1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:05,100
This is the Reading Instruction Show. I'm your host, Dr. Eddie Johnson,

2
00:00:05,100 --> 00:00:09,200
the title of today's podcast, another educational

3
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:13,300
ununderstanding and it's related to whole language.

4
00:00:13,300 --> 00:00:18,000
Now part one of this podcast series looked at the manufactured

5
00:00:18,000 --> 00:00:22,800
educational crisis in the United States and beyond around the world

6
00:00:22,800 --> 00:00:28,800
and the great untruth that reading test scores are plummeting.

7
00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:33,600
This of course is all nonsense twaddle and poppycock.

8
00:00:33,600 --> 00:00:37,200
This current podcast looks at another

9
00:00:37,200 --> 00:00:42,100
ununderstanding that has been fabricated out of tiny bits of ignorance and

10
00:00:42,100 --> 00:00:45,500
misconceptions and intellectual sloth.

11
00:00:45,500 --> 00:00:50,700
This is the fallacy that whole language has somehow been debunked.

12
00:00:50,700 --> 00:00:54,400
The fallacy that whole language is a failure.

13
00:00:54,400 --> 00:01:00,000
The fallacy that research has proven whole language to be ineffective.

14
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:04,200
I would again respond nonsense twaddle and poppycock.

15
00:01:04,200 --> 00:01:10,200
So much nonsense twaddle and poppycock to address where does one begin?

16
00:01:10,200 --> 00:01:14,800
In this podcast, I will first do a little bit of d-debunking of the great

17
00:01:14,800 --> 00:01:19,900
ununderstanding related to whole language and then I will provide a bit

18
00:01:19,900 --> 00:01:25,800
of information that might help us to understand what whole language actually is.

19
00:01:25,800 --> 00:01:32,100
So let's look at five common statements related to whole language.

20
00:01:32,100 --> 00:01:40,500
To begin my debunking, I must first unpack a couple of common statements attributed to whole language.

21
00:01:40,500 --> 00:01:46,100
So in this sense, I will debunk the debunking or do a little bit of undemunking.

22
00:01:46,100 --> 00:01:51,600
Undebunking statement number one, whole language has been debunked.

23
00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:54,700
Well, everyone knows this, right?

24
00:01:54,700 --> 00:02:02,300
What people say this or write this and other people repeat what someone has said or written.

25
00:02:02,300 --> 00:02:08,900
But the saying or writing qualify as actual debunking.

26
00:02:08,900 --> 00:02:16,100
Does repeating what someone else's debunking statement says qualify as debunking?

27
00:02:16,100 --> 00:02:19,700
If so, who did the debunker aiding?

28
00:02:19,700 --> 00:02:22,400
What kind of debunkerizer was used?

29
00:02:22,400 --> 00:02:25,400
What exactly was debunked?

30
00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:30,300
Was it fully debunked, semi debunked or partially debunked?

31
00:02:30,300 --> 00:02:33,500
Was the debunking statistically significant?

32
00:02:33,500 --> 00:02:38,300
Was it peer reviewed debunking done by professional debunkers?

33
00:02:38,300 --> 00:02:41,300
Do debunkers need to be licensed or certified?

34
00:02:41,300 --> 00:02:45,900
Can just anybody debunk or do you need special training?

35
00:02:45,900 --> 00:02:47,700
Can I debunk?

36
00:02:47,700 --> 00:02:51,900
If so, I hereby debunk the theory of gravity.

37
00:02:51,900 --> 00:02:55,000
There it's been debunked.

38
00:02:55,000 --> 00:02:58,600
I hereby debunk skills based reading instruction.

39
00:02:58,600 --> 00:03:01,000
There it's debunked.

40
00:03:01,000 --> 00:03:05,100
I hereby debunk those who debunk whole language.

41
00:03:05,100 --> 00:03:09,100
There you go. You've all been debunked.

42
00:03:09,100 --> 00:03:12,500
The second statement to unpack.

43
00:03:12,500 --> 00:03:18,100
Scientists have proven that whole language doesn't work.

44
00:03:18,100 --> 00:03:26,500
Okay, this is another common statement that I hear and it's making a pretty broad claim.

45
00:03:26,500 --> 00:03:31,400
Scientists have proven that whole language doesn't work.

46
00:03:31,400 --> 00:03:34,200
Well, what kind of scientists?

