Whole Language

This article presents an overview of the concept of Whole Language, a philosophy of language that was a major part of the reading and writing curriculum from the mid-1970's to the mid-1990's. Whole Language resulted from grass-roots efforts on the part of classroom teachers as they moved to determine a more productive and useful model for teaching reading. For exponents of this way of learning and teaching, the whole of Whole Language has two key meanings. The first meaning defines it as “undivided”; the second meaning defines it as “unified and integrated,” (Bird, 2011). In Whole Language, students are actively involved in the decision-making use of language. In other words, Whole Language is based on teaching strategies and skills that are determined by the needs of the child, a belief that learning is a collaborative experience based upon the interests and engagement of children as individuals (Costello, 2012). Teaching and evaluation strategies common to Whole Language include use of authentic literature, invented spelling, miscue analysis, process writing, and read-alouds.

Keywords Authentic Literature; Balanced Instruction; Basal Reader; Invented Spelling; Language Development; Miscue Analysis; Phonics; Phonemes; Process Writing; Read-Alouds

Overview

Whole Language can be defined as a grass-roots movement promoted between the years 1975 and 1995 by classroom teachers to shift reading and writing instruction to include making meaning out of texts. Bette Bergeron (1990) defines whole language as a concept that embodies a philosophy of language development that espouses instructional approaches and includes the use of real literature and authentic writing experiences. These meaningful, functional and cooperative experiences develop student motivation and interest in literacy development. Central to Whole Language is a holistic reading and writing curriculum that uses authentic literature to place learners in control of what they read and write.

This movement developed as a result of teachers who were disillusioned by requirements to produce behavioral objectives, use what they perceived as boring textbooks, teach mastery learning, and use narrow curricula in the course of reading instruction. The Whole Language framework represents a major shift in thinking about the reading process, in which readers view reading as a process of creating meanings. The research base behind this philosophy is broad, and includes linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociology, and anthropology, among others. Kenneth Goodman (1989), a leader in the philosophy behind Whole Language, asserts that the major premise of this philosophy is that language can best be learned through authentic learning experiences that have meaning for the learner, as opposed to separating language into its component parts as is common in direct instruction. This philosophy of learning is based on the fundamental assumptions that language is social and that readers construct meaning as they relate new information to prior language.

Teachers who are in support of Whole Language hold common beliefs that language is a social process, where reading and writing occur in a social context, as exemplified by John Dewey's (1963) "progressivist" education and in Lev Vygotsky's (1978) ideas about the Zone of Proximal Development. Both of these philosophers stress the importance of collaboration; as part of a learning community in Whole Language, students learn, do, and think while working with other students. Whole Language roots came out of the Progressive Education movement of the late 1800's to the early 1930's. Progressive education supported experiential education, where children tried out ideas and learned from their results. Curricular choices were primarily the result of direct experience.

In the late 1960's, educators Ken Goodman and Frank Smith stated that the cause of most reading failures was the result of an insufficient emphasis on reading real books for real purposes. They supported the focus away from basal readers, phonics workbooks, and spelling programs to the use of authentic children's literature to promote reading. The major elements of Whole Language are founded on the theory that children and adults use similar strategies to read and spell, that children process print and comprehend it just like adults. In effect, children are imitating adult reading behaviors. Through ideas that children learn to read as naturally as they learn to speak, Whole Language teachers support this theory in their classrooms by modeling adult reading. They model reading by offering ample time for independent silent reading in the company of other readers, read aloud and point to print in big books, and focus on reader choice of materials.

Another tenet of Whole Language is that learning to read and spell is just like learning to talk. Proponents of this movement see language as naturally acquired, that children acquiring language focus on meaning, not structural form. They will acquire meaning in language if exposed to meaning-making activities. Whole Language proponents assert that phoneme awareness, phonics, spelling, punctuation and other skills of written language are learned naturally through exposure to authentic experiences.

Teaching writing within Whole Language includes composing a variety of writing for real audiences of the student's choosing. A process approach to writing is promoted and includes the stages of prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. Students confer with their peers and the teacher throughout the process.

