production vs (plus?) consumption

Your all bringing up some wonderful personal connections in your blog posts, whether these originate from the way you were taught or the way your children were taught to read and write. We're often most comfortable sticking with the way that we were taught something, but as your posts reveal, this way isn't necessarily either the only nor the best choice -- it's simply a choice. It might also be interesting to note that textbook publishers are some of the biggest lobbyist in Washington, and many of the "new" programs developed for curriculums reflect the necessity to purchase books or prepackaged programs -- huge money makers. It's easy to see, therefore, where the "flavors of the month" come from (I borrow this term from a friend who's taught in public schools for over 20 years, and who's had to use dozens of different approaches to teaching reading and writing depending upon the "latest" research). As Rachael points out, though, the phonics vs whole language debate does seem to reflect the current traditional vs contemporary rhetoric ideologies.
Something else to think about as you ponder the issues raised in this chapter is the idea of production and consumption. As we guide individuals through the writing process and attempt to help them become stronger, clearer, and more confident writers, our ultimate goal is to help them produce writing. When we provide models of writing for student writers to examine or use as research support, we ask them to consume other people's writing (after all, the product of all writing is reading). But how do balance this? And, has the Web provided more authentic opportunites for the production of text by novice writers? If so, how might that impact the teaching of writing?

Reading and writing...

I never thought of writing as scribbles and drawings before I read this book. I guess it makes some sense. You can draw pictures of words to get your point across as a child. I definitely agree with Williams when he said that children learn by example rather than instruction. Children can follow instructions after they have learned the basics.

English is a hard language. There was an example of how the word house can mean different things. This is very confusing to a child and those who are learning English as a second language. There are so many words with multiple meanings. Parents are responsible for teaching their children to read and write before they enter school. Parents can motivate their children and make it fun for them. I think children will dread reading and writing if they don’t have someone to motivate them.

I found that reading the phonics section made the concept of reading and writing more complicated when they go into the psychology of it. The author also said that it is easier for children to express themselves through writing if they can invent their own words. I am not so sure that I agree with this statement. I think children should learn the correct spellings of words. It is easier to teach them when they are younger. Why teach them the wrong way?

I liked the example that was used in the book with the conversation between a mother and her child. It reminded me of times when my mother would stop me when I was speaking incorrectly. She would not necessarily correct me, but she would stop mid way. For example, if I were to say, “I haven’t ate all day.” My mother would say, “You haven’t what all say?” I would respond, “Oh I mean I haven’t eaten all day.” This forced me to correct myself. I have to thank her for this. I hate when people don’t speak correctly. I find myself picking out all the mistakes in emails that I receive from my managers at work. I don’t try to do this. It just stands out to me. My point of all this is that it is important for parents to work their children. Sometimes teachers don’t have time to work with every individual student. Sometimes teachers do not know everything. I had an English teacher in my senior year that would end sentences in prepositions. I always thought this was ridiculous. Of all teachers, he was an English teacher. How can someone teach something if they don’t even know it themselves?

Happy Williams

Everything Williams explains in this book seems to go against what I have learned. In school, my teachers always told me if you read more, then you will become a better writer. Williams states, “Many extremely well-read people are poor writers” (166). I’m getting kind of annoyed with Williams, because he is telling me to unlearn what I have already learned. Were my teachers really that uninformed, or is Williams not entirely sure what he is talking about? Grammar used to be an important part of language to learn, but Williams has to go against that, too.

Williams says, “The Internet has indeed proven to be one of the more effective tools in integrating reading and writing” (170). I would have to agree with Williams for the most part; however, not everyone knows how to use the Internet. What about people who don’t know how to check their email? What about individuals who don’t even have a computer? Clearly, the Internet is not beneficial in integrating reading and writing for them. Also, most people use the Internet to chat with their friends and play games. Research is more easily accessible, but most individuals do not hop on the Internet to read scholarly journals.

Williams explains how teachers should not correct students when they mispronounce words, because they won’t understand the meaning of the sentence. This is true, because the student will focus solely on the word they mispronounced, rather then the meaning of the sentence. However, how are students supposed to expand their vocabulary and pronounce words correctly, if they are never corrected? Overall, meaning is crucial when reading, but so comprehending individual words. Reading is a process and understanding single words comes before understanding groups of words. I understand how speed is important, or information will already have escaped the short-term memory; however, everyone starts off slow. Speed is something that comes with practice. The more students read the better they will get. If students can slowly pronounce all of the words in a sentence, then their speed is bound to pick up. Once their speed picks up, then their understanding will, as well. Basically, Williams has accurate information, but he has to remember that reading is a slow process.

I liked the idea of giving models to students for them to learn how to write well. However, are students really learning, or are they just copying the model? I guess they are learning, but they are not really thinking for themselves, as much.

Overall, I’m tired of reading Williams, because he has an annoying way of telling the reader that they know nothing. I am learning from this book, but I feel like there is a negativity that goes along with it, and I wish he could be a little more encouraging.

No Phonics? Know Phonics!