47
00:03:34,200 --> 00:03:40,400
Soybean scientists, nuclear scientists, animal husbandry scientists?

48
00:03:40,400 --> 00:03:42,600
What was their expertise?

49
00:03:42,600 --> 00:03:45,800
Were these scientists wearing white lab coats?

50
00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:50,500
And how did they determine that whole language doesn't work?

51
00:03:50,500 --> 00:03:56,600
Did they have control and experimental groups with comparable populations?

52
00:03:56,600 --> 00:03:59,800
Were all the variables accounted for?

53
00:03:59,800 --> 00:04:04,200
Was it true experimental design with randomized assignment to groups?

54
00:04:04,200 --> 00:04:07,700
Or was it quasi experimental design?

55
00:04:07,700 --> 00:04:10,900
Was there a large enough sample size?

56
00:04:10,900 --> 00:04:15,100
Were they disproving good whole language instruction?

57
00:04:15,100 --> 00:04:21,100
Were the scientists with white lab coats looking at whole language being implemented

58
00:04:21,100 --> 00:04:25,500
by qualified teachers who knew what they were doing and why?

59
00:04:25,500 --> 00:04:30,500
Or was it a perverted version of whole language, which is often the case,

60
00:04:30,500 --> 00:04:34,800
implemented by teachers who had no idea what they were doing?

61
00:04:34,800 --> 00:04:40,700
As will be shown below in much of the quote research, unquote,

62
00:04:40,700 --> 00:04:48,400
debunking and disproving whole language, what is debunked and disproven is not whole language at all.

63
00:04:48,400 --> 00:04:53,800
Rather, it's some perverted cartoonish version of what somebody

64
00:04:53,800 --> 00:04:59,900
who has never actually read a book or article describing whole language

65
00:04:59,900 --> 00:05:04,300
is what they think whole languages are might be.

66
00:05:04,300 --> 00:05:10,700
So they are debunking and disproving something that's not.

67
00:05:10,700 --> 00:05:19,200
The third statement to unpacked, research has shown that whole language is a failure.

68
00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:22,900
That's another phrase I commonly hear.

69
00:05:22,900 --> 00:05:26,200
And I say a failure, but who is it now?

70
00:05:26,200 --> 00:05:32,300
What research is this exactly that has shown that whole language as a failure?

71
00:05:32,300 --> 00:05:33,800
Show me the research.

72
00:05:33,800 --> 00:05:36,800
Now, don't send me to a web page.

73
00:05:36,800 --> 00:05:38,200
That's not research.

74
00:05:38,200 --> 00:05:41,400
Don't give me the name of a book or a famous person.

75
00:05:41,400 --> 00:05:42,800
That's not research.

76
00:05:42,800 --> 00:05:46,500
Don't show me some data that someone has collected.

77
00:05:46,500 --> 00:05:51,300
If research has shown that whole language is a failure,

78
00:05:51,300 --> 00:05:54,600
I want to see at least one bit of research.

79
00:05:54,600 --> 00:06:03,000
And remember, research is not research unless or until it has been subjected to blind peer review.

80
00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:09,600
I want to look at a study that has been subjected to blind peer review.

81
00:06:09,600 --> 00:06:13,400
I want to see the research question or questions.

82
00:06:13,400 --> 00:06:17,500
I want to know about the subjects participating in the study,

83
00:06:17,500 --> 00:06:21,200
the data that were collected, how the data were collected,

84
00:06:21,200 --> 00:06:27,100
how they were analyzed, and how the results were interpreted.

85
00:06:27,100 --> 00:06:30,300
Send me the study.

86
00:06:30,300 --> 00:06:32,400
That's not too much to ask for.

87
00:06:32,400 --> 00:06:39,700
For such a broad and bold claim such as research has shown that whole language is a failure.

88
00:06:39,700 --> 00:06:41,500
You don't have to do a lit review.

89
00:06:41,500 --> 00:06:45,500
One study is fine.

90
00:06:45,500 --> 00:06:49,600
Now, often research claiming that whole language is a failure

91
00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:55,600
tend to compare groups who did and did not teach reading sub skills.

92
00:06:55,600 --> 00:07:00,000
They tend to find that in post-test measures of reading sub skills,

93
00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:06,200
the group teaching reading sub skills scored higher on measures of reading sub skills.

94
00:07:06,200 --> 00:07:07,000
Amazing.

95
00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:09,800
Who would have predicted that?

