-- A Synthesis Paper (Comparing and Contrasting by Source)FINAL DRAFT
Since the second half of the 20th century, educators have argued over which methods work more effectively when it comes to teaching children how to read. These “reading wars” remain a point of contention today. Since learning how to read is of primordial importance in school and in life, finding a method that works best is vital. Two schools of thought engage this debate: one that advocates a phonics-based approach and the other that supports whole language instruction. Which one works best? Both promote vastly different approaches, and yet when being compared, they also inadvertently reveal their limitations.
The whole language approach remains popular today and is known as the “look-say” method of reading. That is, students are taught to read and memorize whole words. Proponents of this method believe that learning how to read is a natural process. Students should learn how to derive meaning from words and texts and develop a love of reading through being exposed to authentic literature.
By contrast, phonics-based instruction puts an emphasis on teaching children the rules to decoding letter sounds in words so that they may take any word and produce the sound of the word, even without ever knowing what it means. Proponents of this method believe that children, who learn by this method, are more willing to persevere when encountering an unfamiliar word for the first time because they have the skills to break it down to its familiar parts. There has been a resurgence of phonics instruction in recent years.
In his article “Defending Whole Language: The Limits of Phonics Instruction and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction”, Stephen Krashen (2002) argues against the phonics-based approach on the grounds that the rules of phonics are difficult to master because they contain numerous exceptions (p. 33). The English language has many inconsistencies in its letter-sound system. These inconsistencies make learning how to read more complicated. Krashen points out that one commonly taught rule in phonics, “when two vowels go out walking, the first one does the talking”, only works 63% of the time (p. 34). For example, “fruit” and “build” don’t follow the same pronunciation. In the end, Krashen maintains that if simple rules don’t apply to a significant percentage of words, then the method is more confusing then helpful.
As a result, Krashen insists that whole language approach works best for learning how to read because it focuses on comprehension, which in his view remains the ultimate purpose of reading. A child may possess the ability to read by pronouncing words correctly, but if s/he doesn’t comprehend what s/he is reading, or more importantly, shows no interest in reading, then the school system has failed to turn that student into a reader. For Krashen, part of becoming a reader is developing a love of literature and the ability to understand the structure of narratives. In the article, he references a study conducted by Jeynes and Little (2000) in which students, who were taught the whole language method, displayed more interest in reading, were able to name more authors, brought more books home to read, and engaged in more literacy activities in the classroom than students in a phonics-based classroom (p. 39). In the end, the goal of the whole language instruction is to create an incentive for reading by making it interesting and meaningful, and exposing students to as much literature as possible.
However, Diane McGuinness, an advocate for phonics-based instruction, is a well-known critic of whole language teaching. She argues against this approach because it asks students to use their memories rather than learn to identify and blend letter-sounds. She goes on to argue in her article “A Prototype for Teaching the English Alphabet Code”, that students who learn whole words by sight make more spelling errors than those who understand the phonemic structure of words (2002, p. 3). McGuinness warns against this “neglect” in spelling: “There is also evidence that learning to spell produces higher scores on a reading test than the same amount of time spent learning to read….” (p. 13). Advocates of the phonics method argue for reading instruction that incorporates spelling. Through the teaching of phonics, students learn letter-sounds as codes and by learning to write students learn how these codes work by putting them into practice.
Furthermore, McGuinness also defends phonics-based instruction against those who accuse it of being mundane and unmotivating to students. A study conducted in a classroom where students were learning a phonics program developed by Sue Lloyd, demonstrated that students can be engaged if the following guidelines are respected: “the lessons are fun and stimulating”, they “engage all the children”, and “there are sufficient backdrop materials for individual work to support what is taught in the lessons.” (p. 17-18). Therefore, the challenge according to this view is not what you teach, but how you teach it. McGuinness offers an example of how Lloyd was able to sustain her students’ attention and generate interest:
She invented simple action patterns to represent each phoneme [sound]. Children say each phoneme aloud accompanied by the appropriate action. Apart from being fun for the children, the action patterns fulfill a number of functions. They also help anchor the speech sounds in memory. Because the actions are visible to everyone, including the teacher, they ensure that all children are engaged….” (p. 18).
