LAILA FARHANA APNAN BANU
People can acquire the spoken language of the society where they are born or are exposed to, the skill often named as oracy, since ‘human beings are genetically endowed with the ability to assimilate the local language – to understand it and to speak it grammatically’ (www.fitzprog.com.au). But people cannot read and write unless they are formally trained. Though formal teaching of language includes oracy, it mostly focuses on teaching literacy – the ability to read and write.
Basically teaching someone to read and write is explaining how the alphabetic code of the language works, and for this different approaches are used. The language teaching methodologies that are prominent in current educational practice are the ‘phonic’ and the ‘whole-language’ approach that are seemingly the rival approaches to each other and their relative merits and demerits are hotly debated (Palmaffy, 1997; Taylor, 1998; Baines & Stanley, 2000; Jeynes & Littell, 2000; Rayner et al., 2001; Shafer, 2001; Berryman, 2004; Johnson, 2004, 2005). The rivalry in which the advocates of these two approaches are engaged with is the theoretical underpinnings on which they are founded, as they originate from two absolutely dichotomised view of instructional philosophy positioning themselves in the dead-ends of a continuum. Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical, philosophical, epistemological and instructional underpinnings of these two approaches.
Figure 1: The Dichotomised Origin of the ‘Phonic’ and the ‘Whole-Language’ Approach
According to whole-language approach, reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game that consists of generating and testing hypotheses (Smith, 1971; Goodman, 1986; Goodman& Goodman, 1990), whilst phonic approach holds that readingis largely dependent upon accurate perception of the letter strings that make upwords (Gough, 1972, Lovett et al., 2000). The phonic approach is one of the established methods of literacy instructions in which children are first introduced to the letters of the alphabet and their basic sounds. After teaching the sounds of the alphabets for example a, b, c in English, the diagraphs (like ay, all) andsimple spelling rules are then taught where words are formed with same sound or component letters. Children then can learn to read and write new words by applying that rule adding greatly to the vocabulary with each diagraph. That means, having learned a simple sound (like ay), children can form a whole family of words (like bay, may, pay, ray, say, way, play, tray etc). Thus, acclaimed by its advocates that, this approach employs the natural phonic faculties of the human child and connects these to the language script (Berryman, 2004).
On the other hand correspondences between letters and phonemes are not explicitly taught in the whole-language instructions. While research in educational, cognitive and developmental psychology has gathered evidences on the effective design of educational programs for reading/literacy, an increased favour has enjoyed by whole-language approach over the last three decades in compared to the conventional phonic approach. Founded on a constructivist child-centred view, it focuses on holistic learning based on literature-based instruction rather than isolated direct-instructions. The fundamental assumption that underlies this approach is that ‘learning to read is like learning to speak and requires only exposure to a rich language environment without any specific teaching of the alphabetic system and letter-sound relationships’, and accordingly ‘stories are being read to children, and that the plan is that after sufficient immersion in natural stories (not “artificial” readers), children would in time get to know how each word looked and in this way gradually become fluent readers’ (ibid).
Language interventions are planned through more naturalistic interactions in Whole Language approach; spontaneously occurring in events, utterances and communicative situations that arise in the contexts of play, daily routines and instructional activities (Norris & Hoffman, 1990). It takes into account of ownership and authentic reading and writing, and provides the children with the freedom of choice in reading texts or doing activities, and thus to comprehend and respond to texts (Papert, 1990; Trachtenburg, 1990; Rossow & Hess, 2001); since research indicates that student find little value in literacy activities heavily relied upon outcomes or skills with little opportunities for meaningful activities (Au, 1997). In fact, meaningful texts and activities help to increase students’ motivation to read and participate and increasingly students feel empowered in classroom-interactions and decision making processes (Bergeron & Rudenga, 1996). This eventually establishes a sense of ownership among students who then feel confident to make use of the power of literacy and employ it in their everyday school and home lives (Au, 1997). Another important aspect of this approach is to provide children with a wide range of opportunities for oral conversation and peer-interactions which widely influence their language development, as Ely indicates, ‘[p]eer interactions represent true testing grounds for the young child’s evolving communicative competence’ (Ely, 2005; p-397).
