 |
(617) 349-8226
Hood Children's Literacy Project
29 Everett Street / Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
eruthstr@mail.lesley.edu
Recent History of the Phonics Debates,
Part II
By William T. Stokes
In Part I of this essay (Spring 1998), the great debates
about approaches to the teaching of reading and writing were introduced from
a historical perspective. First, phonics, as an approach to teaching
sound-letter correspondences, is not a recent invention. Indeed, phonics was
first introduced in the sixteenth century, when the Latin Bible was being
translated into vernacular languages of Europe and widely distributed during
the Protestant Reformation. The current debates between phonics and whole
language, for example, are only the latest versions of very long-standing
efforts to aid children (and adults) in the early stages of learning to read
and write.
Second, English does not have an alphabet that is uniquely
its own - English is written with the Roman alphabet. An ideal alphabetic
system provides one letter for each sound in the language, achieving
one-to-one correspondence between letters and sounds. Unfortunately, the
twenty-six letters of our alphabet must serve a language having at least
forty-four sounds. As a consequence, a complex pattern of spellings in
English emerged over many certuries as the language itself has also changed
and been influenced by other languages, especially French, Latin, and Greek,
as well as many other languages. (Balmuth, 1982)
Third, by the end of the nineteenth century, educators
already had devised many approaches to teaching reading (and writing); among
these were alphabetic, phonic, phonetic, whole word, object, sentence,
story, and thought approaches. Debates about the merits of alternative
approaches were well established. Part II of this essay focuses on more
recent developments of the twentieth century.
The debates about the teaching of reading became more
fierce with the publication of Rudolf Flesch's Why Johnny Can't Read
(1955) which offered an emotional polemic that tended to vastly oversimplify
and polarize the large and complex realms of theory, research, and practice.
All reading programs were cast categorically as either phonics or whole word
approaches and the latter was portrayed not only as an utter and absolute
failure, but also as a threat to democracy and as evidence of conspiracies
between publishers and educators. As Adams (1990, p 25) points out, Flesch
"developed conspiratorial motives, alluded to communists, and made negative
insinuations about the intellectual predispositions and capacities of
females and minorities. Thus, not only was the debate politicized, but it
was politicized on dimensions that were wholly irrelevant to the question of
how best to teach reading."
While the public debates became polarized and while
researchers might sharply disagree with one another (see Carbo, 1988; Chall,
1989; Turner, 1989), it is important to note that the differences between
approaches were never absolute or categorical, but rather have been matters
of emphasis. Competent teachers have always tended to make use of multiple
strategies for fostering children's acquisition of literacy and their
development of specific skills. The textbooks themselves have tended to
combine approaches.
Moreover, given the nature of local control of schools in
the U.S., at any given time every alternative approach to reading
instruction is being practiced somewhere - and not just in small isolated
pockets. In this context, sweeping historical trends are perhaps little more
than sweeping generalizations. In my experience over the past twenty years
in eastern Massachusetts, in a region of several million residents
distributed throughout over a hundred communities, it is simply impossible
to assert that one approach or another effectively dominated all or nearly
all schooling for any period of time.
One community might have just purchased a new basal
series, as Boston did in 1988, and be determined to implement a strict,
intensive phonics program, while the neighboring Cambridge was just
beginning to expand a whole language program beyond the confines of the few
schools that had been experimenting with it since 1982. Other nearby
communities were each following their own local concerns - some shifting in
one direction, others in a seemingly opposite direction, and still others in
yet another direction. And, of course, each teacher has her or his own
history. Teachers certainly develop and change over their careers, but they
also tend to reshape or transform their professional competencies rather
than utterly replace past practices. It is easy to make too much of grand
historical trends unless one also looks very closely at local events.
Chall (1983) suggests that by the 1940s and 1950s,
approaches to reading instruction were dominated by the content of the basal
reading series issued by publishers, and this content relied principally on
the word method. Among these were the "Linguistic Readers" that sought to
restrict the vocabulary in the books so that only words conforming to
regular spelling patterns would be encountered in the earliest reading
materials. It was proposed that children would naturally analyze the
presented patterns and therefore, explicit teaching of basic sound-letter
(or phoneme-grapheme) correspondences would be unnecessary (Fries, 1963).
In the early 1960s, new versions of older phonetic
approaches were offered. These tried to reform the alphabet by adding
letters or diacritical markings so that the differences in the sounds
associated with the letter combination ea in bear, earth, heart and near
would be marked explicitly. Among these were Distar and i.t.a. or Initial
Teaching Alphabet (see Chall, 1983, p 119-125).