96
00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:15,800
If you teach something, you'll more apt to get higher post-test measures of that something you taught

97
00:07:15,800 --> 00:07:18,300
than if you didn't teach something.

98
00:07:18,300 --> 00:07:21,800
But does that something have anything to do with something else?

99
00:07:21,800 --> 00:07:25,700
That's the real question.

100
00:07:25,700 --> 00:07:27,700
Statement number four to unpacked.

101
00:07:27,700 --> 00:07:32,700
Research has shown that phonics is more effective than whole language.

102
00:07:32,700 --> 00:07:34,200
Now, this is just silly.

103
00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:37,100
It doesn't need a lot of unpacking.

104
00:07:37,100 --> 00:07:44,500
As will be described below, whole language includes a healthy dose of phonics.

105
00:07:44,500 --> 00:07:47,900
It's not either or.

106
00:07:47,900 --> 00:07:53,400
Phonics is something you teach as part of reading, as part of whole language.

107
00:07:53,400 --> 00:07:58,600
Phonics is not a method or approach.

108
00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:07,400
It's something you teach silly statements like these made by people who have no idea

109
00:08:07,400 --> 00:08:09,800
what they're talking about related to reading.

110
00:08:09,800 --> 00:08:12,400
It shows they don't understand.

111
00:08:12,400 --> 00:08:17,100
They have never read anything about whole language or any research.

112
00:08:17,100 --> 00:08:23,700
Teaching phonics is more effective in learning phonics than not teaching phonics.

113
00:08:23,700 --> 00:08:28,600
Again, teaching phonics is more effective in learning phonics than not teaching phonics.

114
00:08:28,600 --> 00:08:30,100
Absolutely.

115
00:08:30,100 --> 00:08:37,200
But direct and explicit phonics instruction is an important part of whole language reading instruction.

116
00:08:37,200 --> 00:08:38,600
Let me say that again.

117
00:08:38,600 --> 00:08:48,900
Teaching phonics directly and explicitly is an important part of whole language reading instruction.

118
00:08:48,900 --> 00:08:56,900
It's not the what of phonics instruction in which there are differences between whole language and skills based approaches.

119
00:08:56,900 --> 00:09:05,100
It's the how and how much of phonics instruction in which there are differences.

120
00:09:05,100 --> 00:09:14,900
And the last silly statement to unpacked, reading test scores are going down because of whole language.

121
00:09:14,900 --> 00:09:29,500
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.

122
00:09:29,500 --> 00:09:35,500
But there is not a long term downward trend in reading scores.

123
00:09:35,500 --> 00:09:38,000
They're not plummeting.

124
00:09:38,000 --> 00:09:47,300
Yes, there's been a pandemic dip as we would expect in any worldwide pandemic with millions of people dying.

125
00:09:47,300 --> 00:09:53,400
But reading test scores have largely stayed the same or risen slightly over the years.

126
00:09:53,400 --> 00:10:11,100
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?

127
00:10:11,100 --> 00:10:16,700
Now, correlation does not infer causation.

128
00:10:16,700 --> 00:10:24,900
Two things happening at the same time does not mean one thing made the other thing occur.

129
00:10:24,900 --> 00:10:30,900
If so, I could ascribe all sorts of things to a fictitious drop in reading scores.

130
00:10:30,900 --> 00:10:37,800
For example, since schools started serving chocolate milk at lunch, reading test scores have gone down.

131
00:10:37,800 --> 00:10:42,700
Therefore, chocolate milk is causing reading test scores to go down.

132
00:10:42,700 --> 00:10:46,000
We need to go back to serving just white milk.

133
00:10:46,000 --> 00:10:48,900
You get the idea.

134
00:10:48,900 --> 00:10:57,900
However, this sort of correlational thinking is used to determine spurious causal factors for all sorts of things.

135
00:10:57,900 --> 00:11:03,400
For example, since prayer was taken out of public schools, teen pregnancy has risen.

136
00:11:03,400 --> 00:11:09,600
So lack of public prayer is causing an increase in teen pregnancy.

137
00:11:09,600 --> 00:11:12,900
You get the idea.

138
00:11:12,900 --> 00:11:16,800
All right, the five spurious, silly statements.

139
00:11:16,800 --> 00:11:21,000
Whole language has been debunked, which it hasn't.

140
00:11:21,000 --> 00:11:26,700
Scientists have proven that whole language doesn't work, which they haven't.