Direct teaching of phonics and spelling is not promoted by Whole Language, although they may be taught unobtrusively. Direct teaching of phonics can be seen as a distraction, an interference that can prevent real reading and thinking creatively about authentic texts to occur. Instead, children read authentic texts by real authors and the children respond to their reading both orally and in writing in a variety of ways. Within Whole Language, children begin to construct their own insights into the literacy process. Children discover the concepts of reading and writing, promoting higher order thinking. They are not taught words out of context, but recognize words through the context.

The Whole Language movement was supported at the time by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). The precursors of Whole Language are John Dewey, Caroline Pratt, Lucy Sprague Mitchell, Susan Isaacs, and George S. Counts. The California Language Arts Frameworks of 1987 were influential in driving publishers of basal readers away from the traditional basal programs that included direct teaching of phonemic awareness, spelling, phonics, grammar, handwriting, and other literacy skills. Publishers began moving toward the use of authentic children's literature that promoted predictable and repetitive text that children could memorize.

In the mid-1990's, the phonics versus Whole Language debate began to escalate when reading scores declined in many states. Proponents of phonics instruction blamed the decline on Whole Language. One of the first states to take action in a movement toward direct reading instruction was California. In 1995, the California Department of Education Reading Task Force declared "Every Child a Reader" and blamed lower test scores on the shift away from direct skills instruction. As a result, the Task Force recommended a more balanced and comprehensive approach to reading instruction.

Slowly, direct phonics instruction reappeared in the curriculum of many states as a result of steps taken through legislative bills or state departments of education. James Bauman, James Hoffman, Jennifer Moon and Ann Duffy-Hester (1998) even noted a bill that passed in Ohio that "required all pre-service elementary teachers to take and pass a phonics instruction course" (p. 638).

The perception that Whole Language is not a rigorous enough means for instructing students in reading has prevailed since the mid-1990's. The result of this perception has been a shift in reading instruction to a more balanced or eclectic approach to the teaching of reading and writing. Balanced instruction takes the best elements of Whole Language and includes phonics instruction.

Organizations that still support Whole Language are the “Whole Language Umbrella” (WLU) and “Teachers Applying Whole Language” (TAWL).

Application

Typical Classroom Setting

The Whole Language classroom is not set up in the traditional fashion of student desks all in a row, with the teacher's desk at the front of the classroom. Instead, desks are clustered so that students can be involved in individualized, self-directed and small group learning. There is generally a library corner in the classroom where there are book shelves filled with books of different genres. Students sit in a comfortable reading area. Word walls are arranged on the walls, making high-frequency words easily accessible when students write. Students gather on a rug on the floor in front of the classroom for daily reading of big books and presentation of mini-lessons.

Writing Activities

In Whole Language classrooms, students are invited to write about whatever they find interesting. Topics are not assigned and students are encouraged to spell words as they think they should be spelled. Students use journals to write about personally meaningful events. They share these journals with other classmates, the teacher, and parents. Correct form is not a focus of writing in the Whole Language classroom; of greater interest to these open-ended writing activities is the student's decision-making process within the specific context. Language users are bringing all their prior knowledge to each piece of writing. Whole Language teachers respond to all writing, so that students know that what they write is perceived as valuable.

Using Classic Children's Literature

Use of basal readers is discouraged in the Whole Language classroom. In basal readers, vocabulary and syntax are tightly controlled and simplified so that children can read them. Whole Language teachers consider that meaning underlies all development in reading and, therefore, promote the reading of authentic children's literature. By providing a reading experience supported by authentic texts, the Whole Language teacher is promoting a rich reading experience that exemplifies language in action. Students recognize print as being meaningful, as they enjoy the stories, retain information provided from the content, and follow plot and character development. In addition, reading books can help children to develop literate voices, and thinking and responses from children after reading books show the importance of different ways children approach literary texts (Galda, 2013).

Books must be meaningful and rewarding, and become texts that can be read over and over again by readers. Students must also be able to identify with the message of the book. Margaret Mooney (1988) suggests that teachers should select materials for classroom libraries and read-alouds, based on three levels of beginning readers - emergent (books that are predictable, repetitive and rhyming and that have illustrations that support the message); early levels (books that offer less support from illustrations, as children begin to develop sight vocabulary and reading skills and strategies); and, fluency (books that are chosen because they are progressively more difficult texts and have less supportive illustrations, as children build on previous skills and increase their vocabulary).

Reading in Class

Big books are read aloud daily. These books are predictable in nature, modeling repetitive language patterns that allow students to anticipate what comes next. There is also a match between the story line and the illustration, as children use pictures to help them figure out text.

