Whole Language vs Direct Instruction

[Embassy]

I like whole language instruction. I have for quite some time. I took one education class in college many many years ago. At the time whole language was in vogue. Now phonics and direct instruction appear to be in vogue.

 

That said, I use phonics with my kids. But I incorporate whole language as well. I just did a comparison of my boy's writing from the beginning and the end of this past school year. My younger son (in Kindergarten) loves to write and I utilized a whole language approach to writing with him this past school year. I encouraged inventive spelling and didn't make any corrections to his writing. My older son who doesn't enjoy writing so much has almost completed a Bob Jones English program that covers grammar and writing.

 

They both showed great improvements. You can see the samples here. I believe both whole language and direct instruction can be effective, but one can work better than the other depending on the child's level, age, learning style, and personality. But perhaps it works best to combine the two. What has been your experience?

[MotherGoose]

I have little experience, having just begun teaching my 4 yo dd phonics, but I read numerous books on the debate and came out on the side of phonics. I guess what finally made me decide on phonics is that I know I sound out unfamiliar words with phonics. I read on average 4 books a day to my 4 yo, and have read as much as she was developmentally able to listen to since her infancy. So I definitely believe in reading aloud and good literature. We have the "Bob" books, and she can read some of them (is able to read a lot more than she has the patience for actually doing). She's already expressed a desire for me to read to her longer books vs. her read Bob books. She likes the better stories. I am very interested in this debate though and would like to hear what others have to say.

[JennyD]

One thing that really surprised me about teaching my son to read was how little phonics instruction turned out to be necessary. The letter sounds, the e on the end, a few of the more common combinations, and that was it -- he could read. Somehow he could read words for which he hadn't even learned the relevant rules of phonics, which baffled me. I assume that there is some neurolinguistic explanation for how this all works, but I have no idea what that might be.

[angela in ohio]

I think that the latest educational theory of the moment is to combine the two. It seems there is a return to sanity. :001_smile: We can all hope, at least, that this lasts. From what I understand, the new way is combining the reading instuction and spelling work in phonics and the whole books, literacy activities, reading comprehension, and such from whole language.

 

My personal experience in teaching three to read and helping countless other homeschoolers through it has been that some dc do learn to read without much phonics instruction, but it almost always catches up with them. It is the rare student (1 in 100?) who can bridge the gap to 5th or 6th grade and beyond work effectively without having had complete phonics instruction. Whenver we have a "should I finish this phonics program if my dc reads already?" thread on here, you will see the same comment from homeschoolers with older dc.

Edited July 9, 2010 by angela in ohio

[JennyD]

Yes, I've seen those threads as well. I think the question of whether you ultimately need complete phonics instruction to be able to spell is not exactly the same thing is whether you need it to be able to read. And again, I don't quite understand WHY you don't necessarily need to learn all the phonics to be able to read fluently, but since clearly one doesn't, there must be something intuitive about how we process written language that is not immediately obvious (to me, at least).

[sbgrace]

One thing that really surprised me about teaching my son to read was how little phonics instruction turned out to be necessary. The letter sounds, the e on the end, a few of the more common combinations, and that was it -- he could read. Somehow he could read words for which he hadn't even learned the relevant rules of phonics, which baffled me. I assume that there is some neurolinguistic explanation for how this all works, but I have no idea what that might be.

I think the explanation is likely that some kids are better at noticing those patterns to phonics themselves without explicit instruction. I also think that a significant portion of kids who learn to read without explicit instruction will falter at some point (especially in spelling or perhaps in decoding/comprehension when things get more complex in upper elementary and beyond). A group of kids are going to falter even initially without that explicit foundation.

 

When whole language (vs. phonics, not blended) was cycling through education several of my family members learned to read. That includes two grandparents, BIL, sister. All are very poor spellers and find it frustrating as adults. Two improved their spelling and reading of "new" words when they taught others to read using phonics as teachers. Two are good readers and two do ok but struggle with unfamiliar text decoding still. I think there is more balance today in instruction but I think a portion of kids are still going to falter, even initially, with too many sight words.

Edited July 9, 2010 by sbgrace

[Ester Maria]

I never taught phonics; however, my kids learned to read first in Italian and then transferred the ability to English. They agreed with me when they were small that the English way of writing things is "crazy", they just adapted to it with time. I think it's a lot easier for kids with a different, more phonetic first language to learn to read and write English - I don't know anyone in Italy who learned phonics, and yet we all seem to be more or less literate in English. I don't know phonics myself either.

 

However, had my children had difficulties with English due to the lack of explicit phonics instruction, I would switch to such an approach.

[Embassy]

I think there is more balance today in instruction but I think a portion of kids are still going to falter, even initially, with too many sight words.

 

I think there is far more to it that sight words. Memorizing words by sight is limiting for sure. But I think the concept that we internalize the patterns in language by exposure has merit.

 

Whole language for writing encourages inventive spelling. It encourages a child to write the sounds he hears in the word. In reading it doesn't require a child to read exactly what is on the page. It focuses more on a child getting the correct meaning.

 

Whole language is about approaching learning through natural contexts of reading and writing. It is more whole to part. Whole word is an instruction method of teaching sight words. It is not the same thing as whole language.

[JFSinIL]

I am having to work to teach my son NOT to guess a word based on the first letter sound and/or whatever picture might be on the page, which he has learned to do in school. I am using the Reading Reflex materials loaned to me by a friend who took the training from Read America.

 

I might add...this "kid" will be 19 in Sept. He is special needs and is working now on sounding out simple cvc words. I am curious how far I can get him, and if he ever will really learn to read. I tried this 8 years ago and he got into working on stuff like the various was to make the sound ee/ea/y (etc) but then he lost it all when I had surgery and was not working with him for 6 weeks (he has spend every year but one in special education schools).