However both the approaches have some strengths as well as drawbacks and there are arguments in favour of each approach. Table 1 summarises the main features of these two approaches in literacy-instructions.
Table 1: Key Features of the ‘Phonic’ and the ‘Whole-Language’ Approach
Though whole-language has been the leading method for literacy-instructions for last three decades, major objections to this includes that children become familiar with each word by the look of itand remember the spoken word to which it corresponds, often called as ‘sight words’;without exploring the sounds of the component letters. Hence, this approach depends more on rote-learning and is limited to words those have been intentionally introduced to the children. So the children never can decode words those are new to them unless they teach phonics to themselves. Berryman, an Australian school teacher rejects the whole-language approach as an effective way of teaching language and blames it as the cause of Australia’s poor literacy standards and continues to refuse the government policy of advocating this approach. She disputes its foundational basis as she states,
The whole language approach is based on the false premise that since children naturally acquire speech by exposure to the spoken language of the group they are born into, that the same will hold true for reading and writing. The theory goes: immerse the children in stories read aloud and they will naturally come to read and write. The Australian education industry (including our universities) has failed to acknowledge research findings – both local and international, and available over the past thirty years – that the whole language approach would fail many children, and that a systematic phonic approach to teaching literacy, should be employed. Humans are genetically endowed with the ability to acquire speech. But reading and writing are learned skills – as human history has consistently shown us. (Berryman, 2004)
Current developments in cognitive neuroscience indicate that language, once acquired, is not static, but rather, undergoes constant neural reorganisation (Gleason, 2005). So the mechanical view of literacy acquisition adopted in phonic approach has been denied until quite recently and most of the developed countries tended to adopt the whole-language philosophy in their literacy instructions. A widespread debate in US about this has led to a series of government-funded research to examine the scientific evidence relating to how children learn to read and what strategies are most effective in teaching reading.However, research has not confirmed the superiority of any of these approaches over another. This is because language learning is not a mechanical process, but a social and affective one and there are other factors that continuously influence the learning process. A quantitative research synthesis (Steven & Patricia, 1989) in US has suggested that both the approaches are approximately equal in their effects with a few exceptions. A few interesting findings that this study found includes whole-language to be more effective for kindergarten pupils than those from first-graders. Secondly it may help greater in word recognition than reading comprehension. The most important finding is that whole-language experience produce weaker effects on population labelled as disadvantaged. Accordingly the results suggest that ‘whole language approach might be most effective for teaching functional aspects of reading, such as print concepts and expectations about reading, whereas more direct approaches might be better at helping students master word recognition skills prerequisite to effective comprehension’ (ibid).
Therefore a more recent trend in literacy-instructions is reversing towards rejecting the beliefs and assumptions related to whole-language and stresses for the stronger effects from the phonic approach relative to whole-language methods. Research based evidences in language development, cognitive science and reading research tells us that the ability to read is a complex learned skill that requires specific teaching and suggest putting a greater emphasis on phonological awareness and phonics instruction. So school systems across the developed countries are increasingly incorporating more phonic elements into their reading programmes. And most recent views of researchers, psychologists, linguists and educators is that the dichotomy between different approaches to the teaching of reading is false and that elements of both the main approaches can be used simultaneously to teach children how to read (Zemelman et al., 1999; Rayner et al., 2001; Johnson, 2004, 2005).
