Works Cited

References

 Spelling society : reports.. (n.d.).  Spelling Society : The Spelling Society.. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j14/reports.php

Anderson, K. (2010, October 18). The reading wars: understanding the debate of how best to teach children to read. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.nrrf.org/article_anderson_6-28-0-.htm

Curtis, J. (n.d.). SuperKids Software Review - phonics vs. whole language: which is better?. SuperKids Educational Software Review.. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.superkids.com/aweb/pages/features/reading/phonics.shtml

Dahl, K. L., & Scharer, P. L. (200). Phonics teaching and learning in whole language classrooms: new evidence from research. The Reading Teacher, 15(7), 584-594. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from the JSTOR database.

Davis, M. (n.d.). Green eggs and ham: or the case for phonics instruction and decodable text. Core Knowledge. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/435/Green%20Eggs%20and%20Ham%20%20The%20case%20for%20Phonics.pdf

Fillipo, R. F. (1999). Redefining the reading wars: the war against reading researchers. Educational Leadership, 57, 38-41. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from the Proquest database.

Holden, C. (2004). Training the brain to read. Science, 304, 677. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from the Proquest database.

Instructivist. (n.d.). Instructivist. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://instructivist.blogspot.com/

Krashen, S. (2002). Defending whole language: the limits of phonics instruction and the efficacy of whole language instruction . Reading Improvement, 39(1), 32-42. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/defending_whole_language/index.html

Krashen, S., & Shen, H. J. (2004). The status of whole language, phonemic awareness, and the value of implicit instruction: comments on shen. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 310-311. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from the Proquest database.

Manning, M., & Kamii, C. (2000). Whole language vs. isolated phonics instruction: a longitudinal study in kindergarten with reading and writing tasks. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15, 53-65. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from the Proquest database.

News Staff. (n.d.). ‘Whole language’ with a splash of phonics. MassNews.com- Masschusett's Conservative Voice. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/other/1_Jan/fountas.htm

Reading rockets: toddling toward reading. (n.d.). Reading Rockets: Reading Comprehension & Language Arts TeachingStrategies for Kids. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.readingrockets.org/shows/launching/toddling

Reyhner, J. (2008, December 13). Reading wars: phonics vs. whole language. North Arizona University. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/Reading_Wars.html

Smydo, J. (2007, August 26). End of the reading wars. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07238/812245-298.stm

Snow, C. (1998). It's time to end the reading wars. NEA Today, 16, 17. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from the Proquest database.

Sutton, A. C. (n.d.). Skull & bones society: how the order controls education - the look-say reading method. The Single Most Important Page Within The 15,000 Pages Authored By Karl Loren. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p108.htm

Svesen, A. (n.d.). Teaching reading: phonics or whole language?. Family Education. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from school.familyeducation.com/phonics/educational-research/38842.html

Teaching reading: whole language and phonics. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_reading:_Whole_Language_and_Phonics

The ABC's of personal growth. (2009, February 15). Aboundless World. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from www.aboundlessworld.com/the-abcs-of-personal-growth/

What whole language is not: common myths and misunderstandings. (2008, October 12). Expanding Language and Thinking. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.celtlink.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52:what-whole-language-is-not-common-myths-and-misunderstandings&catid=34:fact-sheets&Itemid=57

Wren, S. (n.d.). Reading rockets: what is reading? Decoding and the jabberwocky’s Song. Reading Rockets: Reading Comprehension & Language Arts TeachingStrategies for Kids. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/404

series, N. A. (n.d.). MiddleWeb's guide to the reading wars and middle school. Welcome to MiddleWeb's Middle School Resources!. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.middleweb.com/Reading.html

Additional Readings

Here are a list of various books that have been mentioned in articles that I have read that offer further information on the subject of the Reading Wars Debate:

Books

1. Why Johnny Can’t Read- Rudolph Flesh
2. Understanding Whole Language: From Principles to Whole Practice- Constance Weaver
3. Guided Reading- Irene Fountas and Gay Sun Pinnell
4. Word Matters- Irene Fountas and Gay Sun Pinnell
5. Reading Lessons- Scott Carpenter
6. Why our Children Can’t Read- Diane McGuiness

Concluding Thoughts

Phonics, simply stated, emphasizes word and sound analysis. Children learn letter sounds (b=buh) first and then blend them (bl=bluh) to form words. They also learn strategies to figure out words they don't know.  The knock on phonics is that programs use low-interest reading material and too many boring worksheets.