 

I did use Reading Reflex to GREAT success with his two younger sisters. His twin brother managed to pick up reading in public school before I brought him home halfway through 3rd grade. His first grade teacher had used a combo of whole lang/phonics.

[Ester Maria]

Whole language is about approaching learning through natural contexts of reading and writing. It is more whole to part. Whole word is an instruction method of teaching sight words. It is not the same thing as whole language.

This is important to emphasize.

I don't speak about memorizing sight words either. I do think, though, that a lot of opponents of the whole language method oppose the method because a fairly common side-effect might be "guessing", if we're talking about first language learners.

 

Second languages ones, like I said earlier. If your child speaks a rather phonetic, Latin-script language as their first language, and you teach them to read first in that, many of the "indirect phonics" will simply transfer. When my daughters learned to read English, they would read the letters they already knew, and tried to think of a sound combination that "made sense" contextually in English, so with time they got accustomed to it. They always read at least on a grade level, their dictations are fine and I don't find them "guessing" words at all - yet they were never taught phonics. It IS different though, I emphasize, when it's a second language and when a child already reads in one. I have no idea what it's like to teach a child to read English first and, who knows, maybe phonics IS the right way to go. All of the conclusions I make about high level literacy without phonics is based on people to whom English literacy is not the first literacy.

[Embassy]

Good for you, but I think that whole language has been a catastrophic crime against the school children of this country. Early success in memorizing words does not mean that a child has the skills to decode unfamiliar words later on. Certainly some kids will instinctively pick up on the phonics patterns but the vast majority don't and end up functionally illiterate by the middle grades.

 

Have you ever tried to get a 12 yo to stop guessing at words after he has been exposed to all of this guessing nonsense for years on end? It is a terrible, sad thing to watch and frustrating to correct, for everyone involved.

 

Some kids will learn to read no matter how you teach them and the majority will be harmed by whole language. Why risk it? There is a small fraction of children who need Whole language due to disabilities, but phonics won't hurt them. It will hurt those children who need phonics and seems like a silly risk to take.

 

For many hundreds of years children learned to read via phonics instruction and it worked well. Then, someone decided that it was all too much work to require of children so they decided to teach reading to all kids by way of whole language, which had been developed for teaching deaf children to read because they can not hear the various sounds of the letter combinations.

 

It has been a travesty and given us a far lower level of literacy than this country has ever known.

 

And yes, kids need to finish phonics instruction. Without that you run the risk of the child running into problems as they get older and get into more technical material, usually 5th - 8th grade. How a child is doing in K is not an indication of how they will do in Jr. High. At some point that ability to memorize words caps out.

 

Whole language isn't for everyone. Phonics isn't for everyone. Most will learn well with a combination of both. But whole language isn't about memorizing words. I pretty much learned to read by whole language. I don't always know how to sound out words brand new to me, but honestly I had no functional problems in college or graduate school. My two boys are whole to part learners just like me. I don't neglect phonics, but I don't hold it up with the importance that many do. Phonics tended to get my boys started reading and then they must have internalized patterns in English because their reading took off. I know some say it will level off, but this is for kids who rely on memorizing words. That isn't what whole language is all about. It is pretty much opposite for me - memorizing phonics rules versus learning in natural contexts. I dropped phonics with my older son because it frustrated my whole-to-part learner. He doesn't need it either. He reads far above grade level and spells well. He may pronounce new words a little funny, but hearing it correctly a couple of times fixes that.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the explanation is likely that some kids are better at noticing those patterns to phonics themselves without explicit instruction.

 

SWB talks about this is one of her lectures. Smart kids, kids who have a lot of books at home, kids who are read to a lot, etc are better at decoding and guessing. However, they often start to falter when they get to fourth or fifth grade and the reading level steps up. Phonics intervention is often needed at that time to help them push through.

[Embassy]

This is important to emphasize.

I don't speak about memorizing sight words either. I do think, though, that a lot of opponents of the whole language method oppose the method because a fairly common side-effect might be "guessing", if we're talking about first language learners.

 

 

Yes, guessing is encouraged in whole language instruction. Guessing incorrectly or correctly shows comprehension. Usually my son will look at the first letter of the word and make a guess based on what word he thinks will come next in the flow of the sentence. Many times he is correct and when he is not I stop him and have him look closer at the word and sound it out if necessary.

[Embassy]

SWB talks about this is one of her lectures. Smart kids, kids who have a lot of books at home, kids who are read to a lot, etc are better at decoding and guessing. However, they often start to falter when they get to fourth or fifth grade and the reading level steps up. Phonics intervention is often needed at that time to help them push through.

 

I've heard this before. Where are those kids having difficulty? Reading new words? Comprehension?

[Embassy]

Uhm . . . how does a child get the correct meaning if he doesn't read exactly what is on the page?

 

I mean, I get how using picture clues and context can help with very easy readers but I think that's a false sense of accomplishment. At some point the child needs to read exactly what is on the page in order to get the author's meaning.

 

No?

 

Yes, as the the child grows the importance of reading exactly what is on the page grows. The guessing isn't forever. It is more in the learning to read stage than the reading to learn stage. It helps the child learn the joy of reading without getting bogged down in the exactness that can slow some children up and cause them to dislike reading.

[sbgrace]

I think there is far more to it that sight words. Memorizing words by sight is limiting for sure. But I think the concept that we internalize the patterns in language by exposure has merit.

 

Whole language for writing encourages inventive spelling. It encourages a child to write the sounds he hears in the word. In reading it doesn't require a child to read exactly what is on the page. It focuses more on a child getting the correct meaning.

 

Whole language is about approaching learning through natural contexts of reading and writing. It is more whole to part. Whole word is an instruction method of teaching sight words. It is not the same thing as whole language.