141
00:11:26,700 --> 00:11:32,500
Research has shown that whole language is a failure, which it hasn't.

142
00:11:32,500 --> 00:11:38,500
Research has shown that phonics is more effective than whole language, which is just silly.

143
00:11:38,500 --> 00:11:46,300
And five reading test scores are going down because of whole language, which is just silly and not true.

144
00:11:46,300 --> 00:11:50,400
Now, anybody can say stuff.

145
00:11:50,400 --> 00:11:53,800
Anybody can write stuff.

146
00:11:53,800 --> 00:12:00,800
Anybody can have a podcast like me or a YouTube channel like me.

147
00:12:00,800 --> 00:12:03,700
Anybody can write stuff in the newspaper.

148
00:12:03,700 --> 00:12:10,300
Anybody can fill the page or the air with words upon words.

149
00:12:10,300 --> 00:12:14,200
Blabbering in such a thing.

150
00:12:14,200 --> 00:12:18,600
Blabbering, blabbering, blabbering does not mean it's real.

151
00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:24,500
But here's the beauty of peer-reviewed academic journals and textbooks.

152
00:12:24,500 --> 00:12:32,400
They are blind peer-reviewed by a jury of your peers, by people with some expertise in the area

153
00:12:32,400 --> 00:12:35,400
in which you wish to publish.

154
00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:43,600
So if you say something goofy, wacky, or nutty, you better have plenty of good sources to cite

155
00:12:43,600 --> 00:12:51,900
because reviewers tend to take great umbrage at goofy, wacky, and nutty stuff and you won't get published.

156
00:12:51,900 --> 00:12:55,900
In academia, we have to cite our sources.

157
00:12:55,900 --> 00:13:01,800
And our sources have to be research or research-based theoretical articles

158
00:13:01,800 --> 00:13:07,000
that have been subjected to blind peer-review.

159
00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:19,500
Blind peer-review is the minimal bar that any academic must get over in order to have their ideas entered seriously into the conversation.

160
00:13:19,500 --> 00:13:23,700
And no, I don't cite my sources in my podcasts or YouTubes.

161
00:13:23,700 --> 00:13:27,100
It's not a source-citing medium.

162
00:13:27,100 --> 00:13:31,700
But in my books and articles, I do plenty of citing.

163
00:13:31,700 --> 00:13:35,000
So data.

164
00:13:35,000 --> 00:13:36,300
Look at the data they say.

165
00:13:36,300 --> 00:13:38,600
Well, data isn't research.

166
00:13:38,600 --> 00:13:46,300
Occasionally, I'll ask someone to show me some research supporting their claim that research shows that whole language doesn't work.

167
00:13:46,300 --> 00:13:56,800
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.

168
00:13:56,800 --> 00:14:01,700
Data is not the same as research.

169
00:14:01,700 --> 00:14:05,600
Data is a set of information.

170
00:14:05,600 --> 00:14:07,700
A set of data has no context.

171
00:14:07,700 --> 00:14:15,200
A set of data can easily be misconstrued or distorted or even misinterpreted.

172
00:14:15,200 --> 00:14:21,400
There's no peer-review process involved in simply collecting data.

173
00:14:21,400 --> 00:14:24,900
You can make data say whatever you want.

174
00:14:24,900 --> 00:14:29,100
You cannot do the same thing with peer-reviewed research.

175
00:14:29,100 --> 00:14:37,100
Research is not research unless and until it has been subjected to blind peer review.

176
00:14:37,100 --> 00:14:42,000
Well, you're saying aren't NAEP scores just a set of data?

177
00:14:42,000 --> 00:14:45,100
National Assessment of Educational Process?

178
00:14:45,100 --> 00:14:46,600
Yup.

179
00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:50,100
It's a robust set of data, but it's data all the same.

180
00:14:50,100 --> 00:14:53,900
It's not peer-reviewed research.

181
00:14:53,900 --> 00:14:58,900
And that's why I would be hard-pressed to infer any causal relationships.

182
00:14:58,900 --> 00:15:04,900
However, I would feel confident in not inferring causal relationships.

183
00:15:04,900 --> 00:15:14,900
That is, I can say that the idea that test scores in the United States are plummeting is not supported by NAEP data.

184
00:15:14,900 --> 00:15:19,900
I'm not saying that something caused something else to occur.

185
00:15:19,900 --> 00:15:22,900
So, show me the research.