This shared reading of big books is used in the Whole Language classroom so that children can see what is on each page; as the teacher reads, students become more familiar with the cadence of the language and begin to read aloud with the teacher. In this way, students see the relationship between print and meaning.

In the story reading strategy often used within the Whole Language class, older students read to younger students, reinforcing the relationship between print and meaning.

Sustained silent reading (SSR) is brief time set aside each day when students (and the Whole Language teacher) stop whatever they are doing to read self-selected texts. In Kindergarten, this time may be for only 10 minutes, increasing to 20 or 30 minutes over the school year. By 5th grade, SSR is often for a period of 45 minutes. The teacher sits in front of the class and reads silently for a period of time, modeling reading behaviors while the students read at their desks.

Teaching Multiple Cuing Systems for Decoding Unknown Words

Miscue analysis is a strategy used by Whole Language teachers to aid students in understanding errors they make in reading. The teacher observes the student reading, noting any errors or miscues. As a result of this analysis, the teacher then presents a mini-lesson on a word pattern or sound-symbol correspondence that is an issue for the child or children in the class. The children's miscues dictate what cueing systems are taught. The goal of this strategy is to help students read specific texts.

While the complete knowledge of the sound-symbol system is not necessary, according to proponents of Whole Language, some phonics activities may indeed be advantageous for certain students. Emphasis is generally placed on decoding initial consonants and word families, those parts of the syllable that are composed of the vowel and all the consonants that follow it (examples are -ild and -ank).

Invented Spelling

For the most part, Whole Language teachers abandon traditional spelling lessons for what is termed as invented spelling. Whole Language teachers do not use textbook lists of prescribed words; instead, they help students discover how to spell words they choose to use in their writing. By allowing students to use their own spelling, which gives them the opportunity to form their own hypotheses about how spelling works.

In the process of using invented spelling, teachers can evaluate spelling ability on the basis of natural writing opportunities as opposed to defined tests. Students use words that they choose that express their own ideas. Spelling can then be evaluated analytically, rather than as right or wrong. Spelling becomes part of the context of writing.

Improving spelling can be promoted in several ways in a Whole Language classroom. Students work in small groups as they write, consulting one another when they perceive a need for help in spelling a word. They also look upon wall charts or word walls, common words that appear on the walls of a classroom, generally in word clusters or alphabetical order. They also use dictionaries or books to look up words.

Evaluation in the Whole Language Classroom

In the traditional evaluation process of reading, teachers collect, analyze and interpret data to determine student progress in reading. In Whole Language, evaluation is a natural process that results from students creating meaning, not from judging their scores as they master defined criteria. In Whole Language, progress is measured by how well students understand the literacy process and the teacher is responsible for gauging this overall progress. A leader in the field of Whole Language evaluation, Yetta Goodman (1989), proposed that standardized testing was not the most efficient way to measure learning, as this form of testing interferes with the solid language experience. Instead, educators can learn much through assessing the developmental process of literacy through many avenues of assessment. They can make informed decisions about curriculum and individual and class progress through these types of assessments.

Through informal observations, or kidwatching, Whole Language teachers observe students in the natural process of literacy development. They are led by the question: What evidence is there that language development is taking place? In order for teachers to answer this question, they must have a good understanding of language and the role that miscues play in organizing knowledge when students are reading. Whole Language teachers observe students from the sidelines of the classroom: they observe students individually, in small groups, and as an entire class. Through these observations, teachers make judgments about student literacy development, their language skills, problem-solving skills, and collaborative abilities.

While observations are often informal in nature, they also can be more formal, through note-taking and record keeping of each student. Developmental checklists that list language traits and the child's acquisition of these traits are a common assessment used in observation techniques in Whole Language. By keeping records, notes or checklists, teachers can determine what students can do on their own and where they need more help, revealing important information about each student's learning and language development. This information will inform teachers about how to change their curriculum to accommodate the literacy needs of each student.

Keeping records after interviewing or conferencing is also a preferred method of assessment in Whole Language. Through talking with students, the teacher gains insight about the students' own feelings about literacy activities and their understanding about their own progress.

