9 Whole Language

Background
The term Whole Language was created in the 1980s by a group of U.S.
educators concerned with the teaching of language arts, that is, reading
and writing in the native language. The teaching of reading and writing in
the first language (often termed the teaching of literacy) is a very active
educational enterprise worldwide, and, like the field of second language
teaching, has led to a number of different and at times competing ap-
proaches and methodologies. One widespread approach to both the
teaching of reading and writing has focused on a “decoding” approach to
language. By this is meant a focus on teaching the separate components of
language such as grammar, vocabulary, and word recognition, and in
particular the teaching of phonics. Phonics is based on the theory that
reading involves identifying letters and turning them into sounds. Other
reading theories approach reading through skills. The Whole Language
movement is strongly opposed to these approaches to teaching reading
and writing and argues that language should be taught as a “whole.” “If
language isn’t kept whole, it isn’t language anymore” (Rigg 1991: 522).
Whole Language instruction is a theory of language instruction that was
developed to help young children learn to read, and has also been ex-
tended to middle and secondary levels and to the teaching of ESL. “What
began as a holistic way to teach reading has become a movement for
change, key aspects of which are respect for each student as a member of
a culture and as a creator of knowledge, and respect for each teacher as a
professional” (Rigg 1991: 521).
The Whole Language Approach emphasizes learning to read and write
naturally with a focus on real communication and reading and writing for
pleasure. In the 1990s it became popular in the United States as a
motivating and innovative way of teaching language arts skills to primary
school children. In language teaching it shares a philosophical and in-
structional perspective with Communicative Language Teaching since it
emphasizes the importance of meaning and meaning making in teaching
and learning. It also relates to natural approaches to language learning
(see Chapter 15) since it is designed to help children and adults learn a
second language in the same way that children learn their first language.
Considerable discussion has been devoted to whether Whole Language
108

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNAD Universidad Abierta y a Distancia, on 22 Oct 2019 at 15:18:26, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.012
 Whole Language

is an approach, a method, a philosophy, or a belief. In a survey of sixty-

four articles on Whole Language, Bergeron (1990) found Whole Lan-
guage treated as an approach (34.4 percent of the articles), as a philoso-
phy (23.4 percent), as a belief (14.1 percent), or as a method (6.3 per-
cent). We see it as an approach based on key principles about language
(language is whole) and learning (writing, reading, listening, and speak-
ing should be integrated in learning). Each Whole Language teacher im-
plements the theories of Whole Language as he or she interprets them and
according to the kinds of classes and learners he or she is teaching.

Approach: theory of language and of learning

Whole language views language organization from what we have earlier
called an interactional perspective. This perspective is most obviously a
social one that views language as a vehicle for human communication
and in which there is an interactional relationship between readers and
writers. “Language use is always in a social context, and this applies to
both oral and written language, to both first and second language use”
(Rigg 1991: 523). Heavy emphasis in Whole Language is placed on “au-
thenticity,” on engagement with the authors of written texts, and also on
conversation. For example, in mastering the sociolinguistic signals for
“apologizing,” “A whole language perspective requires an authentic,
‘real’ situation in which one truly needs to apologize to another” (Rigg
1991: 524).
Whole Language also views language psycholinguistically as a vehicle
for internal “interaction,” for egocentric speech, for thinking. “We use
language to think: In order to discover what we know, we sometimes
write, perhaps talk to a friend, or mutter to ourselves silently” (Rigg
1991: 323). A functional model of language is also referred to in many
articles on Whole Language. Language is always seen as something that is
used for meaningful purposes and to carry out authentic functions.
The learning theory underlying Whole Language is in the humanistic
and constructivist schools. The descriptions of whole language class-
rooms recall terms familiar to humanistic approaches to education and to
language learning: Whole Language is said to be authentic, personalized,
self-directed, collaborative, pluralistic. Such characteristics are believed
to focus learner attention and to motivate mastery. Constructivist learn-
ing theory holds that knowledge is socially constructed, rather than re-
ceived or discovered. Thus, constructivist learners “create meaning,”
“learn by doing,” and work collaboratively “in mixed groups on com-
mon projects.” Rather than transmitting knowledge to students, teachers
collaborate with them to create knowledge and understanding in their
mutual social context. Rather than seeking to “cover the curriculum,”
109

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNAD Universidad Abierta y a Distancia, on 22 Oct 2019 at 15:18:26, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.012
 Alternative approaches and methods

learning focuses on the learners’ experience, needs, interests, and

aspirations.

