Abstract
This paper presents a discussion on the different approaches in the teaching of reading. It focuses on the comparison and contrast of the two most controversial and debatable approaches to teaching reading: the Phonics Approach and the Whole Language Approach. Also, this presents some of the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches. Then, the paper compares and contrasts the two approaches leading to the best way in applying both to achieve effective teaching reading. Finally, it presents a recommendation on the appropriate use of each method for the improvement and development in classroom discussion.
Introduction
One hot afternoon in Iligan City, Philippines, a university instructor was discussing plot as one of the elements of fiction to his students. Then, he mentioned denouement and wrote it on the board. As he uttered the word, a literature student repeated the word exactly the same with the pronunciation of the instructor and then grinned after mimicking. Why did he smile broadly? Was he pleased because he pronounced the word correctly? Or because he finally understood the word? The ability to read words correctly with comprehension in the second or foreign language is truly a major achievement. In like manner, the ability to effectively teach reading to second language (L2) learners is not only an achievement but also a lifetime accomplishment. To be able to do this, a teacher must not forget his fundamental goal: to educate the students efficiently. More importantly, he should realize that reading is being taught in many different ways, and each approach can be effective if he believes in what he does.
The sole objective of this paper is to compare the Phonics Approach and Whole Language Approach to teaching reading. To achieve this objective, this paper aims to explain and answer the following:
1. What are the Phonics Approach and the Whole Language Approach?
2. Are there advantages and disadvantages in each approach? What are these?
3. What should teachers of Phonics and Whole Language do?
4. Which is better: Phonics or Whole language?
This study is significant because it entices the teachers of reading, especially the new ones, to discover the appropriate and exact approach, among the varied approaches, in teaching reading to L2 students. Also, it makes them aware that the approach they use can greatly affect the learning of the students—it could either make the students learn a lot or nothing at all. By teaching with the right approach to students, teachers will then be able to reach their goal.
Approach, Design, and Procedure
In this paper, the word approach is recurring. In the field of education, this word may be confusing with other terms like design and procedure. It is then necessary to define approach through Richards and Rodgers’ notions of approach, design and procedure (1986, as cited in Paltridge, 2004). Approach refers to the theory of language and language learning which underlies the particular approach or methodology. Design includes the objectives, organization, and content of the particular syllabus type, kinds of teaching and learning activities, teacher and learner roles, and the role of instructional materials. Procedure describes the actual classroom techniques and practices that might be employed within the particular method or approach.
Approaches to Teaching Reading
To make learning more effective and efficient, approaches to teaching reading have been emerging. Because there are so many of them, Weaver (1994, as cited in Murcia, 2001) divides these different approaches into two larger categories: Part-Centered and Socio-Psycholinguistic. The Part-Centered includes the Linguistic, Sight Word, Basal Reader, and Phonics approaches. Generally, it views reading instruction as moving from learning “parts” to building up the “whole” (Murcia, 2001, p. 157). This can be categorized under Gough’s Bottom-Up Model. The “Bottom-Up Model views reading as starting with some graphic input…and shows that reading begins with the synthesis of letters into words, words into sentences, and so on until a large enough unit of language is perceived” (Hermosa, 1996).
On the other hand, the Socio-Psycholinguistic includes Language Experience, Literature-Based, and Whole Language Approaches. Basically, it emphasizes the overall construction of meaning from connected or whole texts, and draw on the reader’s schema and personal experiences (Murcia, 2001, p.157). This can be categorized under Goodman’s Top-Down Model. The “Top-Down Model views reading as beginning with the reader’s cognitive structures” and assumes that “the reader can understand what is on the page only if the ideas are already present in the reader’s mind” (Hermosa, 1996).
From these numerous approaches, this paper discusses two: the Phonics Approach (as a representative of Part-Centered) and the Whole Language Approach (as a representative of Socio-Psycholinguistic).
