Whole Language

The history of whole language is rich in dissent and reform and in fact may be considered one of the most controversial topics in the history of reading. The roots of whole language begin with the progressive education movement of the 1920s and 1930s and can be particularly found in the work of John Dewey. However, it was not until the 1980s that whole language practices became popular across the United States and began what have often been referred to as the Reading Wars. This entry examines the dissent around the definition of whole language, the pubic backlash against whole language teaching, and the whole language practices that have reformed today's classrooms.

Dissent exists even in the attempt to define whole language. Previous reviews of whole language have found that there is no common agreement as to what whole language is or is not. Though there is no single definition of whole language, three themes emerge when examining classrooms taught from a whole language perspective. First, students are the center of the curriculum and respected as a central component of the learning [Page 941]process. This manifests in classrooms by students choosing their reading material and studies. Second, the role of the teacher is that of a guide or co-learner. In this way the teacher serves as a facilitator of the student's learning process rather than as a director. Third, learning is viewed as a social event through authentic experiences and use of authentic literature. Whole language classrooms nurture and encourage social engagement as all members discuss their learning together. The basal texts that had previously been the dominant text in primary classrooms were replaced with trade book literature.

The use of trade book literature, rather than structured basal readers, became one of the most controversial pieces behind the whole language approach to teaching. The underlying philosophy of whole language resides in the belief that reading should be taught in an integrated manner and never as an isolated, separate subject. Thus the meaning of a text takes priority over the sounds of letters, and phonics is taught through the trade book literature that is selected by the teacher, rather than through workbook pages.

This method of teaching is often referred to as a top-down approach. It requires the reader to construct personal meaning from the text and to utilize prior knowledge as he or she is reading rather than to rely solely on letter-sound understandings. Top-down models are also referred to as “whole to part,” because reading is seen as a process through which readers first understand the meaning of a text, then break words down into smaller parts when difficulty occurs.

Though often misrepresented and misunderstood, whole language incorporates phonics instruction. This instruction occurs through literature-based reading and writing activities and not through a more direct instruction approach. Students are taught phonics skills through the literature that they read together and in the context of the readings that they engage in individually. This critical foundation to the whole language teaching approach is often the focus of dissent among researchers, parents, and the media. Critics argue that this approach provides ample opportunity for skills to be missed, leaving students with potentially weaker phonetic skills.

...