|
|
Research
Supports Phonics in a Literacy Program
Phonics defines the set
of relationships between written letters and the spoken sounds that
those letters represent. The idea that spoken words can be broken
down into constituent sounds is referred to as “phonemic awareness.”
On three separate occasions,
Jean S. Chall surveyed the entire body of reading research available
up to the date of the survey (1967, 1983, 1996). The first of these
studies was commissioned by the Carnegie Corporation
and conducted at Harvard University. Chall concluded
that comprehensive, systematic, phonics-first instruction was overwhelmingly
supported by the vast majority of the research. Reference: Chall,
Jean S., “Learning to Read: The Great Debate”, 1967,
1983, 1996. Her final conclusion on p. 307 of the third edition
was:
“The
research … indicates that a code-emphasis method – i.e.,
one that views beginning reading as essentially different from mature
reading and emphasizes learning of the printed code for the spoken
language – produces better results … The results are
better, not only in terms of the mechanical aspects of literacy
alone, as was once supposed, but also in terms of the ultimate goals
of reading instruction – comprehension and possibly even speed
of reading. The long-existing fear that an initial code emphasis
produces readers who do not read for meaning or with enjoyment is
unfounded. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that better results
in terms of reading for meaning are achieved with the programs that
emphasize code at the start than with the programs that stress meaning
at the beginning.”
In the late 1980s, Marilyn
J. Adams (at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) was commissioned
by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Education
Research & Improvement (OERI) to survey the entire
body of reading research. She reached the same conclusion that Chall
did, presenting her results in the form of a fully research-based
textbook. Reference: Adams, Marilyn J., “Beginning to Read:
Thinking and Learning About Print”, 1990. Her final conclusion
on p. 416 was:
“In
summary, deep and thorough knowledge of letters, spelling patterns,
and words, and of the phonological translations of all three, are
of inescapable importance to both skillful reading and its acquisition.
By extension, instruction designed to develop children’s sensitivity
to spellings and their relations to pronunciations should be of
paramount importance in the development of reading skills. This
is, of course, precisely what is intended of good phonic instruction.”
In 2000, the National
Reading Panel issued the following statement in its April
13, 2000 press release:
“In
the largest, most comprehensive evidenced-based review ever conducted
of research on how children learn reading, a Congressionally mandated
independent panel has concluded that the most effective way to teach
children to read is through instruction that includes a combination
of methods. The panel determined that effective reading instruction
includes teaching children to break apart and manipulate the sounds
in words (phonemic awareness), teaching them that these sounds are
represented by letters of the alphabet which can then be blended
together to form words (phonics), having them practice what they've
learned by reading aloud with guidance and feedback (guided oral
reading), and applying reading comprehension strategies to guide
and improve reading comprehension.”
In another comprehensive survey of research regarding twenty- four
widely used school reform models (commissioned by the National Education
Association [NEA], the American Association of School Administrators
[AASA], and others), only three models showed “strong evidence”
of effectiveness. Only two of the three were applicable in elementary
school (the third was a high school model), and both of these models
featured highly structured, systematic phonics instruction; most
of the other models did not feature such instruction. Reference:
An Educator's Guide to Schoolwide Reform, 1999, published on line
by the American Association of School Administrators.
In addition to these
surveys, two ultra-large-scale government research projects also
support the use of comprehensive, systematic phonics:
In Project Follow-Through,
the largest educational study every conducted in the history of
education research, the U.S. Department of Education compared a
systematic, comprehensive, phonics-based approach against eight
other styles of teaching reading. The results indicated the overwhelming
superiority of the phonics-based approach. The study was especially
interesting because it was conducted in "real-world" classrooms
rather than in the lab.
The National
Institute of Child and Human Development has spent 30 years
conducting credible, large-scale scientific reading research. Perhaps
no other organization is as strident as the NICHD in its consistent
recommendations that teachers implement comprehensive, systematic
phonics. Bonnie Grossen's summary of the NICHD research findings
and the recent testimony of Dr. Ried G. Lyon (of the NICHD) to the
U.S. Congress make for some interesting reading.
And finally the entire
state of California inadvertently performed its own large-scale
"research" during the late 1980s and early 1990s by dropping
phonics statewide from its reading curricula in 1987. (This was
merely a continuation of California's decades-long policy of moving
away from all forms of systematic instruction including phonics.)
The resulting catastrophe precipitated several events:
-
By
1994, when all of California's public school fourth-graders had
been trained exclusively in a phonics-free environment, California's
performance was at the very bottom of the national scores on the
U.S. Department of Education's NAEP Reading Report Card (it tied
with Louisiana for last place among 39 states tested).
-
The
state education superintendent of the time, Mr. William Honig,
stepped down from his position. He has since written a book (Teaching
our Children to Read: The Role of Skills in a Comprehensive Reading
Program)
-
The
California State Board of Education has now revised its official
reading policy, and California is just beginning its long, slow
climb back up the ladder (in 1998 it ranked fourth from the bottom
among participating states).
Conclusions
of decades of research in reading (not just the "latest research"
so often cited in the promotional material for many curricula) are
summarized succinctly in the following set of recommendations:
-
Teach
phonemic awareness explicitly. Although there are some children
who have an implicit understanding of phonemic awareness, almost
all children benefit greatly from explicit instruction. Phonemic
awareness is a prerequisite for successful subsequent phonics
instruction.
-
Teach
every letter-sound correspondence explicitly. Research supporting
this idea is simply overwhelming. Children who have been trained
explicitly to decode words are far more likely to read successfully
than children who have had limited training or no training.
-
Teach
high frequency letter-sound relationships early. Successful curricula
tend to involve students in activities in which they can experience
immediate and ongoing success. A successful phonics program gets
children reading as soon as possible by teaching the highest frequency
relationships early and presenting students with stories that
consist of words containing only the relationships that have already
been taught.
-
Teach
sound-blending explicitly. Students do not necessarily understand
how to connect the phonemes in unfamiliar words. Students with
explicit training outperform those who have had little or no training.
-
Correct
every oral reading error. All children, and especially children
with reading difficulties, benefit the most when they receive
corrective feedback regarding all reading errors, regardless of
whether those errors influence the meaning of the passage (many
meaning-emphasis programs encourage teachers to correct only errors
affecting meaning).
-
Use
code-based readers rather than ordinary literature during early
instruction.
Any curriculum
whose early reading experiences consist only of exposing children
to ordinary literature will almost certainly induce a high failure
rate, and consequently lead to initial discouragement and confusion
among students. Programs which compensate for this failure by encouraging
the use of context (i.e. guessing) actually hinder reading development.
In contrast, curricula that induce and sustain a high level of success
through careful, systematic design produce the highest levels of reading
success and self-esteem.
|