Children acquire verbal
vocabulary automatically during the course of talking and listening
to conversation, and they do so at an astonishing rate. Various
research studies conducted since the 1940s have come up with different
estimates of the size of a typical child's verbal vocabulary upon
entry to school, but all seem to agree that this number is somewhere
between 10,000 and 24,000 words. After entry to school, children
acquire additional vocabulary at an incredible rate of between 3,000
and 5,000 words per year. That's between 8 and 13 words per day,
seven days per week, every week of the year.
There seems to be no
analogous capability when it comes to print, however. We might expect
this since verbal communication is undoubtedly as old as the human
race, whereas alphabetic languages were invented only about 4,000
years ago and came into widespread use only after the invention
of the printing press about 550 years ago. As much as it is likely
that natural selection has enhanced our verbal skills over the relatively
long period of human development, it is equally unlikely that it
has played any part in selecting out individuals with inherent reading
skills during the relatively brief period in which printed text
has been available to the masses.
Verbal vocabulary grows
automatically because words are heard in the context of real-life
situations where the meanings of the words are fairly obvious. Whether
through interaction in conversations or through passive listening,
there is generally a tremendous amount of context which can be derived
from people's actions and expressions. Conversation is a particularly
powerful teacher, since the child is actively constructing speech
and receiving feedback from adults and peers.
There is nothing that
corresponds to a conversation in reading. Two people cannot "read
to each other" in the same way that they can talk to each other.
A child does not generally construct his own sentences when reading,
and even if he does there is no opportunity for immediate feedback.
If reading aloud, the only opportunity for feedback occurs if an
adult is following along with the story; however this is a contrived
situation for which some adult must intentionally make time. When
reading, the only context is in the pictures (which if present contain
relatively little information) and in other printed words. Since
the other printed words are likely to be no more decipherable than
the words the child is trying to learn, they tend to be of little
help. Finally, even under the best of circumstances, a child's exposure
to books is far more limited than his or her exposure to conversation.
Two Ways to
Acquire Written Vocabulary
There are only two ways
to acquire written vocabulary: either you use phonics to convert
written words into the spoken words that you already know, or you
must memorize the meaning of each and every written word as if written
English were an entirely new language.
There is little available
scientific research to indicate how many written words a child can
memorize in a year. However we can get some clues from the many
reading texts produced during the past several decades that have
attempted to teach reading without the use of phonics. Students
using these texts acquire their written vocabulary by memorizing
lists of words. A survey of such texts reveals that they expect
children to memorize anywhere from 400 to 600 words per year. Since
the authors of these texts were presumably interested in having
children memorize as many words per year as possible, then we may
presume that through experience they learned to limit themselves
to at most 600 words (due to children's inability to memorize more).
In contrast, a phonics
based reading program does not rely on word memorization. Instead
it is based on the idea that children can "sound out"
words using various rules about how written letters and letter groups
represent sounds. Children then reconstruct the verbal words by
making or imagining those sounds. When reading age-appropriate text,
children will tend to already know the verbal equivalents of the
words they are reading. Quite simply, they comprehend written text
by translating it into spoken words whose meanings they already
know.
There are over 400 different
phonetic rules that govern how letters can be used to represent
sounds in the English language, but about 220 of these are either
archaic or used so infrequently that there is no point in learning
them. This leaves about 180 rules that are commonly regarded as
being both modern and frequently used enough to be worth teaching.
Children who have been taught these rules thoroughly can decode
about 85% of all English words perfectly. Another 12% of the language
consists of words that contain one sound that does not follow the
phonetic rules (almost always a vowel), but these words are also
decodable. The reason is that readers can still produce the sounds
of the other letters in the word, thereby reducing the number of
possibilities for pronunciation to a very small number. For example,
the word "some" is non-phonetic in its vowel sound; however
there is really only one pronunciation that would produce the one
spoken word that would fit the context in which this word might
appear. Using a combination of phonics and context, a student can
decode this additional 12% of the language (so long as the words
appear in the context of a meaningful sentence) without any need
for guessing.
Thus English is about
97% decodable. This has some very important implications for students
who have learned phonics comprehensively:
Phonics vs.