Whole language, in contrast, emphasizes literature and word meanings. In the early grades, children use invented spelling to write their own stories, and students are generally encouraged to use critical thinking strategies. The drawbacks to the whole language philosophy is that too little emphasis is placed on word analysis or phonics.  Absent phonics, young readers may guess or skip over words they don't know and some children may not learn how to read.

The debate between  the two approaches took center stage in 1990s as the “reading wars” emerged as a cultural and political divide between whole language and phonics advocates.  Those who favored traditional values tended to lean towards the phonics end of the debate while those with more progressive values favored whole language. When reading scores declined, private citizens, the media, researchers and politicians took aim at the whole language approach and the reading war had begun.

Today, after more than a decade or research and debate, the clear consensus seems to be that that the ideal approach is to strike a balance between literature and phonics. Neither "phonics" nor "whole language" in isolation is a sufficient teaching tool. Teachers clearly need to use both approaches beginning at the youngest of ages. The relationship between speech sounds and the alphabet, i.e., phonics is key, but reading good literature is also important. At this point, most of the research and discourse seems to be about exactly how and when phonics gets implemented into a reading curriculum.  One of the issues I see in the language/phonics debate, is the question of what to teach first—which is the “whole” and which is the “part.” It seems to me that there is almost a “chicken and egg” issue involved. In any case, I think that my original thesis that a combined and balanced approach is best, but I think that what is paramount for educators and parents alike, is to awaken and develop the child's joy of learning by encouraging their imagination and curiosity.

Interview

The following is an interview with Jacqueline Bohan, a former educator of kindergarten and first grade students at the Marymount School in New York.

What do you see as the key differences between teaching reading using a phonics approach vs. using a whole language approach?

 

Phonics provides a systematic introduction to letters, letter/sound correspondence, blends and sounding out words.  It builds the foundation for learning to read in an organized way.  I view the whole language approach as more "fun, creative" activities.....which are great for motivating kids to learn to read, but should come either after or at least in conjunction with a phonics driven approach.  The English language is complex, with many rules and exceptions to rules....to me there is no better way to make sense of it than to use a systematic and predictable approach. I also think phonics should be taught in a way that utilizes different modalities to reach different types of learning.  For example, tracing letters in sand or forming them with play dough for the tactile learner, making up songs or rhymes for the auditory learner and writing them for the visual learner. The key is building a solid foundation, then there are plenty of opportunites for whole language activities.......acting out stories, putting on puppet shows, reading trade books, etc.

 

Which approach do you believe in more and why?

Oops, I got ahead of myself, but I guess you can tell from my last answer that I favor a phonics driven approach.  I do love whole language activities, but feel they are best used in conjunction with a systematic phonics approach.

 

Any other thoughts on the subject matter?

 

As a parent of a first grader who is learning to read, I feel even more strongly about the above than I did as a Pre-K and K teacher.  Charles is really benfitting from his school's use of a phonics program.  The program they use is by Macmillan.

Also, I think that it is widely recognized today that kids have different learning styles and it can be a challenge for teachers to identify and meet the needs of different types of learners.  All the more reason for a very systematic introduction to phonics, the building blocks of all future learning, to make sure kids have a solid foundation to fall back on.

End of the Reading Wars

End of the Reading Wars by Joe Smydo, an article published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette in 2007, neatly sums up where we are today in the so-called reading wars.  He acknowledges that today the issue isn’t whether the phonics or whole language approach is better, but how to blend those philosophies to best teach reading to a child (Smydo, 2007, para 2). While he cites growing academic acceptance of the balanced approach, he also attributes federal intervention and regulation as a big reason for how reading is taught today.

The U.S. Department of Education distributes $1 Billion annually in its Reading First program to schools that use “proven methods” (i.e., phonics) to teach reading. The  No Child Left Behind Act likewise mandates the use of “scientifically proven” methods. As a result, the whole language-phonics debate is necessarily “dampened” as districts have these mandates in mind when they adopt a reading program (Smydo, 2007, para 5).

