 |
| Dear Editor, There is a never-ending debate in our elementary schools concerning the best way to teach reading. Teachers to the far left on this issue believe that a whole-language approach is best. This approach uses quality literature to teach children to read. Teachers to the far right believe that a phonics approach is best. This approach teaches students sound/symbol correspondence so that students will have a strategy to attack unknown words. There are many opinions up and down the scale on this issue. Most teachers do not prescribe to only one of these beliefs, but believe that a combination of the two is best for students. Unfortunately, most of the teachers coming out of college do not have the training to teach an effective phonics curriculum. It is my opinion that teachers need to be better trained in the area of phonics so that they can teach the students about the history of the language and answer their questions about the formation of words. �Whole language educators assume that understanding of the parts (letter/sound relationships and words) develops more gradually but also more readily within the context of the whole�reading and rereading predictable and enjoyable texts, and writing by using invented spelling. They also see no need for skills to be mastered or demonstrated in isolation; indeed, they assume that an emphasis on skills detracts from the process of learning to read� (Weaver, 1994, p. 307). Whole language proponents believe that a student does not need to know the �code� of the letter/sound relationship in order to be able to read. They believe that knowledge of the �code� will come as students become more familiar with text. I believe for students who are read to on a consistent basis by their parents, have a medium to high IQ, and have no learning differences, the whole language approach is somewhat successful. Unfortunately, these are not the students who we consistently come across on a typical elementary school campus. I believe that students who are not from educated families that read to their children, students who have a medium to lower IQ, and students with learning differences will benefit from knowing the �code� of language as a key way of learning to read. When many people hear the word �phonics� a chill runs up their spine. Adults remember back to a time when a teacher sat at a table across from them with flash cards of letters and the student was expected to tell the sound that letter made. Adults also remember controlled text such as �See Jane Run�. This is the phonics instruction of old. Phonics is no longer a skill in itself, but it is �a means to an end: comprehension� (Peregoy & Boyle, 1997, p. 173). If a student can read and comprehend text in the first grade without the use of phonics instruction, then formal phonics instruction is not needed for this student. But, most children cannot read and comprehend in the first grade; thus, phonics instruction and phonemic awareness activities are appropriate for teaching these children to read. Research has demonstrated that knowledge of phonemic awareness is a predictor on the success or failure of a student in reading. Statistics show that phonemic awareness has �as much as 50% of the variance in [a student�s] reading proficiency at the end of first grade� (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998, p. 2). Success of a preschool-age child�s level of phonemic awareness is a strong predictor in the future success of reading not only in English, but also in at least seven other languages. Poorly developed phonemic awareness is a characteristic of older students with poor reading abilities. Because we know that so many students do not have the phonemic awareness skills necessary for them to be successful readers, it is important for teachers to make room for direct instruction in curriculum. (1998, p. 2-3) Though I do believe that a foundation of phonics is necessary for a majority of students to be successful readers, I do not believe that a heavy emphasis should be placed on phonics instruction. I believe that the instruction of phonics should demonstrate the sound/letter correspondence and help students to see the relationships between letters. I believe that through this instruction, students can be guided to discover the many �rules� of the English language and perhaps why these rules are stable 80% of the time. Regrettably, most of the teachers graduating with teaching degrees don�t know the rules of the English language themselves. Because of this, the teachers are unable to use phonics strategies effectively in their classrooms. (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985, p. 38-43) Research has shown that phonics instruction produces �higher scores on tests of reading and spelling achievement� through elementary school. After elementary school, there is no real chance in achievement levels. I believe though, that students, who might not have been successful readers in a whole language program, have been given the strategies to be successful readers with phonics instruction. I believe that by upper elementary years, the way a student was taught to read, either by whole language or phonics, becomes transparent. If the method has been successful, then a teacher should not be able to tell which method was used to teach that particular child. There should be no need for formal reading instruction in upper elementary years. Why then do we have teachers in middle and high schools teaching reading classes in mainstream classrooms? I believe it is because elementary teachers did not use an appropriate combination of phonemic awareness activities and phonics instruction�perhaps because they were not prepared to use these in their classroom. �In order to build phonemic awareness in all children, classroom teachers should know a little about the structure of language� (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998, p. 3). Most elementary majors in college are required to take at least 12 hours of reading. Usually, one of these classes is focused on different ways to teach reading. In the early childhood levels, the students are introduced to phonics instruction, but in the elementary major, this is usually not addressed. Teachers entering the classroom often have no formal training on an effective way to use phonics in the classroom. I believe that if college students focusing on elementary level students would be given the skills needed to teach a phonics curriculum, when these teachers enter the classroom they will have the strategies needed to combine literature and phonics to meet the needs of all of their students. References: Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and learning about print. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. Adams, M., Foorman, B., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic Awareness in Young Children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Anderson, R., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. Peregoy, S. & Boyle, O. (1997). Reading, Writing, & Learning in ESL: A resource book for k-12 teachers, 2nd edition. New York: Longman. Weaver, C. (1994). Reading Process and Practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language. Portsmouth: Heinemann. |
|