The Phonics Approach
The first approach that this paper discusses is Phonics. Phonics is an approach of teaching reading in which people learn to associate letters with the speech sounds they represent, rather than learning to recognize the whole word as a unit (Microsoft Encarta Dictionary). This approach emphasizes the alphabetic principle—the idea that letters represent the sounds of speech, and that there are systematic and predictable relationships between written letters and spoken words (www.wikipedia.org). With this view, a teacher using this approach teaches a learner to read by causing a learner to match individual letters of the alphabet with their specific English pronunciations or sounds. This approach is based on the idea that if a learner can “sound out” or “decode” words, he will be able to read independently. As the term suggests, a learner is taught with sound-symbol/letter patterns with conscious learning of the rules used in both reading and writing. With this, a learner is able to grasp phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness involves a learner’s understanding that speech is made up of individual sounds (Murcia, 2001, pp.157-158).
Moreover, phonics is considered an “analytical” approach where students analyze the letters, letter combinations and syllables in a word in an effort to “decode” (1) the speech-sounds represented by the letters and (2) the meaning of the text. Also, phonics advocates focus efforts on the primary grades and emphasize the importance of a learner having phonemic awareness that is an understanding of the alphabet that the spelling of words relates to how they sound when spoken (www.wikipedia.org).
Phonics’ Pros
The phonics approach definitely has advantages. One is that (especially for a learner who comes to school with large English vocabularies) it enables him to “decode” or “sound out” a word he has in his speaking vocabulary. Another is that a learner cannot learn to read without an understanding of phonics. All learners must know their ABCs and the sounds that letters make in order to read and communicate verbally (www.halcyon.org). It is basic for a learner to first learn the sounds to be able to read. How can he read the word bad if he does not know the distinct sounds of [b], [æ], and [d]? Thus, if a learner is well-versed with the letters and their corresponding sounds, he is taking the first step to reading—this is the job of phonics.
Phonics’ Cons
If it has advantages, it also has disadvantages. A problem with teaching the reading with this approach is that English words do not have a standard one-to-one speech-sound to symbol relationship (www.wikipedia.org). English does not follow a strict letter-sound pattern. The way the word is spelled is not the way it is pronounced. For example, the letter “c” is sounded differently in these words: city, climb, and cello. If English did have a one-to-one relationship, reading would be easier.
Another disadvantage of phonics is comprehension. This approach focuses solely on the pronunciation of words; it seems to disregard the issue on comprehension which is vital in reading. Reading does not end in sounding out the words. That is just the first step. The approach presupposes that a learner already knows the sounds of the language and that once the word is sounded, he will know. However, most L2 learners do not have a wide vocabulary. Thus, although they can sound the word out right, they will still probably not understand it (Murcia, 2001, p. 160).
The Whole Language Approach
The other approach is the Whole Language. Whole Language is an approach of teaching reading that emphasizes literature and text comprehension (www.wikipedia.org). With this view, a teacher using this approach teaches a learner to use critical thinking strategies and to use context to “guess” words that he does not recognize or understand. In 2001, Murcia states that this approach is a philosophy of learning whose proponents believe that they are not just teaching reading, rather they are also developing readers to become independent readers and learners (p. 159). These proponents believe that language serves as personal, social, and academic aspects of a learner’s life, and that he can become literate as he grapples with the meaning and the uses of print in his environments (p.160).
Furthermore, whole language is a currently controversial approach to teaching reading that is based on constructivist learning theory and ethnographic studies of students in classrooms (www.wikipedia.org). With whole language, the teacher has a more tedious job for he is expected to provide a literacy rich environment for his students and to combine speaking, listening, reading, and writing. A whole language teacher emphasizes the meaning of texts over the sounds of letters, and phonics instruction becomes just one component of the whole language classroom. As mentioned earlier, the whole language is considered a Top-Down Approach because in this way, a learner constructs a personal meaning for a text based on his prior knowledge to interpret the meaning of what he is reading (Hermosa, 1996; www.wikipedia.org).