 

Sure some kids will internalize those patterns without any explicit instruction or with partial phonics or combination phonics. I tried to acknowledge that in the post I made initially that you quoted. Some will. However, not all will at all and others will but not to the level that they need in order to successfully navigate things like spelling and more complex decoding/comprehension later. One of my kids was memorizing words. He was good at that so that I didn't even realize it at first. But 20 weeks into a seemingly successful "phonics" program that was just not explicit enough he could instantly "decode" anything he'd seen even once in the program but couldn't handle even simple novel cvc words. He was certainly not internalizing the patterns in language and this wasn't a pure whole language approach. I did everything I could to discourage that look at the first word or picture and guess pattern in him. He loves reading and we're using a very explicit and systematic phonics approach. So does my other son. Phonics doesn't mean disliking reading? I'm not sure where you got that idea?

 

Some kids might internalize it all-yes. I think there are kids who will learn despite the instruction method. I think a larger group will struggle at some level even if they read well in the early grades and a portion of those will struggle at a debilitating level. That first group won't suffer with phonics instruction and the larger group will suffer at some level if they aren't given explicit phonics instruction. You can do that explicit instruction with phonics based spelling by the way. On the other hand I would put an adult who struggles to decode new words at a less than functional level and you said that you didn't feel that was a problem in your own life. The adults I've talked to with that in my family didn't see it the way you do (a couple do struggle similarly to decode novel/complex words) though they all read fine. They all struggle with spelling at some level. Your spelling is good? That's unusual I think especially given you aren't completely able to decode new words. You must have a highly visual learning style/visualize words very well! Most people don't fall into that category.

 

Yes, as the the child grows the importance of reading exactly what is on the page grows. The guessing isn't forever. It is more in the learning to read stage than the reading to learn stage. It helps the child learn the joy of reading without getting bogged down in the exactness that can slow some children up and cause them to dislike reading.

How do they learn how to decode rather than guess? Are you sure this happens in the average child taught to read this way initially? Edited July 9, 2010 by sbgrace

[angela in ohio]

Yes, I've seen those threads as well. I think the question of whether you ultimately need complete phonics instruction to be able to spell is not exactly the same thing is whether you need it to be able to read. And again, I don't quite understand WHY you don't necessarily need to learn all the phonics to be able to read fluently, but since clearly one doesn't, there must be something intuitive about how we process written language that is not immediately obvious (to me, at least).

 

No, I wasn't talking about spelling. I'm talking about breaking down longer multi-syllable words that are unfamiliar to the child in reading.

[JennyD]

No, I wasn't talking about spelling. I'm talking about breaking down longer multi-syllable words that are unfamiliar to the child in reading.

 

So far my son doesn't seem to have a problem with this, either. And's he definitely not just guessing -- he sounds things out. It's just that I'm pretty sure that I never specifically taught him some of the rules that he's applying. But reading through the thread, it does occur to me that he is a crazy-visual learner, so perhaps that's relevant somehow.

 

ETA: I should note that I don't have particularly strong feelings -- or, really, any feelings -- about the broader educational debates here. I don't know anything about how other people's children learn. What I have found interesting about our experience is that it suggests that written English has more internal logic than I used to think it did.

Edited July 9, 2010 by JennyD

[Embassy]

Sure some kids will internalize those patterns without any explicit instruction or with partial phonics or combination phonics. I tried to acknowledge that in the post I made initially. Some will. However, not all will at all and others will but not to the level that they need in order to successfully navigate things like spelling and more complex decoding/comprehension later. One of my kids was memorizing words. He was good at that so that I didn't even realize it at first. But 20 weeks into a seemingly successful "phonics" program that was just not explicit enough he could instantly "decode" anything he'd seen even once in the program but couldn't handle even simple novel cvc words. He was certainly not internalizing the patterns in language and this wasn't a pure whole language approach. I did everything I could to discourage that look at the first word or picture and guess pattern in him. He loves reading and we're using a very explicit phonics approach. So does my other son. Phonics doesn't mean disliking reading? I'm not sure where you got that idea?

 

I think whole language used exclusively is rare. It is definitely not for everyone. I think most kids would benefit from a mixed approach and many whole-to-part learners would do well with an emphasis on whole language.

 

Phonics can be disliked or frustrating for whole to part learners. I gave up on phonics over a year ago after my son was in tears over not being able to understand the difference between long and short vowels. At that same time he was able to read and comprehend 5th grade level chapter books. He gets exposure to phonics patterns through spelling now. He hates it, but I think it will help him. I'm not entirely sure he is a natural speller yet although he seems to be. At least he isn't associating it with reading.

 

Some kids might internalize it all-yes. I think there are kids who will learn despite the instruction method. I think a larger group will struggle at some level even if they read well in the early grades and a portion of those will struggle at a debilitating level. That first group won't suffer with phonics instruction and the larger group will suffer at some level if they aren't given explicit phonics instruction. You can do that explicit instruction with phonics based spelling by the way. On the other hand I would put an adult who struggles to decode new words at a less than functional level and you said that you didn't feel that was a problem in your own life. The adults I've talked to with that in my family didn't see it as completely functionable though the all read fine. They all struggle with spelling at some level. Your spelling is good? That's unusual I think especially given you aren't completely able to decode new words. You must have a highly visual learning style/visualize words very well!

 

A focus on phonics can hurt some kids. Most it will not. Most if not all need some phonics. But some may need more of a focus on the meaningful process and enjoyment of reading. My spelling is fine although I wouldn't qualify for any national spelling bee. I'm pretty equal with auditory and visual learning abilities, but I am a whole to part learner. Whole language instruction makes more sense to whole to part learners. When I said that I can have trouble decoding new words it is usually only words unknown to me in the English language. If the word is in my vocabulary it isn't a problem.