New controversies seem to be replacing the whole language-phonics debate such as excessive testing and burdensome paperwork for educators.  I believe that the history of this debate was a necessary element to understanding how and why we teach reading the way we do in today’s classrooms, but it seems that the reading wars are largely dead, “over-sized rants of academic extremists.”  As Smydo quotes on educator: It’s time “to hold a big funeral service and bury this casket" (Smydo, 2007, para 32).

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07238/812245-298.stm

What Is Reading? Decoding and the Jabberwocky’s Song

This article by Sebastian Wren was written in 2005 looks at Lewis Carroll's book, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There. Alice reads a poem and confesses that she is a little confused about what the poem actually means.  The article illustrates the difference between being able to decode words phonetically  as Alice was able to, and actually  being able to derive meaning from the words and the concepts they are trying to convey.

Article

Video

This is a video clip from the show :Toddling Toward Reading," which examines what skills are necessary to help preschoolers become successful readers. I think it is important in understanding the various viewpoints on the subject of teaching reading, as we hear from researchers, parents and educators.

Video

Defending whole language: the limits of phonics instruction and the efficacy of whole language instruction

In the 2002 article, Defending whole language: the limits of phonics instruction and the efficacy of whole language instruction, author Stephen Krashan examines research dealing with two fundamental points of contention between the two sides of the whole language/phonics debate.  First, he considers the “complexity” issue: Whole language advocates claim that the rules of phonics are complex and have numerous exceptions, and are unteachable (Davis, 2002, p. 32) .  Skill-building advocates claim that this is not the case as more than 90 percent of English words are phonetically regular.  Second, he considers the “method comparison” issue: Skill-Building advocates claim that those in phonics-based classes outperform those in whole language classes. Whole language advocates argue that when whole language is defined correctly, when it includes real reading, students in these classes do better on test of reading comprehension, with no difference on skills tests(Davis, 2002, p. 33).

Krashan notes that the rules of phonics are, in fact, enormously complex.  He notes that when tests of reading comprehension are considered, “when real reading is considered as the core element of whole language”, whole language “does very well” in method comparison studies.  The studies provide evidence for the limits of phonics instruction and the efficacy of whole language (Davis, 2002, p. 35).

What I found noteworthy about this article is that there was a focus on just learning to read, but an analysis of where reading comprehension fits in. This is an important, but it seems often overlooked, element of the debate. I think that phonics may allow the reader to decode any word and technically be reading, but the question is how well are he is understanding the content? Whole language may be more effective in helping the student’s comprehension and ability to draw inferences from the reading.

Article

Political Cartoon

This cartoon reflects the phonics approach to learning and the idea of learning words with the same sounds. I liked this cartoon because it shows that phonics can be difficult to learn with all the silent consonants involved in the English language.

Cartoon

Green Eggs and Ham

This is an interesting article by Matthew Davis, Ph.D. on the Core Knowledge website.   Davis dissects the popular children’s book, Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss from a phonics standpoint.  A strong proponent for phonics instruction (and a salesman for his own phonics program), the author does a detailed analysis of the sound combinations and spelling variations that are used, including sounds spelled several different ways and letters that stand for different sounds in different words. He concludes that even a simple book is startling complex without basic phonics instruction (Davis, n.d., p. 2) .  Without good phonics instruction, he argues, many students “are likely to be staggered by the amount of letter-sound complexity” in the simplest of stories (Davis, n.d, p. 2).

Article

Political Cartoon

Directions to the Teacher - Say to the child, pointing to
the first picture, "What is that? Do you know his name?
I wonder if he has a name? Suppose we call him Frank.
O there is his name right under him," pointing to the
whole word, Frank, but not to the letters. Nothing is
yet to be said about letters. "Here is his name again.
And here it is again. And here it is once more. What
is that?"," pointing to the other picture. "Perhaps it is
Frank's sister. What is her name? O here is her name. It
is Jane. Can you show me her name again? - again -
once more." Repeat till the child can tell the words
readily.