Miscue analysis is another form of assessment for the Whole Language teacher. Through a review of how students read and self-correct their oral reading, teachers can assess progress and determine the reading level of each student. By keeping running records, a form for evaluating miscues, on each student, the teacher can develop strategies and select materials that will help students in developing proficiency in reading. Also, students can keep a record of their own outside and in-class reading, as a means of improving fluency.

Teachers can also evaluate student progress by taping their oral reading and retelling skills. Improvement in student ability to comprehend text can be readily evaluated, as the teacher compares recent tapes with past efforts.

Evaluating student writing samples is also another form of evaluation in Whole Language. These writing samples can also be part of journaling. Through maintaining journals, a record of students' literacy development is available for evaluation of student progress. Through the use of writing portfolios, teachers have conferences with students about what they perceive to be their best writing, discussing growth from month to month. Through this assessment, teachers can examine the development over time of content, handwriting, spacing, punctuation, and spelling.

Through these various means of assessing the process and the product of each student in a Whole Language classroom, teachers can report growth in how and what each student has learned during a specific period of time. From these informal measures, teachers can make decisions about changes in their teaching and use of materials, assess the goals of the curriculum, and evaluate what they know about the process of learning. Whole Language proponents also support the use of a Whole Language Progress Report as opposed to a skills-based report card. Instead of the traditional letter grading system, marking codes include possible gradations of: outstanding progress, steady growth, or needs improvement.

Parents who are not as familiar with the more progressive approach to Whole Language assessment must look to the teacher for guidance in understanding their child's literacy growth. They can be working at cross-purposes against the teacher if they continue to look for development of word-by-word reading or correct spelling in their child's work. Teachers must be well prepared for parent-teacher conferences by collecting samples of student work and showing progress through a view of the whole child. They should also keep parents informed of class activities through newsletters and other avenues for keeping connected with the community outside of the classroom.

Viewpoints

Movement to Balanced Instruction

Traditional reading instruction has emphasized direct instruction of phonics. This skill-building approach includes explicit instruction, practice and correction as it applies to words, and then sentences, etc. Advocates of direct phonics instruction make it clear that this approach is the most productive way to develop children's automatic word recognition. Jean Chall (1983) states that phonics knowledge is a pre-requisite to a novice reader's accurate identification of written words.

Whole Language advocates state that phonics alone is inadequate for some children, as children actually learn by reading the message on the page. Teaching skills is only helpful when they make texts more comprehensible. To the Whole Language advocate, English phonics is too complex and interferes with comprehension.

The debate, dubbed the reading wars, challenged Whole Language and brought again to the forefront the efficacy of teaching phonics. A 2013 report by the National Council on Teacher Quality represented direct-instruction phonics as the only "scientific" way to train teachers to teach reading, and argued that reading can be taught "out of context without regard for who the learners are and what they are asked to read," (Gewertz, 2013). Stephen Krashen (2002) states, however, that different students have different needs and that teachers need to consider approaches to phonics instruction that do not include teaching strategies that are no longer considered appropriate and challenging for today's learners. Instead, teachers need to look at best practices in teaching to create a complete and balanced reading program, one that does not include drill and worksheets. The "Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read" (2000) states that effective literacy programs should include: balanced and motivating instruction in phonemic awareness; systematic, sequential phonics; fluent, automatic reading of text; vocabulary development; text comprehension strategies; spelling and handwriting; and written comprehension strategies.

Hence, there has been a movement to balanced instruction, this eclectic mix of whole language and phonics instruction. Balanced instruction is a blend of the best practices from Whole Language and code emphasis approaches. This reading model is considered a more complete instructional program, including phoneme awareness, lots of reading to build fluency, vocabulary development, and guided oral reading to build comprehension.

Some of the elements of Whole Language that have survived the movement to balanced instruction include self-reflection, the use of authentic children's literature, daily read-alouds, extensive use of collaborative learning groups, and involving parents in literacy development. The balanced approach often includes the use of simplistic, easily comprehended stories, where students can recognize characters, predictable behavior and sight words, and includes a mixture of decoding and comprehension instruction. However, as Dixie Lee Spiegel (1992) states, what highlights the balanced instruction model is bringing to the forefront systematic direct instruction, as it will strengthen literacy education and enable teachers to meet the needs of more children.

Terms & Concepts

Authentic Literature: Authentic literature is referred to as narrative or expository text that is written by an author. These texts are often referred to as trade books.