No Phonics
The primary advantage
of phonics becomes immediately clear when we look at the differences
in the rates of written word acquisition for phonics vs. non-phonics
students. In the chart below, the area below the highest line represents
an aggressive example of a child's verbal acquisition, starting
with 20,000 words at age six and increasing by 5,000 words per year.
The line immediately below that represents the written words acquired
by the phonics student pretty much automatically, at a rate of 97%
of the verbal acquisition rate after phonics training is completed
at age 8. The bottom sloping line represents the rate at which we
can expect a child to acquire written words without phonics, by
memorizing them at a rate of 600 per year.
As unfortunate as the
student without phonics might seem, this graph is probably optimistic
for several reasons. First, it assumes that the student is consistently
memorizing 600 words per year without fail and without forgetting.
However it is unlikely that any student actually continues such
memorization after the first five or six years during which word
memorization is taught explicitly.
Second, the verbal acquisition
rate for non-phonics students is probably considerably lower than
the level shown here. This is because in the later years most vocabulary
acquisition in phonics-trained students comes from reading. This
verbal acquisition can occur only because the student can translate
new written words into spoken words instantly, and thus almost every
new learned written word also becomes a new learned spoken word.
But to the student without phonics training, written words cannot
be converted into spoken words. If such a student is going to learn
the spoken version of a newly learned written word, he must do so
separately within the context of some conversation, and even then
he may not necessarily connect the two. Thus the non-phonics student
not only suffers from vastly reduced written word acquisition, but
also from substantially depressed verbal acquisition in later years.
A third thing that is
not obvious from the graph is the dichotomy in the mind of the non-phonics
student between spoken and written words. In early years, the non-phonics
student learns written words through drills in which a teacher associates
the memorized written words with their sounds. However as the student
ages this type of instruction is eventually abandoned, after which
he starts developing two separate sets of vocabulary that are not
necessarily connected - a verbal one and a written one. If the student
learns a new spoken word through conversation, he is not likely
to recognize it in print. If he learns a new written word through
reading, he is not likely to recognize it when spoken. As time goes
by and the student is expected to develop vocabulary more and more
from written text, the student's ability to discuss what he's learned
from reading diminishes, because he doesn't know how to say the
written words he's memorized. In contrast, the phonics student automatically
learns the verbal equivalent of almost every new learned written
word and vice-versa.
The predicament of the
non-phonics student becomes worse still when we consider the non-"root"
words, i.e. words that are formed by adding suffixes and prefixes
to other words. To the non-phonics reader, every such word is a
different pattern that needs to be memorized separately. For example,
cook and uncooked have quite different appearances when we simply
look at them as wholes. The phonics-trained student has extensive
practice in recognizing suffixes and prefixes, and can immediately
dismantle "uncooked" into its three major constituents.
To the non-phonics reader, uncooked is simply another pattern to
be memorized. So the non-phonics reader must memorize not merely
100,000 root words, but rather half a million or more variations
on those words.
An Illustration
Let's imagine two fifth
graders who are reading some text containing the word astronomy.
Let's further suppose that both students have heard this word before
and know what it means, but that neither of them has ever seen it
in print. Finally, let's assume that one student was trained in
phonics and the other wasn't.
Within a few seconds
the phonics student will decode astronomy, perhaps saying the word
or perhaps just imagining the sound. Since he knows the verbal word
already, he can immediately apply the same meaning to the written
word. He has no need to make a permanent visual association between
the written word and its meaning, because he can always rely indirectly
on the verbal meaning that he's already acquired.
The non-phonics student
might try to guess the meaning of astronomy from context. His ability
to do this will depend upon how familiar he is with the other words
and concepts in the passage. The more difficulty he has reading
the rest of the passage, the less likely that he will deduce the
proper meaning of the word. Even if he is successful, performing
the deduction will interrupt the train of thought that he was developing
while reading the sentence. To reestablish it, he may have to reread
the sentence.
In any event, deducing
the meaning purely from context is unreliable. If the non-phonics
student wants to be certain about the meaning then he has only two
courses of action. If a more knowledgeable person is present, he
can ask that person to look at the word and explain it. If no such
person is present, then he must look the word up in a dictionary.