Moreover, whole language, an education philosophy, does the following:
1. focuses on making meaning in reading and expressing meaning in writing;
2. emphasizes a learner’s interpretation of text and free expression of ideas in writing (often through daily journal entries);
3. emphasizes on high-quality and culturally-diverse literature;
4. integrates literacy into other areas of the curriculum, especially math, science, and social studies;
5. makes reading, (a) with students in small “guided reading” groups, (b) to students with “read alouds,” and (c) by students independently;
6. focuses on motivational aspects of literacy, emphasizing the love of books and engaging reading materials;
7. emphasizes meaning-centered whole to part to whole instruction where phonics are taught contextually in “embedded” phonics; and
8. emphasizes on using and understanding the meaning making role of phonics, grammar, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation in diverse social contexts. (Weaver, n.d.)
Whole Language’s Pros
Whole language learning is thought to provide a better understanding of the text, and a more interesting and creative approach to reading. This approach is said to be “literature-based” because a learner is expected to learn these words by “reading” them as the teacher reads stories aloud. After the learner has thus “read” them for a considerable number of times, he will recognize them and be able to read by himself. This sounds much more compassionate than the drill and repetition necessary to intensive phonics instruction. Drill and repetition, after all, is boring and would inhibit proper emotional growth of a learner. Furthermore, learning to read while being exposed to more interesting stories will give young students a greater appreciation for great literature (www.halcyon.com). With this approach, more learners will learn because it is fun, interesting, tangible, and enjoyable. The materials used are authentic and meaningful so that the learners will be able to understand the text because they can relate (through direct or vicarious experience) with the text they are reading. Here, a learner simply brings in his past or previous experience to comprehend or “guess” the meaning of the text as a whole.
Whole Language’s Cons
However, whole language learning, like the phonics, has several flaws: (1) it comes at the expense of accuracy and correctness because a learner relies on his experience (What if he does not have enough?) and sometimes he “guesses” (What if it is not correct?); (2) it may award a learner with high marks for “overall language use,” even if he or she has misspelled many words (spelling is necessary so that if he communicates in writing, he won’t have any problem); (3) it tends to place too little emphasis on word analysis (When that is left out, a learner may guess or skip over words he does not know and some learners may not learn how to read); and (4) according to scholars, it seems to put severe limitations on the number of words that children can learn to read (www.wikipedia.com) because the focus is not the pronunciation nor the comprehension of words but of the text as a whole.
Phonics versus Whole Language
After understanding the pros and cons of each approach, how does a learner learn to read? Which is better?
The ongoing debate over the best way to teach a learner to read focuses on two methods: phonics-based and whole language reading programs. There have been countless arguments on each side but none is strong enough to convince people that one is clearly better than the other.
What’s the difference? According to Curtis (n.d.), the traditional theory of learning established in the 19th century draws on the notion that children need to break down a complex skill, like reading, into its smallest components (letters) before moving on to tackle larger components (sounds, words, and sentences). Phonetic reading instruction applies this theory. A learner is taught to dissect unfamiliar words into parts and then join the parts together to form words. By learning these letter-sound relationships the learner is provided with a decoding formula that can be applied whenever they encounter an unfamiliar word.
On the other hand, whole language learning is less focused on rules and repetition than is phonics. According to Weaver (n.d.), it stresses the flow and meaning of the text, emphasizing reading for meaning and using language in ways that relate to the learner’s own life and culture. Whole language classrooms tend to teach the process of reading, while the final product becomes secondary. The “sounding out” of words, which is so central to phonics, is not the focus in whole language learning. Instead, a learner is encouraged to decode each word through its larger context.
The question now is: Which is best for a learner of reading? It depends on the type of learner a teacher teaches. Small children tend to fall into the categories of either visual or auditory learners. Visual learners, on the one hand, are more likely to benefit from the whole language approach since their strength is in recognizing words and word sequences that they have seen before. On the other hand, auditory students learn what they hear—so they rely more on phonetics.
