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.

On to the practical

I'm happy to see that you enjoyed this chapter of Williams a little more. The practical aspects are always a little easier to digest than the more theoretical issues, and it seems as though many if you who are teachers in training can benefit from some of the ideas Williams offers. We're halfway through the blogs, so keep up the good work and I look forward to reading your comments again next week.

E-mail & Expectations

The practice for better writing that stood out most in my mind after reading Williams was using e-mail pen pals. Maybe I’m biased because I have a natural love of travel and of discovering other cultures and ways of life. But I also think my partiality for this method comes from the idea that using technology and engaging with peers from around the world is a much more practical and enjoyable activity than simply writing about a topic, like censorship (using the example from the reading), assigned in class. Reflecting on my own literacy narrative, I realize that I probably came across as one of those students who merely went through the motions of school and school work. For the most part, I would probably still categorize myself as that type of student. I completed assignments merely because I was required to do so to receive a grade. These assignments were boring and I felt that I was being forced to research and write about something I didn’t particularly care about (I'm sure everyone can relate to this). I hated this convention and that’s why I see the use of pen pals as a unique and, most likely, effective way to improve writing. I know that if I had had the opportunity to communicate with an international pen-pal, I would have been ecstatic. As Williams points out, using an exchange program of sorts, like the one described in the book, is a great way to engage students and to allow them to express themselves, without fear, on topics that interest them and/or their pen pal. It also gives them the opportunity to learn about other cultures-a feat which is especially pertinent in an ever-shrinking global community.

I liked that in this chapter Williams goes through the different stages of the process approach and expands upon the impact of each step. At the same time, it feels almost like a repetitive reading since we’ve discussed this idea of planning, drafting, revising, editing, etc. as a technique for better writing. We’ve talked about the fact that these steps aren’t set in stone and that they vary in relevance according to individual writers and the writing task at hand. But one of the things that we haven’t really touched on is this idea of expectations and standards.

I’m not planning on being a teacher, but from my own experience I can see how a teacher’s expectations of a student can truly affect his/her experience at school in a positive or negative way. I’ve been lucky enough to develop relationships with some of my instructors where I know they expect good things from me, so I try to deliver and make the best possible effort. That doesn’t mean I always enjoy the work, but I do my best to publish something worthy of those expectations. In high school though, where we had a good mix of city kids and suburbanites, teachers often failed to disguise the fact that they weren’t holding out for great pieces of literature from certain students. They could be condescending or they might just seem to visibly lower their standards and regard certain students as a lost cause. I remember seeing this in particular with a number of the boys on the football team. First of all, they were male, which Williams mentions almost immediately lowers them in esteem of teachers. Secondly, many of them were African American, which again is a disqualifying factor. And finally, they were football players-they were there for their brawn, not their brains. Of course this was never stated explicitly, but everyone understood these guys were aiming to be the next Ben Roethlisberger, not the next Stephen King. I think this was reflected in their grades. It wasn’t just football players either, but they're just the primary example that comes to mind.

Anyway, my main point is that I agree with Williams on the issue of expectations-the way a teacher engages a student can make all the difference in the world; they have a huge impact on students and on students as writers. So to all the education majors out there, please take this section of Williams to heart.