Whole Language vs. Phonics

Whole Language vs. Phonics
Teaching Children to Read
Presented by: Nicole Jackson
October 25, 2005
Learning to Read
• In a literate society learning to read is
considered a necessary task.
• The debating on this topic seems to come in
waves. It was very heated in the late 60’s
and it eased up for a while but was
rekindled in the 90’s.
• The debate has important contributions to
the formation of school and government
policies.
– In 1997, the U.S. congress created a national panel to
review and evaluate research on various approaches
for teaching children to read
The Contenders:
Whole Language
• A.k.a. Top down or meaning-emphasis
approach to learning.
• “natural”
•
Although the whole-language approach has
grown from ideas in the language experience
movement, the whole language approach as it
is known today began in the late 70s with
Kenneth and Yetta Goodman, who published
the article “Learning to Read is Natural”. (Stahl
1994)
• Children learn to recognize words by
appearance and context.
• The use of authentic/purposeful teaching
moments is emphasized.
The Contenders:
Whole Language (cont’d)
•
•
•
•
There is some confusion in discussing whole
language because it has several meanings.
Some view it as the integration of reading with
all other forms of language learning such as
speaking, writing, and listening. Others believe
it is just an indirect approach to teaching the
same things as any other approach. Others
have expanded it to a philosophy of education
and life!
Whole language sees decoding as a byproduct
that should be taught sparingly and
incidentally. (Chall, 1996)
Goal of developing attitude toward reading
(Stahl et al., 1994)
Recognized to contain a “number of features that can
benefit children in many ways” (Simner, 1992).
The Contenders:
Whole Language (cont’d)
• Belief in not pressuring children is often
misunderstood as meaning the children
should be left to their own devices.
Evidence
• Manning & Kamii, 2000
• Stahl, McKenna, & Pagnucco, 1994
The Contenders:
Phonics
• A.k.a. Bottom-up or code-emphasis
approach to reading.
• Children taught to associate sounds with
individual letters and letter combinations.
• Teaches strategies in “sounding-out”
words
• Phonics training includes more than just
phonemic awareness, it also includes
practice reading words in and out of text.
Evidence
• Eldredge, Quinn, & Butterfield, 1990
– All correlations between phonics, reading
comprehension, and vocabulary were positive
r(502)=.506 to .757, p < .001
• Bus & van Ijzendoorn, 1999
• Stahl, McKenna, & Pagnucco, 1994
• Foorman et al., 1991
Making Phonics Fun
http://www.clicknkids.com/home.asp
http://www.zoo-phonics.com/
http://www.jollylearning.co.uk/
http://www.sadlieroxford.com/phonics/control_page/fron
t2.htm
http://secure.hop.com/
Testing Issues
• How is reading defined?
– Pseudowords, comprehension, lists
• Standardized reading achievement
measures criticized for representing an
“unnatural” reading act
• Oral reading passages as a tool
Different Strokes for Different Folks
• Results for the teaching methods may vary
between different groups of children.
Specifically, children with learning disabilities
or disadvantaged backgrounds may respond
differently than a typical child .
– Peoples & Nelson, 1977
– Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999
• Differences between age groups tested
– Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999
– Stahl, McKenna, & Pagnucco, 1994
Getting Along
• “Young children should be provided with
many holistic reading experiences, and
they should be encouraged to make
sense out of everything they read”
(Eldredge, Quinn, & Butterfield, 1990)
• “The present results strengthen the case
for a balanced perspective on reading
instruction” (Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999)
• “Although whole-language advocates
are opposed to piecemeal, work-sheet
driven phonics instruction, most support
phonics instruction that is embedded into
the reading of authentic texts and into
children’s discovery of spelling” (Stahl,
McKenna, & Pagnucco, 1994)
Graduate-level research
Marvin Simner, PhD
- University of Western Ontario
Debra Jared, PhD
- MSc. Degree
- Cognition and Perception
- University of Western Ontario
Connie Varnhagen, PhD
- MSc. Degree
- Applied Developmental Science
- University of Alberta
References
Bus, A.G., & Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological
awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of
experimental training studies. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91(3), 403-414.
Eldredge, J. L., Quinn, B., & Butterfield, D. D. (1990). Causal
relationships between phonics, reading
comprehension, and vocabulary achievement in the
second grade. Journal of Educational Research, 83(4),
201-212.
Foorman, B., Francis, D., Novy, D., & Liberman, D. (1991).
How letter-sound instruction mediates progress in firstgrade reading and spelling. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83(4), 456-469.
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(1), 53-65
Peoples, A. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1977). The differential
effects of phonics versus sight-recognition on the eye
movements of good and poor second-grade readers.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 9(4), 327-337.
References
Simner, M. L. (1992). Section’s position paper on beginning
reading instruction. Educational and School
Psychology Newsletter. May 1992.
Stahl, S., McKenna, M., & Pagnucco, J. (1994). The effects
of whole-language instruction: an update and
reappraisal. Educational Psychologist, 29(4), 175-185.
Discussion
• How did you learn to read?
• Do you think further research is
required in this area?
• Can both methods be amalgamated
into one all-accommodating
teaching program?

Download Report