Like many of my classmates, I was raised on phonics. In fact, if anyone had asked me what my favorite part of school was, more than likely I would have said phonics. Every day we would pull out our phonics workbooks and do a page or two, and if we did it right, we got to color in the pictures on the page. (Hey, I was 5!) So why did I love it so much? Because it was, for me, a painless way to put together words and their meanings. I related a story in my literacy narrative where I was reading some comic books out loud with some friends and I mispronounced the word stomach because I was only looking at the letters…. I hadn’t learned to decode the word yet. Once my friends stopped laughing at me, they said the word for me and I realized that I already it, I just hadn’t seen it in print before. This is what phonics is all about…combining a child’s spoken vocabulary with their printed vocabulary.
That lesson was monumental because it taught me that there are words that I was already using but when I saw them in writing, I didn’t recognize them. This is a problem shared by all struggling readers; they can read the words, but they can’t put the meaning with the word they are reading. How many times does a child read a passage only to have a teacher ask “so what does that mean?” The child won’t have a clue because they were merely reading the words. Phonics gives the student the tools to be able to answer this question. By learning the way words look on a page AND its meaning, the student can begin to understand what the whole sentence is about.
So after all that, you have a good idea as to how much of an advocate of phonics I am! However, I do thing that there are benefits to the whole language approach as well. As new teachers I think one of the most important lessons we can learn is that all students are individuals and as such will each learn differently. For some students, phonics will work for them as it did for me, while others will be better able to grasp the concept through whole language. The point is, just because we “discover” a new approach doesn’t mean we need to discard the previous one. I was actually relieved that Williams supports a blending of the two.

I worked at a daycare for two years and I always saw the younger children "writing" notes and stories that were nothing but scribbles. I don't know if I would call it "writing" because it was more like a first attempt before they had any knowledge on how to form letters and create words. All they knew was that they had seen their parents and teachers making funny unrecognizable marks on paper and calling it words. They would watch us read and write and want to do it too because children always want to do something new that has been modeled for them. They are good imitators and shadows to the people that they look up to. I would consider this more of a desire to write and be "grown-up" than actual "writing," unless I just consider it their first draft ( which doesn't have to make sense). It is their first attempt of trying to tell a story through symbols on paper.
At our daycare, we taught them a combination approach, I think. We taught the children how to sound out letters and combination letters. The children would sound out the words by the individual letter sounds. However, we also taught a lot of sight words and had sight words and phrases on the walls that we practiced reading. I don't think we were aware of the different methods we were using (at least I know I wasn't). We were just trying to get the children to understand and they needed various teaching methods before we could reach most of them.
I don't know how I feel about "inventive spelling". I wouldn't mind if the children were freewriting or just playing. Children who are just learning do not know how to spell a lot of words and they automatically guess at the spelling if they are alone or with friends in a social environment. A lot of children ask how to spell words though because they want to make sure it is right when they are making a present or doing something for school. I wouldn't want to encourage "inventive spelling" in school because school is where they are suppossed to learn how to do it correctly. It is okay if they do it wrong the first time, but the teacher should review the correct spelling with the student and have them write it the correct way once the error has been identified. I wouldn't want my child to be a horrible speller because they were never corrected in school.
I can't believe that people argue that phonics is discriminatory. What?! There are plently of different slang terms, dialects, etc. that effect the way people speak, but we want to teach a basic universal language to children so that they have a common foundation. There people who say the "tomato", "water", and many others with a different emphasis. It is just how you say the words. I guess it could be considered as stifling their vernacular a little, but I wouldn't think it would be that big of a deal to voice against an entire teaching method.
I have heard the myth of the more you read the better you write. I do think there is some truth to it, but it is not an absolute truth. I love to read and write. I think I have a good sense of how to write because I have read so much. I have seen models of every genre. I can see how an author writes dialogue, flashbacks, or how they end their chapters. It is good to dissect books that you really enjoy if you want to write something in a similiar syle or genre. However, just because you read a lot does not mean that you will be a good writer. They are still two different processes and you need to work at both of them. Reading doesn't guarantee great writing, but it can help.
Okay, the most shocking thing in this chapter was reading about the teachers who force their students to copy their papers in cursive. Who are these people? It is easier, cleaner, and more effective to type a paper. There are so many benefits. I find it unbelievable that someone during this time would not accept typed papers. It seems absurd. I don't remember the last time a teacher would accept a handwritten paper. It must have been in junior high or high school, but I don't remember doing it. Even in 2003 (the book's copyright) it would have seemed ridiculous. I graduated high school in 2002 and I remember typing all of my papers the last year or so.

Enough with the cursive already

I know that I already brought this topic up at least once in class, but I find it scary, and even slightly entertaining, that Williams points out that some teachers – probably older ones, although who really knows? – are STILL forcing kids to turn in essays that are: 1) HANDWRITTEN, and, you’ll need to brace yourself for this one, 2) DONE IN CURSIVE.