McGuinness stresses the importance of giving students the tools necessary to guide them in learning how to read. Learning with phonics gives students the opportunity to gain increasing autonomy as they become more competent at decoding words. This confidence is what motivates them to become successful readers.
In the end, phonics and whole language contrast each other quite strikingly, while also inadvertently revealing their own limitations. For example, teaching phonics does help students recognize and pronounce words more effectively, but it fails at helping students develop skills for storytelling and comprehending a variety of texts. Too much time gets spent in the classroom learning how to break words into smaller parts. The whole language approach, on the other hand, provides students with the opportunity to understand texts, develop an awareness of narrative forms and structures, while also helping them cultivate an interest for literature. However, whole language students make more errors when reading, and contribute many errors when spelling.
When it comes to deciding which method of instruction leads to success, it’s perhaps best to look at the question from a both/and angle. In fact, today’s 21st century educators realize that integrating both methodologies actually provides a more balanced approach. Each one provides what the other one lacks. By creating a classroom environment that is rich in authen
tic literary material, while at the same time providing students with explicit instruction on how to decode words, students can grow to become fluent and accurate readers. However, despite this new harmonized view, educators are still working on how to implement this new approach. Which ideas work; which ones don’t? Can we be sure that this approach is the best one? These are the new questions to be answered in the 21st century.WORKS CITED
Krashen, Stephen (2002). “Defending Whole Language: The Limits of Phonics Instructions and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction.” Reading Improvement, 39 (1): 32-42. Retrieved October 11th, 2010, from http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/defending_whole_language/index.html
McGuinness, Diane (2002). “A Prototype for teaching the English Alphabet Code.” Reading Reform Foundation RRF Newsletter, 49. Retrieved October 11th, 2010, from http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=95&n_issueNumber=49
** WORKSHOP: I peer-evaluated Cinzia Vacario's rough draft (my evaluation can be found in her comments).
** Extra Credit: I posted three comments on Montréalités forum (two as "Stephanie S. Beam" and one as "Beamette")
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ROUGH DRAFT
Since the second half of the 20th century, educators have been arguing over which methods are more effective when it comes to teaching children how to read. These “reading wars” are still a point of contention today. Since learning how to read is of primordial importance in school and in life, coming to terms with a method that works best is vital. There are two schools of thought involved in this debate: the one who supports a phonics-based approach and the other who advocates for whole language instruction. Which one works best? Despite the contrasts, each one actually complements the other and both should be integrative to form a more balanced approach for early reading instruction.
The whole language approach is still widely used today and is known as the “look-say” method of reading. That is students are taught to read and memorize whole words. Proponents of this method believe that words have meaning and students should learn how to derive meaning from words and texts rather than focusing on decoding meaningless letters and sound combinations. For example, a child looks at the word “table” and pictures a table in his mind. Thus the word becomes meaningful to the child.
By contrast, phonics-based instruction puts an emphasis on teaching children the rules to decoding words so that they may take any word and be able to the letter sounds so that they can produce the sound of the word, without knowing what it means. Proponents of this method believe that children who learn by this approach are more willing to persevere when encountering an unfamiliar word for the first time, because they have the skills to break it down to its familiar parts. There has been resurgence of phonics instruction in recent years.
In his article “Defending Whole Language: The Limits of Phonics Instruction and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction”, Stephen Krashen (2002) argues against the phonics-based approach on the grounds that the rules of phonics are difficult to master because they contain numerous exceptions (33). For example, one commonly taught rule in phonics, “when two vowels go out walking, the first one does the talking”, only works in 63% of the time (34). “Fruit” and “build” don’t follow the same pronunciation. In the end, Krashen maintains that if simple rules don’t apply to a significant percentage of words, then the method is more confusing then helpful.