If he looks it up, he may encounter a definition like, "the
study of extraterrestrial objects". If he has already memorized
the appearance of the word extraterrestrial and all the other words
in the definition, then he will understand the meaning. If not,
he must then look up the unknown words from the definition. When
he is done with lookups, he will finally understand the meaning
of the printed word, but may still not be sure that it is the same
as the spoken word astronomy. He might guess from the meaning that
the two are the same, but of course there could be several words
that have that meaning or a similar meaning. Only when someone else
expressly says the word while pointing to the printed version can
he be sure which verbal word is the right one.
What About Context?
It might seem that we
have been overly pessimistic about the results of avoiding phonics
because we haven't considered the possibility that the non-phonics
student could use context to figure out the meanings of unknown
words. Unfortunately there's a catch: in order to establish a context,
the reader must understand most of the other words in the passage
without using context. So in order to use context, a reader must
already be skilled in the use of other methods. Further, the quality
of the reader's context (and hence his deduction) will depend upon
his level of skill in using those other methods. But the more skilled
he is in using other methods, the less likely he is to have needed
to use context in the first place. So using context is a bit like
getting a bank loan: the people who need it the most are the least
likely to get it, and the people who need it the least are the most
likely to get it and use it successfully.
Since phonics students
can decode about 85% of the language reliably without using context,
they have the highest possibility of developing a reliable context
from which to work. For the 12% of the language containing only
one phonetically abnormal sound (requiring some deduction on the
part of the student), the choices of possible spoken words can usually
be counted on the fingers of one hand, and so phonics students have
a small number of possibilities from which to choose. Let's consider
a sentence like: I had a lot of trouble today.
Upon seeing the word
trouble, a phonetically trained child can immediately produce the
relatively few spoken words that the written word might represent.
By using context to select from those relatively few choices, he
is very likely to succeed (in this example he'll have to choose
from treble, tribal, trouble, and tribble if he's a Star Trek fan).
The child without phonics training, however, must choose from among
all the imaginable words that could fit the context. Even if we
stick to very common words that start with "t" (many non-phonics
reading texts recommend teaching a child only to sound out the initial
letter of a word), the list of possibilities could include tacos,
taffy, tailwind, talent, tarts, tasks, tea, teasing, time, traffic,
training, traction, transfusions, transmissions, trash, trauma,
travel, treatment, treats, tremors, trials, tribulations, trifles,
trigonometry, triumphs, trivia, trouble, trousers, trucks, tuna,
turkey, turnips, turnover, tutoring, and typing. Even more onerous
than choosing from a potentially long list of words that might fit
the context is developing the list itself. A reader could spend
minutes thinking of all the words that might fit, and of course
he could never be sure that he had thought of every one. Now of
course there may be enough context in the preceding sentences to
allow the reader to figure out the proper word, even from a long
list of possibilities. But if those sentences were read using the
same combination of weak reading strategies that we are using here,
then the reader probably knows little more about the preceding sentences
than he does about the current one.
Context is at best a
secondary reading strategy that relies heavily on the concurrent
use of a strong primary word recognition method, and so it is least
useful to the children who are using weak primary strategies such
as whole word memorization. The use of context also depends upon
how well the reader's previous experiences relate to the topic being
read, and so it is least useful to children who have had the fewest
opportunities for intellectual growth. For these reasons, context
should be regarded only as an additional option for students who
are already experiencing success in reading due to their use of
strong word recognition methods (i.e. phonics).
What About Sight
Vocabulary?
One frequent criticism
of phonics is that students never develop a "sight vocabulary"
(a set of words that are recognized instantly on sight), and so
they must spend their lives laboriously sounding out every word
rather than simply memorizing and instantly recognizing words as
wholes. Ironically, the truth is precisely the opposite.
The phonics student
deciphers unknown words relatively easily. After a few seconds of
"sounding", the child most often recognizes the word as
being a spoken one that he or she already knows. The non-phonics
student must either ask someone to say the word or even worse must
go through the laborious task of looking it up in a dictionary,
in which case he may be further stymied by being unable to read
unfamiliar words in the dictionary definition. During early reading
most written words are unknown to the reader, and for older readers
many of the significant words (i.e. information-laden nouns and
verbs as opposed to the more common articles, conjunctions, pronouns
and such) are still unknown. Because of the large amount of work
involved in performing dictionary lookups, non-phonics students
quickly learn to avoid text containing unknown words. In contrast,
phonics students have no such disincentive, and so they tend to
feel free to read just about anything.
