CC BY
36SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING READING IN ENGLISH: PHONICS BASED AND THE WHOLE LANGUAGE APPROACHES
Abstract
The topicality of this work is that the process of learning English begins with learning how to read, and it's not an easy matter to cope with difficult English phonetics. The main aim of this article is to study two main methods of teaching how to read in English: phonics based and the whole language. The problem statement relies on understanding which approach is easier and more effective. Searching for an answer, different sources concerning that problem were observed and main points were reflected in this article. The experiment described here was carried out at one of Russian schools, and the results we have got show how meaningful and useful each method may be. The materials of the article may be helpful for young teachers in teaching reading children and adults.
Keywords
whole language, phonics, holism, learning to read, English, phonics-based reading, decoding words
AUTHORS
Dmitry Dmitriyev Darya Savelova
PhD in Education, Associate Professor Graduate Student
Department of History and Philology Department of History and Philology
Penza State University Penza State University
Penza, Russia Penza, Russia
dmitriyev_d.v@maH.ru daria.savelova@mail.ru
Nowadays there are so many methods and techniques of teaching the English language. But the most important thing in the beginning of learning English is how to teach a person such basic skill like reading? Recently we have been puzzled with a question "What is better: phonics-based reading instruction or whole language reading instruction?". We take into account not only children, but also adults because the importance of English last decade is undebatable and undeniable.
Having made some literature observation we've found out that there is a great number of linguists, scientists and teachers in the USA and in Great Britain who have been interested in this problem since the 20th century.
Since the 1980s there has been a conflict between proponents of phonics-based reading instruction and those who favor the whole-language approach.
First of all we should define what the phonics-based and the whole-reading instructions are and reveal its pros and cons.
Let's begin with the most debatable and criticized approach - phonics. Phonics-based reading instruction is a methodology for teaching young children to read and spell words. The teacher introduces a series of spelling rules and teaches the child to apply phonetics (how the letter combinations sound out loud) to decode words based on their spellings. Phonics attempts to break written language down into small and simple components (Reading Strategies: Phonics vs. Whole Language Reading Instruction, 2015).
Phonics instruction teaches children the relationships between the letters (graphemes) of written language and the individual sounds (phonemes) of spoken
language. It teaches children to use these relationships to write words. The goal of phonics instruction is to help children to learn and use the alphabetic principle - the understanding that there are systematic and predictable relationships between written letters and spoken sounds. The knowledge of these relationships helps an early reader to recognize familiar words accurately and automatically and "decode" new words (Childhood -Teaching Approaches - Phonics Instruction, 2015). In short, knowledge of the alphabetic principle contributes greatly to the ability to read words in isolation and in connected text.
Here are some of the highlights from the evidence-based research on phonics instruction (Childhood - Teaching Approaches - Phonics Instruction, 2015):
1. Systematic and explicit phonics instruction is more effective than non-systematic or no phonics instruction. The hallmark of systematic phonics instruction is the direct teaching of a set of letter-sound relationships in a clearly defined sequence. The set includes the major sound/spelling relationships of both consonants and vowels.
2. Systematic and explicit phonics instruction significantly improves kindergarten and first grade children's word recognition and spelling.
3. Systematic and explicit phonics instruction significantly improves children's reading comprehension.
4. Systematic and explicit phonics instruction is effective for children from various social and economic levels. It helps children from various backgrounds make greater gains in reading than non-systematic or no phonics instruction.
5. Systematic and explicit phonics instruction is particularly beneficial for children who are having difficulty learning to read and who are at risk for developing future reading problems.
6. Systematic and explicit phonics instruction is most effective when introduced early. Instruction should start in kindergarten and the first grade.
7. Phonics instruction is not an entire reading program for beginning readers. Children should also be solidifying their knowledge of the alphabet, engaging in phonemic awareness activities, and listening to stories and informational texts read aloud to them. They should also be reading texts and writing letters, words, messages, and stories.
8. Phonics can be taught effectively to a whole class, small groups, or individual students.
9. Approximately two years of phonics instruction is sufficient for most students. If phonics instruction begins in kindergarten, it should be completed by the end of the first grade. If it begins in the first grade, it should be completed by the end of the second grade.
