Whole Language vs Direct Instruction

[Perry]

nm

Edited July 12, 2010 by Perry

[Embassy]

The problem is, that this is simply not borne out in actual results.

 

A funny thing, when you use a pure phonics approach, you end up with far fewer remedial students.

 

All of the research shows higher and higher literacy rates the closer you get to a pure phonics approach. So you can have any opinion you would like, but that doesn't mean it is correct. You can't change the fact that more kids read better with pure phonics than anything else and the more sight words that there are in a program, the more kids will struggle. It is a plain and simple fact proven by a mountain of research.

 

Unfortunately if teacher's colleges back up and admit to this huge mistake it is going to cost people their jobs and a good deal of money. So they continue to promote sight words and "whole language"(look-say by another name is still just as bad), and "incidental phonics" to the detriment of our children.

 

Sight words and whole language are not synonymous. Whole language is a philosophy. Sight words is a method. Whole language believes in teaching through the overall meaning. From Wikipedia

 

Whole language describes a literacy philosophy which emphasizes that children should focus on meaning and strategy instruction. It is often contrasted with phonics-based methods of teaching reading and writing which emphasize instruction for decoding and spelling. However, from whole language practitioners' perspective this view is erroneous and sets up a false dichotomy. Whole language practitioners teach to develop a knowledge of language including the graphophonic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of language. Within a whole language perspective, language is treated as a complete meaning-making system, the parts of which function in relational ways.

 

Whole word approaches teach sight words. From Wikipedia:

 

The whole-word approach is a method to teach reading by introducing words to children as whole units without analysis of their subword parts. (Beck and Juel 2002) The whole-word method involves teaching children to “sight read" words, that is, to be able to pronounce a whole word as a single unit.(Mayer 2003) Whole-word instruction involves associating word names with printed words. By repeated exposure to words, especially in meaningful contexts, it is expected that children will learn to read the words without any conscious attention to subword units. Hence, whole-word recognition, or the development of a whole-word vocabulary, is a goal of whole-word instruction.

 

Dare I say that most of us teach using both whole language and phonics. Many of us utilize good books as a way to develop further language arts skills. Reading books to young children utilizes the whole language approach as well. Many of us believe in the importance of reading to our children to develop literacy - that is a whole language idea. At the same time many of use utilize phonics instruction. Whole language does work well with phonics instruction. Sight words, on the other hand, is a specific approach that makes little sense for long term reading success.

[ElizabethB]

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.

 

This is not what I've found or what the research shows. What I've found and what the research shows is that the more explicit the phonics instruction used, the higher the success rate. And, the use of explicit phonics is even more important for disadvantaged students who are not able to get extra help at home or through a tutor.

 

Don Potter once taught a class of disadvantaged student in K using no stories at all. (Majority ELL learners, majority school lunch.) He was helping out a first year teacher so just spent 20 minutes a day on pure phonics, no stories or reading aloud. At the end of the school year, half of the class was reading at a 4th grade level or above and they were all doing well, a huge contrast to how these type of student usually do.

 

The rest of Sol Stern's article is kind of annoying even to me, and I agree with his pro-phonics stance, so you may not want to read the whole thing, but the data is interesting:

 

The first, Richmond, offers a classic profile of an inner-city school district. Of its 25,000 students, 95 percent are black, more than 70 percent are poor enough to be in the free-lunch program, and 44 percent change schools during the year. Until 2001, Richmond’s student test scores were among Virginia’s worst. Only five of the district’s 51 schools achieved the status of full state accreditation.

 

But 2001 is also when Richmond school officials embarked on an ambitious reform, whose centerpiece was a standardized reading program based on evidence from the NICHD studies. By the time Reading First funds were available in 2002, Richmond was already up and running with a phonics-based reading program called Voyager Universal Literacy. The district channeled the modest $450,000 Reading First grant into a handful of its lowest-performing schools. But the principles of scientific reading instruction took hold throughout the district.