Are you serious…I mean, we need to get these people out of the schools. I wouldn’t even let them teach a dog or cat to sit or speak (even one that scratched or bit me), let alone a child. That’s just too much of a punishment for those poor animals. You might ask why I feel this way, so here goes: First of all, Williams (and I applaud him for this) suggests that these students will only end up resenting the teacher in the long run. Yeah, no kidding. Just about the last thing I’d want to do as a teacher is to get off on the wrong foot with my students by forcing them to write an essay by hand. We’ve got this thing called a computer now, and, though I’m no Bill Gates, I tend to think that it’s going to be around for awhile. Second, don’t you think that students’ writing skills could be improved by using options like Spell Check and other computer-enabled editing advantages? To me, the answer is obvious. Yes, computers make the task of writing easier for students. Why? Well, because they can type faster than they write. Besides, once I start teaching, I really don’t want to spend hours trying to decipher my students’ handwriting. I might as well go buy some chickens, dip their feet into ink, and then have them run across some blank paper before I try to read it. Here’s a bit of advice for teachers who still force their students to turn in handwritten assignments: if you want to deter your students from slipping a whoopee cushion under the seat of your chair, then let them use a computer. After all, technology is a good thing. Then again, maybe any teacher who forces students to turn in handwritten assignments deserves to get the bleep scared out of him/her.

OK, so now that I’ve gotten that rant out of the way, I thought I’d talk about what Williams has to say in regard to the use of writing models in the classroom, or, to be even more specific, the use of a very old and outdated model, in particular. That is, that using works of literature as conventional writing models, has, in essence, failed to produce good writers in the classroom setting. This is interesting, because as an English major, I have always been interested in not just reading novels, but taking them apart and getting a look at their “guts” as well. Poor analogy, but deal with it. Anyway, Williams suggests that many well-read people happen to be poor writers, which basically blows this whole theory out of the water. Furthermore, he argues that teachers who use literary texts are writing models are, in fact, confusing object with artifact. Basically, what he is saying is that the focus of the class tends to shift to reading rather than writing.
So, I guess what I am getting at here is this: when someone attempts to teach writing, the first thing they need to do is actually pick a model that will accomplish this goal. Then, once they’ve gotten that out of the way, they need to stick with the mission at hand, which is to teach the student how to improve their writing.

I can see how this whole process – that is, the job of teaching a student how to write – can get all screwed up at times. For instance, if a teacher really likes a particular writer he or she might be more apt to incorporate a certain novel into a lesson. So, what really occurs is that the class morphs into a discussion of the novel, rather focusing on the overall mission, which is, of course, to develop the students’ writing skills. This is also dangerous because if the students in the classroom aren’t enthused about the writer or the specific novel that the class is centered on, then they’ll get turned off by the writing process as a whole. So the moral is this story is: If your job is to teach people how to write, then actually do it. Don’t get all caught up in your own agenda. After all, the last thing that the world gets is another poor writer producing another crappy blog like this one.

Use Multiple Tools

It was interesting for me to read about the pros and cons of whole language versus phonetics. Almost twenty-five years ago my third daughter started first grade in a school that had just implemented whole language. As a mom, I had no experience with using lists of sight words to learn reading. I was taught phonetically, as were my other two daughters. This method was foreign to me, and I was worried about whether it worked. However, my youngest daughter seemed to embrace it, and studied her word list every day.

Unfortunately or fortunately, we moved during the second half of her first year to a school that used phonetics. I was relieved that the switch didn’t seem to have any affect on her emerging reading skills. The following school year we moved again, and now my daughter was in another school that had just started using whole language. At this point, to say I was worried about my daughter’s literacy development was an understatement.

At the third new school in two years, the second grade teacher assured me that she would still be using phonetics in addition to the whole language approach. She was not totally sold on the idea of whole language replacing phonetics. I believe she thought like Williams, that students still needed a way of “decoding words for which they have not yet established mental representations of sound to symbol correspondence” (164-165).

Ironically, at the end of the school year, the teacher told me my daughter was one of the only students in the class who had success with whole language. I am pretty sure this was due to the fact that she had the benefits of both whole language and phonetics in first and second grade.

I am thankful to that second grade teacher who understood that language acquisition and literacy acquisition are not exactly the same thing.She also recognized that each one had a place in reading instruction,not as separate entities, but used together.She was an innovative teacher who knew that “children need multiple tools to become proficient readers” (165).

After learning to read, it would be great for students if writing development were as easy as Krashen made it sound. He stated that writing ability is not learned, but acquired by extensive reading in which the focus of the reader is on the message (166). That would be like telling someone they can run a marathon just by reading books about it.

While reading about marathoning may help a runner prepare, they still have to actually go through the act of running and training. They need to build up their endurance, strength and speed to successfully complete 26.2 miles. Then if they have any goals of becoming a “good runner”, they need to figure out what kind of specific training will bring about the desired results.

Writing is the same. Reading may enhance the writing process but it doesn’t replace the actual act of writing. Like running, practice, practice and more practice is what writers must do to get better. However just as improper training in running will cause injury or burnout, skewed ideas about writing practices will hinder full potential.

One last reflection about the reading, Williams stated that in spite of obvious advantages in using the computer to write, some teachers still require handwritten copies of work. He went on to say that students will “resent the teacher and develop a negative view of writing” (169).