Phonics instruction may be provided systematically or incidentally. The hallmark of a systematic phonics approach or program is that a sequential set of phonics elements is delineated and these elements are taught along a dimension of explicitness depending on the type of phonics method employed. Conversely, with incidental phonics instruction, the teacher does not follow a planned sequence of phonics elements to guide instruction but highlights particular elements opportunistically when they appear in text (National Reading Panel, 2015).
Phonics instruction can also vary with respect to the explicitness by which the phonic elements are taught and practiced in reading texts. For example, many synthetic phonics approaches use direct instruction in teaching phonics components and provide opportunities for applying these skills in decodable text formats characterized by a controlled vocabulary. On the other hand, embedded phonics approaches are typically less explicit and use decodable text for practice less frequently, although the phonics concepts to be learned can still be presented systematically (Phonics Instruction, 2015).
Here are the main types of phonics (National Reading Panel, 2015):
1. Analogy phonics. Teaching students unfamiliar words by analogy to known words (e.g., recognizing that the rime segment of an unfamiliar word is identical to that of a familiar word, and then blending the known rime with the new word onset, such as reading brick by recognizing that -ick is contained in the known word kick, or reading stump by analogy to jump).
2. Analytical phonics. Teaching students to analyze letter-sound relations in previously learned words to avoid pronouncing sounds in isolation. For example: dog, dad, ding and day, the /d/ phoneme is the shared sound in these words. The drawback of this method is that it starts with the "whole" and moves into "parts", and at the same time, the student may not have acquired sufficient phonemic awareness or phoneme knowledge to succeed with the comparison of the sounds within different words.
3. Embedded phonics. Teaching students phonics skills by embedding phonics instruction in text reading, a more implicit approach that relies to some extent on incidental learning. This is probably the least effective way to teach reading of all. Embedded phonics is used together with (as a side branch) the whole language method of learning to read. This is a very implicit approach where limited amounts of letter and sound relationships are taught during reading sessions. This places very little emphasis on phonics, and more focus is placed on reading for meaning first.
4. Phonics through spelling. Teaching students to segment words into phonemes and to select letters for those phonemes (i.e., teaching students to spell words phonemically).
5. Synthetic phonics. Teaching students explicitly to convert letters into sounds (phonemes) and then blend the sounds to form recognizable words.
Despite the fact that there is a lot of scientific research which supports this method for teaching students to read, some teachers, academics and teaching organizations vote against it.
In July 2014, a group of teachers and phonics consultants wrote to the Times Educational Supplement, defending the Year One phonics check - a test given to all five year olds to examine their ability to decode unfamiliar words. This was in a response to an earlier letter from teachers, academics and representatives of teaching unions who had called for its abolition (Aldridge, 2014).
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Education's REPORT OF THE INQUIRY INTO OVERCOMING THE BARRIERS TO LITERACY warned that a mechanical "sticking" to the use of phonics can "switch off" children from a love of books. Fabian Hamilton, the Labour MP and chairman of the cross-party group, insisted on phonics being in danger of turning reading into a "mechanical process".
One treat phonics as the best solution for the teaching of reading but the others support the whole language which is very contrasted from the above mentioned one.
Although phonics pure sound is often the best way to teach children to read effectively, there are some children with special needs for whom phonics is not successful. Not all children learn to read in the same way and a good teacher needs a variety of methods in order to meet the needs of every child.
Here is another method which is called "Whole Language Approach". It's always contrasted with phonics-based methods of teaching reading and writing.
In simple words, this is a method of teaching children to read by recognizing words as whole pieces of language. Supporters of the whole language philosophy believe that language should not be broken down into letters and combinations of letters and "decoded." They support the idea that language is a complete system of making meaning, with words functioning in relation to each other in context.
Whole language practitioners teach to develop a knowledge of language including the graphophonic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of language. Within a whole language perspective, language is treated as a complete meaning-making system, the parts of which function in relational ways. It has drawn criticism by those who advocate
"back to basics" pedagogy or reading instruction because whole language is based on a limited body of scientific research (Whole Language, 2015).
So the whole language reading instruction focuses on helping learners to "make meaning" of what they read and to express meaning in what they write. Some important aspects of the whole language philosophy include an emphasis on high quality literature, a focus on cultural diversity, and integration of literacy instruction across the subject areas.
As for the background, the whole language method of teaching children to read began to emerge in the 1970s. It became a very popular method of teaching reading in the 1980s and the 1990s. The approach argues that language should be taught as a "whole". Emphasis on learning to read and write. Focus on real communication.