Then, "from an almost unanimous preference for
meaning-emphasis in the textbooks published before the 1960s," there was a
"shift toward code-emphasis in the 1970s" (Chall, 1983, p. 3). As
code-emphasis approaches were developed from the 1960s through the 1980s,
these tended to be referred to collectively as phonics approaches, or even
"the" phonics approach - as if there were only one. In fact, there were
substantial disagreements about the detailed nature of the programs. Readers
will notice that it is common today to modify the term phonics with any of
several other terms: explicit, direct, systematic, intensive, and extensive
are often used. These are used in contrast to indirect, inherent, implicit,
analytic and embedded. Add to this barrage of jargon the tendency of
different writers to use the same terms differently, it is little wonder
that new teachers and parents are likely to be anxious about what program
their young learners will be presented. Some programs call for beginning
with long vowel sounds (because the letter name approximates its sound in a
word, as the a in ape; others call for beginning with short vowel sounds
(because these tend to be more regular in short common words, e.g., bit,
fit, sit, etc.). All approaches must introduce the consonants, but there
too, there will be disagreements about which and in what order with respect
to the vowels.
More recently, there is renewed interest in a very old
practice. Some researchers advocate for presenting words as composed of an
onset and a rime - i.e., bake would be presented as b plus ake, the
advantage being that the child can be introduced to word families: cake,
fake, lake, make, take (Adams, 1990). Other researchers continue to
recommend complete segmentation of words into phonemes (e.g., s-t-a-n-d)
coupled with teaching blending (i.e., sounding out, then repeating smoothly
as the word would ordinarily be pronounced).
Different publishers of systematic phonics materials may
choose among these options, and further differentiate themselves by the
extent to which words are presented alone or in sentences or in stories with
or without pictures, and so forth. Separate workbooks may be included. And,
there will be different emphases given to whole class lessons, small groups
(ability groupings or heterogeneous groupings), individual one-on-one
instruction and self-guided seat work with worksheets.
Another significant difference is whether phonics
instruction is separate from or incorporated into instruction for reading
comprehension, or indeed, for writing. I have visited many classrooms where
separate times are scheduled for reading, for phonics, and for writing -
other classrooms join all these together.
Yet another important question is the relationship between
reading and writing, or between phonics programs and spelling programs. From
the point of view of the learner, especially at the beginning stages, the
task of decoding a string of letters is a matter of assigning the correct
sounds to a group of letters. For example, consider this nonsense word,
steart. Should the ear be pronounced as in bear, or as in spear, or as in
heart? The writer, however, is presented with the problem of assigning
letters to sounds, i.e., encoding. Context cannot provide the same help in
this instance. The child may wish to spell a word with the final sound oo,
as in boo. Let's assume, for this example, that the child wants to spell a
word that begins with fl- and ends with the oo sound. The child writes
"f-l", then pauses to figure out the next letters. Possibilities include
flew, flu, flue or even from the learners point of view, floo or flo or flwo
(as in too, to, or two). Sound to letter correspondences are not sufficient.
Knowing the intended meaning of the word is required. The question for code
emphasis programs is whether to separate or join the teaching of decoding
and encoding. Here again, different publishers will offer different options.
While explicit phonics approaches dominated throughout the
last thirty years, alternatives also existed. Following the Open Education
movement of the early 1970s, there was great interest in the language
experience approach, which emphasized reliance upon the learners own
language and experience, and usually included linking learning to read with
writing children's own stories (see Edelsky, Altwerger, and Flores, 1991).
During this same period, psycholinguistic research in language development
and speech perception was yielding new insights about natural language
processes. In the language arts journals, the psycholinguistics of reading
became a common topic throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Soon too, there was
interest in sociolinguistic perspectives. And, during the same period, a few
researchers and educators were paying more attention to the relatively
neglected "second - R", i.e., writing. The writing process became the center
of increased attention by the 1980s.
From about 1980, there was great interest in emergent
literacy. It was found that when pre-school children were immersed in an
environment rich in print, they soon discover that writing conveys meaning,
has function, and is an aspect of everyday activities. This may begin with
product labels (e.g., the logo for a favorite cereal). It soon extends to
road signs and other conventional symbols. While recognition of "wholes"
clearly precedes the child's appreciation of the details of graphic
representations, children soon progress to make finer discriminations
(Weaver, 1994). In Australia and New Zealand, and to some extent in England
and Canada, work had been progressing toward what is known as natural,
developmental literacy learning. As this work was joined with that of some
researchers in this country, the term whole language emerged. Other
important programs also emerged including Reading Recovery (Clay, 1991).
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, as whole language
became the most talked about "new" approach, a reaction was also forming,
sometimes referred to as a "back to basics" movement. Phonics advocates
continued to publish research findings which suggested that direct
systematic instruction to develop phonemic awareness and to teach
letter-sound relationships was especially important for learners who exhibit
learning disabilities. In the past few years, the "reading wars" have become
ever more fierce, political, and even sometimes apocalyptic. The debates
between advocates of whole language and phonics have become explicit
features of national political campaigns and have even become elements of
positions taken by some conservative religious organizations. The newest
medium for these conflicts is the World Wide Web. In a very cursory search
for web sites that address either phonics or whole language, I located over
2500 sites. I surveyed more than a hundred of these and found a full range
of views including everything from thoughtful, reasonable arguments to
utterly uninformed and vicious attacks. Viewing these, I could easily
understand the confusion and anxiety many parents and members of the general
public may feel concerning these issues.