I would like to say that “yes” I do most of my work on the computer. It is faster, and all the other things Williams said about it. In light of this, I do still handwrite sometimes. Often when I write by hand, I doodle on the side of the page when I get a block. This is relaxing for me, and I can de-stress a bit until I can resume my writing. This makes me feel like teachers should give students the option to choose whether or not to handwrite, at least in regard to rough drafts.

I think the central idea that I take away from this reading is that there are many theories, and as a teacher it is necessary to flexible, and recognize that each student learns differently. My daughter’s second grade teacher had it right when she saw the need to use “multiple tools” to facilitate the best effort in her students.

cake and ice cream

I’m starting to feel pressure from these Williams’ readings because I feel as though he is forcing me to choose one side over another in every single issue that he discusses. I can picture him on a first date. “So, Mary, tell me a little bit about yourself. What do you like better, ice cream or cake?” “Well I don’t know, James. Sometimes I’m in the mood for cake, but other times I want ice cream. Actually, I really like to eat them together.” “PICK ONE!” “Ok, fine I like ice cream!” “Very good. Now moving on. What is a better fruit, the apple or the banana?”
Obviously, I am exaggerating; but it is getting hard to decide what side of the spectrum I am on concerning many of these debates. I don’t think education is a black and white world. I think that maybe phonics and whole language should try to become better friends, like cake and ice cream.

I do not specifically remember an early education in phonics. I’m sure it was the method taught to me, but I must have been very young. I remember having letter people in my kindergarten classroom, so we must have been going over sounds and such. Yet, by the time I had entered Kindergarten, I had been read to constantly by my mom, so I had already developed an understanding of reading and writing through meaning and comprehension rather than through sounds and specific words. Now that I think of it, I have no recollection of specific lessons on words and sounds. All I remember are stories and writing assignments that gave me the chance to create my own stories. Maybe this means that I was a more Whole Language centered girl.
As many have expressed, I believe that there should be a balance between the two sides. Both methods bring something to the table. Even though I do not remember my own experiences, I feel as though phonics is an integral part in teaching young children how to read and sound out words. You have to start somewhere! I also feel that it gives a good foundation for a person to become better at spelling and grammar. This sounds terrible, but sometimes I judge people on their spelling and simple grammar skills. This is terribly rude, and I probably have made many errors of my own throughout this blog! But it is true. I get annoyed when people mix up their vs there. The one that gets me the most is when someone spells definitely as definately. This just really bugs me, as I’m sure it does with many of you. However, in the long run these little errors do not drastically change the meaning or understanding of what a person is trying to convey.

I also like a lot of aspects of whole language. I like that it focuses on meaning because I feel more personal connections to this method. I do not think that schools should abandon a standard of correct spelling and grammar. Yet, teachers should be more concerned that a student is learning and retaining meaning through reading before he wins first place in the state spelling bee. I like the method the teacher at the school I am observing at uses to teach her students vocabulary words. She puts a word on the board and then has a bunch of lines running out from the word. At the end of each line, the teacher puts a different way for a student to find meaning in this word. The examples include: origin of the word, prefixes, suffixes, similar sounding words, synonyms, a sentence with the word in it and a picture of what the word means. I feel as though this method includes both phonetic and holistic qualities. Obviously, studying the prefixes/suffixes of the word brings back phonics. Looking at similar sounding words or words with the same letters in it also brings to life phonetical meaning. However, the synonyms and pictures of the word bring with it more of a meaning centered approach. I think it’s a decent approach to vocabulary. I feel as though it will give students more opportunity to remember the meaning of the word through the different examples, which is an aim for whole language. Yet, it also utilizes traditional phonics.

Overall, I think both methods should be included in school curriculums. Phonics is an important way to teach young children how to read. It is also a significant foundation for the application of correct spelling and grammar, which is very important in anyone’s journey in an educational environment. However, whole language seems to be the soul of learning how to read. It is the meaning. Whole language can help students to find meaning in and a connection to a reading within themselves. Personally, I found a little more connection to this method because it made me realize that I knew how to read and write and find meaning in stories before I actually knew how to sound out words and sounds. The funny thing is, I love ice cream. It is the best. Yet, I don’t like to eat cake unless it is served with ice cream. So maybe I just need to have my phonics served to me with a little whole meaning on the side.

Phonics Phirst

The first thing that caught my eye in this chapter was when Williams' cited D. Graves who argued that "young children use drawing as a rehearsal for writing, and certainly it is not unusual for preliterate children to combine pictures with scribbles as they "compose" notes for friends and relatives." (p.152). I completely agree, and I've seen this plenty of times throughout my years of working with young children.

When I worked at My Gym Children's Fitness Center, "art" time (normally during Summer Camp or PNO - Parent's Night Out) was my favorite activity. Not only did I get a break from chasing kids around the gym but it was always fun to watch them draw, color, and scribble on their papers, using their imagination to its fullest. It was always interesting to see what they were thinking written or draw on paper, and when I'd ask what it was they drew or wrote, even if a dime-sized amount of the paper was used, I'd get responses that told a whole story!

So, I definitely agree with Graves in that drawing is the first step or milestone in writing for children.