Krashen insists that whole language approach is better suited for teaching reading because it focuses on reading comprehension, which in his view is the ultimate goal of reading. A child may possess the ability to read by pronouncing words correctly, but if s/he doesn’t comprehend what they are reading, or more importantly, shows no interest in reading, then we have failed to turn that student into a reader. For Krashen, part of becoming a reader is developing a love of literature and the ability to understand the structure of narratives. In the article, Krashen references a study conducted by Jeynes and Little (2000) in which students having been taught the whole language method displayed more interest in reading, were able to name more authors, brought more books home to read and engaged in more literacy activities in the classroom than students in a skills-based classroom (39). What’s more, the study also concluded that when asked to pretend to read a book with pictures but no words, these same students were rated higher for the quality of the written narrative register that they displayed (39). In the end, the goal of the whole language instruction is to create an incentive for reading by making it interesting and meaningful, and exposing students to as much literature as possible.
However, Diane McGuinness, an advocate for phonics-based instruction, is a well-known critic of whole language teaching. Her main argument about this approach is that it asks students to use their memories rather than learn to identify and blend letter-sounds. She goes on to argue in her article “A Prototype for Teaching the English Alphabet Code”, that students who learn whole words by sight make more spelling errors than those who understand the phonemic structure of words, because in whole language teaching, “children are encouraged to write using their own spelling system as they go” (2002, p. 3). In other words, students learn how to write first and acquire spelling eventually as they keep progressing in their writing. McGuinness warns against this “neglect” in spelling: “There is also evidence that learning to spell produces higher scores on a reading test than the same amount of time spent learning to read….” (p. 13). Advocates of the phonics method argue for reading instruction that incorporates spelling. Through the teaching of phonics, students learn letter-sounds as codes and by learning to write students learn how these codes work by putting them into practice.
Furthermore, McGuinness argues against the idea, derived by whole language educators, that phonics instruction is boring and fails to motivate students. A study conducted in a classroom, where students were learning a phonics program developed by Sue Lloyd, demonstrated that students are engaged if the following guidelines are respected: “the lessons are fun and stimulating”, they “engage all the children”, and “there are sufficient backdrop materials for individual work to support what is taught in the lessons.” (p. 17-18). Therefore, the challenge according to this view is not what you teach, but how you teach it. McGuinness offers an example of how Lloyd was able to sustain her students’ attention and generate interest:
She invented simple action patterns to represent each phoneme [sound]. Children say each phoneme aloud accompanied by the appropriate action. Apart from being fun for the children, the action patterns fulfill a number of functions. They also help anchor the speech sounds in memory. Because the actions are visible to everyone, including the teacher, they ensure that all children are engaged….” (p. 18).
McGuinness stresses the importance of giving students the tools necessary to guide them in learning how to read. Learning with phonics gives students the opportunity to gain autonomy as readers as they become more competent at decoding words. This confidence is what motivates them to become successful readers.
In the end, phonics and whole language contrast each other quite strikingly, while also inadvertently revealing their own limitations at the same time. For example, teaching phonics does help students recognize and pronounce words more effectively, but it fails at helping students develop skills for storytelling and comprehending a variety of texts. Too much time gets spent in the classroom learning how to break words into smaller parts. The whole language approach on the other hand provides students with the opportunity to understanding texts, developing an understanding of narrative forms and structures, while also helping students develop in interest for literature. However, that they understand the meaning of the words in the text, but may make more errors when reading, and contributing many errors when spelling.
When it comes to deciding which method of instruction leads to success, it’s perhaps best to look at the question from a both/and angle. In fact, today’s 21st century educators realize that integrating both approaches actually may provide a more balanced approach. Each method provides what the other one lacks. By creating a classroom environment that is rich in authentic literary material, while at the same time providing students with explicit instructions on how to decode words, the hope is that students can develop as both fluent and accurate readers. However, despite the desire to harmonize both views, educators are still working on ways to implement this more balanced approach. Which ideas work, and which don’t? Can we be sure that this new approach will be the best one? These are questions that remain to be answered in the 21st century.