 

Since then, Richmond’s test scores have skyrocketed. By 2003, the number of the district’s schools achieving full state accreditation had climbed to 22. The next year, it rose to 39 and has now reached 44.

 

....

 

Fairfax, one of the richest suburban areas in the U.S., consistently draws in new residents because of the perceived quality of its public schools. SAT scores for Fairfax’s high school graduates stand well above the national average, and 90 percent of those grads go on to some form of higher education. But 17,000 of Fairfax’s 164,000 students are African-American, and they’re not doing so well; in fact, they’re performing far worse than Richmond’s black students. In 2004, only 52 percent of black Fairfax kids passed the state’s third-grade reading test, compared with 62 percent for Richmond’s black students. In 2005, the gap widened to 15 percentage points, with 59 percent of the Fairfax black students passing compared with 74 percent of their Richmond counterparts.

 

Even more remarkable, Richmond’s third-grade reading scores are closing in on wealthy Fairfax’s scores for all its students, 79 percent of whom passed the third-grade reading test in 2005. Since enacting its reforms, Richmond has moved from 114th in the state in reading (out of 132 districts) to 50th, compared with Fairfax’s 36th.

 

[Embassy]

Don Potter once taught a class of disadvantaged student in K using no stories at all. (Majority ELL learners, majority school lunch.) He was helping out a first year teacher so just spent 20 minutes a day on pure phonics, no stories or reading aloud. At the end of the school year, half of the class was reading at a 4th grade level or above and they were all doing well, a huge contrast to how these type of student usually do.

 

Interesting! According to this pure phonics correlates with increased ability to read. But isn't that only portion of what we wish for our children? Don't we wish for our children to love to read and enjoy literature? If a child can read at a 4th grade level and only reads when required, have we achieved much? Just yesterday I sat down and analyzed my children's reading progress this past school year and wrote about it here. While they both made gains it was the subjective things I witnessed that demonstrated true progress. Things like watching a child pick up a book and read instead of watching TV or discussing the ideas in a book at length are true progress in my opinion. And yes, I think reading to children and exposing them to literature will make reading a more desirable activity.

[ElizabethB]

Interesting! According to this pure phonics correlates with increased ability to read. But isn't that only portion of what we wish for our children? Don't we wish for our children to love to read and enjoy literature? If a child can read at a 4th grade level and only reads when required, have we achieved much? Just yesterday I sat down and analyzed my children's reading progress this past school year and wrote about it here. While they both made gains it was the subjective things I witnessed that demonstrated true progress. Things like watching a child pick up a book and read instead of watching TV or discussing the ideas in a book at length are true progress in my opinion. And yes, I think reading to children and exposing them to literature will make reading a more desirable activity.

 

The reason I became a volunteer literacy tutor is because I love reading and I wanted everyone to be able to read and love to read. Through my years of tutoring and teaching and researching, I've come to believe that a love of reading is best encouraged through teaching phonics. And, I make phonics fun! I have a fun game I play and I laugh with my students at the funnier syllables in the syllabary. I also have some games we play with magnetic letters.

 

The only adults I've found who didn't enjoy reading were those that were taught with whole word methods. Also, the readers I've seen with children are generally those who are able to read well and were taught with phonics, although there are a few taught with phonics who do not like to read and a few taught with balanced literacy methods who are avid readers. I've met several adults taught with whole word methods who say that they like to read, but that it is tiring for them and that they cannot read at night, or if they read at night, it makes them fall asleep. Those taught with phonics usually say that a good book keeps them up all night!

 

My webpage called "Why Johnny Doesn't Like to Read" explains how whole language teaching can cause a dislike of reading.

 

The old Open Court taught phonics with great literature, its stories are much better than the boring Dick and Jane or Bob books (I hate boring books, I find it much easier to wait a few extra months teaching phonics and move straight into real books.) But, it never caught on, sadly. The book about how Open Court was taught and why the education establishment never embraced it despite its achieving their stated goals of real literature and high achievement is chronicled in "Let's Kill Dick and Jane: How the Open Court Publishing Company Fought the Culture of American Education," here is a review of the book, this is from the first few paragraphs of the review:

 

This book tells the story of Blouke Carus’s heroic but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to reform American education. Carus founded the Open Court Publishing Company in 1962 with two aims that did not seem to be at all contradictory: first, to teach children to read, and second, to do so while introducing them to classic children’s literature.