186
00:15:22,900 --> 00:15:31,900
If you still insist after all this that scientists wearing white lab coats have conducted extensive or even unextensive research

187
00:15:31,900 --> 00:15:37,900
and have found that whole language doesn't work, that it's a massive failure, all well and good.

188
00:15:37,900 --> 00:15:40,900
But show me at least one research study.

189
00:15:40,900 --> 00:15:47,900
And again, not a famous person describing something, not somebody citing other research, not a book, not a website.

190
00:15:47,900 --> 00:15:56,900
No, show me just a little bit of research. Just one little research article would be sufficient, please.

191
00:15:56,900 --> 00:16:02,900
But if you say the ball is blue, you should be able to point to a ball and that ball should be blue.

192
00:16:02,900 --> 00:16:13,900
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.

193
00:16:13,900 --> 00:16:21,900
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,

194
00:16:21,900 --> 00:16:32,900
the treatment or criteria and conditions, the data that were collected or observed, the measures or instruments used to collect the data,

195
00:16:32,900 --> 00:16:35,900
and the results or findings.

196
00:16:35,900 --> 00:16:39,900
That's what we should be able to see at minimum.

197
00:16:39,900 --> 00:16:43,900
So, what it is that doesn't work?

198
00:16:43,900 --> 00:16:45,900
Let's define our terms.

199
00:16:45,900 --> 00:16:52,900
Let's first adequately define what whole language is, if we want to say it does or doesn't work.

200
00:16:52,900 --> 00:16:59,900
Not some perverted cartoonish idea of what you think whole language is or might be.

201
00:16:59,900 --> 00:17:12,900
So, if whole language has indeed been debunked, discredited and proven not to work, let us first define what you are talking about.

202
00:17:12,900 --> 00:17:21,900
And when I ask this question, it soon becomes obvious that debunkers and unprovers have no idea what whole language is.

203
00:17:21,900 --> 00:17:28,900
So, first, three things what whole language is not, and then some things what whole language is.

204
00:17:28,900 --> 00:17:36,900
Whole language is not a whole word approach or a look say approach.

205
00:17:36,900 --> 00:17:38,900
Whole word.

206
00:17:38,900 --> 00:17:44,900
This is where you teach reading by asking students to memorize whole words.

207
00:17:44,900 --> 00:17:52,900
Now, both whole language and whole word have the word whole in them, but that's where the similarities end.

208
00:17:52,900 --> 00:17:58,900
Whole language does not ask students to memorize whole words.

209
00:17:58,900 --> 00:18:03,900
Two, whole language does not teach children to simply guess what words are.

210
00:18:03,900 --> 00:18:06,900
This is silly.

211
00:18:06,900 --> 00:18:21,900
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.

212
00:18:21,900 --> 00:18:32,900
Readers are constantly using all three queuing systems to make predictions about what words might be in the microseconds available to them.

213
00:18:32,900 --> 00:18:43,900
We develop all three queuing systems looking at three types of clues versus just one clue, letter sounds.

214
00:18:43,900 --> 00:18:49,900
Looking at three types of clues enables readers to be much more efficient in their recognizing of words.

215
00:18:49,900 --> 00:18:51,900
One versus three.

216
00:18:51,900 --> 00:18:55,900
Three is usually better than one unless you're playing golf.

217
00:18:55,900 --> 00:19:03,900
And the third thing of what whole language is not, whole language does not ignore phonics instruction.

218
00:19:03,900 --> 00:19:16,900
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.

219
00:19:16,900 --> 00:19:24,900
Whole language teachers believe in very direct and very explicit instruction of phonics.

220
00:19:24,900 --> 00:19:38,900
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.

221
00:19:38,900 --> 00:19:42,900
So, let us look at what whole language is.

222
00:19:42,900 --> 00:19:48,900
First, whole language is not a method or an approach.

223
00:19:48,900 --> 00:19:51,900
There's not a set of steps.

224
00:19:51,900 --> 00:19:55,900
It looks a bit different in every classroom.

225
00:19:55,900 --> 00:20:01,900
There is no standardized program to be implemented with fidelity.

226
00:20:01,900 --> 00:20:08,900
Instead, whole language is an understanding of how human literacy learning occurs.

227
00:20:08,900 --> 00:20:15,900
Human beings learn to read and write most effectively and efficiently from whole to part.

