Rationalamerican: Whole Language And Phonics

All available topics:

Whole Language And Phonics

Last edited August 2005, Last reviewed September 2007

“Reading is fundamental” exclaim the public service advertisements that have filled the airwaves with the obvious for many years. Duh. Yet, the organization by the same name has a point. With such an important and essential purpose as teaching children to read, one would suppose that educators have long since determined the best ways and means for accomplishing the goal. After all, understanding the written word has been the basis for the advancement of civilization for centuries. One would suppose that the best methods for teaching and encouraging students to become enthusiastic, lifelong readers must be firmly established and finely tuned by now. They are not.

The teaching of language arts has an interesting history through the course of American education and it is important to understand a little of this history in order to evaluate current classroom practices. In colonial times on up to the 1800s, books were in limited supply and students very often learned to read English through the study of prayers, the family bible or other common texts. The study of Latin and Greek texts was not uncommon either. If nothing else, these texts held meaning for the children because the material was at the center of their cultural existence. As books became more common and affordable, children learned to read by studying the fables and stories long told in Western civilization. Some book companies began to publish “readers” for young children on various subjects. The famous McGuffey’s Reader series certainly encouraged the trend. By the late 1800s, these “reader” series were quite popular.

For example, the second in the series of “Gilman’s Historical Readers” series put out by the Interstate Publishing Company in 1887 concerns “The Colonization of America.” It covers the history of the American colonies before the revolution in a free-ranging chapter format. Amusingly, page 149 of that reader advises young students:

“It is said that there was not a copy of Shakespeare in Massachusetts before 1700. The first settlers of New England would have thought their time wasted if spent in the study of much of the English literature then within their reach.”

The “Nature Reader” series, published in 1888 by D.C. Heath & Co., brought the world of nature to young students. In the third book in the series, “Sea-Side and Way-Side,” the preface notes a “duty and delight to thank those who have so cordially and sympathetically welcomed a new departure in School-Book literature” and specifies a desire “to impart useful and needful knowledge, in a fashion which should not be burdensome, and which should strongly impress young minds.” The goal with these readers was to present information that was relevant to the lives of students, interesting enough to hold their attention, and educational in its value.

Up to this period there was a mix of methods used to teach children to read. Texts were read out loud, known today as modeling, and children learned to decode the words by sight recognition. In modern times this basic approach is known as the “look-say” method or “sight reading.” Phonetic training was also incorporated so that children learned the sounds associated with certain combinations of letters and could sound out unfamiliar words if need be. The alphabetic method whereby a student recognized each individual letter and attempted a pronunciation was also used. By using engaging material, though, teachers or “instructors” knew that the interest of the students would stay keen and that they would eventually learn to decode the text in order to satisfy their desire for more information. Instructors continually questioned students on the meaning of the text and used that questioning as a jumping off point to study new words, parts of speech, and other necessary things.

The importance of meaning for students never wavered. The teacher’s edition of “Elementary Lessons in English” published by Ginn, Heath & Co. in 1882 advises the teacher that:

“…imagination is the mind’s artist…In its creative function it translates words into images, and sentences into pictures, thus redeeming from drudgery the study of Geography, of History, and of Reading.”

In another section the book warns teachers that “words, without ideas, do not constitute knowledge.” Rather than concentrate on grasping a single word at a time, teachers are encouraged to use thoughtful questioning, consequential material, and the natural curiosity of children to advance their interest in language arts.

By the early 1900s, school books were becoming more formalized and more contrived, with “exercises” available at the end of each reading passage. Baldwin and Bender’s “Fourth Reader”, published by the American Book Company in 1911, has chapters that are “adapted” from famous literature or that retell a story from history. At the end of each chapter there are now specific questions to answer about the story, about punctuation and about specific vocabulary. Students are also asked to complete phonetic exercises. In fact, in the forward to the teacher, the author implores that:

“The phonetic exercises should be frequently and persistently practiced until every pupil acquires, not only the ability to enunciate properly and in natural tones, but also the habit of doing so. The pronunciation of troublesome words should be noted, and every word in the lists should be spelled both by letter and by sound.”