 

Carus was an engineer, not a professional educator, which may explain why he thought that he could revolutionize the schools and overturn the publishing industry merely by creating a superior product. He proved to be hopelessly idealistic and naive, traits not usually associated with engineers. Even though his company’s elementary reading textbooks achieved superior results, at best, according to this account, they garnered 2 to 3 percent of the national market for reading books. The company died struggling to find the formula that would make the Open Court readers acceptable to the nation’s teachers and administrators. Few seemed to care that reading scores soared in the districts that used the books, nor did anyone notice that the contents of the books were richer and more substantive than the competition.

 

[Embassy]

The reason I became a volunteer literacy tutor is because I love reading and I wanted everyone to be able to read and love to read. Through my years of tutoring and teaching and researching, I've come to believe that a love of reading is best encouraged through teaching phonics. And, I make phonics fun! I have a fun game I play and I laugh with my students at the funnier syllables in the syllabary. I also have some games we play with magnetic letters.

 

I agree phonics can be fun.

 

The only adults I've found who didn't enjoy reading were those that were taught with whole word methods. Also, the readers I've seen with children are generally those who are able to read well and were taught with phonics, although there are a few taught with phonics who do not like to read and a few taught with balanced literacy methods who are avid readers. I've met several adults taught with whole word methods who say that they like to read, but that it is tiring for them and that they cannot read at night, or if they read at night, it makes them fall asleep. Those taught with phonics usually say that a good book keeps them up all night!

 

My webpage called "Why Johnny Doesn't Like to Read" explains how whole language teaching can cause a dislike of reading.

 

Whole language and whole word are two different things. They are not the same thing. The Johnny Doesn't Like to Read article is talking about the whole word approach.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You are making the illogical assumption that learning phonics means a child will not love reading, or that learning phonics means not using real books. The opposite is true and I hope that someday you come to realize that your university professors were wrong.

 

Amen!!!:001_smile:

[Embassy]

You are making the illogical assumption that learning phonics means a child will not love reading, or that learning phonics means not using real books. The opposite is true and I hope that someday you come to realize that your university professors were wrong.

 

If you are learning phonics in the context of real books then you are using elements of whole language. If you are using real books along with phonics or sharing your enjoyment of books by reading to your child then you are using elements of whole language.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Interesting! According to this pure phonics correlates with increased ability to read. But isn't that only portion of what we wish for our children? Don't we wish for our children to love to read and enjoy literature? If a child can read at a 4th grade level and only reads when required, have we achieved much? Just yesterday I sat down and analyzed my children's reading progress this past school year and wrote about it here. While they both made gains it was the subjective things I witnessed that demonstrated true progress. Things like watching a child pick up a book and read instead of watching TV or discussing the ideas in a book at length are true progress in my opinion. And yes, I think reading to children and exposing them to literature will make reading a more desirable activity.

 

IMHO you make it seem like teaching explicit phonics is diametrically opposed to a love of reading:001_huh:. I posit that,in fact, they are not opposed at all and that being able to decode will only enhance a love of reading. I also think it is safe to say that all of us who teach phonics also read, read, read great books to our children:001_smile:.

 

IMHO why take the chance of crippling a child's reading by not giving them the tools to decode? As for inventive spelling, why risk them embedding the wrong spelling in their heads? I think it makes much more sense to teach combined spelling/phonics/syllabary IMHO.

 

I think many kids to get by without explicit phonics since they are able to figure out the phonics but IMO they will still be impaired when they get to more advanced books. I know for myself that I was not taught explicit phonics in the 1960's and was able to figure out a lot of it since I am fairly smart, but I am still have difficulty sounding out some words due to my lack of phonics instruction:glare:.