Design: Objectives, syllabus, learning activities, roles of

learners, teachers, and materials
The major principles underlying the design of Whole Language instruc-
tion are as follows:
– the use of authentic literature rather than artificial, specially prepared
texts and exercises designed to practice individual reading skills
– a focus on real and natural events rather than on specially written
stories that do not relate to the students’ experience
– the reading of real texts of high interest, particularly literature
– reading for the sake of comprehension and for a real purpose
– writing for a real audience and not simply to practice writing skills
– writing as a process through which learners explore and discover
meaning
– the use of student-produced texts rather than teacher-generated or
other-generated texts
– integration of reading, writing, and other skills
– student-centered learning: students have choice over what they read
and write, giving them power and understanding of their world
– reading and writing in partnership with other learners
– encouragement of risk taking and exploration and the acceptance of
errors as signs of learning rather than of failure
The teacher is seen as a facilitator and an active participant in the learning
community rather than an expert passing on knowledge. The teacher
teaches students and not the subject matter and looks for the occurrence
of teachable moments rather than following a preplanned lesson plan or
script. The teacher creates a climate that will support collaborative learn-
ing. The teacher has the responsibility of negotiating a plan of work with
the learners.
The learner is a collaborator, collaborating with fellow students, with
the teacher, and with writers of texts. Students are also evaluators, eval-
uating their own and others’ learning, with the help of the teacher. The
learner is self-directed; his or her own learning experiences are used as
resources for learning. Students are also selectors of learning materials
and activities. “Choice is vital in a whole language class, because without
the ability to select activities, materials, and conversational partners, the
students cannot use language for their own purposes” (Rigg 1991: 526).
Whole Language instruction advocates the use of real-world materials
rather than commercial texts. A piece of literature is an example of “real-
world” materials in that its creation was not instructionally motivated
110

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNAD Universidad Abierta y a Distancia, on 22 Oct 2019 at 15:18:26, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.012
 Whole Language

but resulted from the author’s wish to communicate with the reader.
Other real-world materials are brought to class by the students in the
form of newspapers, signs, handbills, storybooks, and printed materials
from the workplace in the case of adults. Students also produce their own
materials. Rather than purchase pedagogically prepared textbooks and
“basal readers,” schools make use of class sets of literature, both fictional
and nonfictional.

Procedure
The issue of what instructional characteristics are specific to Whole Lan-
guage is somewhat problematic. Bergeron (1990) found that Whole Lan-
guage was described differently in each article of the sixty-four articles
she surveyed (except those written by the same author). She found only
four classroom features mentioned in more than 50 percent of the arti-
cles. These included:
– the use of literature
– the use of process writing
– encouragement of cooperative learning among students
– concern for students’ attitude
Activities that are often used in Whole Language instruction are:
– individual and small group reading and writing
– ungraded dialogue journals
– writing portfolios
– writing conferences
– student-made books
– story writing
Many of these activities are also common in other instructional ap-
proaches, such as Communicative Language Teaching, Content-Based
Teaching, and Task-Based Language Teaching. Perhaps the only feature
of Whole Language that does not also appear centrally in discussions of
communicative approaches to language teaching is the focus on litera-
ture, although this has obviously been of concern to other writers on ELT
methodology. Suggestions for exploitation of literary resources in the
Whole Language classroom will be familiar to language teachers with a
similar interest in the use of literature in support of second language
learning. What differs in Whole Language teaching is not the incidental
use of such activities based on the topic of the lesson or an item in the
syllabus but their use as part of an overall philosophy of teaching and
learning that gives a new meaning and purpose to such activities.
111

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNAD Universidad Abierta y a Distancia, on 22 Oct 2019 at 15:18:26, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.012
 Alternative approaches and methods

The following is an example of the use of literary pieces in a Whole

Language workshop and involves activities built around the use of “Par-
allel Texts.” Two English translations of the same short story is an exam-
ple of Parallel Texts. Study of the two translations highlights the range of
linguistic choices open to the writer (and translator) in the contrast of
linguistic choices made by the translators and the responses made to these
choices by the students as readers. In pairs, one student acts as presenter/
interpreter of one of the two short-story translations and a partner acts as
presenter/interpreter of the other.
Parallel Texts: Opening sentences from two translations of a Korean short
story.
1a. “Cranes” by Hwang Sun-Won (translated by Kevin O’Rourke)
“The village on the northern side of the 38th parallel frontier was ever so
quiet and desolate beneath the high, clear autumn sky. White gourds leaned
on white gourds as they swayed in the yard of an empty house.”
1b. “The Crane” by Hwang Sun-Won (translated by Kim Se-young)
“The northern village at the border of the 38th Parallel was ever so snug un-
der the bright high autumn sky. In the space between the two main rooms of
the empty farm house a white empty gourd was lying against another white
empty gourd.”
Examples of student activities based on parallel texts:
1. Think of the village as described in 1a and 1b as two different villages.
Which one would you choose to live in? Why?
2. Do the contrasting opening sentences set up any different expectations in
the reader as to what kind of story will follow and what the tone of the
story will be?
3. On a map of Korea, each partner should indicate where he/she thinks the
village is located. Are the locations the same? If not, why not?
4. Write an opening sentence of a short story in which you briefly introduce
the village of 1a as it might appear in winter rather than autumn.
5. Write two parallel text opening sentences in which you describe in different
words a village you know. Ask a partner which village he/she prefers.
6. Discuss what different kinds of stories might follow on the basis of the
opening sentences. Write an original first sentence of this story thinking of
yourself as “translator” and drawing on both translations as your
resources.
(Rodgers 1993)

