No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
In a recent review Snow and Juel (2005) drew attention to the long history of confl ict about the most eff ective way to teach English-speaking children how to read, a confl ict that has been described as the “great debate” (Chall, 1967/1983/1996) or, when emotions run high, the “reading wars” (Connor, Morrison, & Katch, 2004). Th ey noted, for example, that from Huey’s (1979) book, Th e Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading, fi rst published in 1908, “we learn that all the various approaches to teaching reading current today had been developed by 1870, and that complaints standard today… about eff ectiveness of instruction were voiced in response to every reform of reading methods” (p. 504). In one form or another the debate over reading methods has raged for more than a century, with the pendulum swinging back and forth between approaches that emphasize the development of alphabetic coding skills, or phonics, and those that do not, such as the whole-word method or, more recently, whole language. But this raises an important question: Why has the debate gone on for so long? One would think that aft er all this time the teachers themselves might have discovered the most eff ective approach to teaching literacy by gradual refi nements of existing methods, leaving it to the academics to provide a more detailed explanation for why the favored approach works best.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.