[Perry]

Good for you, but I think that whole language has been a catastrophic crime against the school children of this country.

 

 

It is a disgrace and terribly sad to me that the universities are still teaching this destructive nonsense. Even worse that young, impressionable teachers are swallowing it. A course in logic might clear everything up, but that is apparently not required to become a teacher in North America. This is why I can't go to teacher's college. I would spend the whole time frustrated and insulting the intelligence of my professors.

 

I'm out of here before the vein on my forehead pops.;)

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Originally Posted by Wehomeschool

Yes, as the the child grows the importance of reading exactly what is on the page grows. The guessing isn't forever. It is more in the learning to read stage than the reading to learn stage. It helps the child learn the joy of reading without getting bogged down in the exactness that can slow some children up and cause them to dislike reading.

 

I understand that this is what you were taught. But it isn't supported by evidence. In fact, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the use of phonics for reading instruction. Unfortunately, teacher training programs are much more interested in ideology than evidence. So we have millions of children who can't read and can't spell.

 

I don't have a problem with the use of whole language if by whole language you are talking about reading good books. But it has no place in the teaching of decoding.

[sbgrace]

I just want to specify that the only study I've seen about reading attitudes and enjoyment showed no difference between whole language and phonics approaches. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a917757336 We may feel it should matter but I've not seen it in my own children and I don't think research supports the idea either. I do think there is possible research merit to the idea of being given reading instruction before a child is developmentally ready to learn could affect reading for pleasure later in life. I think caution is warranted in that area. But I think it's important to state that those taught with phonics don't dislike reading nor do those taught whole language like it more or whatever the fear is in that respect.

I also want to say that there probably is a subset (a small subset) of kids that aren't getting enough/much out of phonics. But I think they are smaller than what you suspect.

Edited July 9, 2010 by sbgrace

[Mrs Mungo]

I understand that this is what you were taught. But it isn't supported by evidence. In fact, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the use of phonics for reading instruction. Unfortunately, teacher training programs are much more interested in ideology than evidence. So we have millions of children who can't read and can't spell.

 

 

:iagree: If you want to know more about why I believe this, read The Well-Trained Mind, listen to the lectures offered on the Peace Hill Press website.

[tex-mex]

I like whole language instruction. I have for quite some time. I took one education class in college many many years ago. At the time whole language was in vogue. Now phonics and direct instruction appear to be in vogue.

 

That said, I use phonics with my kids. But I incorporate whole language as well. I just did a comparison of my boy's writing from the beginning and the end of this past school year. My younger son (in Kindergarten) loves to write and I utilized a whole language approach to writing with him this past school year. I encouraged inventive spelling and didn't make any corrections to his writing. My older son who doesn't enjoy writing so much has almost completed a Bob Jones English program that covers grammar and writing.

 

They both showed great improvements. You can see the samples here. I believe both whole language and direct instruction can be effective, but one can work better than the other depending on the child's level, age, learning style, and personality. But perhaps it works best to combine the two. What has been your experience?

 

Funny you mention this -- (I have yet to read the other replies) but when I first started teaching in the late 80's, whole language was in vogue (I loved the McCracken methodology) and as I was ending my teaching career, phonics was the rage (I loved using Spalding and WRTR. I was trained in the 1920's method of the Orton Phonogram system). I have seen the pendulum swing in both directions. :D But the question from the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's (and beyond) still linger... why can't Johnny read? *SIGH*

 

In working with a wide variety of students over the years -- and my son since 2004 -- I can honestly say the method or book or fad in education really pales to the student's learning style. I do agree with you that I too blend both styles in instruction. Guilty as charged. ;) And it works. But every student is so different. You really need to tailor the method to the child. Any company or person telling you that this "book" or program is the one to buy (i.e. our math threads on the WTM boards) for everyone doesn't realize that not all students benefit from one method of instruction, kwim? Good topic.

[Embassy]

How do they learn how to decode rather than guess? Are you sure this happens in the average child taught to read this way initially?

 

Quote from Wikipedia on whole language instruction:

 

Interestingly, whole language advocates state that they do teach, and believe in, phonics, especially a type of phonics known as embedded phonics. In embedded phonics, letters are taught during other lessons focused on meaning and the phonics component is considered a "minilesson". Instruction in embedded phonics typically emphasizes the consonants and the short vowels, as well as letter combinations called rimes or phonograms. The use of this embedded phonics model is called a "whole-part-whole" approach because, consistent with holistic thinking, students read the text for meaning first (whole), then examine features of the phonics system (part) and finally use their new knowledge while reading the text again (whole).

 

I don't think the average child would fit with whole language. I think most children are sequential learners.

[sbgrace]

Quote from Wikipedia on whole language instruction:

 

 

 

I don't think the average child would fit with whole language. I think most children are sequential learners.

My child I referred to as having memorized (well) with a phonics program that just wasn't systematic enough is the type of child you're talking about I think. He's not at all sequential. He's very whole to part. But he wasn't getting the parts from a less than explicit phonics approach and I do see that as a major concern. He's getting it now. I suspect, actually, it might be making him a little more sequential of a thinker as we know what you do can change the brain but he'll never be a sequential learner. Hopefully he'll be a little more balanced than he would be otherwise. He gets lots of whole language exposure of course via read alouds, audio stories, and the like. Explicit phonics doesn't mean there isn't whole exposure as well. He has done really well with I See Sam books FWIW. He learned to decode, he's learning phonics, and he loves the stories. I'm doing phonograms now with him for spelling and it's going well. He's enjoying reading and he's now doing it phonetically.

 

I acknowledge that some kids will make those leaps without instruction. But I am certain not all will and that includes some non-sequential children. In fact, my theory is that those are actually more at risk and need more explicit instruction! But we're all influenced by our own experiences and mine has been different than yours with my own whole to part, non-sequential child especially.