But I guess the bigger picture of this chapter was Phonics vs. Whole Language.

I've never heard of whole language before this reading, and I must say, I was very intrigued with this method of teaching reading and writing. I grew up the phonics way, for sure, but I think that the philosophy of whole language should be incorporated into the curriculum as well. Although some might see these two methods of teaching as parallels with the need of only one, I believe they both should be used because they convey two different messages. Phonies, I think, should first be used with younger children since it’s the basis of learning the different sounds and meaning of words. That’s one thing I didn’t like about whole language – allowing children to “invent spelling” (p.156). Children already invent their spelling when they begin to write so I don’t see the point of that method when you’re going to correct them at some point anyways. That just seems like an unnecessary step to me. And then I think it should also be taught through their schooling years. However, I do believe that writing in journals in all grades and at all age levels will help them practice writing and improve their writing, both personally and professionally as well. Both methods of teaching reading and writing should be incorporated into the curriculum to allow children to see there is more than one way to read or write and then they (with some guidance) can choose which method works best for them.

Reading and Writing

Like a lot of people, I remember being taught to read and write using the phonics approach. To me, it makes sense to look at things in pieces like phonics suggest. Letters lead to words that then lead to phrases and clauses that lead to sentences. I also remember both my parents and Sesame Street teaching me how to sound out words, which helped me learned to read. I don’t have my own kids, but it’s been fun watching two of my best friends begin to teach their son to read using these methods.

I’ll be honest, before reading this chapter I never heard of the other method- whole-language. I’m not sure I like the idea of “invented spelling” that this method incorporates. To a point I believe that too much error correction can have a negative effect on learning to read and write, but I don’t believe complete abandonment should be the answer. It might be helpful when they’re beginning to read and write to be able to write out words however they want, but as they progress through school and beyond, that “invented spelling” will become less and less accepted.

But, like every other method we’ve read about so far, I do think the whole language method has its benefits. I think the example Williams brings up about the word “house” is interesting. The word sounds the same in all three instances, but because of the context it is place in, the word has three different meanings. There is more to words than simply the way the sound.

Just like many of the other theories and methods we’ve studied so far, I think maybe a balance of the two methods would be a good idea. Not all kids will learn the same way. What works for one child may be completely ineffective for another. While learning all these different methods and theories may seem overwhelming at times, I believe it will be incredibly helpful for when I actually begin to teach. The more methods you know, the more you can help you students learn.

On a final note, I was surprised by Williams’ statement towards the end of the chapter that “many public school teachers…will not accept student papers that are not written in cursive, and they actually will force students to copy by hand a printed paper.” That strikes me as very odd. I would love to know the source of this information or the demographics of the teachers he is referring to. I think computers and word processors are a great help to writing. The ability to edit instantly and move words or paragraphs around with ease can help students improve their writing and I think that should be encouraged.

Phonics vs. Whole-Language

It is always interesting to learn how different people learned to read and write. Some were read to as children, some read all the time themselves as children, some learned to take sentences out of books and write them down, etc. I took part in all of the above, and I know that I was taught with the phonics approach; I was not familiar with the whole-language approach until reading this chapter. I believe the phonics approach is successful in education. I personally enjoyed learning about consonants, vowels, syllables, etc. when I was younger, and I think it really helped me become a better reader and speaker. I remember learning rules as a youngster, such as “I comes before E except after C,” and they really did stick with me through my years of education. Also, I remember in first grade when my teacher was teaching us syllables and compound words. She would stick her right hand out and say “basket,” then she would stick her left hand out and say “ball,” and then she would clap her hands together and say “basketball.” The whole class would then join in. Without phonics instruction, I don’t think there’s any way for children to learn to read on their own. They need to learn the “decoding” skills.

There are some aspects I agree with concerning the whole-language approach and some aspects that I don’t agree with. I don’t agree with the fact that this approach does not stress correct spelling and error correction. I think those two things are essential in writing instruction. What is “inventive spelling?” I don’t even see how that could be beneficial, and I definitely agree with the phonics proponents that this type of activity is “an abandonment of valuable emphasis on correctness and thus an enabler of the further decline of educational standards” (157). I do, on the other hand, agree with whole-language proponents that individual words cannot “be derived simply on the basis of spelling-to-sound correspondences” (157). Meaning of individual words also depends on syntax and context; a lot of times you must apply knowledge of the world. This idea goes along with the example given on page 157 where the word “house” has three different meanings. I’m not sure how I feel about children reading aloud in class and being corrected by the teacher on pronunciations as they read. It never really bothered me when a teacher would do that to me because I was just thankful I didn’t have to sit there and figure out how to pronounce the word. Although, I do think it does interfere with comprehension. I remember many times when a “weak” reader was reading aloud in class and stumbling on almost every word as the rest of the class was following along, it was very difficult for me to comprehend what was being read when the teacher kept correcting pronunciation and errors. I would say I agree with the whole-language supporters that there is no need to correct miscues if they preserve the meaning of what is being read. Therefore, I believe it is okay if a child makes an irregular verb a regular verb in his or her speech because you still understand what is being said. Skills like knowing what verbs are regular and irregular come with being immersed in language, hearing other people say it. Like many other issues in education, I do not think there is a right answer here. One approach is not better than the other, and they each have their pros and cons. I don’t see why it is so hard for people to use aspects and ideas of each approach and say they both work.