 

I also do not know how credence I would place on one college course in all honesty as well.

 

My 2 cents:)

[sbgrace]

If you are learning phonics in the context of real books then you are using elements of whole language. If you are using real books along with phonics or sharing your enjoyment of books by reading to your child then you are using elements of whole language.

I think I'm following what you're saying. But I'm not sure you're seeing the distinctions that others here see.

 

Using pure phonics and also reading (to the child) good books and sharing your love of books is phonics. The actual reading instruction is via a solid, systematic phonics program. The reading books to kids isn't meant to be reading instruction. I read books to my boys from babyhood like many parents. I didn't do reading (phonics) instruction until they were much older of course. We read great books all the time. But they are learning to read in a very systematic, explicit phonics way. They are loving it.

 

The first sentence, though, you wrote is not the same thing! Statistically, learning phonics in the context of real books is an unnecessarily risky approach to take for reading instruction.

 

Can you see the difference between the two?

Edited July 12, 2010 by sbgrace

[Embassy]

I also think it is safe to say that all of us who teach phonics also read, read, read great books to our children:001_smile:.

 

Then we probably aren't too different then ;)

 

IMHO why take the chance of crippling a child's reading by not giving them the tools to decode?

 

Whole language doesn't neglect decoding. It is just done through the context of the reading.

As for inventive spelling, why risk them embedding the wrong spelling in their heads? I think it makes much more sense to teach combined spelling/phonics/syllabary IMHO.

 

At least with my boys I have found creative spelling to be a tool for them to express themselves while they are learning how to spell. I value expression over spelling for little ones. I don't correct my 6 year old's spelling, but I do correct my 8 year old's spelling. Even without correcting his spelling he made huge gains in his spelling skills this past school year through exposure to phonics and books.

 

I also do not know how credence I would place on one college course in all honesty as well.

 

 

I'm not giving credence to the college course. I just learned about whole language from there. It wasn't a course I enjoyed either :)

 

But I do believe there is something to the notion that some kids learn best in meaningful contexts. Many don't, but some do. If you try to fit a child into a box that is not their natural bent they may not like the subject as much as they would if it was taught in the way they learn best.

[Embassy]

I think I'm following what you're saying. But I'm not sure you're seeing the distinctions that others here see.

 

Using pure phonics and also reading (to the child) good books and sharing your love of books is phonics. The actual reading instruction is via a solid, systematic phonics program. The reading books to kids isn't meant to be reading instruction. I read books to my boys from babyhood like many parents. I didn't do reading (phonics) instruction until they were much older of course. We read great books all the time. But they are learning to read in a very systematic, explicit phonics way. They are loving it.

 

Maybe we are seeing things differently. Reading to your children from babyhood is the start of reading instruction. Reading instruction doesn't start from the time you teach your child what sound a letter makes. It starts the moment you open a book.

 

The first sentence, though, you wrote is not the same thing! Statistically, learning phonics in the context of real books is an unnecessarily risky approach to take for reading instruction.

 

Can you see the difference between the two?

 

But we all do this, do we not? If your child gets stuck or says the wrong word while reading don't we have the child stop and sound out the word? I think a balanced approach is best. While teaching phonics in isolation can make a huge impact on a child's skills, transferring the skills to a meaningful context is just as important.

[nmoira]

You are making the illogical assumption that learning phonics means a child will not love reading, or that learning phonics means not using real books. The opposite is true and I hope that someday you come to realize that your university professors were wrong.

:iagree:

 

I think this is more of a classroom concern than a homeschooling one. There are kids whose parents don't read to them. There are schools without libraries, and classrooms without read alouds. In a classroom context, exposure to only graded level readers is unlikely to produce a love of learning, but then these kids already have the deck stacked against them in that regard.

[Perry]

But we all do this, do we not? If your child gets stuck or says the wrong word while reading don't we have the child stop and sound out the word?

Unfortunately, no.

