a critique of phonics

This blog has looked before at 'phonics' and the criticism coming from Stephen Krashen, Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and Education at the University of Southern California:

Whole Language

Krashen is a strong advocate of the whole language approach to the teaching of reading, and has written many articles in support of it. In essence, whole language proponents claim that children learn to read most enjoyably and efficiently by exposure to interesting stories that are made comprehensible to them through pictures and discussions. This is in contrast to structured decoding programmes (usually designated phonics) in which children learn to read by sounding out the various parts of words.

More on Whole Language

Whole language is the term for a conglomeration of holistic theories of learning, not only of reading. The principle is that proficiency is acquired by engaging in whatever is to be learned (complex though it may be), rather than separating out the component subskills for discrete practice before putting them together again.

The whole language approach became a major educational paradigm in the latter decades of the 20th century. In recent years, however, there has been something of a backlash (often called Back to Basics). Phonics has made a comeback, particularly in the US, where it has been facilitated by the policies enacted under the No Child Left Behind programme in 2002.

Comments

The whole language/phonics debate has become politicised and increasingly vitriolic. Constant media reports about falling literacy standards have alarmed parents, many of whom vehemently protest if they consider their child's school to have chosen the wrong approach. The issue is further complicated by the involvement of publishing houses which stand to make large profits if school districts can be persuaded to buy their comprehensive sets of phonics-based materials. Such an entanglement of interests is rarely conducive to making the best pedagogical decisions.

More comments on Whole language

Reading proficiency is in many ways the primary academic skill. Children who are poor readers usually struggle badly in school. It is no surprise, therefore that there has been such an enormous amount of research on the issue, and a similar amount of debate on the pedagogical implications of the findings. Teachers who would like to know a little more about the main issues are recommended to follow these links:

• Wikipedia article
• EducationWorld article
• The Reading Wars

An introduction to the work of Stephen Krashen

Jay Doubleyou: krashen and second language learning

Krashen is certainly not alone in recognising the failings of this approach:

Phonics Doesn’t Help Reading Comprehension
Another common criticism of phonics instruction is that it does nothing to help reading comprehension, as this passage illustrates:
“A child filled full of phonics rules may be able to pronounce a word flawlessly without having any idea what it means, much less what its relation is to the words sitting next to it.” 2

Phonics Criticisms | TheReadingAdviceHub.com

With more here:

Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction | SpringerLink

Why Phonics Isn’t the Be-all and End-all of Learning to Read | Learning and Development | Teach Early Years

An Evidence-based Critique of Synthetic Phonics in Literacy Learning

The phonics versus whole language controversy | Language Debates

And a piece from Misty Adoniou from three years ago:

How the national phonics test is failing England and why it will fail Australia too | EduResearch Matters

She writes again in the EL Gazette in October - with some excellent points made.

Click on the link below for the full piece.

English language learners need the whole linguistic picture

Anglophone countries have been struggling for years with declining achievement in reading and writing as students move through primary school and into high school.

In 2019 more than 25 per cent of Year 6 students in England failed to reached the minimum requirements in the annual national reading and writing assessments. This means around 1 in 4 students in England are leaving primary school ill-equipped to cope with the literacy demands of high school. Similar statistics are reported in Australia and the United States.

The US has decided the problem is that students do not have the skills to comprehend complex texts. So, they have developed a more challenging curriculum (the Common Core Standards) to raise expectations of what students should be able to read and write.

England has decided the problem is that students do not have the skills to decode basic texts. So, in 2011 they instituted a mandatory Phonics Screening Check for Year 1 students. Students are prepared for the test through government-approved commercial, synthetic phonics programs. Those who fail the test receive more phonics instruction and re-take the test in Year 2. The rationale is, if we can get the basics right, the rest will follow. Eight years on, it is clear the rationale is flawed.

But why hasn’t this phonics ‘first, fast and furious’ approach worked? And are there lessons for those who teach English language learners?

...

English language learners need the whole linguistic picture | E L Gazette

.

.

.