While phonetic exercises were used in the previous century, the emphasis perhaps changed now and the importance of meaning in the material began a long decline. The phonetic exercises became more detailed and isolated from the text and the quality of the actual reading material seemed to become diluted. By the forties the pendulum had swung back to the look-say method of teaching reading and stayed that way probably into the 1970s. Yet, the quality of the material continued to deteriorate. The “Dick and Jane” series from the 1950s is a good example. During the course of the twentieth century it is not difficult to see that textbooks once designed to hold the interest of children were now designed to reinforce specific skills regardless of the interest of the children. As the pendulum swung back and forth between phonetic and look-say decoding techniques, the focus on presenting engaging material continued to disappear either way. Textbooks became sequenced, highly organized, cleverly packaged and almost completely divorced from any meaning relevant to the lives of children.

In 1986 Ken Goodman published a book called “What’s Whole in Whole Language?” In this book and in other writings, Mr. Goodman began to summarize in general terms the philosophy of a movement in literacy called “whole language” that would come of age in the years after. The most basic idea of the philosophy is that the natural purpose of language is the communication of meaning. Therefore, breaking up natural or “whole” language into discreet, bite-sized and abstract parts to be learned independent of meaning is counterproductive to creating lifelong readers. It is rather like teaching tennis by one year allowing the student to swing a racket forward, the next year allowing the student to practice a backhand swing, and the third year introducing a little yellow ball to the swing. The student has long since lost any interest in learning to play tennis. Whatever the specific technique of learning to decode words, a certain behaviorist mindset now pervaded the teaching of literacy in American schools. Language arts had become words without ideas.

Ken Goodman and other whole language advocates noted that language and reading is easy and fun to learn when it is real and natural, when it makes sense as a whole, when it is relevant to the learner and part of a real event and when the learner chooses to use it. It is difficult when it is artificial, when it is broken into dull bits and pieces, when it is irrelevant or out of context to the learner, or when it is imposed by someone else. Real language and written words have cadence, natural cues, and a predictable flow. Artificial lessons are choppy and unpredictable. It may make sense to an adult to break up language into small digestible parts, but children learn the other way around: they start with the whole thing and then examine the parts. This was revolutionary in 1986. However, in another passage from the 1882 teacher’s edition of “Elementary Lessons in English,” teachers are advised that “In examining an object, as a flower or a tree, it is first viewed as a whole, then analyzed into its parts.” A century earlier, this book also noted that “the best starting point for the study of any object is the simplest fact of that subject which comes under the daily observation of the pupil.” In other words, when it is relevant and in a context.

Whole language advocates rejected things like isolated skill sequences, oversimplified and controlled texts, instruction divorced from its actual use in learning or reading, and the commercial, packaged basal readers so common in American schools. Instead, they advocated the use of authentic, relevant literature, building on the intrinsic motivation of the learner, a focus on meaning rather than language itself, and a continuing evaluation of each child based on direct experience rather than standardized tests neatly divided into sub-skills.

In the 1990s whole language philosophy became more widespread and it also came up against critics who failed to understand the basis of the movement. As commercial interests fueled the debate with “Hooked On Phonics” and other basal style programs, whole language began to be seen as the opposing viewpoint of a “traditional” phonics based program. Yet, this understanding fundamentally missed the point. Whole language is a philosophy of reading or language instruction. Phonics is a technique within reading instruction. The debate has been framed as two competing philosophies, but this is a false dichotomy.

Whole language began as a loosely defined philosophy of reading instruction that emphasized literature and process-based teaching. The general idea was to help beginning readers find meaning during their efforts at learning to read so that they learn to love to read and so that they progress in a natural and fun way. Phonics is simply a technique that emphasizes the breakdown of words into discrete parts that are sounds associated with letters. The general idea is that children must learn the parts first, before they can successfully put the parts together and learn how to read. Phonics, as we have said, is really not a philosophy but a particular method of teaching reading. The true opposite of phonics is the "look-say” or “sight reading” method which encourages children to see and absorb words as a whole, rather than sounding out the parts. Phonics when presented as a philosophy merely accentuates the behaviorist view of children who must be taught to swing a racket every possible way before they are allowed to play tennis.