 

Here are some of the "strategies" my dd's "balanced literacy" (aka whole language in sheep's clothing) teacher wanted her to use. The poems I quoted are taught to the kids. My dd was incredibly confused, crying and throwing books across the room in frustration. I got her a phonics curriculum and she gained years in just a few weeks.

 

"Get your mouth ready."

 

"Look at the picture and guess."

 

"Look at the shape of the word and guess."

 

"Think what would make sense and guess."

 

"Look at the first letter and guess."

 

 

Independent Strategies

by Jill Marie Warner

 

When I get stuck on a word in a book,

There are lots of things I can do.

I can do them all, please, by myself;

I don't need help from you.

I can look at the picture to get a hint.

Or think what the story's about.

I can "get my mouth ready" to say the first letter.

A kind of "sounding out".

I can chop up the words into smaller parts,

Like on or ing or ly,

Or find smaller words in compound words

Like raincoat and bumblebee.

I can think of a word that makes sense in that place,

Guess or say "blank" and read on

Until the sentence has reached its end,

Then go back and try these on:

"Does it make sense?"

"Can we say it that way?"

"Does it look right to me?"

Chances are the right word will pop out like the sun

In my own mind, can't you see?

If I've thought of and tried out most of these things

And I still do not know what to do,

Then I may turn around and ask

For some help to get me through.

 

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Reading Strategies Song

(to the tune of "I'm a Little Tea Pot)

 

Look at the pictures, still no clue?

Read it again all the way through.

When you get to the place where you are stuck,

Get your mouth ready and the word pops up!

(AND NOW... let's check it)

Think about the word you're trying to say.

Does it make good sense? Does it sound okay?

Do all the letters look right to you?

These are the things good readers do!

(STILL CAN'T GET IT?)

Read it again all the way through.

When you come to the tricky part, don't get blue.

Get your mouth ready but go on by.

Read to the end then give it a try.

(AND NOW...let's check it again)

Think about the word you're trying to say

Does it make good sense? Does it sound okay?

Do all the letters look right to you?

These are the things good readers do!

[Embassy]

Unfortunately, no.

 

But we should.

 

Here are some of the "strategies" my dd's "balanced literacy" (aka whole language in sheep's clothing) teacher wanted her to use. The poems I quoted are taught to the kids. My dd was incredibly confused, crying and throwing books across the room in frustration.

 

Balanced would include phonics, IMHO.

[Perry]

Balanced would include phonics, IMHO.

According to them, they did teach phonics.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Interesting! According to this pure phonics correlates with increased ability to read. But isn't that only portion of what we wish for our children? Don't we wish for our children to love to read and enjoy literature?

 

Yes, we certainly do want that. However, a child who can't read, won't read. Period. I don't consider teaching a love of literature "reading instruction." I call that "literature appreciation." No matter how much literature appreciation you do, there will be a large number of children who will not learn to read without phonics instruction.

 

I started "literature appreciation" with my babies. I talked about the pictures and I read to them so they would hear the beautiful cadence of our language in a well-written book. As they got older, we played guessing games about what came next. We discussed how the pictures enhanced the story. We pointed at letters in the books and talked about their sounds. I would purposefully say the wrong word in a well-repeated book and my children would take delight in correcting me. While it did instill a love of books and reading, in no way did I consider this "reading instruction."

 

Fast forward ... my now 16 year old taught himself to read (at age 4) through internalizing the phonics. I always say he learned to read by "magic." Even though he could read anything you put in front of him, he did need to be taught phonics in order to learn to spell. Neither of my other children picked up reading without explicit phonics instruction. They had plenty of "literature appreciation" as I would much rather read a children's book than clean house! ETA: My children are AVID and accomplished readers. They LOVE to read and will often choose reading over almost any other activity.

Edited July 12, 2010 by dirty ethel rackham

[angela in ohio]

IMHO you make it seem like teaching explicit phonics is diametrically opposed to a love of reading:001_huh:. I posit that,in fact, they are not opposed at all and that being able to decode will only enhance a love of reading. I also think it is safe to say that all of us who teach phonics also read, read, read great books to our children.

 

Research proves this. Dh did a good bit of his graduate work in remediating reading skills. One of the greatest factors in a students amount of time spent reading and enjoyment of reading was their skill (and confidence) level at it.

[ElizabethB]

You are making the illogical assumption that learning phonics means a child will not love reading, or that learning phonics means not using real books. The opposite is true and I hope that someday you come to realize that your university professors were wrong.

 

Amen!!!:001_smile:

 

IMHO you make it seem like teaching explicit phonics is diametrically opposed to a love of reading:001_huh:. I posit that,in fact, they are not opposed at all and that being able to decode will only enhance a love of reading. I also think it is safe to say that all of us who teach phonics also read, read, read great books to our children:001_smile:.

 

IMHO why take the chance of crippling a child's reading by not giving them the tools to decode? As for inventive spelling, why risk them embedding the wrong spelling in their heads? I think it makes much more sense to teach combined spelling/phonics/syllabary IMHO.

 

I think many kids to get by without explicit phonics since they are able to figure out the phonics but IMO they will still be impaired when they get to more advanced books. I know for myself that I was not taught explicit phonics in the 1960's and was able to figure out a lot of it since I am fairly smart, but I am still have difficulty sounding out some words due to my lack of phonics instruction:glare:.

 

 

 

Research proves this. Dh did a good bit of his graduate work in remediating reading skills. One of the greatest factors in a students amount of time spent reading and enjoyment of reading was their skill (and confidence) level at it.

 

:iagree:

 

Especially with the syllabary!!

 

And, with Angela's last bit--people like to do what they are good at, and when you teach with explicit phonics and teach it well, children can read anything. Really, you have to see a whole group of children taught well and see the difference. Balanced literacy has been taught for so long that many people don't realize how abnormal guessing is and that you can teach a young child to be able to read just about anything when you teach explicitly and teach all the phonics knowledge needed, which includes a way to read multi-syllabic words and decode any word. And, it works with inner city children and ESL children as well.

Edited July 13, 2010 by ElizabethB

[ElizabethB]

Whole language and whole word are two different things. They are not the same thing. The Johnny Doesn't Like to Read article is talking about the whole word approach.

 

Sight words are part of whole language, and the easiest part to explain to people and point out the flaws. Other whole language practices also contribute to poor reading and promote guessing habits, but they are more difficult to explain. Also, I believe that sight words have an especially high impact on poor reading abilities and guessing habits.

 

For example, invented spelling reinforces an incorrect spelling in the student's brain.

 

Guided reading, guessing from context, and cloze passages promote guessing.

 

I have a book that is traveling across the country right now in a moving truck, or I would quote from it. It is called "Preventing Reading Failure: An Examination of the Myths of Reading Instruction," by Patrick Groff. In it, he provides studies disproving 12 different areas of Whole Language practice and what the research actually shows for each area. If you are interested, it should be unpacked by August if I am lucky (although finding it is another matter, especially if my husband puts away the books, that could take another week or two!)

 

You really have to see these students to believe how bad it is and how hard it is to overcome. It impacts their whole life and makes them have low self confidence and hate reading. It also makes it very hard to teach phonics because you have to work really hard to undo their guessing tendencies--they seem physically unable to sound out words, they just guess, they cannot help themselves unless you write one letter at a time, cover up letters, or use nonsense words. Dr. Linnea C. Ehri in Systematic Phonics Instruction: Findings of the National Reading Panel, talks a bit about this:

 

…when phonics instruction is introduced after students have already acquired some reading skill, it may be more difficult to step in and influence how they read, because it requires changing students' habits. For example, to improve their accuracy, students may need to suppress the habit of guessing words based on context and minimal letter cues, to slow down, and to examine spellings of words more fully when they read them. Findings suggest that using phonics instruction to remediate reading problems may be harder than using phonics at the earliest point to prevent reading difficulties.

 

It is much harder--and, you have to take extreme measures like using nonsense words and other strategies to make it work.