As far as the connections between reading skill and writing proficiency go, I liked the last two sentences on page 166—“Teachers should encourage students to read and should help them discover the joy in reading and acquiring knowledge through reading, but it is a mistake to assume that in so doing they are directly helping students become better writers. Students will always need significant practice and instruction in writing if they are going to become proficient.” Reading does not make you a better writer. Just because you can read and comprehend a 500 page book does not mean that you can pick up a pencil and write a masterpiece essay. Writing instruction is prominent. Even though all of us in this class have written many, many papers throughout our whole education does not mean we can go into a classroom and teach writing; we need a course on how to teach writing. If you want your students to write an essay on a text that was read in class, you cannot just expect them to read it and then magically produce a successful essay; you need to give your students a model, as mentioned on page 168. They cannot write the essay without some form of writing instruction.

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.

Hooked on Phonics

Before reading this chapter, I don’t think I’d ever heard of the ‘whole language’ approach to reading. I was definitely brought up on the phonics method. At an early age, I became one of the millions of children who would spend a few hours of the evening watching Sesame Street, soaking in lessons on how to spell words via singing puppets. On the screen I would see, for example, an ‘f’ on the left side of the screen and ‘ood’ on the right. They would slowly come together as Cookie Monster pronounced each in its turn until finally they came together and formed a single word (which Cookie Monster then proceeded to devour). Seeing words I knew appear in symbolic form was an amazing feeling; just as Williams explains, I was creating order and making significant connections with my working vocabulary, my growing comprehension of the alphabet, and the mental images already in my mind of that given word. At home, I did drawings and scribbles like most children would. I drew pictures with captions and whether or not they were spelled correctly had little importance because the general idea was understood and my command of language was improving.

Phonics was great because it enabled me to be a more independent learner; could “decode” words in storybooks all by myself (155). I learned in kindergarten and first grade about letters, which ones were consonants and which ones were vowels, and how when you combined certain ones, different sounds resulted. From these critical lessons, I was able to recognize more words from sounding them out. And figuring out how to identify words through visual and speech repetition increased my reading pace over the years and my ability to comprehend text. That’s why, in my opinion, the phonics approach seems to be a better method for young children-it’s more about an organic and gradual progression. The whole language approach, on the other hand, appears to stress “immers[ion] in a text-rich environment” where syntax and context are key (156). Of course these cues are important, but not necessarily at a pre-school level. Learning to differentiate between the multiple meanings of word, like Williams’ example of house, comes naturally with time and experience.

The benefits of phonics are proven. That’s why it’s no longer a debate about which approach is more advantageous. Letters and sounds are the building blocks for literacy. Teaching children how to distinguish the ways in which these elements coalesce (through educational television, books, school, or programs like ‘Hooked on Phonics’) helps them to become better readers, and in turn, better writers. That’s not to say, however, that I don’t see any pros in the whole language approach. As some people have mentioned, balance is important. I like the way Williams mollified the issue by stating that “…responsible reading teachers and scholars now advocate a view of reading instruction that draws on whole language to support phonics-based programs” (165). Whole language learning has the added advantage that it incorporates free writing in the classroom, which phonics does not, and that it does not zero in on superficial errors. Still, phonics is what sets up most readers with a good foundation in language and literacy.

Finally, in regard to the last section of the chapter on computers, I have to say that I agree with Williams and his belief that word processing programs and the Internet have improved the methods for integrating reading and writing instruction (169). Personally, I love being able to generate as many documents as I want, creating pieces of writing with the full knowledge that I can just as easily rearrange or rewrite my material, or destroy it completely if need be. I’m forced (in a good way) to write, read, and edit, and I learn new words and refresh my existing vocabulary along the way through the use of spell check and the thesaurus. On-line, I like reading The New York Times because I can get the same stories from print, but they have a neat feature on the Web that I don’t have-an instant dictionary. If I’m unsure of a word in an article, I just let my mouse hang over it and a question mark pops up. If I click on that question mark, usually it will take me to a dictionary, explaining the meaning of that word and enhancing my comprehension of the article as a whole. This is just one example of the many amazing resources available through the use of computers and the Internet today. Of course there are drawbacks of sometimes having unreliable/unidentifiable sources, but overall the benefits of the Internet far outweigh the risks. And in the end, as Williams points out, in relation to reading and writing, it’s all about motivation. Regardless of an individual’s reading or writing abilities, he/she has to be exposed to opportunities for lots of practice and be willing to make the most of those opportunities (at all ages and stages of development) in order to become a “good” reader/writer.

I like the library!

This chapter was particularly interesting to me because I could really relate to a lot of the information. I have a three and half year old daughter and a two year old son. There were so many moments in the beginning of the reading that I recognized as accurate depictions of my daughter’s behaviors. From the scribbles to the irregular verbs, it was as if Williams was describing Bella exclusively.