Conclusions
The Whole Language movement is not a teaching method but an ap-
proach to learning that sees language as a whole entity. Each language
112

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNAD Universidad Abierta y a Distancia, on 22 Oct 2019 at 15:18:26, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.012
 Whole Language

teacher is free to implement the approach according to the needs of

particular classes. Advantages claimed for Whole Language are that it
focuses on experiences and activities that are relevant to learners’ lives
and needs, that it uses authentic materials, and that it can be used to
facilitate the development of all aspects of a second language. Critics,
however, see it as a rejection of the whole ESL approach in language
teaching and one that seeks to apply native-language principles to ESL.
Whole Language proposals are seen as anti-direct teaching, anti-skills,
and anti-materials, assuming that authentic texts are sufficient to support
second language learning and that skill development will follow without
special attention (Aaron 1991). Many language teachers still have a
strong commitment to specially developed materials to support instruc-
tion and some have argued that Whole Language promotes fluency at the
expense of accuracy. On the other hand, supporters of Whole Language
have developed a rich array of materials that can offer an integrated
approach to ESL instruction and that can be adapted for use in a wide
variety of contexts (e.g., Whiteson 1998). Whole Language activities may
prove useful particularly for younger learners in ESL environments.
Many of the activities for older learners in other environments are similar
to those recommended in other instructional approaches (e.g., Com-
municative Language Teaching and Cooperative Learning), which can
also serve as resources to support a Whole Language approach.

Bibliography and further reading

Aaron, P. 1991. Is there a hole in whole language? Contemporary Education 62
(winter): 127.
Adunyarittigun, D. 1996. Whole Language: A whole new world for ESL pro-
grams. ERIC Document ED386024.
Bergeron, B. S. 1990. What does the term Whole Language mean? Journal of
Reading Behavior 22(4): 6–7.
Brockman, B. 1994. Whole language: A philosophy of literacy teaching for adults
too! ERIC Document: ED376428.
Chitrapu, D. 1996. Whole Language: Adapting the approach for large classes.
Forum Magazine 34(2): 28–29.
Freeman, D., and Y. Freeman. 1993. Whole Language: How does it support
second language learners? ERIC Document: ED360875.
Goodman, K. 1986. What’s Whole in Whole Language? Portsmouth, N.H.:
Heinemann.
Hao, R. N. 1991. Whole Language: Some thoughts. Kamehameha Journal of
Education (March): 16–18.
Heymsfeld, C. R. 1989. Filling the hole in Whole Language. Educational Leader-
ship 46(6).
Krashen, S. 1998. Has whole language failed? ERIC Document: ED586010.
Lems, K. 1995. Whole Language and the ESL/EFL classroom. ERIC Document
ED384210.
113

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNAD Universidad Abierta y a Distancia, on 22 Oct 2019 at 15:18:26, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.012
 Alternative approaches and methods

Patzelt, Karen E. 1993. Principles of Whole Language and implications for ESL
learners. ERIC Document: ED400526.
Rigg, P. 1991. Whole Language in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 25(3): 521–542.
Rodgers, T. S. 1993. Teacher training for Whole Language in ELT. Paper given at
City University of Hong Kong Seminar on Teacher in Education in Language
Teaching. April.
Shao, X. 1996. A bibliography of Whole Language materials. Biblio. Series 1993,
No. 1. ERIC Document: ED393093.
Stahl, S. A. 1994. The effects of Whole Language instruction: An update and a
reappraisal. ERIC Document: ED364830.
Whiteson, V. 1998. Play’s the Thing: A Whole Language Approach. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.

114

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNAD Universidad Abierta y a Distancia, on 22 Oct 2019 at 15:18:26, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.012