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