Editing Whole language (section)

==Proponents and critics==
Prominent proponents of whole language include Ken Goodman, Frank Smith, Carolyn Burke, Jerome Harste,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/lesson1140/VM0103What.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/lesson1140/VM0103What.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live|title=What Do We Mean by Literacy Now? ReadWriteThink.org}}</ref> Yetta Goodman,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thosegoodmans.net/|title=Ken and Yetta Goodman &#124; Ken and Yetta Goodman's Homepage|website=www.thosegoodmans.net}}</ref> Dorothy Watson,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Watson Literacy Center |url=https://www.park.edu/academics/watson-literacy-center/}}</ref> and [[Stephen Krashen]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Krashen |first1=Stephen |title=Defending Whole Language |url=http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/defending_whole_language.pdf |website=sdkrashen.com}}</ref>

Widely known whole-language critics include [[Rudolf Flesch]], Louisa Cook Moats,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.louisamoats.com/Education_&_Bio.php|title=Louisa C. Moats, ED.D}}</ref> [[G. Reid Lyon]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ldonline.org/ld-topics/reading-dyslexia/why-reading-not-natural-process|title=Why Reading Is Not a Natural Process &#124; LD OnLine|website=www.ldonline.org}}</ref> James M. Kauffman,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://virginia.academia.edu/JamesKauffman|title=James Kauffman &#124; University of Virginia - Academia.edu|website=virginia.academia.edu}}</ref> Phillip Gough (co-creator of the [[Simple view of reading]]),<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/faculty/goughpb|title=Profile for Philip B Gough at UT Austin|website=liberalarts.utexas.edu}}</ref> [[Keith Stanovich]], [[Diane McGuinness]], [[Steven Pinker]],<ref>{{Citation|last1=Pinker|first1=Steven|author-link=Steven Pinker|title=How the Mind Works|publisher=[[W. W. Norton & Company]]|place=New York|pages=342|date=1997|quote=...the dominant technique, called 'whole language,' the insight that [spoken] language is a naturally developing human instinct has been garbled into the evolutionarily improbable claim that ''reading'' is a naturally developing human instinct.|title-link=How the Mind Works}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last1=Pinker|first1=Steven|author-link=Steven Pinker|title=The Language Instinct|publisher=[[Harper Perennial]]|place=New York|pages=PS14|edition=3rd|date=2007|quote=One raging public debate involving language went unmentioned in ''[[The Language Instinct]]'': the "reading wars," or dispute over whether children should be explicitly taught to read by decoding the sounds of words from their spelling (loosely known as "phonics") or whether they can develop it instinctively by being immersed in a text-rich environment (often called "whole language"). I tipped my hand in the paragraph in [the sixth chapter of the book] which said that language is an instinct but reading is not. Like most psycholinguists (but apparently unlike many school boards), I think it's essential for children to be taught to become aware of speech sounds and how they are coded in strings of letters.|title-link=The Language Instinct}}</ref> [[David C. Geary]],<ref>{{Citation|last=Geary|first=David C.|author-link=David C. Geary|title=Children's Mathematical Development: Research and Practical Applications|publisher=[[American Psychological Association]]|place=Washington, DC|page=264|date=1994|quote=Constructivist philosophers and researchers...fail to distinguish between biologically primary and biologically secondary cognitive skills. To illustrate, [spoken] language is a biologically primary social cognitive skill. Humans are born with specialized neurobiological systems for the processing of language-related information...Reading, on the other hand, is a biologically secondary cognitive skill. The failure to distinguish biologically primary from biologically secondary skills has led to the development of the ''whole-language'' approach to reading. Here, it is assumed that children will acquire reading skills in the same way that they acquire language skills...Even though many of the neurobiological systems that support language also support reading, these systems have not evolved to automatically acquire reading skills...The belief that reading acquisition will occur in much the same way as language acquisition is almost certainly wrong, and the associated instructional techniques, such as whole reading, are very likely to be a disservice to many children.}}</ref> Douglas Carnine,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nifdi.org/84-bios/341-doug-carnine|title=Douglas Carnine, National Institute for Direct Instruction}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/teach.profession.carnine.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/teach.profession.carnine.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live|title=Why Education Experts Resist Effective Practices, Douglas Carnine, 2000}}</ref> Edward Kame'enui,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ctl.uoregon.edu/about/staff/edward-kameenui|title=Edward Kame'enui, University of Oregon}}</ref> Jerry Silbert,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nifdi.org/84-bios/339-jerry-silbert|title=Jerry Silbert, National Institute for Direct Instruction}}</ref> Lynn Melby Gordon, [[Diane Ravitch]], [[Jeanne Chall]],<ref>Carnine, D.W., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E.J., & Tarver, S.G. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th Edition)</ref> [[Emily Hanford]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read|title=Why aren't kids being taught to read?|first=Emily|last=Hanford|website=www.apmreports.org}}</ref> [[Jordan Peterson]],<ref>{{cite tweet|number=1121933480143749120|user=jordanbpeterson|title=This is an excellent resource for parents who want to quickly and efficiently help their young children master the…|date=27 April 2019}}</ref><ref>https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/s2-e52-toxic-masculinity-a-12-rules-for-life-lecture/ at around 37:30 "You don't use whole word learning unless you're absolutely bloody clueless"</ref> Mark Seidenberg,<ref>{{cite book |title ="The persistence of the [whole language] ideas despite the mass of evidence against them is most striking at this point. In normal science, a theory whose assumptions and predictions have been repeatedly contradicted by data will be discarded. That is what happened to the Smith and Goodman theories within reading science, but in education they are theoretical zombies that cannot be stopped by conventional weapons such as empirical disconfirmation, leaving them free to roam the educational landscape." Language at the speed of light, 2017, page 271, Mark Seidenberg}}</ref> and Stanislas Dehaene.<ref name="Stanislas Dehaene 222–228"/>