Balanced Instruction: Balanced reading instruction is often seen as a blend of Whole Language and phonics approaches in reading instruction.

Basal Reader: The basal reader is a reading textbook that has stories that have controlled vocabulary and supporting lessons in the skills necessary for reading. All children in a classroom read the same basal reader and are grouped according to reading levels for more intensive instruction.

Higher Order Thinking: Higher order thinking skills moves away from general knowledge type skills to thinking skills such as synthesizing, analyzing, reasoning, comprehending, application, and evaluation.

Invented Spelling: As children learn letter sounds, they begin to use this knowledge to guess at the spelling of words. This developmental phase of spelling occurs as children write only the letters for the sounds they hear in a word, using their best judgment about spelling. Children invent spellings for words by arranging letters as they think they sound.

Miscue Analysis: Miscue analysis is a term coined by Ken Goodman in the mid 1960's. A miscue is any departure from the text in reading orally. This approach to analyzing miscues suggests that miscues are not errors, but occur when the reader uses different strategies to make sense out of what he or she is reading. Miscues can be analyzed through use of running records - a strategy for recording miscues.

Phoneme: A phoneme is the smallest unit of the phonetic system that represents a distinctive sound in a language.

Phoneme Awareness: Phoneme awareness is the ability to break down oral language into smaller components. There are 45 phonemes in the English language.

Phonics: Phonics is an instructional design for teaching children how to read. Students learn to connect sounds in letters or groups of letters.

Process Writing: Process writing is a writing approach in which writers go through various stages of writing to reach the end product. The major steps are planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing.

Progressive Education: Progressive Education is a term that is used to describe ideas and pedagogy that aim to make schools more effective agencies of a democratic society. Two essential elements of Progressive Education are a respect for diversity and the development of socially engaged students. The Progressive Education movement, promoted by John Dewey during the 1890's to 1920's, focused on a child-centered environment.

Read - Alouds: Read-alouds are time in the classroom when teachers model good reading by reading aloud to their students. Teachers model a wide array of strategies by engaging with rich texts.

Zone of Proximal Development: The Zone of Proximal Development is the gap between a learner's current development level and a learner's potential level of development.

Bibliography

Baumann, J., Hoffman, J., Moon, J., & Duffy-Hester, A. (1998, May). Where are teachers' voices in the phonics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of US elementary classroom teachers. The Reading Teacher, 51, 636-645. Retrieved March 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Literary Reference Center. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=551554&site=lrc-live

Bergeron, B. (1990). What does the term whole language mean? Constructing a definition from the literature. Journal of Reading Behavior (pp. 301 - 29).

Bertrand, J. (1991). Student assessment and evaluation. In B. Harp (Ed.), Assessment and evaluation in whole language programs (pp. 17 - 34). Norwood: MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Blake, R. (1990). Whole language, whole teaching, whole kids: Foundations of whole Language. In R. Blake (Ed.), Whole Language (pp. 17 - 22). Brockport, NY: NYSE Council.

Bird, L. B. (1989). The art of teaching: Evaluation and revision. In K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, & W. Hood (Eds.), The whole language evaluation book (pp. 15 - 25). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bird, L. (2011). Chapter 7: The whole of Whole Language. Encounter, 24, 133-151. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65049102&site=ehost-live

Costello, D. (2012). The impact of a school's literacy program on a primary classroom. Canadian Journal of Education, 35, 69-81. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=76287044&site=ehost-live

Edelsky, C., Altwerger, B., & Flores, B. (1991). Whole language: What's the difference? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Galda, L. (2013). Learning from children reading books: Transactional theory and the teaching of literature. Journal of Children's Literature, 39, 5-13. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91540448&site=ehost-live

Gewertz, C. (2013). The reading wars never die. Education Week, 33, 9. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89930408&site=ehost-live

Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126 - 125.

Goodman, K. (1992). I didn't found whole language. The Reading Teacher, 3, 188 - 200. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Literary Reference Center. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=9302142862&site=lrc-live

Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., & Hood, W. (1989). The whole language evaluation book. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goodman, Y. (1989). Kid watching: An alternative to testing. In G. Manning & M. Manning (Eds.), Whole language: Beliefs and practices, K-8 (pp. 115 - 123). Washington, D.C.: NEA.