Here is the greatest irony. Whole language philosophy encourages the exploration of many techniques for reading instruction, including phonics. That’s right: one of many instructional methods advocated by teachers, educators and writers behind the whole language movement is phonics. Whole language supporters will use phonics, look-say, guided reading, picture clues, context and syntax clues, and many other techniques in order to turn individual children into successful readers. They will tailor their approach so that each individual child will be able to play up their own strengths while learning to read. They use different techniques for different children in a developmentally appropriate way.

Ken Goodman and his supporters did reject the programs associated with modern phonics instruction, such as artificial basal readers, isolated lessons and a bottom-up view of learning. However, the use of phonetic decoding is not barred from a whole language classroom. In “What’s Whole in Whole Language” Mr. Goodman writes that there are some teachers who have combined “a strong explicit phonics program with having the pupils read real stories” and that “whole language teachers do not ignore phonics. Rather they keep it in the perspective of real reading and real writing.” The point was not to lose sight of meaning in the language.

Still, the ill-informed public controversy was already set in stone: whole language versus phonics. Part of the problem was educators who did not fully grasp the meaning of whole language. Teachers today sometimes espouse a “balanced approach” where techniques are freely mixed. In truth, this is basically the same thing as the original whole language philosophy but without the explicit commitment to authentic materials.

So why do some teachers swear by phonics alone? We can speculate. A number of teachers in any given district are quite happy to avoid unnecessary work and therefore they will use the means of least resistance in order to get through their day. Whole language based instruction is intensive and exhausting for teachers. They must individually assess each student on a continuing basis. They must seek out literature and other materials that have meaning for their class. They must customize their day to the nth degree in order to make progress. It is hard to do and even harder to do well. Phonics program based instruction, by contrast, is substantially easier. Basal readers are available from numerous vendors who specialize in marketing phonics-based instructional materials. Districts are happy to provide these readers. Workbooks and worksheets come with the readers. In fact, individualized lesson plans created by the teacher are entirely unnecessary, since every day of the school year is pre-planned and pre-ordained for the teacher.

Will students learn to read in either a phonics program classroom or a whole language classroom? Probably. So what is the difference? Supporters of whole language will ask you to examine their students five, ten and fifteen years after they learn to read in order to find the number who still enjoy reading. They expect a greater number of life-long readers to emerge from their classrooms. They ask parents if they would rather their child learn to read by chewing on some interesting literature or by being force fed a litany of isolated word sounds day in and day out.

Modern studies show that phonics techniques can be useful with some students below the third grade who otherwise struggle with sight reading. Phonics used with older students appears to be counterproductive in most cases. Learners who are successful with sight reading tend to be faster, more natural readers who can give greater attention to comprehension rather than the process of reading. Learners taught only with phonics techniques sometimes struggle with reading as though the process overpowers the comprehension. Students who are subjected to a dedicated phonics based program divorced from any meaningful reading may not develop the same sort of relationship with the written word as those who learned to read with materials that were relevant and contextual, whether they learned by means of phonics, sight-reading or any other decoding techniques.

Understanding the historical context of reading instruction is enlightening for educators and others trying to make sense of classrooms today. As written in the widely read book “The Foundations of Literacy” by Australian educator Don Holdaway:

“As method followed method, the statistics of success and failure remained remarkably consistent, yet everyone declared that things were different when they went to school—and so reaction set in demanding a return to methods which in their day had failed. The swinging pendulum became an all too accurate symbol of educational thinking and an indictment on the common sense of a people and a profession.”

In many cases pragmatic teachers have ignored ivory tower types and just done what they know to be right for individual children. Still, we must come to a general consensus about the teaching of language arts if we are to bring success to the lives of all children. If there is one thing that can be learned from history in this area it is that materials used in teaching language or reading must be relevant, meaningful, authentic and in context in order to engage students. Engaged students have the intrinsic motivation to learn language and to become lifelong readers. Whole language philosophy, properly understood, brings back some of the common sense found in earlier ages. Reading is fundamental, but our best methods for teaching and encouraging students to become enthusiastic, lifelong readers are still not fully embraced by educators in the form of a comprehensive, philosophical framework.

To cite this article:

Painter, John. Whole Language And Phonics. (August 2005). Retrieved month x, 2xxx, from

<http://rationalamerican.com/education>