The idea of "whole" language has its basis in a range of theories of learning related to the epistemologies called "holism". Holism is based upon the belief that it is not possible to understand learning of any kind by analyzing small chunks of the learning system. Holism was very much a response to behaviorism, which emphasized that the world could be understood by experimenting with stimuli and responses. Holists considered this a reductionist perspective that did not recognize that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Analyzing individual behaviors, holists argued, could never tell us how the entire human mind worked. This is - in simplified terms - the theoretical basis for the term "whole language" (Whole Language, 2015).
Whole language learning was designed to provide a better understanding of the full context of the language. This approach emphasizes creativity when applied to learning to read and write rather than rote memorization of concepts that may contribute to some children's opinions of reading and writing as chore-like.
Teachers of the Whole Language believe that students learn to read by writing, and vice versa. They encourage children to read and write for "real purposes," with nonfiction texts and interpretation of what they read forming much of the basis of their assignments. The whole language approach to reading also stresses the love of literature and the use of engaging texts to help children develop that love. Teachers who use this approach exclusively do not place heavy emphasis in the early grades on spelling and grammar, which can make some parents uncomfortable. The whole language philosophy emphasizes children's efforts to make meaning and seek meaning in language; therefore, correcting errors places the focus on technical correctness, which is not where whole language teachers believe it should be. The effective whole language teacher "hears and sees through" the student's errors, using the information gained for formative assessment, then creates experiences that help the child to acquire the correct structure and form (What is the "Whole Language" Approach to Teaching Reading?, 2015).
Taking into consideration teaching principles, in the whole language approach reading should not be taught, but rather acquired through trial and error. The teacher facilitates the learning process, but provides little direct instruction. Students are encouraged to guess unfamiliar words using picture or context clues. Learners are also encouraged to use invented spelling to write their own stories.
Students who learn through whole language learning, however, may not develop as much accuracy in pronunciation, word recognition and spelling skills as one who learned through phonics-based teaching (Whole Language, 2015).
Aside from overlooking spelling and technical mistakes, the whole language approach can also present problems for students with reading difficulties. Students with dyslexia and other language processing disorders NEED explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, and decoding in order to improve their reading skills. With the high prevalence of processing disorders (15-20% of all students), many reformers believe explicit and systematic phonics instruction should be used to teach EVERY student how to read - in order to prevent these students from falling behind. The whole language approach works
for many students, but explicit and systematic phonics instruction works for students of all levels (and greatly decreases spelling and pronunciation errors) (What is the "Whole Language" Approach to Teaching Reading?, 2015).
Because of disagreements over the years about which type of reading instruction is best, phonics or whole language, the National Reading Panel began a study in 1997 to settle the debate. In 2000, the Panel released its findings, stating that there are five essential components that must be taught in an effective reading program: phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension.
As it was mentioned above, the Whole Language focuses on the idea of real communication. We also analyzed some information concerning it and found out that there is a method called in pedagogic "Communicative Language Teaching" and its idea is closely connected with the Whole Language.
The origins of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) are to be found in the changes in the British language teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s. Until then, Situational Language represented the major British approach to teaching English as a foreign language. In Situational Language Teaching, language was taught by practicing basic structures in meaningful situation-based activities. British applied linguists emphasized another fundamental dimension of language that was inadequately addressed in current approaches to language teaching at that time - the functional and communicative potential of language. They saw the need to focus in language teaching on communicative proficiency rather than on mere mastery of structures (Communicative Language Teaching, 2015).
In contrast to the amount that has been written in Communicative Language Teaching literature about communicative dimensions of language, little has been written about learning theory. Neither Brumfit and Johnson nor Littlewood, for example, offer any discussion of learning theory. Elements of an underlying learning theory can be discerned in some CLT practices, however. One such element might be described as the communication principle: activities that involve real communication promote learning. A second element is the task principle: activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks promote learning. A third element is the meaningfulness principle: language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning process. Learning activities are consequently selected according to how well they engage the learner in meaningful and authentic language use (rather than merely mechanical practice of language patterns). These principles, we suggest, can be inferred from CLT practices. They address the conditions needed to promote second language learning, rather than the processes of language acquisition (Communicative Language Teaching, 2015).
