抄録
The purpose of this paper is to exame the structure and issue of literacy education, focusing on the theory and practices in Whole Language. Then, I refer to Carole Edelsky's arguments to retheorize Whole Language, taking notice of the relation between language and power. Kenneth, S. Goodman, who has supported Whole Language theoretically from the beginning, takes notice of minorities who find difficulty in literacy education as skill learning, and then he insists on the literacy education in which they can show 'strengths' in development of language. Goodman exames a mechanism of development of language as the process of balancing between personal invention and social convention dynamically, and then he creates the classroom as authentic environments to acquire literacy, in which children can develop their language, inventing personally. So he attempts to open a Whole Language classroom for minorities. The design of creating a Whole Language classroom which is opened for minorities is one to accept different languages, cultures, and values of all children. But Carole Edelsky points out that Whole Language theorists argue from the premise that all children should acquire same literacy in the end and that Whole Language merely supports the status quo. And then She insists on the switch from literacy based on a process of reading to literacy based on social relations. And She suggests some purposeful distinctions of literacy in school to expose negative possibilities of acquiring literacy. I propose the importance of 'Critique' centered literacy education, according to Edelsky's design of retheorizing literacy education in Whole Language in which she highlights the issues of justice and equality. Then literacy education is designed to read the relation between a person's lived experience and the structuer of society critically and to write a person's voices into the world.