Groff, P. (1998, October). Where's the phonics? Making a case for its direct and systematic instruction. The Reading Teacher, 52, 138 - 141. Retrieved March 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Literary Reference Center. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=1134518&site=lrc-live

Krashen, S. (2002, Spring). Defending whole language: The limits of phonics instruction and the efficacy of whole language instruction. Reading Improvement, 39, 32-42.

Manzo, K. K. (1999, March). Whole-language model survives despite swing back to Basics. Education Week, 18. Retrieved March 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23973768&site=ehost-live

Moats, L.C. (2000, October). Whole language lives on: The illusion of "balanced" reading instruction. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from Education Excellence Website. http://www.edexcellence.net/library/wholelang/moats.html.

Mooney, M. (1988). Developing life-long readers. New York: Richard Owen Publishers.

Publishers.

Newman, J. (1985). Whole language: Theory in use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Newman, J., & Church, S. (1990, Sept). Myths of whole language. The Reading Teacher, 44, 20 - 26. Retrieved March 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Literary Reference Center. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=11080488&site=lrc-live

Raines, S., & Canady, R. (1990). The whole language kindergarten. New York: Teachers College.

Serebrin, W. (1985). Writers and context in concert. In Newman, J. (Ed.), Whole language: Theory in use (pp. 45 -53). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Smith, F. (1977). Making sense of reading - and of reading instruction. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 386- 395.

Teachers Applying Whole Language(TAWL).www.ncte.org/groups/wlu/who/117439.htm.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Thought and language. Boston: MIT Press. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Literary Reference Center.

Watson, D., & Henson, J. (1991). Reading evaluation: Miscue analysis. In B. Harp (Ed.), Assessment and evaluation in whole language programs (pp. 17 - 34). Norwood: MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Whole Language Umbrella (WLU).http://www.ncte.org/groups/wlu/leadership/107155.htm.

Wilde, S. (1989). Looking at invented spelling: A kidwatcher's guide to spelling, part I. In K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, & W. Hood (Eds.), The whole language evaluation book (pp. 213 - 226). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wilde, S. (1989). Understanding spelling strategies: A kidwatcher's guide to spelling, Part II. In K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, & W. Hood (Eds.), The whole language evaluation book (pp. 227 - 236). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Willows, D. (2002, January). The balanced literacy diet. School Administrator, 15, 30 - 35.

Suggested Reading

Altwerger, B., Edelsky, C., & Flores, B. (1987). Whole language: What's new? Reading Teacher, 41, 144 - 155.

Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Blair,-Larsen, S., and Williams, K. (1999). The balanced reading program. Newark, DE: IRA.

Brown, H. (1991). Inside whole language: A classroom view. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Daniels, H., Zemmelman, S., & Bizar, M. (2000). Whole language works: 60 years of Research. Educational Leadership, 57, 32 - 37. Retrieved March 18, 2007 from Phi Delta Kappen Home Page. http://www.pdkintl.org/Kappan/kzem9903.htm

Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Edelsky, C., Altwerger, B., & Flores, B. (1991). Whole language: What's new? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Glazer, S. (Feb/Mar 95). Do I have to give up phonics to be a whole language teacher? Reading Today, 12, 8 - 9. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Literary Reference Center. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=9503151548&site=lrc-live

Goodman, K. (1968). The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process. Detroit, Wayne State UP.

Noden, H., and Vacca, R. (1994). Whole language in middle and secondary classrooms. New York: Harper Collins.

Pressley, N. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. NY: Guilford.

Ridley, Lia. (1990, May). Enacting change in elementary school programs: Implementing a whole language perspective. The Reading Teacher, 640 - 647. Retrieved

March 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Literary Reference Center. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=11080457&site=lrc-live

Routman, R. (1988). Transition from literature to literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Smith, C. (Ed.) (1994). Whole language: The debate. Bloomington, IN: EDINFO Press.

Spiegel, D. (1992). Blending whole language and systematic direct instruction. The Reading Teacher, 38 - 44. Retrieved March 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Literary Reference Center. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=9302142841&site=lrc-live

Ward, A. (1995, April/May). Whole language: Is it politically correct? Reading TODAY, Retrieved March 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Literary Reference Center. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=9505031394&site=lrc-live

Watson, D. (Sept 1990). Whole language: Why bother? The Reading Teacher, 47, 600 - 608. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Literary Reference Center. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=9405311729&site=lrc-live