228
00:20:15,900 --> 00:20:29,900
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.

229
00:20:29,900 --> 00:20:34,900
So, let's look at 12 things of what whole language is.

230
00:20:34,900 --> 00:20:42,900
First, whole language defines reading as creating meaning with print, not sounding out words.

231
00:20:42,900 --> 00:20:50,900
So, our goal in reading instruction is to help students create meaning, not sounding out words.

232
00:20:50,900 --> 00:20:56,900
Sounding out words is just a part of this.

233
00:20:56,900 --> 00:21:04,900
Two whole language teachers teach students four ways to identify words versus one.

234
00:21:04,900 --> 00:21:10,900
Again, in most contexts, unless you're playing golf, four is better than one.

235
00:21:10,900 --> 00:21:14,900
Identifying words is different from recognizing words.

236
00:21:14,900 --> 00:21:21,900
Recognizing words is when you see a word in print and you automatically know what it is.

237
00:21:21,900 --> 00:21:30,900
Identifying words is when you see a word in print. It's in your lexicon, but you don't immediately recognize it.

238
00:21:30,900 --> 00:21:35,900
So, you need to consciously employ some strategy.

239
00:21:35,900 --> 00:21:41,900
That's an important difference, recognizing words versus identifying words.

240
00:21:41,900 --> 00:21:50,900
The four word identification strategies are one, context, two, word parts or analogies.

241
00:21:50,900 --> 00:21:54,900
Three morphemic analysis, prefix suffix and roots.

242
00:21:54,900 --> 00:21:57,900
And four phonics.

243
00:21:57,900 --> 00:22:01,900
Skills-based teachers only teach one, phonics.

244
00:22:01,900 --> 00:22:07,900
Whole language teachers teach four. Four is better than one.

245
00:22:07,900 --> 00:22:16,900
Three whole language teachers use activities and strategies to develop all three queuing systems versus one.

246
00:22:16,900 --> 00:22:22,900
A queuing system is a system in the brain that we use to recognize words.

247
00:22:22,900 --> 00:22:25,900
Systems interact and work together.

248
00:22:25,900 --> 00:22:32,900
As we encounter words on the page in the microseconds available to us, we use the semantic queuing system or context,

249
00:22:32,900 --> 00:22:43,900
the syntactic queuing system, grammar or word order, and the graph of phonetic or phonological queuing systems, which is letter, clues.

250
00:22:43,900 --> 00:22:46,900
Three queuing systems.

251
00:22:46,900 --> 00:22:50,900
Skills-based teachers develop only one queuing system, the phonological.

252
00:22:50,900 --> 00:22:57,900
Whole language teachers strive to develop all three in case one is better than the other.

253
00:22:57,900 --> 00:23:01,900
It gives students three versus one. Three is better than one.

254
00:23:01,900 --> 00:23:09,900
Four, whole language teachers create the conditions whereby students can develop their abilities to read and write.

255
00:23:09,900 --> 00:23:18,900
Small bits of direct instruction are used in the context of authentic reading and writing activities.

256
00:23:18,900 --> 00:23:23,900
Large amounts of time each day are spent practicing reading and writing.

257
00:23:23,900 --> 00:23:26,900
Skills are best learned in this context.

258
00:23:26,900 --> 00:23:31,900
Now, I can hear some of you whining, but what if they don't know how to read, Dr. Johnson?

259
00:23:31,900 --> 00:23:33,900
You're a silly little bald man.

260
00:23:33,900 --> 00:23:37,900
Well, yes, I'm a silly little bald man. That's okay.

261
00:23:37,900 --> 00:23:39,900
But read is creating meaning with print.

262
00:23:39,900 --> 00:23:48,900
Kindergarten in first grade, students are using more letter clues or picture clues than letter clues, but they are creating meaning with print.

263
00:23:48,900 --> 00:23:53,900
It's in the context of this that we began to teach letter sounds.

264
00:23:53,900 --> 00:24:01,900
What I'm reading about Dave the dog in large group, that's where we introduce the D sound or the D sound.

265
00:24:01,900 --> 00:24:08,900
Five whole language teachers see reading as an interactive process both top down and bottom up.

266
00:24:08,900 --> 00:24:13,900
We use what's in our head. That's the top to make sense of what's on the page.

267
00:24:13,900 --> 00:24:19,900
What's in the head interacts with what's on the page to create meaning.