After consulting a substantial amount of relevant literature and as of my experiences emerged from my involvement withliteracy curriculum, materials and instructional design, I would argue that, it is not worth to engage in this ‘reading war’ debating which method is superior to the other, rather it would be worthy for researchers, educationists and practitioners to use most of their efforts to help children in their literacy acquisition to their best, when around 50 percent of them face some kind of problems in literacy-acquisition (Palmaffy, 1997). Therefore the apparent degree of disagreement between the different approaches should be replaced by looking for areas of complementarities, recognising the diverse benefits from different methodologies. And efforts should be taken more on exploring ways to develop a balanced instructional paradigm that will offer comprehensive and effective instructional practice by reviewing theoretical assumptions and corresponding curricular praxis. However, no matter which approach has been taken, Routman (1991) warns that change does not take place overnight and allowing time for change to be absorbed or internalised is unavoidable. Indicating to some practical point of increasing the effectiveness of language arts instruction, Routman notifies ‘[u]nless teachers are encouraged to take time for reading, risking, and reflecting, no meaningful change will occur’ (1991, p-501) with putting greater emphasis upon the promotion of ‘self-reflection, risk taking, greater understanding of the principles of language learning, and a closer tie-in between theory and practice’ (1991, p-2).
Au, K. (1997) Literacy for all students: Ten steps toward making a difference, The Reading Teacher, 51, pp. 186–194
Baines, L. A., & Stanley, G. (2000) We want to see the teacher: Constructivism and the rage against expertise, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 82(4), pp. 327–330
Bergeron, B., &Rudenga, E. (1996) Seeking authenticity: What is “real” about thematic literacy instruction, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 49, pp. 544–551
Berryman, F. (2004) The Whole language Approach available online at http://www.fitzprog.com.au/wholelanguage.asp; accessed on 20 July, 2006
Ely, R. (2005) Language and Literacy in the School Years in Gleason, J. B. (2005) (6thed.) The Development of Language, Allyn& Bacon, Boston
Gleason, J. B. (2005) (6thed.) The Development of Language, Allyn& Bacon, Boston
Goodman, K. S. (1986) What’s whole in whole language? Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH
Goodman, Y. E., & Goodman, K. S. (1990) Vygotsky and the whole-language perspective, in L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology,Cambridge University Press, New York
Gough, P. B. (1972) One second of reading, in Kavanagh, J. F. & Mattingly, I. G. (Eds.), Language by eye and ear(pp. 331–358), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Jeynes, W., &Littell, S. (2000) A meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of whole language instruction on the literacy of low-SES students, Elementary School Journal, 101(1), pp. 21–33
Johnson, G. M. (2004) Constructivist Remediation: Correction in Context, International Journal of Special Education, Vol. 19, No.1, pp. 72–88
Johnson, G. M. (2005) Instructionism and Constructivism: Reconciling Two Very Good Ideas
Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., & Borden, S. L. (2000) Putting struggling readers on the PHAST track: A program to integrate phonological and strategy-based remedial reading instruction and maximize outcomes, Journal of Learning Disabilities,Vol. 33(5), pp. 458–476
Norris, J. A. & Hoffman, P. R. (1990) Language Intervention within Naturalistic Environments, Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol.21 pp.72–84
Palmaffy, T. (1997) See Dick Flunk, Policy Review, 86, pp. 32–40
Papert, S. (1990) Introduction in Harel, I. (ed.) Constructionist learning,The Media Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA
Rayner, K. Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D. & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001) How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading, American Psychological Society, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 31–74
Rossow, A. & Hess, C. (2001) Engaging Students in Meaningful Reading: A Professional Development Journey, Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 15–20
Routman, R. (1991) Invitations: Changing as Teachers and Learners K-12, NH Heinemann, Portsmouth
Shafer, G. (2001) Religion, politics, and the fear of whole language education, The Humanist, 61(5), pp. 5–8
Smith, F. (1971) Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read,Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York
Steven, A. S. & Patricia, D. M. (1989) Whole Language and Language Experience Approaches for Beginning Reading: A Quantitative Research Synthesis,Review of Educational Research,Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 87–116
Taylor, D. (1998) Beginning to read and the spin doctors of science: The political campaign to change America’s mind about how children learn to read,Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English
Trachtenburg, P. L. (1990) Using children’s literature to enhance phonics instruction, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 43,pp.648–654
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., &Bizar, M. (1999) Sixty years of reading research ¬¬– But who’s listening? Phi Delta Kappan, 80(7), pp. 513–517
LAILA FARHANA APNAN BANU: Education Officer, UNICEF Bangladesh, Chittagong, Bangladesh.