Does this mean that a teacher should categorize his student and push for one teaching method? Probably not. Despite the differences in how a learner learns, most learn through a combination of techniques. Through this, the teacher does not need to discover the type of student he has to concentrate on one approach. That fact, plus the different strengths that each method offers, suggests that a mixed approach for each learner will probably be most beneficial.
“Everyone now wants a balance between whole language and phonics. One important thing that has to be learned is the relationship between speech sounds and the alphabet—this is phonics. Of course reading good literature is also important,” says Jean Chall, Reading Expert and Professor Emeritus at Harvard University (n.d., as cited in Svensen, n.d.). Thus, the key to success in teaching a learner of reading lies in the balance between the two approaches and a constant attention to a learner’s particular needs.
Recommendation
After realizing the importance of mixing or balancing the two approaches, here are some recommendations for a teacher who prefers to use the phonics to improve classroom discussion:
1. Balance your reading program by focusing on literature and fun.
2. Read to students often, choral read with them, and give them time to read both alone and in pairs.
3. Guard against boredom.
4. Spend only a brief time each day on phonics and do no more than one worksheet daily.
5. Use many word games in your teaching. For most children, phonics is easier to learn if they are having fun. If students are not able to learn phonics easily, try other reading approaches, like recorded books or story writing.
6. Develop a classroom library.
7. Have children browse, read, and discuss books.
Then, these are some of things a teacher using the whole language approach can do to progress more in the classroom discussion:
1. Balance the reading program by providing as much structure as needed and some step-by-step skill work, especially for analytic students, while emphasizing literature and fun.
2. Provide sufficient tools for decoding words, using small amounts of direct instruction in phonics for auditory and analytic learners.
3. Tape-record phonics lessons so that students can work independently to improve skills.
4. Don’t use invented spelling for long periods with highly analytic learners or students who have memory problems.
Conclusion
The descriptions above apply to kinds or genres of reading materials that imply different approaches to reading. These two approaches, Phonics and Whole Language, to reading can lead to comparable results. The best samples of each are equally good and effective. What makes the approaches different is the road taken by the learners, as the readers, to reach the final goal. How to help a student do his best depends on the approach to reading, and pedagogy may vary with the kind of reading a teacher wants to teach. There are a few things that the two approaches have in common though—both encourage the readers to be active to learn. Both respect the individuality of the reader and emphasize the importance of interpretation.
It is important to tell the students what the qualities of good reading are, and how a teacher aims to reach them through his particular approach to reading. Too many times, students seem to think that every teacher appreciates a different kind of reading, and that they have to learn everything over again—that is damaging to them and to the teacher. On the contrary, if a teacher is aware of the other approaches, and he can see what their strengths and weaknesses are, he can help his students become better readers. He may want to identify the way the students have been taught to read and encourage them to use the skills they have acquired in new ways. Such encouragement may also teach them to transfer the reading skills from one type of course to another. They will then be as delighted as the literature student who grinned after he correctly pronounces and completely understands denouement.
References
Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) (2001). Teaching English as a foreign or second language
(3rd ed.). USA: Thompson Learning, Inc.
Curtis, J. (n.d.) Phonics vs. Whole Language: Which is Better?
Available: http://www.superkids.com/aweb/pages/features/reading/phonics.shtml
Hermosa, N. (1996). The psychology of reading. Diliman, Q.C.: Office of Academic Support and International Services.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Approaches to teaching second language writing.
Available:www.englishaustralia.com.au/index.cgi?E=hcatfuncs&PT=sl&X=getdo c&Lev1=pub_c05_07&Lev2=c04_paltr
Phonics. (2007)
Available: Microsoft Encarta Dictionaries
Phonics and Whole Language Approaches
Available:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_reading:_Whole_Language_and Phonics
Svensen, A. (n.d.). Teaching Reading: Phonics or Whole Language?
Available:http://school.familyeducation.com/phonics/educationalresearch/38842. html
Whole Language vs. Phonics
Available: http://www.halcyon.org/wholelan.html
Weaver, C. (n.d.). Phonics in Whole Language Classrooms
Available: http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content2/phonics.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment