Literacy Development and The Balanced Approach
Historical and Theoretical Foundations
The evolution of the Interactive perspective was influenced by the continued research that occurred as the Whole Language approach was implemented. There were two main lines of research that facilitated or contributed to this evolution: (a) Research on the effectiveness of the Whole Language approach, and (b) research on the processes of reading and writing.
Research on the effectiveness of the Whole Language approach.
As research on the effectiveness of Whole Language instruction was conducted, it became apparent that while the approach was successful in some classrooms (Dahl & Freppon, 1994; Freppon, 1993; Stice & Bertrand, 1990), the Whole Language approach was not always successful. Not all children were able to benefit from a curriculum that primarily focused on reading literature and creative writing. Some children who had been in whole-language classrooms during the primary years experienced problems in the upper grades due to a lack of conventional spelling skills, a lack of knowledge of grammar, and an inability to fluently read content-area texts. Some school districts reported that reading achievement scores declined with the implementation of the Whole Language approach. Standardized test scores indicated low achievement in tasks related to reading (Johns & Elish-Piper, 1997). A major controversy developed in California when the Whole Language approach was deemed responsible for the statewide decline in reading achievement (Farris, Fuhler, & Walther, 2004; Innes, 2002; Johns & Elish-Piper, 1997; Krashen, 2002; Matson, 1996).
While the validity of this claim was questioned (Krashen, 2002), researchers and school districts began to study the ways in which Whole Language was being implemented. Researchers conducting observations in Whole Language classrooms reported that not all teachers were implementing the approach in the same way: in fact, there seemed to be many different definitions of what constituted the Whole Language approach (McIntyre, 1996). For example, although the Whole Language approach encouraged the embedding of instruction in specific language skills such as phonemic awareness in the context of reading a story, some teachers interpreted the Whole Language approach as prohibiting any attention to separate language skills.
The implementation of the Whole Language approach also resulted in whole class oral reading and the disappearance of reading ability groups. Because this approach assumed that children would learn to read by reading and that no explicit instruction in separate reading skills was needed, there was no need to have ability reading groups. This practice was also supported by research in classrooms using the subskill approach which documented the negative effects of reading ability groups on children’s motivation and long-term achievement (Allington, 1982; Davis, 1991; Grant, 1981; Phillips, 1990; Wilkinson & Spinelli, 1981). Unfortunately, this practice of whole class oral reading made it very difficult for individual children to receive the additional guidance they needed to learn to read.
© ______ 2008, Allyn & Bacon, an imprint of Pearson Education Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The reproduction, duplication, or distribution of this material by any means including but not limited to email and blogs is strictly prohibited without the explicit permission of the publisher.
- Coats and Car Seats: A Lethal Combination?
- Kindergarten Sight Words List
- Child Development Theories
- Signs Your Child Might Have Asperger's Syndrome
- 10 Fun Activities for Children with Autism
- Why is Play Important? Social and Emotional Development, Physical Development, Creative Development
- Social Cognitive Theory
- GED Math Practice Test 1
- The Homework Debate
- First Grade Sight Words List