Whose Agenda Is This Anyway? A Response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller
Tóm tắt
One of McKenna, Robinson, and Miller’s major problems in proposing a research agenda for whole language is that they do not understand what whole language is. It is not an alternate methodology for language arts instruction. It is an educational paradigm complete with theoretical, philosophical, and political assumptions. As such, it has its own congruent research agenda. What prevents McKenna et al. from understanding whole language and from seeing the legitimacy of whole language-generated research is paradigm blindness. What encourages them to pretend to a role of neutral statesmen are particulars of their own paradigm (which they are also blind to) and the dominant position of that paradigm. What makes their proposal so outrageous is their presumption to speak for whole language educators and their attempt to impose their whole language-violating agenda on them while expecting those educators to cooperate in the violation.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Allen J, 1988, Literacy development in whole language kindergartens
Altwerger B, 1987, Reading Teacher, 41, 144
AveryCHansenJNewkirkTGravesDLon “figures it out”.A young writer learns to readBreaking ground: Teachers relate reading and writing in the elementary school1985Portsmouth, NHHeinemann1528
Barone T, 1990, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
Becker A, 1988, Linguistics in context Connecting observation and understanding, 17
Bloome D, 1988, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association
Brodkey L, 1986, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association
Church S, 1985, Whole language. Theory in use, 164
CousinsPThe social construction of learning problems: Language use in a special education classroom1988Unpublished doctoral dissertation Indiana University
DenzinNQualitative research series1990Colloquium presented by Center for the Study of Justice, Arizona State University
Doake D, 1985, Observing the language learner, 82
Edelsky C, 1986, Writing in a bilingual program. Habia una vez
Edelsky C, Whole language: What's the difference?
Edelsky C, 1989, Reading-Canada-Lecture, 7, 201
Gibson R, 1986, Critical theory and education
Goodman K, 1986, What's whole in whole language?
GoodmanKGoodmanY“whole-language comprehension centered view of reading development”1981A Occasional Paper No 1, Program in Language and Literacy, University of Arizona
Gunderson L, 1987, Reading-Canada-Lecture, 5, 22
Harste J, 1989, One researcher responds Theory Into Practice, 28, 265
Harste J, 1977, Reading Theory, research, and practice, 26th yearbook of the national reading conference, 32
Harste J, 1988, Creating classrooms for authors The reading-writing connection
Harste J, 1984, Language stones and literacy lessons
Hudson S, 1988, The social construction of written communication, 37
Lakoff G, 1980, Metaphors we live by
Luke A, Literacy in social processes
Manning G, 1989, Whole language Beliefs and practices, K–8, 7
Minick N, 1985, L S. Vygotsky and Soviet activity theory
Newman J, 1985, Whole language Theory in use
O'Brien K, 1990, The California Reader, 23, 8
PierceVBridging the gap between language research/theory and practice: A case study1984Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University
ShortKLiteracy as collaborative experience1985Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University
Watson D, 1982, Missoun Reader, 7, 8
Williams R, 1989, Language, authority and criticism, 56