Pearson, Reading Wars.
- On page 223 of the original text, first full paragraph, Pearson argues that schools and educational staff have appropriated the “whole-language label without honoring its fundamental principles…(223).” Why do you think this is, and, is the elision of issues of empowerment consistent with Freire’s critique of the banking model of education?
- Pearson argues that issues of literacy education in general and reading research in particular are inherently political: do you agree? Please explain.
The whole-language theory of education maintains that the fundamental practice of reading is the most important in the learning process. Meanwhile, the “new phonics” theory says that understanding the context, vocabulary, and the underlying phonics of words is most important to learn. Pearson “[embraces] what others see as binary opposites.” He sums it up very well. Neither of the two theories is false, and one statement cannot fully encapsulate the best way to learn. His main point is that the whole-language theory is made up of elements of phonics. It is necessary to utilize the fundamental skills of phonics and vocabulary to become a good reader, but one cannot be too dependent on these skills and must be able to quickly read and decipher basic words. A perfect balance of strategies and practices is necessary to synergize a “full and rich curriculum.” I personally have encountered a variety of different pedagogical practices in my classes. We have always studied phonics and context clues along with real reading excerpts and comprehension practice. I used to wonder why we had phonics time to understand how to pronounce and put words together. Now I understand that this was to build reading on top of the fundamentals. On the other hand, when the main issues or the whole-language ideal is missing in education (primary focus on phonics), then the situation becomes similar to what Friere describes as the banking model. In this case, only concepts are taught and information is fed into the children as if they are empty receptacles. This method does not allow them to analyze and question real-life issues as it would with a well-rounded education (combination of phonics and whole-language theory) as summarized by the problem-posing model.
ReplyDeletePearson- Life in the Radical Middle
ReplyDeleteHey Jeremiah, I don't know where the questions for this particular Pearson reading is, so I am just going to blog about my response to his position in standing on this middle ground in terms of literacy.
First off, Pearson explains himself and what it means to live life in the "radical middle" and then he goes onto apologize for his views and ideologies. I do not believe that Pearson needs to apologize for any of his thoughts, perhaps I too live in the "radical middle," but I believe literacy and the development process of reading and writing is a middle ground project. Each individual needs to find what is best for them and it is up to the teacher to take that responsibility in teaching in a way that is personally customized for their students. Pearson defines the middle ground by addressing all different issues that may affect a reader in their journey to analyzing using context clues or using clues from their daily social activities.
The first point really resonates with me because I myself go through this process when reading for a class. I am either dominating the printed text, or I am being dominated by it. Pearson also describes how it's not always one distinct phase you go through, a reader can go from dominating, top-down, inside-out, hypothesis-driven reading, to bottom-up, outside-in, or text-driven reading within two sentences, it just depends on whether or not the reader fully follows or comprehends it. It is when the "miscues" start to take over and cloud the reader's mind that the going gets tough and the readers is forced to pay more attention to context and meaning to make sense of things.
Pearson is attempting to showcase why the adoption of the whole language system in America faced such great difficulty. His point is that the introduction of any new model into a system that rests on pillars of tradition must also alter the accepted methods of pedagogy. The introduction of the whole language system was a bloodless coup; the opportunity for change arose and the whole reading system was implemented from the top-down. The educators found themselves with a mandated new tool for teaching literacy but without the proper instruction in how to implement this new tool. While perhaps understanding the fundamental principles of whole language teachers lacked the training to successfully teach whole reading. The content of teaching how to read phonetically might have been replaced but the format of instruction was dependent on the individual educator’s beliefs.
ReplyDeleteA necessary tenet of whole reading is removing the stigma of the otherness of words and the fear of error that was associated with learning how to read. Teaching the semantics behind the syntax and relativizing content is what whole language rests its laurels on. But teachers that are not trained in how to actualize these “new” approaches to teaching reading can readily agree with whole reading’s message but upon their return to their classroom they assume the superficial tenets of whole reading while not embodying its principles in the classroom. The result is that the power associated with reading is readily lost through the means of improper instruction.
Although the similarities between Freire’s critique of the banking model of education and the poor utilization of whole language in educational institutions share similarities, to name empowerment the issue of omission might be a conflation. How is it that students learning to read can be coached and empowered at the same time? The older model of skill based reading groups was replaced by whole reading keeping a whole class at one, albeit unequal, level. The disparity disempowered some leaving them without a venue to improve. Without the disempowering practices of a banking education, testing and assessments, can students equally become empowered. At this level of instruction a heavy-handed access to advancement is unavoidable aspect of learning a task that is as unnatural and empowering as reading.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete