|
|
How
Phonics Teaches Critical Thinking Skills
Phonics Critics
Have It Backwards
A common misconception
about phonics is that it consists entirely of rote memorization,
and that it stunts children's intellectual development by limiting
their opportunities for the development of critical thinking skills
- but this is actually the opposite of the reality. Children who
learn to read using phonics develop superior critical thinking skills
because phonics instruction automatically teaches many aspects of
formal logic, which is the foundation of all critical thinking.
One of the most surprising
outcomes in the entire field of education research was the unexpectedly
high performance of phonics students participating in the world's
largest-ever educational experiment, Project Follow-Through. One
purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of early-elementary
students who were being taught to read using various teaching strategies.
At the end of the study, the strategies were evaluated according
to the students' performance on tests that evaluated three things:
• basic skills
• critical thinking skills
• self esteem
The study consisted
of nine experimental groups, each using a different approach to
reading instruction, and one control group whose teachers were using
the standard methods that they had always used in the past. The
reading study in Project Follow-Through was quite large, consisting
of about 15,000 students spread throughout many school districts.
In one of the nine experimental
groups, children were learning to read using the phonics-based DISTAR
curriculum, which was the predecessor of the curriculum we use at
I Can Read! The prevailing view of the people conducting the study
was that phonics-based instruction was inferior because it taught
only basic skills, leaving its students lacking in both critical
thinking skills and self esteem. Before the results were announced,
almost all of the educators' bets were on five competing experimental
groups that attempted to teach critical thinking and self-esteem
directly, or indirectly through the encouragement of self-directed
learning activities. (Three other experimental groups used other
approaches; hence a total of nine.)
The educators involved
in the study got a rude shock when the results were published in
1977 at the end of ten years of experimentation. The phonics-trained
group outperformed all other groups by far, not only in basic skills
but also in critical thinking and self-esteem. All five groups that
attempted to teach critical thinking skills and self-esteem directly
(or indirectly though the encouragement of self-directed activities)
were catastrophic failures that actually underperformed the study's
control group, which itself was a dismal failure. The lessons for
educators were clear:
-
Curricula
that appear to be teaching only basic skills may actually be doing
a fantastic job of teaching other things as well; and
-
Curricula
that claim to teach critical thinking skills and self-esteem do
not necessarily succeed in doing so, and in fact may be failing
utterly despite their outward appearances and their implementers'
claims.
Unfortunately, the policy-making
division of the U.S. Department of Education (which conducted the
study) has had a huge and ongoing ideological and financial investment
in the five failed curricula, and so the results of Project Follow-Through
have been effectively suppressed for decades. Today almost nobody,
either inside or outside the teaching profession, has even heard
about the world's largest, longest, and most expensive educational
experiment.
As large as it is, Project
Follow-Through is just a tiny fraction of the 20th century's enormous
body of research supporting the use of comprehensive, systematic
phonics in teaching young children to read.
The Critics'
Position
The central problem
of early reading is word recognition - teaching children how to
determine which words are on the page. Non-phonetic ("meaning-emphasis")
reading programs rely on two primary strategies - whole word memorization
(to increase the number of words that a child recognizes) and the
use of context clues, where the child is trained to determine the
identity of an unknown word by deducing the most likely meaning
of the word that would fit in that spot, based on the semantic context
of the word.
Phonics critics believe
that children who use context clues will develop better critical
thinking skills than children who recognize words using phonics.
They assert that children will learn deduction by using the context-clue
procedure, which involves:
-
determining
the semantic context of the unknown word,
-
deducing
a list of likely possibilities,
-
then
using further deduction to determine which of the possibilities
is the correct one.
Students will presumably
then improve their future performance by making inferences about
the deductions that they have used in the past. Unfortunately there
are several problems with using context clues, either as a primary
word recognition strategy or as a vehicle for developing critical
thinking skills:
-
Context
clues generally don't work well because the number of possibilities
for typical contexts is simply too great, causing children to
tend to choose the wrong word. Objective research demonstrates
that context clues are little-used by good readers, and are effective
only as crutches for students who are poor readers due to their
lack of training in the use of more effective strategies (i.e.
phonics) (1,2,3).
-
Children
using context clues learn to accept inaccuracy and failure. Since
context clues don't work very well, teachers must artificially
increase the success rate by accepting semantic near-misses as
successes (e.g. accepting a child's answer of "pony"
when the word was really "horse").
-
The
use of context clues teaches little, if anything, specific about
critical thinking. The problem is that there is no systematic
framework, because each deduction is done within a new context.
Rather than learning specific strategies of logical deduction
that can be shown to work over and over again in a controlled
environment (such as the realm of letters and phonetic rules),
children are faced with an essentially new problem every time,
since the number of contexts is potentially infinite and the number
of unknown words is nearly so (in the tens of thousands even for
middle-elementary readers).
-
The
huge universe of potential combinations of contexts and words
also precludes the possibility of learning or using inference
skills, since little can be inferred from large numbers of generally
unrelated situations.
Phonics Teaches
Logic Automatically and Indirectly
Even though a phonics
teacher is not explicitly trying to teach logic to his or her students,
it is simply impossible to avoid doing so. Phonics students learn
formal logic (i.e. "critical thinking") more quickly,
more effectively and at an earlier age than otherwise possible,
for several reasons:
-
Phonics
defines a small and relatively well-defined environment in which
a young mind can comfortably operate without being overwhelmed
by the sheer vastness of the possibilities.
-
The
logic lessons of phonics are taught by example during the learning
and the application of phonetic rules. Even though a child of
4 or 5 might be incapable of comprehending direct formal logic
instruction, it is quite clear that children of that age can implicitly
grasp logical concepts that are taught by example.
-
Decoding
and encoding are themselves well-controlled logical operations,
embodying many concepts that facilitate the student's future understanding
of more advanced concepts in mathematics and various sciences,
most especially computer science.
Students in a true (i.e.
systematic) phonics program do not start out by "reading"
but rather by learning individual letters. Students learn how to
recognize and discriminate among a small, manageable number of symbols.
This implicitly teaches the logical concept of identity. For example,
students learn that there is a symbol "a" and that "a"
can be easily distinguished from "b" or "m"
or "x". Because the total set of symbols is very small,
the identity concept is easily learned by almost all children, including
even those with severe learning disabilities, whereas even normal
children in reading programs that rely on whole-word memorization
are generally overwhelmed by the sheer number of symbols (i.e. words)
to be learned.
In well-designed phonics
programs, children are first taught to associate only one sound
with a particular letter. This implicitly teaches the concept of
analogy. Phonics is a wonderful tool for teaching analogy, because
all phonics analogies are formed across two entirely distinct dimensions
- sound and print - which cannot be easily confused (as might be
the case when trying to teach analogies using pairs of printed symbols,
for example). Along with the concept of analogy, phonics students
also learn the most fundamental form of logical relationship, which
is the one-to-one relationship (since each letter is initially associated
with just one sound and vice-versa).
As students progress
through the letters, they discover that some letters are mirror-images
of each other ("b" and "d", for example). Thus
they learn the concept of graphic symmetry, and to distinguish symmetrical
objects from one another. During instruction in blending, students
also discover that sounds can be symmetrical when they study symmetrical
blends (such as "im" and "mi" or "st"
and "ts") and consequently they understand that symmetry
exists in more than just one dimension. They also learn that symmetry
can be preserved through analogies (i.e. symmetric phonograms can
produce symmetric phonemes and vice-versa).
Phonics students learn
that objects can be combined in different ways that have analogues
in the field of chemistry:
-
Blends
are combinations of phonograms where each component retains its
original identity (as in "am" or "ts"). Thus
blends are analogous to chemical mixtures, where the components
retain their original chemical properties.
-
Diphthongs
are combinations of phonograms where one or both of the components
lose their original identity (as in "ar" or "th"),
and so diphthongs are analogous to chemical compounds, where the
components lose their original chemical properties to form an
essentially new chemical.
After learning that
a printed symbol can be associated with just one sound, students
are introduced to the idea that a phonogram might represent several
different sounds (as in the case of "a" representing both
a short and long sound). Students also learn that a phoneme might
be represented using several different phonograms (as when long
"e" is spelled "ee", "ea", and so
forth). This introduces a new logical concept, the many-to-one relationship,
which is a fundamental concept of sets and groups, and is perhaps
the most-used concept in computer database design. Children also
observe the asymmetry of many-to-one relationships, and they see
such relationships operating in both directions (i.e. from sound
to print and print to sound).
In the more advanced
stages of phonics instruction, students learn that multiple spellings
may represent multiple sounds and vice-versa (as in the case of
"ea" and "e" representing both the short and
long "e" sounds in different contexts). This teaches the
many-to-many relationship, which is the foundation for modeling
all complex logical relationships. (Although such relationships
are actually a hindrance to decoding, they are fairly rare and nonetheless
generally decodable, and so they do not justify the abandonment
of decoding as a reading strategy.)
Two of the most powerful
concepts in logic are deduction (arriving at the correct answer
through the successive application of known rules) and inference
(where one makes reliable assumptions about large numbers of things
based on a knowledge of just a few similar things). Phonics students
learn deduction during the process of decoding, and inference during
the process of encoding:
-
Deduction:
Decoding is itself an exercise in deduction on several levels.
At the lowest level, a phonics student deduces that the letters
of a word can be combined into only a limited number of phonograms
(for example, the word "car" might be one, two or three
distinct phonograms). After identifying the set of possibilities,
the student then deduces that the phonograms can produce only
a limited number of phonemes (in the case of "c" and
"ar" it's pretty straightforward). After deducing the
very limited set of possibilities for the pronunciation of the
entire word, the student deduces which one is correct based upon
the context of the word (this step is needed only in the rare
situation where the word belongs to a set of homographs). It is
quite amazing that the typical kindergartner can accomplish all
of this within a fraction of a second.