The result is that phonics
students end up reading much more and enjoying it more because reading
doesn't involve much work. While reading, they are also inadvertently
memorizing frequently-seen words, and so are developing a phenomenal
sight vocabulary. They use real books to perform sight memorization
pleasurably and unconsciously, adding new sight words almost effortlessly,
whereas non-phonics students must resort to dictionaries, word lists,
and teachers (who may not be present when needed). While classroom
experience tells us that students seem limited to approximately
the 600 words that are presented explicitly each year in non-phonics
reading programs, phonics students seem to suffer from no such limitation,
as evidenced by the fact that as adults they read many thousands
of common words without sounding them out.
Thus both phonics and
non-phonics students participate in whole word memorization. Non-phonics
students do it at a very slow rate, apparently limited only by the
tediousness of memorizing the words from lists, whereas phonics
students memorize thousands of words per year. As adults, phonics
students are therefore significantly faster and smoother readers,
ironically because they have developed far larger sight vocabularies
than students who attempted to do so directly.
How Much Drill?
Another frequent criticism
of phonics is that it requires drill. This is true, but the question
we must ask is this: how much drill would be required of a student
who does not learn phonics, in order to achieve the same result
as the phonics student?
Since it is not really
possible for the non-phonics student to achieve the same result
as a phonics-trained student, we can do the next best thing by comparing
the normal achievements of phonics students against the best possible
efforts of non-phonics students:
|
Goal
or Attribute
|
Phonics
Student
|
Non-Phonics
Student
|
|
Age
at which student might be expected to have developed a 100,000
word written vocabulary
|
23
|
173
|
|
Number
of discrete facts to be learned through drill
|
181
phonetic rules in two years plus an initial set of about 600
sight words
|
600 hundred sight words per year, indefinitely
|
|
Automatic
written word acquisition rate
|
2910
to 4850 per year after the age of eight
|
0
per year indefinitely
|
|
Verbal/written
vocabulary correspondence
|
97%
automatically
|
100%
when trained explicitly through drill; 0% otherwise
|
Clearly, a person who
despises drill should advocate the use of phonics.
Conclusion
It is difficult to overstate
the importance of providing a child with comprehensive training
in phonics. Taking chances with this most essential information-age
skill is probably the most expensive mistake that a parent can make.
Further, the more trouble your child has reading, the more important
it is that he or she be provided with the chance to learn reading
through phonics.
Many young children who
have had no phonics training appear to read reasonably well. This
is possible because books for very young children tend to contain
so few words that they can be read easily with even a very small
sight vocabulary. This is unfortunate, because the child's passable
early reading performance disguises the underlying problem that
he will face later in life, which is an inability to read age-appropriate
materials due to a lack of written vocabulary.
In the field of reading
psychology there is a term called the "Matthew Effect",
which derives its name from the Biblical parable which states that
the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer. Nowhere does
this notion apply more powerfully than in the area of childhood
reading instruction.
Children who get an
early "leg up" through phonics start reading earlier,
find reading easier, and enjoy reading more. Their habit of reading
causes them to develop a large sight vocabulary, which in turn facilitates
even more reading. Successful reading exposes them to a greater
number of concepts, allowing them to comprehend a wider variety
of subjects. This comprehension in turn allows them to read about
a yet wider range of related subjects. Finally, the synergy between
their verbal and written vocabularies causes both to increase at
a much higher rate, further facilitating reading.
Children without phonics
occupy a spectrum. The "naturals" who figure out phonics
for themselves will do just fine. To the degree that children fail
to understand the phonetic rules, they will encounter reading difficulties.
Reading will be inhibited by the tedium of needing to continually
memorize word lists and look words up every time they want to read
about a wider range of subjects. This disinclination to read will
limit their reading practice and hence also limit their development
of sight vocabulary. The absence of sight vocabulary causes them
to resort to more unpleasant lookups and memorization. The lack
of new subject matter causes them to know less and consequently
to be able to comprehend less during reading, even when they can
decipher the words. As children get older and the number of unfamiliar
words in age-appropriate text grows ever higher, the disinclination
to read becomes ever greater.
Phonics is not merely
one of a number of reading strategies from which we may feel free
to pick and choose. It is essential because it provides students
with capabilities that are simply not available through any other
means. It is the only reading method that does all (or indeed any)
of the following: