D3J4 VU?

Immediately, I began to connect the phonics and whole-language debate with William’s previous chapter on contemporary rhetoric. In my mind, phonics came to align itself with the current-traditional approach, and whole-language with new rhetoric. As discussed, current traditional was the monotonous standard, with new rhetoric being a methodology seemingly attacked for being too much aligned with science, and perhaps, too lackadaisical.

From the current-traditional style, “understanding and knowledge come from induction (reasoning from the specific to the general) rather than through deduction (reasoning from the general to the specific)” (Williams 43). The usage of phonics seemed to echo this point. Williams writes of phonics, “readers look at individual letters, combine those letters into syllables, the syllables into words, the words into phrases and clauses, and the phrases and clauses into sentences” (155). The approach seems to fall into the bottom-up stance found within the current-traditional style, although “there is little question that language in general operates primarily- although not exclusively- through top-down processes” (Williams 161). As with the example involving the various uses of the word house on page 157, meaning comes from our knowledge of the word, a top-down approach. As demonstrated in Williams’ writings on the current-traditional technique, not all of the educational process should be that of bottom-up.

However, whole-language is relatable to new rhetoric due to its perceived somewhat laissez-faire components, especially de-emphasis of error correction. Williams cites Janet Emig who asserts, “there is little evidence, for example, that the persistent pointing out of specific errors in student themes leads to the elimination of these errors” (54). Similar to this new rhetorical approach, whole-language does not serve to focus on the militant eradication of errors. The focus on error is proven by whole-language advocates to be detrimental, causing students to become too focused on accuracy, and not comprehension. Additionally, it slows down the speed of the reader, which is linked to the aspect of information processing, along with what material is transformed from short-term, to working memory, and then to the learning essential long-term memory.

Williams then goes on to discuss the continuous correction of minute miscues, and how the majority of these spoken slips still preserve the essence of the text. (Sidenote: I hardly ever volunteer to read aloud in class- I am a self-admitted miscuer. I also hate when someone corrects their own miscues- we knew what you meant, which is precisely why I feel educators should refrain from doing so, unless it is a continuous problem.) For example, the following fits into what would be referred to as a written usage error, in which numbers are incorporated into words (Remember our discussion on gr8?):

“4 C3R7A1N D4Y 0N3 5UMM3R, 1 W45 0N 7H3 B34CH 0853RV1N6 7W0 61RL5 JUM91N6 1N 7H3 54ND W0RK1N6 H4RD C0N57RUC71N6 4 54ND C457L3 W17H 70W3R5, H1DD3N 573P5 4ND 8R1D635. WH3N 7H3Y F1N15H3D 4 W4V3 C4M3 4ND D357R0Y3D 17 4LL, R3DUC1N6 17 70 4 M0UN741N 0F 54ND 4ND F04M. 1 7HOU6H7 7H47 4F73R 50 MUCH W0RK, 7H3 91RL5 W0ULD 574R7 70 CRY, 8U7 1N5734D, 7H3Y R4N D0WN 7H3 834CH PL4Y1N6 4ND 8364N 70 8U1LD 4N07H3R C457L3.

1 UND3R5700D 7H47 1 H4D L34RN3D 4 6R347 L3550N. W3 5P3ND 4 L07 0F 71M3 1N 0UR L1V35 0N 0N3 7H1N6 8U7 L473R 4 W4V3 D357R0Y35 3V3RY7H1N6; 4LL 7H47 R3M41N5 15 FR13ND5H1P, L0V3, C4R3, 4ND 7H3 H4ND5 0F 7H053 WH0 4R3 C4P48L3 0F M4K1N6 U5 5M1L3."

While this text may seem difficult to comprehend at first, the mind has shown that it can correctly interpret this strange alphanumerical hybrid:

“A certain day one summer, I was on the beach observing two girls jumping in the sand working hard constructing a sand castle with towers, hidden steps and bridges. When they finished a wave came by and destroyed it all, reducing it to a mountain of sand and foam. I thought that after so much work the girls would start to cry, but instead, they ran down the beach playing and began to build another castle.

I understood that I had learned a great lesson. We spend a lot of time in our lives on one thing, but later a wave destroys everything; all that remains is friendship, love, care, and the hands of those who are capable of making us smile.” (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/18093/)

In this example, although there are traditional usage errors galore, we still can understand the text completely. The essence of a day at the beach is still protected, despite its unusual format. In our classrooms, should we overlook “errors” such as these because we can still understand them?

Correction not based upon pronunciation seems, for the most part, to be a trivial relic of the past. However, what is to be done with errors in speech not concerning pronunciation? Williams writes that “certain grammatical distinctions . . . have no bearing on meaning” (164). The boy with his father needs to know that a sea-gull is not indeed a girl of the sea, but a bird, in order to communicate with the world. Here, error correction is necessary. But if the wrong tense of the word hold is used, at what point are educators to correct it? How can it be done in a way that does not impact comprehension due to error focus? Children can’t continue to holded baby rabbits forever.

Again, I find myself to be repeating my stance from a few weeks previous. What is wrong with a blending of the two? Williams himself states, that even although there are flaws in its approach, “we should not abandon whole language, only that we need to understand that it cannot form the basis for teaching children how to read” (165). There are ways of incorporating whole-language so that it is not the focal point. It still has its merits. Just like Williams’ chapter on contemporary rhetoric, I think we can all agree that there is not one straight answer.