ERIC: Education Resources Information Center Skip main navigation
Alert:
Limited Availability of Full-Text Documents. Click here for more information, or here to request the return of a PDF online.


Help Help Help Movie Tutorial Help Help | Help Movie Tutorial Help Help | Help Movie Tutorial Help With This Page Help With This Page

back Back to Search Results    permalink Help Help Permalink    Share this clipboard Share this record

Record Details - ED498005
Title: Whole-Language High Jinks: How to Tell When "Scientifically-Based Reading Instruction" Isn't

Full-Text Availability Options:

PDF ERIC Full Text (322K)

Related Items: Show Related Items
Click on any of the links below to perform a new search
Title:Whole-Language High Jinks: How to Tell When "Scientifically-Based Reading Instruction" Isn't
Authors:Moats, Louisa
Descriptors:Program EffectivenessReading ProgramsReading InstructionWhole Language ApproachReading ResearchTeaching MethodsPhonemesPhonicsSecond Language LearningWriting SkillsSentence StructureReading ComprehensionVocabulary DevelopmentReading FluencyEducational Policy
Source:Thomas B. Fordham Institute
More Info:
Help Help
Peer Reviewed:
Publisher:Thomas B. Fordham Foundation & Institute. 1701 K Street NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: 202-223-5452; Fax: 202-223-9226; e-mail: backtalk@edexcellence.net; Web site: http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/index.cfm
Publication Date:2007-01-00
Pages:33
Pub Types:Guides - Non-Classroom
Abstract:In this practitioners' guide, a recognized reading expert explains how educators, parents, and concerned citizens can spot ineffective reading programs that may hide under the "scientifically-based" banner. Although the term "whole language" is not commonly used today, programs based on its premises remain popular. These approaches may pay lip service to reading science, but they fail to incorporate the content and instructional methods proven to work best with students learning to read. Some districts openly shun research-based practices, while others fail to provide clear, consistent leadership for principals and teachers, who are left to reinvent reading instruction, school by school. The purpose of this guide is to help educators and parents spot programs that truly are research based -- and those that are not. Moats exposes scientifically untenable practices in reading instruction, including: (1) use of memorization, picture cues, and contextual guessing for teaching word recognition instead of direct, systematic teaching of decoding and comprehension skills; (2) substitution of teacher modeling and reading aloud for explicit, organized instruction; (3) rejection of systematic and explicit phonics, spelling, or grammar instruction; (4) confusion of phonemic awareness with phonics; (5) reliance on leveled and trade books to organize instruction; and (6) use of whole-language approaches for English language learners. The author suggests ways of separating good from poor programs and explains that good reading programs: (1) use valid screening measures to find children who are at risk and provide them with effective, early instruction in phonology and oral language; in word recognition and reading fluency; and in comprehension and writing skills; (2) interweave several components of language (such as speech sounds, word structure, word meaning, and sentence structure) into the same lessons; (3) build fluency in both underlying reading skills and text reading, using direct methods such as repeated readings of the same text; (4) incorporate phonemic awareness into all reading instruction, rather than treating it as an isolated element; (5) go beyond the notion of phonics as the simple relationship between letters and sounds to include lessons on word structure and origins; (6) build vocabulary from the earliest levels by exposing students to a broad, rich curriculum; and (7) support reading comprehension by focusing on a deep understanding of topic and theme rather than just a set of strategies and gimmicks. Document includes a foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Martin A. Davis, Jr. (Contains 50 endnotes and 1 table.)
Abstractor:ERIC
Reference Count:0

Note:N/A
Identifiers:No Child Left Behind Act, 2001
Record Type:Non-Journal
Level:N/A
Institutions:Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, Washington, DC.
Sponsors:N/A
ISBN:N/A
ISSN:N/A
Audiences:N/A
Languages:English
Education Level:N/A
 

back Back to Search Results



Notice of Language Assistance: English  |  español  |  中文: 繁體版  |  Việt-ngữ  |  한국어  |  Tagalog  |  Русский