Edited July 9, 2010 by sbgrace

[Perry]

Quote from Wikipedia on whole language instruction: Interestingly, whole language advocates state that they do teach, and believe in, phonics, especially a type of phonics known as embedded phonics. In embedded phonics, letters are taught during other lessons focused on meaning and the phonics component is considered a "minilesson". Instruction in embedded phonics typically emphasizes the consonants and the short vowels, as well as letter combinations called rimes or phonograms. The use of this embedded phonics model is called a "whole-part-whole" approach because, consistent with holistic thinking, students read the text for meaning first (whole), then examine features of the phonics system (part) and finally use their new knowledge while reading the text again (whole).

 

 

 

I don't think the average child would fit with whole language. I think most children are sequential learners.

 

 

A Synthesis of Research on Reading from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

 

by Bonita Grossen

University of Oregon

November, 1997

 

 

Edited July 9, 2010 by Perry

[Embassy]

I just want to specify that the only study I've seen about reading attitudes and enjoyment showed no difference between whole language and phonics approaches. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a917757336 We may feel it should matter but I've not seen it in my own children and I don't think research supports the idea either. I do think there is possible research merit to the idea of being given reading instruction before a child is developmentally ready to learn could affect reading for pleasure later in life. I think caution is warranted in that area. But I think it's important to state that those taught with phonics don't dislike reading nor do those taught whole language like it more or whatever the fear is in that respect.

I also want to say that there probably is a subset (a small subset) of kids that aren't getting enough/much out of phonics. But I think they are smaller than what you suspect.

 

I think so much of it is dependent on the child's learning style. It is too general to state that those who are taught phonics don't like reading and those who learn through whole language do. Some children need phonics and some children need to approach phonics through contextually relevant text. Children forced into a method that does not mesh with their natural bent may dislike reading.

[tex-mex]

I am having to work to teach my son NOT to guess a word based on the first letter sound and/or whatever picture might be on the page, which he has learned to do in school. I am using the Reading Reflex materials loaned to me by a friend who took the training from Read America.

 

I might add...this "kid" will be 19 in Sept. He is special needs and is working now on sounding out simple cvc words. I am curious how far I can get him, and if he ever will really learn to read. I tried this 8 years ago and he got into working on stuff like the various was to make the sound ee/ea/y (etc) but then he lost it all when I had surgery and was not working with him for 6 weeks (he has spend every year but one in special education schools).

 

I did use Reading Reflex to GREAT success with his two younger sisters. His twin brother managed to pick up reading in public school before I brought him home halfway through 3rd grade. His first grade teacher had used a combo of whole lang/phonics.

 

I am happy to hear your son is working with you on this matter! Yay!

 

Had an encounter with Read America. I had a tutor in my Summer School classroom who was observing me teach the Writing Road to Reading method. She was interested. I took time to teach her the basics. And then gave her the manual to study at home -- I was surprised at what she was trained in by RA to work with. :confused: (Yes, there are dissenting thoughts even within the phonics groups as to how to teach. Oy vey.) I guess my head is spinning over the fact none of us can agree on what method is right or wrong. Yikes. LOL

Edited July 9, 2010 by tex-mex

[Embassy]

A Synthesis of Research on Reading from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

 

by Bonita Grossen

University of Oregon

November, 1997

 

 

 

Thanks for that. It is interesting. I wonder if they have done any studies that compare the teaching method with the child's learning style. I would think whole language and embedded phonics would only work well with some kids. I'm surprised they are as high as they are.

[Embassy]

Seems to me that a child who is "successfully" reading by guessing a whole lot is on a fast train to frustration when those tactics no longer work.

 

How does that jump from guessing to exact comprehension happen? I would guess that for many many children it simply doesn't.

 

I'm okay with a child who "dislikes reading" when he is 7 if it means he'll have the tools to read well when he's 12. Or 17. Or 41.

 

I personally think the guessing is beneficial for an early reader. In my opinion it is just a step on the journey to fluency and not a tactic to hang your hat on. You need some decoding skills in order to guess. As those decoding skills develop further the guessing grows infrequent.

[tex-mex]

Thanks for that. It is interesting. I wonder if they have done any studies that compare the teaching method with the child's learning style. I would think whole language and embedded phonics would only work well with some kids. I'm surprised they are as high as they are.

 

Also toss into the mix the stats for those who are Dyslexic and ESL. Which are the "target" audience for direct phonic instruction. The one program I was trained in (WRTR) was designed for the ESL population in the 1960s and in the 1990s they realized Dyslexic students benefited from it.

[Perry]

Thanks for that. It is interesting. I wonder if they have done any studies that compare the teaching method with the child's learning style. I would think whole language and embedded phonics would only work well with some kids. I'm surprised they are as high as they are.

There has been plenty of research on learning styles, and there is no good evidence that there is any benefit to using them.

 

Learning Styles

Concepts and Evidence

Harold Pashler,1 Mark McDaniel,2 Doug Rohrer,3 and Robert Bjork4

 

 

We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate

evidence base to justify incorporating learningstyles

assessments into general educational practice. Thus,

limited education resources would better be devoted to

adopting other educational practices that have a strong

evidence base, of which there are an increasing number.

However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies

of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all

possible versions of learning styles have been tested and

found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all.

 

Willingham: No evidence exists for learning style theories

 

 

My guest today is University of Virginia cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham, author of "Why Don’t Students Like School?"

 

By Daniel Willingham

This month another article was published reviewing the scientific literature on learning styles. It appeared in a journal called Psychological Science in the Public Interest, published by the Association for Psychological Science.

This journal has an interesting premise. The editor recruits three or four top researchers to review the scientific literature on a complex topic of public import. The researchers must be knowledgeable, but not directly involved in prior research on the topic, so that they will be impartial.

