Whole Language versus Phonics Part 2

Sep 30, 2005

Web page thumbnail view

Viewed from a holistic perspective

Whole Language versus Phonics Part 1

When we throw away phonics as the first and primary method of decoding and switch to whole word (whole language) method, we are telling our kids something that isn't true. We are saying that there is no code — that there is no order to the development of language. That words themselves are the blocks of the language.

But words cannot be used as parts of a whole. In other words, you make words from letters but you don't make new words by splicing two or three other words together. So, in fact, words are not the blocks of the language — letters are!

Doing Homework

However, that's not what we tell our kids. By depriving them of the understanding that letters, not words, are the blocks of the language, we are making language incoherent. It can't be understood; there is no pattern; it can just be memorized. Can you imagine having to memorize by sight every single word in the English language? Well that's what we condemn kids to do when we teach them whole words instead of letters.

This causes another problem — the problem of thinking. If we begin by the whole word method, we are encouraging a number of practices. We encourage and reward memorization and we encourage estimation — if you don't know the word, guess. In fact, by allowing students to think that meanings are interchangeable, that if you don't know what it really means, guessing is okay, we are pretending that words don't have specific meanings. But every word stands for one, and only one specific concept.

It is not true that any old meaning will do. It is not true and it is not fair to the student to imply it is. It says that accuracy is not important and that fuzzy or "sort of" thinking is all right.

So we encourage kids to memorize and match, tell them that accuracy is not important, forgive and allow fuzzy thinking and pretend that creative (inventive) spelling is fine. Then what happens? High school, university, college and life happens. Students end up thinking associationally, not conceptually. They can't problem solve, don't take academic risks, need structured programs and lots of help and guidance — all of which impede the development of real self-esteem.

They don't "get it," don't make the connections or see the relationships. They are disorganized, not motivated, sometimes confused, angry or defensive. They are not achieving their potential because they haven't learned how to think critically.

Ask any high school English or Math teacher, go to a university and inquire of the English, philosophy, business or psychology departments, or speak to business leaders, about the literacy of many recent graduates. You will see we already have this problem. It's not going away, it's going to get worse.

And it begins when we cast the first seeds of doubt in the pristine minds of our children. A child who has learned to speak already knows (implicitly and probably without the words to defend himself or herself) the importance of accuracy. Watch kids play and observe how carefully they keep each other accurate. Even understanding a single word means that that child understands that there is something the same as other words but that there is an important something different as well and that child is capable of understanding that difference. That child insists on clarity, honesty and integrity in his or her dealings with the world.

Then we tell the child to ignore all that he or she knows about how to learn. We say accuracy isn't important and that our written language doesn't have a code. Some schools forbid teachers from telling kids that words are made up of letters which have specific sounds. In other words, we imply that how the child has been using his or her mind is wrong.

What they figured out for themselves can't be trusted. They are wrong for life! If one thinks of the amount of struggle an adult goes through in order to understand life and then considers that this same struggle is occurring daily in the hearts and minds of our children, one might begin to see why it is so important for them to feel that they are capable of understanding. Their very survival depends upon it.

But our reading programs pull the rug out from under our children. We discount the achievement of their minds and the confidence and pride they have developed as a result of that great achievement. In fact, what a child accomplishes in learning to speak is probably the greatest achievement of his or her life. It is certainly the hardest.

Instead of celebrating this great achievement — one that required precision, logic, understanding — we tell them to memorize and trust. We drive a spear into the very soul of their self-confidence and feelings of self-esteem and it is no wonder that they prefer to memorize and live in a structured universe. If their own minds are not safe or competent then the only other option is trust and follow.

But it's just a reading program, you say. And teachers love kids and want to help them and school boards don't want to cause problems, they want to educate kids as effectively as possible. Yes, all that may be true, but it doesn't change the facts.

All the good intentions in the world will not change the principles of a bad program and will not lessen the severity of its effects. Whole word or whole language reading programs are not teaching our kids to read well and are a major part of the reason why students are not thinking more clearly and effectively.

We have known how to teach kids to read for centuries. Modern teaching methodology has produced creative and effective teachers. Let's use these strengths to marry excellent teachers with effective programs.