268
00:24:19,900 --> 00:24:24,900
Having stuff in our head about what we're reading is important.

269
00:24:24,900 --> 00:24:34,900
That's why we want beginning readers to learn to read using their words and concepts with which they are familiar, their experiences.

270
00:24:34,900 --> 00:24:43,900
Six, we've kind of alluded to this, but whole language teachers utilize whole to part versus part to whole instruction.

271
00:24:43,900 --> 00:24:48,900
The whole is reading real books and writing authentic sorts of things.

272
00:24:48,900 --> 00:24:53,900
The part is the little teeny tiny bits of skills instruction.

273
00:24:53,900 --> 00:25:02,900
The whole we get them practicing reading and writing and then we teach the little skills skills based use a Humpty Dumpty and approach.

274
00:25:02,900 --> 00:25:13,900
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.

275
00:25:13,900 --> 00:25:20,900
That's the whole seven whole language teachers recognize that reading is a pleasurable act.

276
00:25:20,900 --> 00:25:26,900
That is until we interfere. We read to enjoy or to understand things.

277
00:25:26,900 --> 00:25:33,900
Human beings naturally want to do this. It's a pleasurable thing unless we interfere.

278
00:25:33,900 --> 00:25:37,900
We don't have to manipulate or control.

279
00:25:37,900 --> 00:25:48,900
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.

280
00:25:48,900 --> 00:25:54,900
Eight, writing is an expression of ideas.

281
00:25:54,900 --> 00:25:57,900
Human beings naturally want to do this.

282
00:25:57,900 --> 00:26:03,900
We have this innate need to communicate unless we interfere.

283
00:26:03,900 --> 00:26:14,900
We learn skills of writing, grammar, punctuation, spelling best in the context of real authentic writing and sharing our stories.

284
00:26:14,900 --> 00:26:18,900
Writing must be shared. Reading is joyful.

285
00:26:18,900 --> 00:26:23,900
Ninth idea. Students are the main scope and sequence.

286
00:26:23,900 --> 00:26:28,900
We're not looking at a chart starting at the beginning and going down.

287
00:26:28,900 --> 00:26:35,900
We are kid watchers. We're listening to them read. We're observing them write. We see what they need.

288
00:26:35,900 --> 00:26:42,900
Yes, we can still use a scope and sequence chart to fill in the blanks, but our students, we see what they need.

289
00:26:42,900 --> 00:26:46,900
That is very direct and very explicit instruction.

290
00:26:46,900 --> 00:26:56,900
Number 10, very direct and very explicit instructions, a phonics and other reading sub skills occur as I've said before.

291
00:26:56,900 --> 00:27:01,900
It occurred directly in the context of what students are reading and writing about.

292
00:27:01,900 --> 00:27:11,900
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.

293
00:27:11,900 --> 00:27:21,900
We use the real life reading and writing skills learned out of context do not transfer very readily.

294
00:27:21,900 --> 00:27:28,900
The 11th idea. Literacy is a continuing developing skill.

295
00:27:28,900 --> 00:27:35,900
We get better at any skill through practice. We practice reading and writing.

296
00:27:35,900 --> 00:27:39,900
We should call it reading practice instead of reading class.

297
00:27:39,900 --> 00:27:48,900
In the same way, if we don't practice our skills atrophy and last the 12th idea.

298
00:27:48,900 --> 00:27:55,900
Children learn to read and write not the same, but much the same way as they learn to speak.

299
00:27:55,900 --> 00:28:00,900
We can use that this natural inclination to make meaning.

300
00:28:00,900 --> 00:28:05,900
Children were immersed in authentic speaking and listening situations.

301
00:28:05,900 --> 00:28:09,900
We expected them to learn at different rates and in different ways.

302
00:28:09,900 --> 00:28:16,900
And children were responded to versus correcting. We didn't have ability groups.

303
00:28:16,900 --> 00:28:19,900
All right. This has been the reading instruction show.

304
00:28:19,900 --> 00:28:23,900
I've been looking at some really silly ideas.

305
00:28:23,900 --> 00:28:29,900
The big one that somehow low whole language has been disproven or debunked.

306
00:28:29,900 --> 00:28:33,900
Hopefully I debunked some of this debunking.

307
00:28:33,900 --> 00:28:37,900
If not, please send me some research. I'll be happy to look at it.

308
00:28:37,900 --> 00:29:06,900
This has been the reading instruction show.