Phonics and whole-word advocates have been arguing with each other, sometimes very acrimoniously, ever since the publication of Gallaudet’s The Mother’s Primer, a pioneering whole-word primer, in 1836.

I think that this cartoon accurately portrays the debate, as it is representative of both the whole language and phonics approach.


Cartoon

How The “War” Started…California Revisited: What happened in the 1990’s?

The last entry about Anderson’s article in 2000 got me thinking.  In reviewing the more recent literature, I have to admit that the reading “wars” did not really seem like much of a battle.  Most recent educators and researchers seemed to come out the way I did in favoring a balanced approach to teaching reading using both phonics and whole language techniques.  Within this balance, there are differing views about which should have the greater emphasis, how each should be implemented in the classroom, but there does not seem to be much of a “war” in this day and age.  Anderson’s article, however, alluded to a cultural and political divide that existed between whole language and phonics advocates that was a lot more prevalent ten or fifteen years ago.  He also referred to a backlash against whole language that occurred in the late 1990’s, particularly in California. Thus, I did some poking to further explore the roots of the so-called war.  

I came across an article published in Educational Leadership in 1999 by Rona F. Flippo entitled Redefining the Reading Wars: The War Against Reading Researchers. The article focuses on the 44^th annual Convention of the International Reading Association in San Diego, California. At the convention, only teachers who emphasized phonemic awareness were allowed to give workshops to California teachers (Fillipo, 1999, 38).  Shockingly, a California law actually restricted who could provide in-service instruction to teachers. If a reading specialist had a whole language philosophy, he or she was not allowed to give workshops.  The author refers to the “McCarthy-like militance” that politicians,  spurred on by the media’s need for headlines, gave life to the reading wars (Fillipo, 1999, 38).

Fippo gave most politicians the benefit of the doubt that they were well-meaning and just trying to improve reading education, but criticizes the “black and white” approach.  She adds that most researchers even back then would concur that teaching reading was not a simple either/or situation, and that there was no one way to teach anything.  When California’s reading scores fell into a last place tie, however, California citizens and politicians needed a scapegoat (Fillip, 1999, 38).  Whole language, and the lack of phonics skills, was the easy target.  Private citizens with axes to grind, newspapers looking for headlines, researchers trying to make a name for themselves and politicians looking for votes “ganged up” on the whole language approach and the reading war had begun (Fillipo, 1999, 39).

Article

Some Personal Musings on the “Whole Language” History…

In considering the backlash against “whole language” that occurred in the 1990s, I have to wonder whether whole language got a bad “rap” because of a misunderstanding and misapplication as to its use.  Some teachers seemed to have taken whole language practices and ideas to the extreme and based their entire reading and writing curriculum on those ideas.  But, was it ever meant to be that? Was this the case of educators taking good ideas and “jumping on the bandwagon” without completely understanding what was needed to make it a successful program?  The backlash that occurred seems equally misplaced.  In a case of “throwing the baby out with the bath water,” politicians and parents sought to do away with the whole language philosophy in its entirety to return to a traditional phonics approach rather than trying to fix the whole language approach.  It seems that a number of years went by, and many studies seemed took place, to swing the pendulum back to a middle ground where both approaches are key elements to the curriculum. 

The Reading Wars: Understanding the Debate over How Best to Teach Children to Read:

The Reading Wars: Understanding the Debate over How Best to Teach Children to Read by Kenneth Anderson is an article publishes in the Los Angeles Times in 2000. The article focuses on the question “How can schools best teach reading (Anderson, 2000, sect. 1, para. 1)? The article explains that while many (myself included) want to declare peace in the “reading wars” by advocating the usefulness of both techniques, the “war” is about more than the best technique.  It is, Anderson argues, part of a cultural divide between traditional values and “progressive pedagogy” in our schools (Anderson, 2000, sect. 1, para. 2).

Simply stated, those who favor traditional values tend to lean towards the phonics end of the debate. Those who favor progressive values favor whole language. When the article was first published in 2000, Anderson observed that the phonics approach was winning the battle, at least politically, as there was a backlash against the whole language movement and a return to phonics was deemed necessary.  Those philosophically opposed to whole language were bothered by what they saw as a lack of discipline in whole language pedagogy. The movement gained momentum in mainstream America in the nineties, especially among parents and especially in California, where whole language was cited as a cause in declining reading scores (Anderson, 2000, sect. 1, para. 6).