I guess the big debate that Williams wants to bring to the forefront is phonics vs. whole language. Personally, I was taught the phonics approach and it worked. I liked being able to “sound out” words. It was an effective tool for me. I am not one to say that previous theories cannot be improved upon. With teaching, I think improvements can always be made. Williams brought out a lot of valid pros and cons of both. I wasn’t really familiar with the whole language approach before reading the text and found it rather interesting. I do believe that Williams says it best when he states, “most children need multiple tools to become proficient readers” (165).

Another area that I thought was really fascinating was the link between reading well and writing well. I guess I always assumed that these two areas went hand in hand. Williams points out that this is not the case. Just because a person is well-read does not make that same person is a great writer and vice-versa. This is kind of a generalization because I know it isn’t the same for everyone, but I think that most people who like to read also enjoy writing. Avid readers may have more motivation to write because they enjoy reading other people’s writings. Also, exposure to different types of writing may open writers up to more techniques and styles of writing that otherwise may have been unfamiliar to them. I guess this kind of brings us back to the point that reading literature and writing papers on it isn’t necessarily going to make student writers better writers.

On page 169 Williams talks about writing with computers. He states that many teachers make students hand in papers in cursive. When I read this, I actually looked to see when the book was published because I really couldn’t believe it. I know that students are still supposed to learn cursive but I never heard of handing in papers that weren’t typed. I really thought that in our age of technology, most teachers (even at a very low grade level) would require or at least allow papers to be typed. I am kind of skeptical of this example and am very curious to get input from the rest of the class. If this is true, I absolutely agree with Williams. We live in a world where the majority of people have access to word processors and email. Why would teachers not allow students to use the technology if that is the student’s preference?

On the other end of the coin, Williams finished out that section with some words about the library. He points out that with the internet and online databases, libraries may become unnecessary. I guess I can see how this is true, but it still really bothers me. I am one of the few students left that prefers to use the library when doing a lot of research. He says that recognizing credible information on the internet is no different than recognizing credible information at the library. I have to disagree. Web pages can be posted by absolutely anyone. Look at the number of students that rely on Wikipedia for papers without knowing that this is not reliable information. I guess in this respect I am still kind of old fashioned.

Practice, practice, and plant some trees

Once again, this chapter made more sense to me than the first two that we read in this book. While I appreciate all of the debate about phonics versus whole language, I agree with Jamie that there needs to be a balance between them to be used in the classroom. What I found more interesting were in the first few pages of the chapter.

I love the first sentence of this chapter: “One of the more fascinating things about children is their ability to grasp complex linguistic relations without much effort, simply by experiencing them.” For years, I have thought this to be true. I was the “crazy lady” in the grocery store, talking to my 3-month old baby, saying things like “Hmm, should we get purple potatoes today or red potatoes?” I was looked at as crazy, because who talks to a baby like that?! But, I had read, somewhere among all the stuff you read when you are having your first child, that it is good to talk to your baby as you would anyone else, and not to always use baby talk. It is also why I always try to talk to my 2-year old nephew like he’s a real person, and not just a little kid. Yes, we talk about trucks and colors, but I don’t use baby talk with him. Baby talk doesn’t give kids the complex linguistic relations that they need to use by the time they are in school. I have never said, “Awww, is Wyan a widdle tired?” No, I would say, “Ryan, are you tired?” I hate when people don’t treat kids like people, and don’t talk with them like they would talk to a friend. Even simple sentences (I hungry.) start them on the path to understanding how language is used, better than baby talk. Williams has re-confirmed my thoughts on this. Yeah, one thing I did right as a mom! ;)

The point made early on about pre-writing scribbles also applies to our house. We worship trees, Crayola, and recycling in our home. Why? Because we could fill the entire house from top to bottom (probably within two months) with all of the paper used to make drawings and to practice writing here. It is hard to count how much paper is used here. And my refrigerator is always messy-looking because we have so many “notes” and “lists” taped to it. And I’m only talking about how much is used by my five-year old! She goes through so much paper, we joke that everyone should buy her a forest for birthdays, because she’ll need to replace how much she uses in paper. She knows the value of recycling all of her paper too, so that we do save some trees. It’s hard to get mad at this though because even when the notes are illegible, she is experiencing writing, and she is experiencing creating things to be read. She recognizes that there are a variety of things that we read: books, magazines, grocery lists, calendars, ticket stubs, programs for concerts, dog collars, etc. She gives me a new thing every day. My recent favorite is my backstage pass to get into her room, because she’s a famous rock star. It has my name written on it, with a picture of me, a picture of her, and “Backstage Pass” written as a border. Almost everything she does now includes some kind of writing, even if it is writing her name on the back of a drawing. She writes, writes, writes, which means she reads, reads, reads. She is now into making her own books, and what she can’t spell out, she is writing by sounding out or drawing pictures. She knows how a story should be told. She wouldn’t know this if she wasn’t allowed to write, and she wouldn’t know this if she wasn’t read to constantly. She uses a combination of phonics and whole language, I think, and whatever she’s doing seems to be working.

