Annotation IV

Source: Hammond, J. (1992), “Is learning to read and write the same as learning to speak?” Literacy for a Changing World, ed, F. Christie, ACER, Melbourne, pp. 26-54.
Compared with the previous annotation, I would like to introduce disadvantages of Whole Language in this annotation in this annotation.
Well, according to the last annotation, we can know the idea of Whole Language is that writing and speaking should not be separately referred to. Besides, Whole Language experts claim that language learning should be based on language learners’ experience. However, after thirty years from 1970s, the controversies of Whole Language came into being little by little. Nowadays, many language teaching experts begin to strongly disapprove of the teaching methods of Whole Language; even some of them blame Whole Language for causing Literacy Skills to degrade. The reasons why Whole Language is as good as Whole Language specialists originally think are base on three following major reasons.
First, Whole Language put too more emphasis on completeness of articles and sentences. The basic idea of Whole Language is “knowledge is a complete education system and can not be taught by dividing into several pieces.” But, at the same time, comparatively detailed language skills and ability, such as phonics and grammar will be ignored. Then, by using Whole Language Approach, language learner will not pay more attention to details of language. Then, it will be a situation that language learner speak and write so ungrammatically that listener and readers will not understand what they mean. Besides, if grammatical learning is ignored, language learners will not know the relationship between sentences, words, and even sounds.
Second, for second language learners and those who do not learn so well and fast, it will be a burden if Whole Language Approach is put into practiced. According to the thesis of Whole Language, language should begin from language learners’ experience. Nevertheless, this method is suitable for all language learners. For example, in terms of second language learners, it is hard for them to know the meaning of “England in six-wicket collapse”. Comparatively speaking, for those who live in the Australia and the UK, it is much easier to know what it means because they know what it means by their cultural knowledge. Besides, for those who do not learn well and fast, it will be a trouble as well. That is because their learning ability is not good and they need to practice their basic language skills repeatedly and systematically. If their reading skills is not good and they have hard time knowing each part of sentences and words, how come they can know the articles as a whole by only reading it?
Third, Whole Language ignores the difference between oral language and written language. Take English for example. We often hear African Americans are used to use the words such as “ain’t”; however, it is not acceptable to use that word in writing. We can know that writing often be used in formal situations, such as asking for jobs, applying for entering to a college, sending letters to his or her boss and so on. So, writing should be more formal, specific, and clearly stated so that readers can really know what you mean. Contrarily, speaking is much more flexible because people can know what you say by their background knowledge and simply looking at speakers’ facial expression and intonation and other non-verbal “hints”. Besides, speaking often can be used in most situations of conversation, joking, and teaching. In these situations, as long as speakers can speak approximately eighty percent correct, listeners can guess what you mean. Accordingly, we can know that speaking and writing is not the same at all.
Finally, I would like to conclude that there are defects do existing in Whole Language Approach, but the basic idea of it is good. We can see that in recent years, many language educators and Whole Language advocate begin to consider whether the action of Whole Language can not changed or not. Some educators state that Whole Language is a good way for language learning and should continue to be used, others think Whole Language should be totally disposed of, and still others think that they can find helpfulness and advantages for language learners between both traditional language teaching (Communicative approach) and Whole Language Approach, so they think good language teaching method is choosing advantages between them. In sum, from my point of view, a good language learning method is both more advantages and fewer disadvantages for language learners. At the same time, it can really be put into effect to extreme in language teaching. I believe that it is a good language learning method.