Anderson explains that at the center of the whole language philosophy, are cultural issues. Advocates for whole language have a problem with phonics because it is seen as “rigid, authoritarian and fanatically concerned with the acquisition of skills such as spelling” (Anderson, 2000, sect. 1, para. 8) As such, it deemed “deeply anti-democratic,” and inconsistent with the abstract values of progressive education (Anderson, 2000, sect. 1, para. 8).  Progressively schooled children may not spell well, concludes supporters, but they do have democratic, multicultural values.

What I found most enlightening about this particular article was that it separated out the “effectiveness” debate from the “values” debate.  Everything I have learned about the issue has dealt with whether the phonics approach or the whole language approach or some combination will develop the best reader.  This article looks at another “strand” of the debate – the whole language advocates who defend it on the grounds of progressive education, "caringness" and democratic values.

The article concludes that phonics has won the political debate with whole language, but that the best method of phonics instruction is still unclear (Anderson, 2000, sect. 3, para. 16). Having triumphed over whole language politically and culturally, Anderson notes that the struggle is now to “create practices that will make phonics a tool of reading success rather than simply another forlorn experiment in American education(Anderson, 2000, sect. 3, para. 14).”

Article

‘Whole Language’ With a Splash of Phonics

The Massachusetts News Staff recently conducted an interview with Irene Fountas at Lesley College. Fountas is a professor at the college who is the writer of whole-language texts and is the co-author of Guided Reading, a text that incorporates the methods from both phonics and whole language.

Here are a few highlights from the interview: 

• Oral language learning is closely related to written language learning (Whole Language, n.d., para. 2).
• Children need to learn how to use all sources of information available to them (Whole Language, n.d., para. 4).
• Children need a strong foundation in phonics as part of an effective reading process (Whole Language, n.d., para. 4).
• The debate has much to do with how you teach phonological awareness (Whole Language, n.d., para. 6).
• Whole language  is a philosophy about the teaching of reading (Whole Language, n.d., para. 9).
• Whole language has helped people understand more about the role of language in literacy learning (Whole Language, n.d., para. 10).
• There is a misinterpretation of people who believe very strongly in structured phonics teaching (Whole Language, n.d., para. 11).

Fountas has an understanding of both the whole language side and the phonics side of the debate. She has stopped using the term “whole language” so that she could define her beliefs more clearly. Fountas explains that phonics is an integral part of the reading process and that it cannot be taught on its own. Phonics goes hand in hand with the whole language philosophy and that people who believe very strongly in the phonics as the only approach may in fact be overlooking things. This interview further supports my belief that phonics is necessary component in whole language instruction, but that it is not nearly as effective if it is taught in isolation.

Interview

The Status of Whole Language, Phonemic Awareness and the Value of Implicit Instruction- Comments on Sheen:

The Status of Whole Language, Phonemic Awareness and the Value of Implicit Instruction: Comments on Sheen is an article written in the summer of 2004 in the Foreign Language Annals by Stephen Krashen and Hwei Jiun Shen. In this article, Stephen Krashen of the University of Southern California comments on Hwei-Jiun’ Shen’s “The Role of Explicit Instruction in EFL/ESL Teaching,” and also includes a response from Shen.

Krashen cites several points that Shen makes in her article and then explains his viewpoint on them:

1. Shen argued that California’s reading scores on the National reading test were low due to “failing of progressive literacy approaches” and the ineffectiveness of whole language, but Krashen cites evidence that this is incorrect. He believes that California was in trouble even before the whole language concept of learning was introduced. He also notes that since 1992, California’s scores have not improved and that their use of phonics and skill building had no effect (Krashen & Shen, 2004, p. 310).
2. Shen concluded that explicit instruction in phonemic awareness is necessary. Krashen believes,however, that phonemic awareness is actually the result of reading, not the cause (Krashen & Shen, 2004, p. 310).