Comments(5)

Rhonda Stone - Nov 2, 2005

Here's the question I'd love to pose to your readers:

If the brain reads sentences through a process of decoding or otherwise identifying individual words, how is it possible to read this:

B4UASsM2MCH ABT RDNG, cnsdr tht th BRNISWNDRFLY KreaTV& efcnt.

(copyright, 2005, Dee Tadlock, Ph.D., Read Right Systems, Inc.)

I would love to know if it has occurred to many of your readers that neither the phonics and decoding view of reading and reading development NOR whole language philosophy accurately reflect what it is that the brain does when it reads sentences? What if individual word identification and sentence reading are completely seperate cognitive acts? What would that mean to our understanding of what must be done to prevent and correct reading problems?

Thank you for considering these questions.

Rhonda Stone
Parent advocate, children's reading issues
Author, The Light Barrier (St. Martin’s Press, 2002)
Co-Author, Read Right! Coaching Your Child to Excellence in Reading (McGraw-Hill, 2005)
Literature/Research Assistant to Dee Tadlock, Ph.D.

Sherrol Simard - Jul 19, 2007

I agree that reading proficiency and self-esteem go hand in hand in children. A child should not be told that his or her way of learning is wrong. The malefactor here, though, is zealotry. Different people learn differently. To hold up one system as the only way a child can learn, is to necessarily eliminate a portion of the population. Some people construct a whole from the parts, others deconstruct the parts from the whole. The point is to use the right system for the individual and gain the understanding that the word and its parts are interdependent. The word gains structure and functionality from the parts, but the parts alone have no meaning. The whole language system may not be right for everyone, but neither is phonics. Phonics is heavily influenced by pronunciation. Consider the word "A." Do you pronounce the "a" as in apple, apex or arrangement? A child in our cosmopolitan society may be exposed to all three pronunciations. Which one is he or she to deem correct? Is that three different words? After all, they all sound different. He or she has come screeching to a halt at the very first letter/building block. If you see the word "A" as a word, rather than a sound, the pronunciation diminishes in importance. Additionally, regardless of pronunciation, the sounds that letters and letter combinations make is far from consistent in the English language. Being able to sound out words does not guarantee comprehension. Fortunately, one need never guess. Dictionaries are quite useful in providing both pronunciation and definition. I use mine quite often to look up words, even if I believe that I comprehend all the usages and connotations of those words. For example, the word "Holistic," which my copy of Merriam-Webster defines as, "Emphasizing the organic or functional relation between parts and wholes." The whole and its parts are interdependent, one does not stand without the other.

Jeff Kilgore - Sep 12, 2007

I really disagree with both posters above. I don't think that teaching phonics is a fair example of "zealotry" at all. To tell children that letters don't have sounds and to fail to teach them these sounds, is ridiculous and unconscionable. I'm right.

Rhonda Stone - Nov 1, 2007

Jeff -- no one said "don't teach children that letters have sounds." That's ridiculous.

I implied that our marvelous and wonderful brains do not "read" through a process of letter-by-letter decoding. Specifically, they read by constructing meaning through a complex cognitive process of integrating strategic sound-symbol clues (NOT absolute-letter-in-string) with our acquired knowledge of language and how the world works. To read quickly, we have to anticipate the language as these three work together at a remarkably rapid pace.

THAT is how we read. We do not read
b--y / s--o--u--n--d--i--n--g / o--u--t / e--a--c--h / a--n--d / e--v--e--r--y / l--e--t--t--e--r / a--n--d / w--o--r--d. Miserable, yes? But THAT is how we are teaching children to read; and THAT is why 1 out of every 3 children has a reading problem.

Bruce Deitrick Price - Dec 6, 2007

One of the best pieces I've seen. Wonderful. An antidote to most of the nonsense that so-called experts come up with....For a good quick look at this whole thing, see my little video "Phonics vs. Whole Word" on YouTube.com...I've written many pieces on this topic. To write yet another, I was working my way through all the citations in Google for Phonics vs. Whole Word. If I had to recommend only one, I'd pick Part 2 above.

Post a comment

Your Name   
  
Little Readers logo
Beyond Tutoring logo
Advantage high school logo

SAT Plus - college preparation