assignment to groups?
Or was it quasi experimental design?
Was there a large enough sample size?
Were they disproving good whole language instruction?
Were the scientists with white lab coats looking at whole language being implemented
by qualified teachers who knew what they were doing and why?
Or was it a perverted version of whole language, which is often the case,
implemented by teachers who had no idea what they were doing?
As will be shown below in much of the quote research, unquote,
debunking and disproving whole language, what is debunked and disproven is not whole language at all.
Rather, it's some perverted cartoonish version of what somebody
who has never actually read a book or article describing whole language
is what they think whole languages are might be.
So they are debunking and disproving something that's not.
The third statement to unpacked, research has shown that whole language is a failure.
That's another phrase I commonly hear.
And I say a failure, but who is it now?
What research is this exactly that has shown that whole language as a failure?
Show me the research.
Now, don't send me to a web page.
That's not research.
Don't give me the name of a book or a famous person.
That's not research.
Don't show me some data that someone has collected.
If research has shown that whole language is a failure,
I want to see at least one bit of research.
And remember, research is not research unless or until it has been subjected to blind peer review.
I want to look at a study that has been subjected to blind peer review.
I want to see the research question or questions.
I want to know about the subjects participating in the study,
the data that were collected, how the data were collected,
how they were analyzed, and how the results were interpreted.
Send me the study.
That's not too much to ask for.
For such a broad and bold claim such as research has shown that whole language is a failure.
You don't have to do a lit review.
One study is fine.
Now, often research claiming that whole language is a failure
tend to compare groups who did and did not teach reading sub skills.
They tend to find that in post-test measures of reading sub skills,
the group teaching reading sub skills scored higher on measures of reading sub skills.
Amazing.
Who would have predicted that?
If you teach something, you'll more apt to get higher post-test measures of that something you taught
than if you didn't teach something.
But does that something have anything to do with something else?
That's the real question.
Statement number four to unpacked.
Research has shown that phonics is more effective than whole language.
Now, this is just silly.
It doesn't need a lot of unpacking.
As will be described below, whole language includes a healthy dose of phonics.
It's not either or.
Phonics is something you teach as part of reading, as part of whole language.
Phonics is not a method or approach.
It's something you teach silly statements like these made by people who have no idea
what they're talking about related to reading.
It shows they don't understand.
They have never read anything about whole language or any research.
Teaching phonics is more effective in learning phonics than not teaching phonics.
Again, teaching phonics is more effective in learning phonics than not teaching phonics.
Absolutely.
But direct and explicit phonics instruction is an important part of whole language reading instruction.
Let me say that again.
Teaching phonics directly and explicitly is an important part of whole language reading instruction.
It's not the what of phonics instruction in which there are differences between whole language and skills based approaches.
It's the how and how much of phonics instruction in which there are differences.
And the last silly statement to unpacked, reading test scores are going down because of whole language.
As described in part one of this podcast series, there are normal fluctuations and scores over time as would be expected in any normal population of human beings.
But there is not a long term downward trend in reading scores.
They're not plummeting.
Yes, there's been a pandemic dip as we would expect in any worldwide pandemic with millions of people dying.
But reading test scores have largely stayed the same or risen slightly over the years.
But for the sake of argument, if reading test scores were going down, which they're not, of all the thousands upon thousands of variables, how was whole language determined to be the causal factor?
Now, correlation does not infer causation.
Two things happening at the same time does not mean one thing made the other thing occur.
If so, I could ascribe all sorts of things to a fictitious drop in reading scores.
For example, since schools started serving chocolate milk at lunch, reading test scores have gone down.
Therefore, chocolate milk is causing reading test scores to go down.
We need to go back to serving just white milk.
You get the idea.
However, this sort of correlational thinking is used to determine spurious causal factors for all sorts of things.
For example, since prayer was taken out of public schools, teen pregnancy has risen.
So lack of public prayer is causing an increase in teen pregnancy.
You get the idea.
All right, the five spurious, silly statements.
Whole language has been debunked, which it hasn't.
Scientists have proven that whole language doesn't work, which they haven't.
Research has shown that whole language is a failure, which it hasn't.
Research has shown that phonics is more effective than whole language, which is just silly.
And five reading test scores are going down because of whole language, which is just silly and not true.
Now, anybody can say stuff.
Anybody can write stuff.
Anybody can have a podcast like me or a YouTube channel like me.
Anybody can write stuff in the newspaper.
Anybody can fill the page or the air with words upon words.
Blabbering in such a thing.
Blabbering, blabbering, blabbering does not mean it's real.
But here's the beauty of peer-reviewed academic journals and textbooks.
