What Whole Language is Not: Common Myths and Misunderstandings

The Center for Expansion of Language and Thinking posted an abbreviated article condensing Constance Weaver’s book, Understanding Whole Language: From Principles to Practice. In the article, she neatly dispenses many common myths about the whole language approach:

1. Whole language is just another name for the whole world approach (What Whole, 2008, para. 1)
2. Whole language teachers don’t teach skills like phonics  (What Whole, 2008, para. 2).
3. Whole language teachers don’t teach directly (What Whole, 2008, para. 3).
4. Whole language education just teaches skills in context rather than in isolation (What Whole, 2008, para. 4).
5. Whole language teachers don’t test students (What Whole, 2008, para. 5).
6. Whole language classrooms have no structure (What Whole, 2008, para. 6).
7. Whole language classrooms have no specific expectations for students (What Whole, 2008, para. 7).
8. Whole language has no supporting research (What Whole, 2008, para. 8).
9. Whole language is anything that anybody chooses to call whole language (What Whole, 2008, para. 9).
10. Whole language can be bought in a package (What Whole, 2008, para. 10).
11. Whole language can only be done by the best teachers (What Whole, 2008, para. 11).
12. Whole language is implemented by mandating it (What Whole, 2008, para. 12).

 While this article is intended to defend the whole language approach by dispelling these “myths”, reviewing them actually gave me pause about some of the whole language ideas.  I found that her debunking of the “myths” raised some doubts for me.  She clearly believes the emphasis should be on the whole language approach, but I found her descriptions of that approach to be a little too loose and unstructured.  All the talk about philosophy and context “sounded good”, but I am not sure that in practice, these methods will work. My sense is that there needs to be more of a hybrid approach to phonics and all that goes along with it, has to be a major part of the reading curriculum and that there needs to be structure and formal assessments as well.  I do not think that we can lose sight out of that in a discussion about teaching philosophy.  Phonics is not some archaic method that is taught in isolated lessons.  I think its purpose is more than just to provide “cues” and needs to be more valued and emphasized than this author suggests. Moreover, ongoing portfolio and anecdotal evaluations are important, but regular, standardized assessments are equally important as an objective measure and to maintain teacher accountability.     

 

Myths and Misunderstandings