Phonics vs. whole language? Essay -- Essays Papers

Phonics vs. whole language? Like other issues of education, educators and theorists debate and analyze methods of reading instruction. They judge methods and curricula not only by their efficacy but also by their appropriateness and ease. Throughout the history of education these methods and curricula have changed, shifted, and transformed. Currently, though, there are two front-runners in the debate—phonics and whole language. Popular belief is that these curricula are diametrically opposed. Researchers of effective reading instruction assert the opposite, saying that â€Å"an artificial, simplistic dichotomy† has no reality in the discussion of phonics and whole language (Dahl & Scharer, 2000,  ¶43). The purpose of this research paper is to compare these two seemingly different curricula in the realm of reading instruction, to determine their individual levels of appropriateness, and to decide which, if either, is ultimately more appropriate in the school setting. Phonics Defined What is phonics? The word â€Å"phonics† comes from the Greek word for sound and is defined by the Webster’s II New Collegiate Dictionary as the â€Å"use of elementary phonetics in the teaching of reading.† The Britannica Student Encyclopedia says, â€Å"phonics is translating parts of written words into the sounds they represent.† From these two definitions of phonics, one can deduce that it is a method of segmentation, visual and auditory recognition, and decoding. Phonics is the vehicle by which learners begin to understand the individual sounds, or phonemes, of a word. The sounds—there are about 45 in the English language—are the basic building blocks of language, and mastery of them ensures success in future reading attempts (Hempenstall, 1997,  ¶16). Educators use phonics at several levels of reading instruction, including early childhood, remediation, and adult literacy. In an article about Dorothy Strickland’s book Teaching Phonics Today: A Primer for Educators, Linda Starr (1999) quotes Strickland: â€Å"Historically, those who have denounced poor reading achievement in the United States have turned to phonics as a solution† (qtd. in Starr, 1999,  ¶2). Phonics is, indeed, a solution, for its basic principle of breaking words into parts allows the reader to approach any new word with confidence, assuming that he has learned all of the written sounds successfully. Phonics is used in both in... ...s in diverse classroom settings† (Dahl & Scharer, 2000,  ¶52). Based upon the data set forth in this paper, a system of balanced instruction seems to be the most beneficial route for reading instruction. Students should learn about the relationships between letters and sounds through both traditional instruction and on the spot direction. They should be encouraged to express themselves through writing and educators should give feedback and constructive criticism about their mistakes as well as their creativity. Diane Weaver Dunne (2000) tells us â€Å"there is no magic bullet that can teach all children how to read† ( ¶ 1). As such, educators should individualize instruction to reach all learners, and reading and writing should take place in every area of the curriculum. The problem in this debate lies not in the direct opposition of whole language to phonics but in the misconceptions of both camps. 1 The whole language camp seems to be split on this issue: â€Å"Some Whole Language theorists still believe that any emphasis on phonics is unfruitful, or even harmful— ‘The rules of phonics are to complex†¦and too unreliable†¦to be useful’†(Smith qtd. in Hempenstall,  ¶ 58).