They are blind peer-reviewed by a jury of your peers, by people with some expertise in the area
in which you wish to publish.
So if you say something goofy, wacky, or nutty, you better have plenty of good sources to cite
because reviewers tend to take great umbrage at goofy, wacky, and nutty stuff and you won't get published.
In academia, we have to cite our sources.
And our sources have to be research or research-based theoretical articles
that have been subjected to blind peer-review.
Blind peer-review is the minimal bar that any academic must get over in order to have their ideas entered seriously into the conversation.
And no, I don't cite my sources in my podcasts or YouTubes.
It's not a source-citing medium.
But in my books and articles, I do plenty of citing.
So data.
Look at the data they say.
Well, data isn't research.
Occasionally, I'll ask someone to show me some research supporting their claim that research shows that whole language doesn't work.
Too often, what occurs next is that they'll point to a set of data that some person, company, or for-profit organization has collected.
Data is not the same as research.
Data is a set of information.
A set of data has no context.
A set of data can easily be misconstrued or distorted or even misinterpreted.
There's no peer-review process involved in simply collecting data.
You can make data say whatever you want.
You cannot do the same thing with peer-reviewed research.
Research is not research unless and until it has been subjected to blind peer review.
Well, you're saying aren't NAEP scores just a set of data?
National Assessment of Educational Process?
Yup.
It's a robust set of data, but it's data all the same.
It's not peer-reviewed research.
And that's why I would be hard-pressed to infer any causal relationships.
However, I would feel confident in not inferring causal relationships.
That is, I can say that the idea that test scores in the United States are plummeting is not supported by NAEP data.
I'm not saying that something caused something else to occur.
So, show me the research.
If you still insist after all this that scientists wearing white lab coats have conducted extensive or even unextensive research
and have found that whole language doesn't work, that it's a massive failure, all well and good.
But show me at least one research study.
And again, not a famous person describing something, not somebody citing other research, not a book, not a website.
No, show me just a little bit of research. Just one little research article would be sufficient, please.
But if you say the ball is blue, you should be able to point to a ball and that ball should be blue.
If you say that research shows that whole language doesn't work, at minimum, you should be able to point to at least one research study.
We should be able to look at this research study in question and find the question or purpose of the study, the subjects or participants,
the treatment or criteria and conditions, the data that were collected or observed, the measures or instruments used to collect the data,
and the results or findings.
That's what we should be able to see at minimum.
So, what it is that doesn't work?
Let's define our terms.
Let's first adequately define what whole language is, if we want to say it does or doesn't work.
Not some perverted cartoonish idea of what you think whole language is or might be.
So, if whole language has indeed been debunked, discredited and proven not to work, let us first define what you are talking about.
And when I ask this question, it soon becomes obvious that debunkers and unprovers have no idea what whole language is.
So, first, three things what whole language is not, and then some things what whole language is.
Whole language is not a whole word approach or a look say approach.
Whole word.
This is where you teach reading by asking students to memorize whole words.
Now, both whole language and whole word have the word whole in them, but that's where the similarities end.
Whole language does not ask students to memorize whole words.
Two, whole language does not teach children to simply guess what words are.
This is silly.
Along with letter clues, students are taught to use context clues and syntactical cues to help them recognize words during the act of reading and recognizing is different from identifying words.
Readers are constantly using all three queuing systems to make predictions about what words might be in the microseconds available to them.
We develop all three queuing systems looking at three types of clues versus just one clue, letter sounds.
Looking at three types of clues enables readers to be much more efficient in their recognizing of words.
One versus three.
Three is usually better than one unless you're playing golf.
And the third thing of what whole language is not, whole language does not ignore phonics instruction.
Again, it's not the what of phonics instruction, rather the how and the how much of phonics instruction in which there are differences between skills-based and meaning-based practitioner.
Whole language teachers believe in very direct and very explicit instruction of phonics.
In fact, it's more direct than skills-based practitioners because phonics instruction often comes directly from what students are reading directly in the context of authentic reading.
So, let us look at what whole language is.
First, whole language is not a method or an approach.
There's not a set of steps.
It looks a bit different in every classroom.
There is no standardized program to be implemented with fidelity.
Instead, whole language is an understanding of how human literacy learning occurs.
Human beings learn to read and write most effectively and efficiently from whole to part.
If the whole, if it's kept whole and complete to the greatest extent possible, instead of focusing on little sub skills, the Humpty Dumpty approach where little bits and pieces are put together to create a whole.
So, let's look at 12 things of what whole language is.
First, whole language defines reading as creating meaning with print, not sounding out words.
So, our goal in reading instruction is to help students create meaning, not sounding out words.
Sounding out words is just a part of this.
Two whole language teachers teach students four ways to identify words versus one.
Again, in most contexts, unless you're playing golf, four is better than one.
Identifying words is different from recognizing words.
Recognizing words is when you see a word in print and you automatically know what it is.
Identifying words is when you see a word in print. It's in your lexicon, but you don't immediately recognize it.
So, you need to consciously employ some strategy.
That's an important difference, recognizing words versus identifying words.
The four word identification strategies are one, context, two, word parts or analogies.
Three morphemic analysis, prefix suffix and roots.
And four phonics.
Skills-based teachers only teach one, phonics.
Whole language teachers teach four. Four is better than one.
Three whole language teachers use activities and strategies to develop all three queuing systems versus one.
A queuing system is a system in the brain that we use to recognize words.
Systems interact and work together.
As we encounter words on the page in the microseconds available to us, we use the semantic queuing system or context,
the syntactic queuing system, grammar or word order, and the graph of phonetic or phonological queuing systems, which is letter, clues.
Three queuing systems.
Skills-based teachers develop only one queuing system, the phonological.
Whole language teachers strive to develop all three in case one is better than the other.
It gives students three versus one. Three is better than one.
Four, whole language teachers create the conditions whereby students can develop their abilities to read and write.
Small bits of direct instruction are used in the context of authentic reading and writing activities.
Large amounts of time each day are spent practicing reading and writing.
Skills are best learned in this context.
Now, I can hear some of you whining, but what if they don't know how to read, Dr. Johnson?
You're a silly little bald man.
Well, yes, I'm a silly little bald man. That's okay.
But read is creating meaning with print.
Kindergarten in first grade, students are using more letter clues or picture clues than letter clues, but they are creating meaning with print.
It's in the context of this that we began to teach letter sounds.
What I'm reading about Dave the dog in large group, that's where we introduce the D sound or the D sound.
Five whole language teachers see reading as an interactive process both top down and bottom up.
We use what's in our head. That's the top to make sense of what's on the page.
What's in the head interacts with what's on the page to create meaning.
Having stuff in our head about what we're reading is important.
That's why we want beginning readers to learn to read using their words and concepts with which they are familiar, their experiences.
Six, we've kind of alluded to this, but whole language teachers utilize whole to part versus part to whole instruction.
The whole is reading real books and writing authentic sorts of things.
The part is the little teeny tiny bits of skills instruction.
The whole we get them practicing reading and writing and then we teach the little skills skills based use a Humpty Dumpty and approach.
All the little pieces have been broken up and they try to have students put all the little pieces together and when they're put together, then they let the read books.
That's the whole seven whole language teachers recognize that reading is a pleasurable act.
That is until we interfere. We read to enjoy or to understand things.
Human beings naturally want to do this. It's a pleasurable thing unless we interfere.
We don't have to manipulate or control.
We want to use children's natural inclination to learn to find out about things and to enjoy reading as the basis of learning to read.
Eight, writing is an expression of ideas.
Human beings naturally want to do this.
We have this innate need to communicate unless we interfere.
We learn skills of writing, grammar, punctuation, spelling best in the context of real authentic writing and sharing our stories.
Writing must be shared. Reading is joyful.
Ninth idea. Students are the main scope and sequence.
We're not looking at a chart starting at the beginning and going down.
We are kid watchers. We're listening to them read. We're observing them write. We see what they need.
Yes, we can still use a scope and sequence chart to fill in the blanks, but our students, we see what they need.
That is very direct and very explicit instruction.
Number 10, very direct and very explicit instructions, a phonics and other reading sub skills occur as I've said before.
It occurred directly in the context of what students are reading and writing about.
We don't try to have them learn their skills one place and think it's going to transfer to real live reading and writing in another place.
We use the real life reading and writing skills learned out of context do not transfer very readily.
The 11th idea. Literacy is a continuing developing skill.
We get better at any skill through practice. We practice reading and writing.
We should call it reading practice instead of reading class.
In the same way, if we don't practice our skills atrophy and last the 12th idea.
Children learn to read and write not the same, but much the same way as they learn to speak.
We can use that this natural inclination to make meaning.
Children were immersed in authentic speaking and listening situations.
We expected them to learn at different rates and in different ways.
And children were responded to versus correcting. We didn't have ability groups.
All right. This has been the reading instruction show.
I've been looking at some really silly ideas.
The big one that somehow low whole language has been disproven or debunked.
Hopefully I debunked some of this debunking.
If not, please send me some research. I'll be happy to look at it.
This has been the reading instruction show.