Editor's Comment:In this issue we continue with the four-part special series on a constructivist view of learning disabilities. For an overview of this special series, see Dr. Mary Poplin's Introduction in the August/September 1995 issue (Volume 28, Number 7) of the Journal of Learning Disabilities.—JLW
As a curricular approach to language arts instruction, whole language has gained prominence in the last decade. Many researchers and practitioners working in the field of learning disabilities have questioned the appropriateness of whole language for students considered to be learning disabled. In this article a rationale is presented for how the whole language approach provides the type of environment that is particularly suitable for these students. This is developed by analyzing the documented characteristics of these learners and the implications of those characteristics within a whole language curriculum.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1982). Learning disabilities in perspective.Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
2.
Altwerger, B., Edelsky, C., & Flores, B. (1987). Whole language: What's new. The Reading Teacher, 41(2), 144–154.
3.
Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction for delayed readers in grades 6–10. Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 121–137.
4.
Borkowski, J., Carr, M., & Pressley, M. (1987). “Spontaneous” strategy use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory. Intelligence, 11, 61–75.
5.
Borkowski, J., Johnston, M., & Reid, M. K. (1987). Metacognition, motivation, and controlled performance. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (pp. 147–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Brown, A. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 55–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Brown, A. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading and comprehension (pp. 453–481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
Calkins, L. M. (1980). When children want to punctuate: Basic skills belong in context. Language Arts, 57, 567–573.
9.
Ceci, S. (1987). Handbook of cognitive, social and neurological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
Chaney, C. (1990). Evaluating the whole language approach to language arts: The pros, the cons. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 244–249.
11.
Cousin, P. T., Prentice, L., Aragon, E., Leonard, C., Rose, L. A., & Weekley, T. (1991). Redefining our role as special educators: Understandings gained from whole language. In S. Stire (Ed.), With promise: Redefining reading and writing for special students (pp. 165–171). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
12.
Deford, D. E., & Harste, J. C. (1982). Child, language, research, and curriculum. Language Arts, 59, 590–600.
13.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–298.
14.
Derry, S. (1990). Remediating academic difficulties through strategy training: The acquisition of useful knowledge. Remedial and Special Education, 11(6), 19–31.
15.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education.New York: Collier Macmillan.
16.
Edelsky, C. (1990). Whose agenda is this anyway? A response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller. Educational Researcher, 19(8), 7–11.
17.
Edelsky, C., Altwerger, B., & Flores, B. (1991). Whole language: What's the difference?Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
18.
Freppon, P., & Dahl, K. (1991). Learning about phonics in a whole language classroom. Language Arts, 68, 190–197.
19.
Gaskins, R. W., Gaskins, J. C., & Gaskins, I. W. (1991). A decoding program for poor readers and the rest of the class, too. Language Arts, 68, 213–225.
20.
Gavelek, J., & Palincsar, A. (1988). Contextualism as an alternative world-view of learning disabilities: A response to Swanson's “Toward a metatheory of learning disabilities.”Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 278–281.
21.
Goodman, K. (1989). Whole language research: Foundations and development. Elementary School Journal, 90, 207–221.
22.
Hallahan, D., Kauffman, J., & Lloyd J. (1985). Introduction to learning disabilities.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
Halliday, M. (1975). Learning how to mean.London: Arnold.
24.
Harste, J. (1989). The future of whole language. Elementary School Journal, 90, 243–249.
25.
Harste, J. (1990). Jerry Harste speaks on reading and writing. The Reading Teacher, 43, 316–318.
26.
Harste, J., Woodward, V., & Burke, C. (1991). Examining instructional assumptions. In B. Power & R. Hubbard (Eds.), Literacy in process (pp. 51–66). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
27.
Heshusius, L. (1989). Holistic principles: Not enhancing the old but seeing a-new. A rejoinder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 595–602.
28.
Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy.Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.
29.
Keogh, B., & Hall, R. (1983). Cognitive training with learning disabled pupils. In A. Myer & W. Craighead (Eds.), Cognitive behavior therapy with children (pp. 163–191). New York: Plenum Press.
30.
Lindquist, D. (1990). Inviting the literacy learner to engage in reading. In D. Stephens (Ed.), What matters? A primer for teaching reading (pp. 15–20). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
31.
Lindsay, C. (1990). An observational study of students with learning disabilities. Unpublished manuscript.
32.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (1987). Effective instruction for special education.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
33.
Newman, J. (1985). Whole language: Theory in use.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
34.
Newman, J. (1991). Interwoven conversations.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
35.
Newman, J., & Church, S. (1990). Commentary: Myths of whole language. The Reading Teacher, 44, 20–26.
36.
O'Brien, M. (1987). Whole language, the resource teacher and intervention. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 5(3), 165–170.
37.
Palincsar, A., David, Y., Winn, J., & Stevens, D. (1991). Examining the context of strategy instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 41–53.
38.
Pearson, P. (1990). Reading and the whole language movement. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 231–241.
39.
Pearson, P. D. (1993). Teaching and learning reading: A research perspective. Language Arts, 70, 502–511.
40.
Poplin, M. (1988a). The reductionist fallacy in learning disabilities: Replicating the past by reducing the present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 401–416.
41.
Poplin, M. (1988b). Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 401–416.
42.
Reid, D. K. (1988). Teaching the learning disabled.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
43.
Reid, D. K., & Stone, C. (1991). Why is cognitive instruction effective? Underlying learning mechanisms. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 8–19.
44.
Rhodes, L., & Dudley-Marling, C. (1988). Readers and writers with a difference.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
45.
Shannon, P. (1990). The struggle to continue.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
46.
Smith, C. R. (1983). Learning disabilities: The interaction of learner, task, and setting.Boston: Little, Brown.
47.
Staab, C. (1990). Teacher mediation in one whole language classroom. The Reading Teacher, 43, 548–552.
48.
Stahl, S., & Miller, P. (1989). Whole language and language experience approaches for beginning reading: A quantitative research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 87–116.
49.
Stone, A. C., & Wertsch, J. (1984). A social interactional analysis of learning disabilities remediation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 194–199.
50.
Swanson, H. L. (1987). What learning disabled readers fail to retrieve: A problem of encoding, interference or sharing of resources?Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 339–351.
51.
Swanson, H. L. (1989). Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for effective use. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 3–14.
52.
Swanson, H. L. (1990). Instruction derived from the strategy deficit model: Overview of principles and procedures. In T. Scruggs & B. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 34–65). New York: Springer-Verlag.
53.
Swanson, H. L. (1991). Learning disabilities and memory. In D. K. Reid, W. P. Hresko, & H. L. Swanson (Eds.), A cognitive approach to learning disabilities.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
54.
Toomes, J. (1990). Observing learners. In D. Stephens (Ed.), What matters? A primer for teaching reading (pp. 3–14). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
55.
Torgesen, J. (1979). Factors related to poor performance in reading disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2(3), 17–23.
56.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
Watson, D. (1989). Defining and describing whole language. Elementary School Journal, 90, 129–141.
58.
Weaver, C. (1988). Reading process and practice.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
59.
Weins, J. W. (1983). Metacognition and the adolescent passive learner. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 144–149.
60.
Wells, G. (1981). Learning through interaction.New York: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays.New York: The Free Press.
62.
Winsor, P., & Pearson, P. D. (1992). Children at-risk: Their phonemic awareness development in holistic instruction (Tech. Rep. No. 556), Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
63.
Zivian, M. T., & Samuels, S. J. (1986). Performance on a word-likeness task by normal readers and reading-disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 150–160.
