First Invited Response: Another Vision of “Visions and Revisions”

is elusive, chameleonic. Gersten and Dimino alternately, in each case with a level of intensity that suits their purposes, tout the benefits and enumerate the weaknesses of whole language instruction, direct instruction, and (as if they are aware that it somehow fits into this discussion, but are not quite sure how) scaffolded instruction. The authors do not take a strong position, but neither do they do what they purport to do—explore the two positions called whole language and direct instruction in reading. The paper is clearly biased in favor of direct instruction. In addition, lurking just under the surface throughout the paper rests an indictment of basal reading instruction. I would like to make three points in response to the paper. First, it reflects a lack of clarity about the world view that drives whole language instruction. Second, the research reviews and discussion confuse the approach with its implementation. Finally, I would like to add a personal observation about the need to empower the special education teachers we train.