 

The straightforward conclusion matched the one that I have drawn in the past—there is not evidence supporting any of the many learning style theories that have been proposed.

As my previous posting on this subject did, blog postings about this article attracted comments that were sometimes highly negative, and which I think constitute a good argument for the need for greater emphasis on critical thinking skills in the blogosphere.

Here are four common complaints, along with my response.

(1) Scientists are always changing their minds about everything. Just wait a few years, and they will say that learning styles do exist. Unlikely. Mainstream scientists have proposed and tested learning styles theories but there has never been a body of data that they thought reflected learning styles.

(2) No one has proven that learning styles don’t exist. We just don’t have data yet showing that they do. Of course. One can never prove a negative. Learning styles might exist. So might the Loch Ness monster and the Yeti.

For a researcher, one has to wonder whether it’s worth the expense to keep looking for something that no one can find. For a teacher, you have to ask whether “it’s not proven that it doesn’t exist†is good enough to bring a practice into a classroom.

Imagine your doctor prescribing a patient medicine, and when you ask about its effectiveness your doctor shrugs and says, “No one has proven that it doesn’t work.â€

(3) I know that there are learning styles. [insert story here about oneself, one’s child, one’s students, etc.] It’s so obvious! There is a reason that people use the scientific method to address complex questions: It’s hard to keep track of all of the variables that might be involved, or even to keep track of all the outcomes. You have to be systematic about it. That’s basically what the scientific method forces you to do.

Is that really necessary? Shouldn’t it be obvious whether or not people have learning styles? For a couple thousand years it wasn’t obvious to physicians that bloodletting didn’t work. When there are lots of factors contributing to outcomes, you really need to do research.

(4) Learning styles exist, but scientists can’t find evidence for them because they are too rigid about it.

It’s not that every child has one style that applies to every task. Everyone uses combinations of styles, and figuring out a child’s style and how it relates to their work is more of an art than a science. Scientific theories do need to be specific enough that they can generate predictions.

If you can’t write down on a piece of paper. “Under conditions X with person Y, Z ought to happen,†it’s not a scientific theory.

That’s not a problem—not every practice in a classroom needs to be based on a scientific theory--but we might as well be plain about what is scientifically supported and what is not.

The idea that we have in hand a learning styles theory that can be used to improve instruction is remarkably well ingrained. This should raise serious questions about teacher training.

 

 

Dan Willingham is my hero.

[Embassy]

My first thought when I read your OP was "are you crazy, or just a troll?". I know you are pretty new around here but it doesn't take long to realize that most of us feel pretty passionately that kids should be taught how to actually spell and read, not guess. A quick scan of WTM might be a good idea for you.

 

Nope, not a troll. I've read through WTM, but I disagree with the part against whole language. I don't think everyone here agrees with everything in the WTM 100%

 

 

Seriously "reading it doesn't require a child to read exactly what is on the page". really? What exactly is the point if the child sin't reading what is on the page? How would you feel if your dr. was just sort of getting the basic idea of your lab results? If kids are allowed to guess at words and it counts if they come up with a synonym, well, who is going to correct them when you aren't there beside them?

 

But I am there beside them on the journey to fluency. Guessing (at least in my experience) grows infrequent. I would be concerned if a doctor was guessing because it would mean he wasn't a fluent reader.

 

Your oldest is 8 yo and many kids at that age are reading beautifully with memorizing. Some kids can even internalize the rules from exposure (I hope that yours do). But far too many children are functionally illiterate and can't tackle new material because they are hobbled by a guessing habit.

I don't remember the last time my 8 year old guessed. My 6 year old does guess at some words still, but he can decode the words if I stop him and have him read the incorrectly guessed word.

 

I do think it is incorrect to assume a child will have difficulty reading without a systematic phonics program. Some will. Some won't.

[sbgrace]

 

 

I do think it is incorrect to assume a child will have difficulty reading without a systematic phonics program. Some will. Some won't.

 

I agree with you. But how do you know if your child is in the small group (it is small) who won't have difficulty at any point without systematic phonics? What is the benefit that makes taking that risk worth it? I don't see a risk to phonics. It isn't uninteresting or objectionable here and research doesn't support the idea it reduces enjoyment. I'm not seeing the upside to the risk that whole language/embedded phonics won't be enough for my own non-sequential child or any child for that matter. But beyond our particular children (since what I'm doing is working here and what you're doing is working there) is the idea that this is a good approach for the average child so a good educational approach. That is my concern.

Edited July 9, 2010 by sbgrace

[Embassy]

There has been plenty of research on learning styles, and there is no good evidence that there is any benefit to using them.

 

Learning Styles

Concepts and Evidence

Harold Pashler,1 Mark McDaniel,2 Doug Rohrer,3 and Robert Bjork4

 

Hmm. because there is no way to prove scientifically that learning styles can be impacted differently with different instruction, learning styles don't exist? Because people are so different and figuring out your learning style is difficult means that we should not seek out a better fit for our child? That doesn't make sense to me.

[Embassy]

It's not an assumption actually. Research has borne out that some children will learn to read to a high degree of fluency and accuracy w/o systematic phonics, but most will not. This isn't about opinion. The data is quite clear.

 

It is an assumption when data shows some children will read with a high degree of fluency and accuracy without systemic phonics.

[Perry]

It's not an assumption actually. Research has borne out that some children will learn to read to a high degree of fluency and accuracy w/o systematic phonics, but most will not. This isn't about opinion. The data is quite clear.

:iagree:

I agree with you. But how do you know if your child is in the small group (it is small) who won't have difficulty at any point without systematic phonics?

:iagree:

If memory serves, about 60% will have difficulty unless they have systematic phonics. I'll see if I can find my source.