The cognitive aspect involves the internalisation of plans for creating appropriate behaviour. For language use, these plans derive mainly from the language system - they include grammatical rules, procedures for selecting vocabulary, and social conventions governing speech. The behavioural aspect involves the automation of these plans so that they can be converted into fluent performance in real time. This occurs mainly through practice in converting plans into performance (Communicative Language Teaching, 2015).
Communicative Language Teaching is best considered an approach rather than a method. Thus although a reasonable degree of theoretical consistency can be discerned at the levels of language and learning theory, at the levels of design and procedure there is much greater room for individual interpretation and variation than most methods permit. It could be that one version among the various proposals for syllabus models, exercise types, and classroom activities may gain wider approval in the future, giving Communicative Language Teaching a status similar to other teaching methods. On the other hand, divergent interpretations might lead to homogeneous subgroups (Communicative Language Teaching, 2015).
Puzzled with this problem, we decided to arrange our own small investigation in one of schools from our city. We made a test and gave it to pupils of 10th, 7th and 3rd forms from school №46. The test included 3 questions; the 2 last questions were for their teacher of the English language.
The 1st question was "How do you evaluate your reading skill on 1-10 scale". Pupils from the 3rd form were confused a little, but mostly put 7, which their teacher called "too high". The 2nd question was "How do you evaluate your knowledge of reading rules". Kids put from 5 to 9, which is true, according to teacher's words. And in the 3rd task where children had to write how they pronounce the following words (cup, cucumber, egg, meat, shirt, January ) they showed quite good results. The most common mistake was in words "egg [ig], January [dzeinari, dzeineri], cucumber [kukumba, kakamber, kjukumba]. But nevertheless the teacher said first of all they learn how to read by analogy and analytical phonics methods.
In the 7th form things were the same in the first 2 questions, according to the teacher students chose too high level, and in the 3rd task many of them made mistakes in words "blood [blud, bled], chemical [hemikal, himikal, tchemical], air [air, au, ae], hour [haua, hor, hau, hauva, hour]". But the teacher of this form said that students didn't study phonics at primary school, but used to learn how to read through whole language method.
The 10th form showed pretty good results and it coincided with teachers view about their skills. The most common mistake in words "blood" and "hour". This form was taught phonics at primary school and by the 10th form mostly by whole language. Children say it's much easier to learn how to pronounce the word, because there are too many exceptions in the English language which make "phonics" useless.
The experiment on the one hand shows us that The Whole Language is preferable for students, but on the other hand we see that students who were taught by phonics-based method in primary school read better than those who didn't learn to "decode" words. Of course this research needs further investigations, but we found the right direction and are ready to look deeper into the problem.
REFERENCES
1. Aldridge, D. (2014). Phonics is not a fix-all drug that will get all children reading. The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/phonics-is-not-a-fix-all-drug-that-will-get-all-children-reading-28868
2. Literacy Information and Communication System. Childhood - Teaching Approaches - Phonics Instruction. (2015, June 9). Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http://lincs.ed.gov/childhood/phonicsIns.html
3. Method of teaching. (2015, June 13). Whole Language. Retrieved June 14, 2015, from http://indahtriastuti1.blogspot.com.tr/2013/06/whole-language.html
4. National Reading Panel. (2015, June 11). Phonics Instruction. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/phonics-instruction
5. National Reading Panel. (2015, June 11). Retrieved June 12, 2015, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/Pages/nrp.aspx/
6. Paton, G. (2011). Warning over Government's 'dull' reading lessons. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8621316/ Warning-over-Governments-dull-reading-lessons.html
7. Reading Horizons. (2015, June 13). What is the "Whole Language" Approach to Teaching Reading? Retrieved June 14, 2015, from http://www.readinghorizons.com/blog/post/2010/09/23/what-is-the-whole-languagee-approach-to-teaching-reading.aspx
8. Reading Horizons. Reading Strategies: Phonics vs. Whole Language Reading Instruction. (2015, June 9). Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http://www.readinghorizons.com/blog/post/2010/09/07/Reading-Wars-Phonics-vs-Whole-Language-Reading-Instruction.aspx
9. Communicative Language Teaching. (2015, June 13). Retrieved June 14, 2015, from http://www2.vobs.at/ludescher/Alternative%20methods/communicative_ language_teaching.htm
