全語法在台灣是頗受重視的語文教學取向，近二十年來，它在國外的爭議不斷，台灣卻少有報導。本文是一篇文獻探討，旨在介紹全語法的理論與實際，及最近二十年心理學及教育學界對它的批評──包括理論前提及教學成效的檢驗，大部分的實證研究不支持全語法的兩個理論前提：「讀寫發展等同於口語發展」及「閱讀須仰賴文脈，而不需要逐字解碼」。全語法教學的成效，也備受質疑。但本文作者認為全語法的教學成效，也許須視學生的特質及成效指標而定。此外，本文特別檢視文獻中全語法對於弱勢低成就兒童的教學效果，結果顯示，全語法可能對弱勢低成就兒童是不利的。

An educational approach about literacy known as whole language has been popular and appealing to many educators in Taiwan. However, the fact that it is one of the most controversial issues in the history of literacy education is seldom reported. Through an extensive literature review, the present authors examine the theoretical bases and instructional issues of whole language, followed by a review of critiques from psychological and educational researchers. Most empirical studies do not support two important assumptions underlying the whole language approach: (a) the acquisition of written language is similar to that of spoken language, and (b) skilled readers rely on contextual information more than on the printed words. Based on meta-analysis studies examining effects of different reading instructions, as well as on the unsuccessful case of California education system which once embraced whole language, many researchers are skeptical, if not strongly opponent, to the claim of whole language effectiveness on literacy achievement. The present authors, however, hold a view that the effects of whole language might be a function of students' personal/family variables. Along with this reasoning, the authors also scrutinize the effects of whole language on disadvantaged, low-achieving children. It is concluded that disadvantaged and underachieving children may not benefited from the instruction of whole language approach.