[Embassy]

I agree with you. But how do you know if your child is in the small group who won't have difficulty at any point? What is the benefit that makes taking that risk worth it?

As homeschooling parents we need to continually keep an eye on how our children are doing and change things if necessary.

 

I don't see a risk to phonics. It isn't uninteresting or objectionable here and research doesn't support the idea it reduces enjoyment. I'm not seeing the upside to the risk that whole language/embedded phonics won't be enough for my own non-sequential child or any child for that matter. But beyond our particular children (since what I'm doing is working here and what you're doing is working there) is the idea that this is a good approach for the average child so a good educational approach. That is my concern.

 

This is a valid concern which is why so few people use whole language alone. I utilize phonics or spelling with my kids. But whole language has a role in our homeschool too. I mix the 2 methods so I get the best of both worlds.

[Perry]

Hmm. because there is no way to prove scientifically that learning styles can be impacted differently with different instruction, learning styles don't exist? Because people are so different and figuring out your learning style is difficult means that we should not seek out a better fit for our child? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

If you want to be technical about the word "prove", science never proves anything. It provides evidence. There is plenty of evidence that trying to teach using learning styles theory doesn't improve educational outcomes.

[Embassy]

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

If you want to be technical about the word "prove", science never proves anything. It provides evidence. There is plenty of evidence that trying to teach using learning styles theory doesn't improve educational outcomes.

 

Where would I find that information?

[Rosie_0801]

I personally think the guessing is beneficial for an early reader. In my opinion it is just a step on the journey to fluency and not a tactic to hang your hat on. You need some decoding skills in order to guess. As those decoding skills develop further the guessing grows infrequent.

 

I would have thought a better tactic to use in this situation would be to teach phonics via the graded readers like Bob and others so the kiddie can read the book only knowing a couple of letters, then only needs to add one or two more to be able to move onto the next book. If they need to guess, they have more options to choose from than they can handle. What I've just described cuts the excess options out without the encouragement to guess.

 

Rosie

[FO4UR]

I think fluency comes from making the act of decoding 2nd nature, and not memorizing sight words. Obviously, as children practice reading the most common words will become known by sight...but it's the act of decoding, done without effort, that makes a good reader. This is why kids reach a slump at 4th grade...decoding isn't 2nd nature and it's humiliating to admit you can't read unfamiliar words at that point. If all those "sight words" had been taught through phonics, the SKILL would be there for him....plus those words would be recognized at sight from mere repetition.

 

 

I think a lot of the push for sight words 'round these parts are more for the benefit of standardized testing, and not long-term learning. Afterall, what does the 1st grade teacher care if Johnny fails the 4th grade??? :glare:jmho.

[Murmer]

Interesting thread...I have spent the last 3 years as a reading specialist and studying all the different types of reading instruction. I have studied Spalding (there are some awesome things and I can't wait to use the phonogram cards with my dc) and whole language purists. My job was to work with the 20% of students that where the lowest in first grade. Through this one of things that I have come to believe is that many children figure out the reading thing but I really really really think there needs to be a very balanced approach. Good strong phonics that is an explicitly taught set aside time (especially if it can be taylored to where the child is at the time rather than where the teacher thinks the class is) with teaching the child that reading has meaning (something I missed until I was much older) is the best way to teach reading. From what I have seen many of the parents on here do that. Their children are immersed in books and start reading small books while still working through phonics activities. I will say my biggest frustration in teaching students was that the phonics knowledge of the students was so low! It made my job harder because for many the rules I taught them it was the first time they had heard it...and that is the problem with many schools that don't have an explicit phonics component. One of the reasons I am homeschooling my children so I can balance their reading instruction.

[Embassy]

I think fluency comes from making the act of decoding 2nd nature, and not memorizing sight words. Obviously, as children practice reading the most common words will become known by sight...but it's the act of decoding, done without effort, that makes a good reader. This is why kids reach a slump at 4th grade...decoding isn't 2nd nature and it's humiliating to admit you can't read unfamiliar words at that point. If all those "sight words" had been taught through phonics, the SKILL would be there for him....plus those words would be recognized at sight from mere repetition.

 

 

I think a lot of the push for sight words 'round these parts are more for the benefit of standardized testing, and not long-term learning. Afterall, what does the 1st grade teacher care if Johnny fails the 4th grade??? :glare:jmho.

 

I agree. But sight word teaching is not whole language teaching. They are different things. Whole language is all about teaching language arts through meaningful context. Sight word teaching is typically devoid of meaningful context. I think many who use good books and literature have elements of whole language in their approach.

[sbgrace]

As homeschooling parents we need to continually keep an eye on how our children are doing and change things if necessary.

 

 

 

This is a valid concern which is why so few people use whole language alone. I utilize phonics or spelling with my kids. But whole language has a role in our homeschool too. I mix the 2 methods so I get the best of both worlds.

The problem is that the mixed approach (I'm talking about in actual reading instruction w/sight words and context/picture clues and the like and not environmental things like literature exposure/read alouds and similar) is not systematic phonics. And that approach is going to fail a number of kids on some level. Not all kids surely.

 

But it will fail enough that I think a solid, systematic approach from the start is the wisest and least risky approach for children as a whole. I believe, as I said upthread, that the non-sequential thinkers are actually at a higher risk with a mixed approach because their mind is less likely to naturally pick up on and utilize the phonic patterns compared to the sequential thinkers in the bunch. I think the highly sequential thinkers are more likely to pick up on the patterns no matter what you do or don't explicitly teach.

Edited July 10, 2010 by sbgrace

[angela in ohio]

Good for you, but I think that whole language has been a catastrophic crime against the school children of this country.

 

I. Adore. You. :D

[Laurie4b]

Most kids can learn with either because they begin to internalize patterns. However, some kids need phonics. Since you don't know who you have exactly, it's safest to use a phonetically based approach.

[tex-mex]

Interesting thread...I have spent the last 3 years as a reading specialist and studying all the different types of reading instruction. I have studied Spalding (there are some awesome things and I can't wait to use the phonogram cards with my dc) and whole language purists. My job was to work with the 20% of students that where the lowest in first grade. Through this one of things that I have come to believe is that many children figure out the reading thing but I really really really think there needs to be a very balanced approach. Good strong phonics that is an explicitly taught set aside time (especially if it can be taylored to where the child is at the time rather than where the teacher thinks the class is) with teaching the child that reading has meaning (something I missed until I was much older) is the best way to teach reading. From what I have seen many of the parents on here do that. Their children are immersed in books and start reading small books while still working through phonics activities. I will say my biggest frustration in teaching students was that the phonics knowledge of the students was so low! It made my job harder because for many the rules I taught them it was the first time they had heard it...and that is the problem with many schools that don't have an explicit phonics component. One of the reasons I am homeschooling my children so I can balance their reading instruction.

 

Exactly. In my past experience as a schoolteacher was that I had limited time to teach these skills. And to an entire group -- no time for one on one instruction. (So, you teach to the average. The gifted and low tend to fall thru the cracks.) I'd be lucky to have my class by December all on board with WRTR/Spalding in the lower grades. Then by March/April, they were all working at "grade level" (average) and the frustrating part was shipping them off in June and hearing the next grade teacher saying their skills dropped over summer. I felt the same way getting a new batch of students in the fall. We taught explicit phonics instruction too as a classical charter school. By the time the kids reached 3rd/4th grades, they had the basics of WRTR in their back pocket. You could zoom to the next level of WRTR with writing skills. One problem we had by then were that kids were crashing from the amount of work we pounded down on them. They burned out. Many dropped out of our K-8 charter by 5th grade. Those who stayed were the gifted bright students who were eager for a challenge.

 

One of the reasons I enjoy homeschooling is that it can be year round -- and I can balance many methods of instruction.

 

P.S. If you look at Rigg's Phonogram cards on tape, you benefit from it. I used it in the classroom when I was new to the phonogram cards and unsure of the exact pronunication. (Now I can say the phonemes in my sleep... LOL ;))

Edited July 10, 2010 by tex-mex

[ElizabethB]

I started tutoring remedial reading 16 years ago with Whole Language methods. It sounded great for all the reasons you stated; they made it sound exciting, I love reading, and I am a big picture person.

 

After a month of no progress faithfully adhering to these methods, I switched to phonics. My student made more progress in one hour of phonics than her previous month of whole language.

 

Over my 16 years as a tutor, I have found that the more systematic and explicitly and in isolation that phonics is taught, the better my students do, including those who are whole to parts learners. My daughter is a big picture type of person, and I taught her phonics with Webster's Speller, the way they used to teach phonics in the 1700's and 1800's (before that, they taught through syllables and taught Latin first, teaching a phonetically regular language first like Ester Maria's experience with Italian first.) Webster's Speller is even more explicit than regular phonics.

 

We move often, and I give out reading grade level tests to practically every parent I meet, and give the test myself if they do not wish to give it themselves but want to see what grade level their children are reading at. I have seen the results of hundreds of grade level tests over the years and have tutored scores of children. When I first started tutoring, many schools used 100% whole language methods, and the failure rates were 60 to 70%. Most schools now use some degree of balanced literacy, their failure rates range between 30 to 40%. We have lived near a few schools in a few different states that taught with a good phonics program with few sight words, and I have not yet found a failure from any of these schools (I still run into people from these schools, even though I no longer live near them, my friends move often, too!) Once, I thought I found a failure from these schools, but I later found out when I started tutoring the child that they had moved later than I thought and the child had learned with sight words and had just transferred into this school.

 

While the people I meet and their children are not a random sample, statistics from hundreds of studies bear out these percentages.

 

For example, here is a quote from Sally Shaywitz's "Overcoming Dyslexia, A New and Complete Science-Based Program for Reading Problems at Any Level" p. 261:

 

"In one Tallahassee, Florida, elementary school where such a program [explicit phonics] was implemented, the percentage of struggling readers dropped eightfold--from 31.8 percent to 3.7 percent."

 

Here is a summary of research proving the superiority of phonics to whole language, beginning with a survey from 1883! (Yes, there was a period of whole language teaching in the 1800's.) My NRRF link has the most info.

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Phonics/proven.html

 

I've seen hundreds of older children and adults harmed so much by whole language and sight words. I remediate all of them that I can and refer those I can't to my online lessons and other good books. But, it is so much more work to remediate than to teach correctly in the first place. Until you have seen it, you cannot image how hard it is to undo years of guessing habits. It's easier with younger student, they often surpass their older siblings once they get the hang of phonics and learn all the sound spelling correspondences and syllable division rules. I now warn my students of this up front. My last class of children from inner city schools in the Los Angeles area had two 3rd grade students who were reading at the 12th grade level after just 8 tutoring sessions, but several motivated 5th graders who did homework on their own (they begged for homework!) were only able to progress to somewhere around the 8th grade level. The older the student, the more nonsense words it takes and the more work it is to overcome these guessing habits.

[Embassy]

I started tutoring remedial reading 16 years ago with Whole Language methods. It sounded great for all the reasons you stated; they made it sound exciting, I love reading, and I am a big picture person.

 

After a month of no progress faithfully adhering to these methods, I switched to phonics. My student made more progress in one hour of phonics than her previous month of whole language.

 

 

I agree that remedial students would best be served with a phonics approach. I think whole language works best with kids who internalize the rules. Those kids may not learn the specific rules, but when they see a word they know what sounds the letters make. But, IMO, combining the methods gives you the best of both worlds.