-
Inference:
is the basis of the phonics student's incredible ability to recognize
words he has never seen before. The student learns that rules
which apply in a few well-known situations are likely to apply
just as well in unfamiliar situations. For example the teacher
might show a student how the words "bat", "cat"
and "fat" can be formed by combining various consonants
with "at". The student can then correctly infer that
any consonant preceding "at" will have a similar effect.
Later when the child encounters the less common words "mat"
and "pat", he can safely infer how they might be pronounced,
and may also infer how almost any preceding blend (such as "br")
or even a more complex construction (such as "laundrom")
might combine with "at".
Phonics students also
learn that blending rules can be applied over and over again, i.e.
that one set of symbols that have been blended can then form the
basis for another blend. For example, the letters "a"
and "r" can be combined to form the diphthong "ar".
This diphthong can then be blended with the consonant "b".
The new combination ("bar") can then be used as a component
in yet another blending operation with the letter "k",
yielding "bark". Finally we might use this new construction
as one component of another blend by adding the suffix "ing".
At the simplest level, this type of word construction teaches the
concept of concatenation, one of the fundamental operations of set
theory and all of the mathematical concepts that rely upon it. Since
concatenation is an associative operator (like addition and multiplication
in math), children learn the mathematical concept of associativity.
At a higher level, phonics-based
word construction teaches the concept of recursion, which is the
notion that an operation can be applied repeatedly to the outputs
of its previous applications. Recursion is arguably the most powerful
tool in all of logic, and perhaps even within the entire realm of
mathematics. Recursion is the foundation of the most versatile and
elegant algorithms in computer science, and it is at the core of
most computer programs that perform any kind of sophisticated functions
(such as the compilers that interpret high-level computer languages).
It is quite amazing that a five-year-old can grasp such a concept,
but phonics instruction makes it possible.
Summary
Phonics instruction provides an extraordinary environment for the
easy learning and practical application of several elements of formal
logical analysis. These are:
-
Identity
-
Symmetry
-
Analogy
-
Formal
Relationships
-
Deduction
-
Inference
-
Concatenation
-
Associativity
-
Recursion
Contrary to critics'
claims, we should expect phonics-trained children to be far more
capable of independent, logical thought than comparable children
who have not received phonics instruction. Any parent seeking to
raise a child who can quickly and intuitively grasp the basic concepts
of mathematics (and especially logic) would do well to start that
child reading through the use of phonics.
-Dave
Ziffer, Director, I Can Read!
References
My primary
inspiration for this article came from an associate who over the
years has supplied me with many startlingly lucid thoughts on the
subjects of phonics, reading, education, and the world at large.
He is:
Dr. Martin Kozloff
Watson School of Education
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
During 1998-2000 Martin posted many brief articles to the list server
of the Association for Direct Instruction refuting a nearly constant
barrage of criticisms in the educational press suggesting that Direct
Instruction is merely an exercise in rote memorization or worse
yet, some form of Pavlovian stimulus/response training or Skinnerian
behaviorism. (Interestingly and as far as we know, none of these
criticisms came from people who had actually tried Direct Instruction).
I decided to collect some of Martin's and my ideas on this subject
into one unified article. Thank you, Martin!
-
Stanovich,
Keith E.. Toward an Interactive-Compensatory Model of Individual
Differences in the Development of Reading Fluency. Reading Research
Quarterly; v16 n1 p32-71 1980: "A review of interactive models
of reading combined with the assumption of compensatory processes
indicates that compared to poor readers, good readers appear to
have superior strategies for comprehending and remembering large
units of text and are superior at context-free word recognition."
-
Stanovich,
Keith E.. The Interactive-Compensatory Model of Reading: A Confluence
of Developmental, Experimental, and Educational Psychology. Remedial
and Special Education (RASE); v5 n3 p11-19 May-Jun 1984: "Studies
are reviewed on the interactive-compensatory model of reading,
which explains developmental and individual differences in the
use of context to facilitate word recognition. One major implication
reported is that, with context adequately instantiated, less-skilled
readers utilize context to facilitate word recognitions as much,
if not more, than skilled readers."
-
Stanovich,
Keith E.; And Others. Relation between Early Reading Acquisition
and Word Decoding with and without Context: A Longitudinal Study
of First-Grade Children. Journal of Educational Psychology; v76
n4 p668-77 Aug 1984: "The speed and accuracy of skilled and
less skilled first-grade readers were assessed in the fall and
spring. Children read random lists of words and coherent paragraphs.
Poor decoding skills, rather than an inability to use content
to facilitate word recognition, caused the poor performance of
less skilled readers."
|