Whole Language Versus Code Emphasis: Underlying Assumptions and Their Implications for Reading Instruction

2017 ◽  
pp. 343-366
Author(s):  
I. Y. Liberman ◽  
A. M. Liberman
Keyword(s):  
Reading Instruction ◽  
Whole Language

scholarly journals Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 681-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Bowers
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Reading Instruction ◽  
Whole Language ◽  
Language Instruction ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Initial Reading ◽  
State Schools

AbstractThere is a widespread consensus in the research community that reading instruction in English should first focus on teaching letter (grapheme) to sound (phoneme) correspondences rather than adopt meaning-based reading approaches such as whole language instruction. That is, initial reading instruction should emphasize systematic phonics. In this systematic review, I show that this conclusion is not justified based on (a) an exhaustive review of 12 meta-analyses that have assessed the efficacy of systematic phonics and (b) summarizing the outcomes of teaching systematic phonics in all state schools in England since 2007. The failure to obtain evidence in support of systematic phonics should not be taken as an argument in support of whole language and related methods, but rather, it highlights the need to explore alternative approaches to reading instruction.

Whole language practices in first grade reading instruction

1990 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 14-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Hollingsworth ◽  
D. Ray Reutzel ◽  
Elaine Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Reading Instruction ◽  
Whole Language ◽  
First Grade ◽  
Language Practices

scholarly journals What Learning Theories of Reading are Attributed by Teachers who Teach Reading with Different Teaching Method?

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-65
Author(s):  
Natalia Suárez ◽  
Cristina Rodríguez ◽  
Isabel O’Shanahan ◽  
Juan E. Jiménez
Keyword(s):  
Reading Instruction ◽  
Whole Language ◽  
Teaching Method ◽  
Primary Teachers ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Constructivist Theory ◽  
Learning Theories ◽  
Learning To Read ◽  
Tutorial Program ◽  
Theories Of Reading

The aim of this study was to analyze the teacher´s theories about learning to read and reading instruction that claim to use in the classroom. To do this, we selected a total sample of 522 kindergarden and primary teachers in service who completed an attributional questionnaire across the tutorial program LETRA (www.programaletra.ull.es). The results showed that teachers attributed theories of learning to read with a sociocultural orientation lean more towards a mixed method, teachers who share a behavior approach consider that the repetition in your workouts and instruction is important to teach reading, are more inclined to use a syllabic method and mixed. Moreover, the results indicate that teachers who hold constructivist theory they select whole-language and mixed approaches for teaching reading to their students.

The science of reading provides little or no support for the widespread claim that systematic phonics should be part of initial reading instruction: A response to Buckingham

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S Bowers ◽  
Peter N Bowers
Keyword(s):  
Reading Instruction ◽  
Whole Language ◽  
Balanced Literacy ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Alternative Form ◽  
The Past ◽  
Initial Reading ◽  
Made In

It is widely claimed that the science of reading supports the conclusion that systematic phonics should be part of initial reading instruction. Bowers (2020) challenged this conclusion after reviewing all the main evidence, and Buckingham (2020a) provided a detailed response where she argues that the evidence does indeed support systematic phonics and criticizes an alternative form of instruction called “Structured Word Inquiry” or (SWI). Here we show that every substantive criticism Buckingham makes is factually incorrect or reflects a fundamental mischaracterization. There is nothing in her article that challenges the conclusions that Bowers (2020) draws regarding systematic phonics, and nothing that challenges the claims we have made in the past regarding SWI. This should not be used to support whole language or balanced literacy, but it should motivate researchers to consider alternative methods that are well motivated on theoretical grounds, such as SWI.

Corrective Feedback in Whole Language Teaching: Implications for Children with Learning Problems

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 22-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry A. Fields ◽  
Ann Kempe
Keyword(s):  
Reading Instruction ◽  
Oral Reading ◽  
Whole Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Language Instruction ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Learning Problems ◽  
Teaching Learning ◽  
Reading Miscues

Corrective feedback has long been regarded as an essential element in the teaching-learning process. There is, however, little agreement among educators as to what constitutes appropriate feedback. In reading instruction, views on error correction differ in relation to the perspective on reading adopted.In this study, the corrective feedback of whole language teachers was examined. The responses of teachers to a set of oral reading miscues were compared to recommended practices for whole language practitioners and to ideal feedback behaviour based on a review of the literature on effective teaching. This information was then used as a basis for examining both the strengths and limitations of whole language instruction for children who experience difficulty in learning to read.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document