Toward a Balanced Approach
Most recently, educators have begun speaking of balanced
approaches in an effort to join the best elements of all the prior programs
and perhaps to transcend the seemingly endless reading wars. Properly
understood, whole language has always provided for direct instruction
intended to guide children to discover the alphabetic principle and
letter-sound relationships (see Holdaway, 1979 and Weaver, 1994). Phonics
approaches typically include equal concern for comprehension and fluent
reading of meaningful texts. All language arts teachers wish children to
love reading and to find their voices as writers. At the same time, it is
recognized that, at some level, readers and writers of an alphabetic
language need guidance to learn the sound system of the language (phonemic
awareness) and learn the system of letter-sound correspondences. The newest
developments in the field, e.g., guided reading and the Early Literacy
Learning Initiative, offer the greatest promise for establishing programs
that explicitly balance concerns for the meaning and communication with
concerns for accurate and fluent reading and writing (see Fountas and
Pinnell, 1996). Under the impetus of state "curriculum frameworks" and
similar "standards" issued by national professional organizations, school
systems and individual teachers are being required to reexamine all their
pedagogical practices.
Reading and writing are complex activities; like speech
perception and production, they entail the simultaneous processing of
information at various levels. Some versions of the phonics vs. whole
language debate suggest that one requires a "bottom-up" model of processing,
while the other requires a "top-down" model. Fortunately, it is not
necessary to chose between these models. Reading and writing require the
integration of information from several different levels - it is what
cognitive scientists call a parallel processing system. Briefly, there are
at least seven levels that must be considered: (1) Graphic - visual
perception of letters and symbols; (2) Phonological - sound system of the
language, phonemic awareness, phoneme-grapheme relations; (3) Lexical -
words, morphophonemic system; (4) Syntactic - grammar of sentences and
larger units of discourse; (5) Semantic - meaning, thematic structures; (6)
Communicative - intentions, purposes, and pragmatic functions of texts; and
(7) Cultural - shared knowledge and belief that underlies all
communications. All approaches to reading and writing instruction should
attend to all levels of processing since each supports the others. In those
instances when it is necessary to isolate concerns for one or two levels,
attention to other levels should not be long delayed.
Children should be encouraged to use all the resources
available to them in their efforts to interpret print or to compose texts.
When a child misreads a sentence such as "The car has a big engine" by
replacing motor for engine, then we know that the child is being supported
by context, but needs to focus more carefully on the graphic information. If
a child should read "The whale could swim" by replacing cloud for could,
then we know that the child is not attending sufficiently to structure and
to meaning in context, as well as making a visually based error. As a final
example, if a child reads "The pants began to tear" by pronouncing tear to
rhyme with fear, then we know that the child is not attending to word
meaning and semantic context. All levels of processing are required for
comprehension and fluency.
A balanced approach to literacy instruction offers an
opportunity to transcend the endless debates and return a measure of
commonsense to teaching and learning. Teachers and parents can be supported
in the development of effective strategies that recognize the complexity of
language and literacy, that connect reading, writing and oral language, and
that promote the development of skills, comprehension, fluency, voice, and
appreciation for literature and for the power of written language to shape
the world.
References
Adams, M. J. (1990) Beginning To Read: Thinking and
Learning about Print. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Balmuth, M. (1982) The Roots of Phonics: A Historical
Introduction. NY: Teachers College Press.
Carbo, M. (1988) Debunking the Great Phonics Myth.
Phi Delta Kappan, Vol 70, (3), November, 226-240.
Chall, J. (1989) Learning to Read: The Great Debate 20
Years Later - A Response to 'Debunking the Great Phonics Myth'. Phi
Delta Kappan, Vol. 70, (7), March, 521-538.
Chall, J. (1967, 1983) Learning to Read: The Great
Debate. NY: McGraw-Hill. (Updated Edition, 1983)
Clay, M. (1991) Becoming Literate: The Construction of
Inner Control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Edelsky, C., Altwerger, B. & Flores, B. (1991) Whole
Language: What's the Difference? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Flesch, R. (1955) Why Johnny Can't Read and What You
Can Do about It. NY: Harper & Brothers.
Fountas, I and G. S. Pinnell, (1996) Guided Reading:
Good First Teaching for All Children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fries, C. (1963) Linguistics and Reading. NY: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Holdaway, D. (1979) The Foundations of Literacy.
Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.
Weaver, C. (1994) Reading Process and Practice: From
Socio-Psycholinguistics to Whole Language. (Second Edition) Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
William T. Stokes, Ed.D. is a Professor at Lesley University, co-Director of the Literacy Institute, and the Director of the Hood Children's Literacy Project. For the past twenty-five years he has focused on children's language and literacy development.
|
The Fundamental Dilemma