Shen goes on to defend the points she made in response to Krashen’s comments. In response to Krashen’s points on phonemic awareness, she asks “If children have to read a lot well bell before their phonemic awareness begins to develop, then how could they have started recognizing and reading words by themselves”(Krashen & Shen, 2004, p. 311)? She explains that phonemic awareness is a prerequisite to learning how to read and without it barriers may be encountered (Krashen & Shen, 2004, p. 311).

This article highlights the debate over whether or not whole language is effective. While Shen believes that phonics are important in order to be able to learn to read effectively, Krashen counters that it is the result, not the cause, of reading . No matter which person’s view you believe, they both make the point that phonemic awareness is necessary in order to be able to understand what you are reading. This article also confirms my hypothesis that whole language and phonics go hand in hand----phonetic skills are what helps one read effectively.

Article

It's Time to End the Reading Wars

It’s Time to End the Reading Wars is a brief article published in NEA today in May 1998. The article describes a recent study released by The National Academy of Sciences and chaired by Harvard University professor, Catherine Snow.  The study basically reveals that neither phonics nor whole language is the best way to teach reading. She instead sights three basic elements to building good readers.

• Children need to understand the alphabetic writing system (Snow, 1998, p. 17).
• Children need the opportunities to use reading to obtain meaning from print (Snow, 1998, p. 17).  
• Children need frequent opportunities to practice their skills to achieved fluency (Snow, 1998, p. 17).

This study explains that the best way to teach reading is a combination of phonics and whole language. Students need to not only practice the necessary skills, but also need to apply them to everyday reading and writing activities.  I thought the author’s point that invented and traditional spelling can co-exist was a good; traditional spelling helps children understand sounds created by different letter combinations which then aids them with their inventive spelling activities.  I concur with the overall conclusion that  whole language and phonics go hand in hand.

Article

Training the Brain to Read

Training the Brain to Read is a brief article written by Constance Holden in Science in April 2004. The article explains the results of a recent imaging study at Yale that relates to phonics developments.  The brains of 49 poor readers were imaged while they performed simple-letter recognition tests.  Thirty-seven of these students were tutored daily in phonics for a period of 8 months, while the other 12 received normal remedial reading. The study revealed that the phonics students made sustained improvements.  Brain imaging showed a change in the “reading pathways” in the brain after the phonics instruction.  Specifically, the brain showed more activity in areas that recognized words instantly without having to work at deciphering them.  The conclusion of the study was that poor readers have the system there to learn, but it has not as yet been activated in their brains.  Phonics instruction “re-wires” them so they can learn to read (Holden, 2004, p. 677).

I thought this article, which seems to be backed up by scientific evidence, was fascinating.  It showed the importance of phonics as a building block to any whole language program, especially insofar as poor readers are concerned. When one struggles, going back to the basic concepts of phonics becomes important because the student may not be “hard-wired” to learn how to read.  I think this article is somewhat lacking, however, because it does not explain what happened to the twelve students who just received normal remedial reading. How did they fare as opposed to the phonic-instructed children?  I think to gain a better understanding of this study and how it relates to phonics and whole language, that information needs to be presented.

Article

Phonics teaching and learning in whole language classrooms: New evidence from research

The article published in The Reading Teacher in April 2000 by Karin L. Dahl and Patricia L. Scharer starts out acknowledging that phonics is an important part of reading and writing, but presents the results of a study that helps to define just how phonics instruction is actually integrated into classroom programs (Dahl & Scharer, 2000, p. 584). The 1999 study examined eight different whole language classrooms of first grade students. It posed four questions:

§  What phonics skills and concepts are taught?(Dahl & Scharer, 2000, p. 584)

§  Where does phonics instruction occur?(Dahl & Scharer, 2000, p. 584)

§  How is it conducted? (Dahl & Scharer, 2000, p. 584)

§  What do children learn? (Dahl & Scharer, 2000, p. 584)

The study found that the foundation concepts of phonics were more than a third of the instruction.  Instruction addressed consonant and vowel patterns in the context of reading and writing activities, and phonics skills were taught in tandem with phonics strategies.  Across the classrooms examined, phonics instruction was not a separate curriculum.  It was woven into daily whole language activities. Some 45% of phonics study was done in the context of the writing program ((Dahl & Scharer, 2000, p. 588).

At all the sites, phonics instruction was child centered, intensive, strategic, and often taught at the “point of use.” Although instruction varied across the classrooms that were studied, they concluded with three characteristics that were common to teaching phonics in a whole language classroom.  First, teachers assessed and responded to individual needs of learners.  Second, skills were taught in the context of meaningful reading and writing activities. Third, phonics instruction was not confined to the reading program, but included a wide range of writing instructional events (Dahl & Scharer, 2000, p. 594).

The study’s findings about phonics teaching questions the entire concept of a debate between whole language and phonics and why they are put on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Phonics was clearly taught in these whole language classrooms and children learned phonics there. The authors argue that we must move away from an “either/or” approach.  Of the research I have done so far, this article and study captured my sentiments on the debate precisely.  I could not agree more than the dichotomy between whole language and phonics is almost silly.  This study confirms my sense that the approaches must go hand in hand and neither should really be emphasized over the other. 

Article

What Whole Language is Not: Common Myths and Misunderstandings

The Center for Expansion of Language and Thinking posted an abbreviated article condensing Constance Weaver’s book, Understanding Whole Language: From Principles to Practice. In the article, she neatly dispenses many common myths about the whole language approach:

1. Whole language is just another name for the whole world approach (What Whole, 2008, para. 1)
2. Whole language teachers don’t teach skills like phonics  (What Whole, 2008, para. 2).
3. Whole language teachers don’t teach directly (What Whole, 2008, para. 3).
4. Whole language education just teaches skills in context rather than in isolation (What Whole, 2008, para. 4).
5. Whole language teachers don’t test students (What Whole, 2008, para. 5).
6. Whole language classrooms have no structure (What Whole, 2008, para. 6).
7. Whole language classrooms have no specific expectations for students (What Whole, 2008, para. 7).
8. Whole language has no supporting research (What Whole, 2008, para. 8).
9. Whole language is anything that anybody chooses to call whole language (What Whole, 2008, para. 9).
10. Whole language can be bought in a package (What Whole, 2008, para. 10).
11. Whole language can only be done by the best teachers (What Whole, 2008, para. 11).
12. Whole language is implemented by mandating it (What Whole, 2008, para. 12).

 While this article is intended to defend the whole language approach by dispelling these “myths”, reviewing them actually gave me pause about some of the whole language ideas.  I found that her debunking of the “myths” raised some doubts for me.  She clearly believes the emphasis should be on the whole language approach, but I found her descriptions of that approach to be a little too loose and unstructured.  All the talk about philosophy and context “sounded good”, but I am not sure that in practice, these methods will work. My sense is that there needs to be more of a hybrid approach to phonics and all that goes along with it, has to be a major part of the reading curriculum and that there needs to be structure and formal assessments as well.  I do not think that we can lose sight out of that in a discussion about teaching philosophy.  Phonics is not some archaic method that is taught in isolated lessons.  I think its purpose is more than just to provide “cues” and needs to be more valued and emphasized than this author suggests. Moreover, ongoing portfolio and anecdotal evaluations are important, but regular, standardized assessments are equally important as an objective measure and to maintain teacher accountability.     

 

Myths and Misunderstandings

Whole Language vs. Isolated Phonics Instruction: A Longitudinal Study in Kindergarten With Reading and Writing Tasks

Whole Language v. Isolated Phonics Instruction: A Longitudinal Study in Kindergarten With Reading and Writing Tasks is an article published in Journal of Research in Childhood Education in the Fall 2000 by Maryann Manning and Constance Kamii. The article focuses on young children’s construction of glottographic theory, a theory based on sounds of speech (Manning & Kamii, 2000, p. 53).

The authors wanted to compare the effectiveness of two approaches to phonics instruction: one in context and one in isolation. To do so, they tested 38 kindergartners in two classes in a public school. 19 received phonics instruction from a phonics teacher. These students did daily worksheets, oral sound training and many chalkboard activities that included sounding out words and blending sounds together; used flashcards; and did constant repetition of words written on blackboard (Manning & Kamii, 2000, p. 54).  19 received phonics instruction from a whole language teacher. These teachers read out loud for an hour spread out over the day and taught phonics in context through shared reading, journal writing and writing demonstrations (Manning & Kamii, 2000, p. 54). The students were interviewed five times over the year. They were instructed to write words in four pairs (the shorter word part of longer word) and read  two to four sentences. They were scored by certain criteria (Manning & Kamii, 2000, p. 54). 

The whole language group started at a lower level, but by the end were at a higher level than the phonics group; as a result, they developed more. By May of the school year, the Whole Language group had a significantly greater percentage of children at a Level 3 and 4, which they defined as being able to identify written segments by making correspondences “between the temporal order in which words are spoken and the spatial sequence in which segments are written” (Manning & Kamii, 2000, p. 59).  

This concluded that the  difference in who attains the Level 3-4 milestone was attributable “to the general glottographic theory that the students in the whole language group had constructed” …concluded that the traditional behaviorist view of children’s learning to read and write based on the accumulation of “bits of grapho-phonic information” does not ring true here…rather the study’s results sided with  the Piaget constructivists that believe “that children are not empty vessels waiting to be filled with bits of information” but need to “try to make sense of everything they encounter in their daily lives and construct general frameworks (or theories) within which they can make sense of specific bits of knowledge” (Manning & Kamii, 2000, p. 64).

This case study concludes that the main advantage to phonics instruction in the context of a whole language approach as opposed to phonics taught in isolation is that the former allows the child to construct a framework to make sense of the phonics knowledge they receive.  As I suspected, the most effective results combines phonics and whole language. The whole language specialized teacher taught using a whole language approach, but also integrated phonics instruction, to get the best result.

Article

Pros and Cons of Whole Language

Pros	Cons
Whole language encourages teachers to find reading material that reflects a student’s language and culture (Curtis,n.d., para. 5).	There is a lack of structure in lessons and activities (Reyner, 2008, para. 8).
Whole language helps provide a better understanding of the text (Curtis, n.d., para. 5).	There is a heavy burden on teachers to develop their own curriculum (Reyner, 2008, para. 8).
Whole language provides a more interesting and creative approach to reading (Curtis, n.d., para. 5).	Learning may come at the expense of accuracy and correctness because students are guessing when they don’t know a word (Curtis, n.d., para. 5).

Reading Wars: Phonics v. Whole Language


Whole Language v. Phonics

Pros and Cons of Phonics

Pros	Cons
Phonics involves sounding out of words based on how they are spelled (Reyner, 2008, para. 4).	It becomes difficult to spell out certain words because the English language does not have a one-to-one sound symbol relationship and there are many homonyms (Reyner, 2008, para. 4).
Phonics is very formulaic. Once the basic rules are learned, it is easy to read a wide variety of literature (Reyner, 2008, para. 6).	It is estimated that half the words in the English language can’t be pronounced correctly using common phonics rules (Reyner, 2008, para. 5).
A student has better pronunciation and word recognition skills (Curtis, n.d., para. 4).	Differing sizes of vocabularies and different dialects vary in pronunciation rules (Reyner, 2008, para. 5).
	A student many have difficulty understanding the full meaning of a text because they are constantly breaking down words into smaller parts (Curtis, n.d., para. 4).
	Children might not enjoy reading and find it a pain because of the constant memorization of the rules of phonics (Curtis, n.d., para. 4).

Reading Wars: Phonics v. Whole Language


Whole Language v. Phonics

Political Cartoon

This political cartoon is an example of a mother using whole language to teach a phonics child how to read. I think this cartoon is  a good representation of how people learn to read differently, and that people need to be open-minded to that idea.


Cartoon

Phonics vs. Whole Language

• Phonics is considered a “bottom-up approach” where students try and decode the meaning of a text. Once students learn the basic skills, they are able to read a wide variety of children’s novels (Reyner, 2008, para. 6).  
• Phonics is considered a behaviorist approach that emphasizes the importance of sounding out words based on spelling (Reyner, 2008, para. 8). 
•  Whole language is considered a “top-down approach” where students use prior knowledge to interpret the meaning of what they are reading (Reyner, 2008, para. 10).
• Whole language is based on the constructivist learning theory where the meaning of texts is emphasized and phonics instruction becomes part of the whole language classroom (Reyner, 2008, para. 9).

Reading Wars: Phonics v. Whole Language