Research on “The Great Debate”: Code-Oriented Versus Whole Language Approaches to Reading Instruction

Abstract

The “Great Debate” over code emphasis versus meaning emphasis in beginning reading instruction is reviewed and relevant research is presented. That research clearly favors explicit instruction in alphabetic coding that concludes that the incidental instruction provided by the writing activities of whole language do not guarantee alphabetic understanding. The lack of acceptance and dissemination of these findings among whole language educators is contextualized within the conflicting paradigms of cognitive psychology and whole language beliefs derived from aspects of constructivism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and critical theory. Rather than abandon the debate to conflicting paradigms, an attempt is made to (a) disassociate instruction in alphabetic coding from the whole language criticism of teacher-directed, drill-oriented type of instruction and nonauthentic assessment, and (b) challenge whole language educators to renew empirically based inquiry into the best methods for helping children learn to read.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Barbara R. Foorman

Barbara R. Foorman, PhD, is Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Houston. She is currently Principal Investigator of a multiyear grant in the public schools funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), “Early Interventions for Children with Reading Problems.”