In her kindergarten class, they seem to do a combination of both. They use Kid Writing every day. It is a process where they draw a picture, then write a sentence or two about their picture. They have certain words (the, an, and) that they are now expected to know how to spell and write correctly, and other words they sound out to the best of their ability. Last week she wrote, “My frend Rachl and I are holding hands.” She has used phonics to get the sounds in the words friend and Rachel, and uses the whole language approach that de-emphasizes correct spelling in order to keep the process engaging and less frustrating. She also figures out how to write new words by using other words that she does know how to spell as starting points (I know how to spell book, which rhymes with look, so I think I need to change a few letters from book to make look.).

Finally, the statement on page 153: “children do not learn by instruction; they learn by example, and they learn by making sense of what are essentially meaningful situations.” This is also true here in my own house. I have said before, my kids learned how to read early on. Books are a big part of our family life. My kids are both drawn to books with lots of words too, which makes it imperative that we read them together to learn all of the words. But, the best compliment I got about my kids came last year when my youngest was in preschool. She wanted desperately to read a book to her teacher, so we arranged for her to come in 10 minutes earlier than everyone else so she could do this without interruption. The teacher thought that she was about to hear a simple, pre-level 1 reader, one that has simple 3-8 word sentences. Imagine her surprise when we walked in with a level 3 reader, which my daughter read well. The teacher, after getting over her initial shock, turned to me and said, “Wow! Not only did she read the words, but she had all of the right inflection and intonation. How does she know how to do all of this?” My answer was, “Audio Books.” I have been using audio books with my kids for years now. At naptime, they would fall asleep listening to books being read. I feel that the audio books gave the kids an example of how to read. It was another example beyond my own reading aloud to them that helped them learn about language and about reading and writing. Children’s books are full of meaningful situations that kids can relate to, so giving them examples of how to read about them and how to write about them early on has allowed my kids to grasp that knowledge.

To me, reading and writing all comes down to practice. The more the students practice reading, the more they hear some reading aloud, the more they practice meaningful writing, the more they will grasp the tools necessary for reading and writing in our culture. Our examples need to be varied, balanced, and meaningful and we must try lots of different ways to get students to enjoy reading, enjoy writing, and then they will want to get better and better.

Teaching on a See-Saw

I think the general questions we have to consider in reading this section are, “What is good writing?” and “What is good reading?” The answers may seem clear, but sometimes that clarity may come from our own perceptions. We may hear someone read aloud in class with good pace and inflection and think, “That person is an excellent reader.” However, if they are asked to recount what they read a few moments later and cannot do so, then we may revise our initial impression based on the fact that they have poor comprehension. And what about those students who can read and comprehend well in their own minds, but have difficulty expressing their thoughts to others clearly? Evaluating “good writing” becomes even more challenging. What are the criteria? Proper sentence structure and clarity? What about students who write in a way that’s not considered “correct” by traditional standards but express a truly beautiful sentiment that the readers can connect to?

With all of our different personalities, learning strengths, and styles, the idea of choosing a form of instruction becomes overwhelming. Williams discussed the debates that occur in regard to whether children learn in a bottom-up or top-down format. The entire debate over phonics vs. whole language is difficult to sort out because both have their positives and negatives, and in the end, not all children follow the same track of learning.

I say this often in my journals for this class and others, but I always believe that balance is the key to effective teaching. With classrooms becoming more and more inclusive these days, you are going to find yourself teaching writing and reading techniques to students of different cultural backgrounds and different learning levels. It’s important to get a sense of your students’ background and incorporate different techniques in your instruction in an effort to reach all students at least on some level.

I grew up with the phonics method, and honestly, I don’t feel that it’s bad to have a standard. In regard to the position of whole language proponents who state that phonics is “atheoretical and, even worse, discriminatory,” (155) I feel that this comes down to a matter of having students realize that the recognized standards may not be applicable to everyone. I think standards can be different from rules. In fact, it may be good for a lesson to show how phonics can vary culturally. I also feel that the older people get and the more they engage in society, they become aware of this. They take what they have learned in regard to the standards, but adapt their style to fit in elements of their own culture or community. I think Williams makes a good point when he states that “language acquisition and literacy acquisition are not exactly the same and do not proceed on the basis of identical mechanisms” (165). Still, I feel that having some sort of solid base in recognition helps people differentiate the two and learn their own developmental skills and preferences.

It’s hard to come up with any one method and determine “this is the way people learn” or “this is the way people should be taught.” It is difficult to do so even in adults. I think new methods will always come about and I don’t see the debates ending anytime soon. But when a new method comes along, I don’t think we should be quick to abandon everything that’s been done before. I think each method should be considered in regard to the way that individuals learn. And perhaps more emphasis needs to be put on that notion when teaching. It is not always easy to do when you are trying to teach the same material to 30 different people, some of whom may use different comprehension techniques. But I don’t think we can get it perfect every time. Again, I go back to balance, trying different methods, and learning from your results. I consider all of the methods I read about in terms of a see-saw. Sometimes I'll tip a little too much to the right, sometimes too much to the left. The best I can do is try to recognize these tips and add a little weight to the opposite side when necessary.