Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

March 1998 | Volume 55 | Number 6

What Is Basic? Pages 6-10

What's Basic in Beginning Reading? Finding Common


Ground
Dorothy S. Strickland
As the debate continues between phonics and holistic approaches to reading instruction, a method
called whole-part-whole strikes a welcome balance.
These storybooks are very nice, but don't you think they need the skills first?" "When I was in school every child
could read. Back in those days, teachers stressed the basics." "Why don't they teach phonics anymore?"
As a frequent speaker before school boards, parent groups, and educators, I have learned that certain questions
and comments are inevitable. Most often they are raised by a parent whose child is having difficulty with reading.
Sometimes they come from school board members troubled by media reports of low test scores. Occasionally
they are even asked by an educator, who admits to a degree of uneasiness about difficult and challenging
changes in instructional practice. Many questions focus on beginning reading. Most often, that means phonics.
The queries are right on target in recognizing that reading instruction has changed. Ironically, however, many of
the changes we see today were also prompted by concern about low achievement. Educators sought
instructional alternatives to the kind of teaching that encouraged the accumulation of isolated skills and left many
children devoid of long-term competence and with little ability to apply those skills during actual reading and
writing. Faced with large numbers of such children, teachers began to realize that skills are worthless as isolated
knowledge but powerful as strategies used purposefully and masterfully. Thus, rather than abandon skills
instruction, many teachers made a conscious effort to approach skills differentlyas strategies taught within the
context of learning to read and write.
The model known as whole-part-whole instruction provides a balanced conceptual framework for thinking about
and planning skills instruction. It addresses the need for teaching that (1) is grounded in fundamental
understandings about whole texts such as stories, informational books, and poems; (2) allows for in-depth focus
on specific skills; and (3) includes planned practice within the context of meaningful reading and writing.

The Whole-Part-Whole Framework


The debates about beginning reading reveal that the conceptual framework guiding a teacher's decision making
is a powerful instructional force. Teachers who use what is termed a bottom-up approach tend to focus on
isolated skills, such as letter names and specific sound-letter relationships. They believe that once these are in
place, meaning will follow. Those who favor a top-down conceptual framework concentrate on lots of reading
aloud and response to literature, with a more incidental approach to teaching letters and sounds. They tend to
focus on skills as students reveal needs.
Whole-part-whole instruction provides the balance between these two approaches. For example, if the target
strategy is the use of a particular sound-letter relationship of the letter s, the teacher may begin by sharing an
enlarged text that features words with the letter or letters being taught; or the teacher may use a chart to write
text generated by the students. In either case, the initial response is for the purpose of developing
comprehension and interpretation. This may involve group discussion, drawing or writing activities, and shared
rereading with the teacher. After the children are familiar with the text, the teacher guides them to look at specific
features of certain words and to note how the words look and sound. In this case, the letter swould be featured
and children would be guided to note how words starting with the letter s look and sound at the beginning. This
would lead to a variety of activities focusing on the letter s. Finally, the students return to reading and writing with
whole text to apply what they have learned.
These lessons are meant to go well beyond the teaching and learning of a single sound-letter correspondence.
The teacher is also striving to help the children understand the alphabetic principle and its application to reading
and writing. The approach also emphasizes helping children become independent, self-improving learners.
Dorothy Fowler's article "Balanced Reading Instruction in Practice" describes in greater detail instructional

activities that a 1st grade teacher uses with her students in a typical language arts block of time, and Figure 1
shows the process.

Start with whole text. Grounding instruction in whole texts provides the basis for meaningful literacy

activities. Examples include the shared reading of poems or stories using big books or charts. An active
demonstration of the teacher's own composing and spelling processes is extremely powerful, as he or she
models at the chalkboard, thinking aloud about what word will come next or how a word is spelled.
Focus on knowledge about the parts of language that may be useful for reading and writing.Responding

to all texts only at the holistic level is not enough. Instruction should include a planned, systematic effort to
highlight specific textual features and literary devices as a variety of materials are read, written, and discussed
over time. Highlighting specific textual features helps children form generalizations about language that they can
apply to their own independent efforts to read and write.
Return to whole texts for application and practice. Planned opportunities to apply what has been learned
about the parts of language allow students to move from simply knowing about a generalization to using that
knowledge in a purposeful way. This also acknowledges the fact that isolated language elements behave
differently depending on context. For example, the letter sbehaves differently when paired with t as opposed
to h. Words such as lead or wind not only mean different things in different contexts, they may be pronounced
differently. Effective beginning readers use word meaning and sentence structure, along with sound-letter
relationships, to approach unknown words.
Moving from whole to part and back to whole again thus provides a framework for planning that addresses skills
in a manner that is meaningful, strategic, and more characteristic of the way proficient readers actually use skills
when they read and write. Although the focus here is on beginning reading, the whole-part-whole framework can
be used to teach any skill.

Figure 1. A Whole-to-Part-to-Whole Conceptual Framework Blending Skills with Meaning


WHOLE to

PART to

WHOLE

Learning with, through, and about whole written texts*

Learning about how the


Learning to apply what
parts (textual features) of
was learned with, through,
language function in written and about written texts
texts

*Whole texts include predictable stories, dictated stories,


content area materials, letters, charts containing songs,
rhymes, messages, and lists.
Source: Strickland, D.S. (1989). Teaching Skills in a
Literature-Based Curriculum. Handout presented at the
annual conference of the International Reading
Association, New Orleans.

Speaking of Phonics and Phonemic Awareness...


Until recently, no aspect of reading instruction was more discussed, more hotly debated, and less understood
than phonics and its role in learning to read. For better or worse, the topic of phonemic awareness is currently
running a close second. While phonics refers to instruction in the sound-letter relationships used in reading and
writing, phonemic awareness refers to a child's understanding that speech itself is composed of a series of
individual sounds.
Children who are phonologically aware can discriminate between and manipulate sounds in words and syllables
in speech. They know when words rhyme or do not rhyme. They can indicate when a series of words begin or
end with the same sound, and they can break down or blend a series of sounds such as /k/-/a/-/t/ in cat. Most
important, these children can shift their attention away from the content of speech to focus on the form of speech
before they return to its meaning.

Although the role of phonemic awareness in children's literacy development is still not completely clear, most
researchers agree that "training in phonological awareness is both possible and advantageous for children"
(Ayres 1993, p. 153). Questions remain, however, about how much phonemic awareness is a necessary
prerequisite to developing ability in decoding and how much is acquired in a reciprocal, mutually supportive
relationship with learning to read (Perfetti et al. 1987, Weaver 1998).
The debates about phonics and phonemic awareness have less to do with their value than with the amount and
type of instruction they require. The controversy generally pits systematic, intensive instruction against holistically
oriented approaches. Briefly stated, those promoting systematic, intensive phonics advocate an emphasis on
phonics that is highly sequenced, skills- or code-driven, and initiated early in the child's schooling. Children begin
by learning about the parts of words and build toward whole words. The approach stresses correct identification
and automaticity of response. Much of the research cited to support this view comes from experimental studies
where children's demonstration of performance is based on the results of standardized tests (Chall 1983, Adams
1990).
Holistically oriented approaches include philosophies and practices frequently associated with terms such
aswhole language, integrated language arts, and literature-based curriculum. In operation, these terms share
certain characteristics; however, they are not synonymous. Although virtually all holistically oriented teaching
includes to some extent such elements as greater emphasis on writing and its relationship to reading, greater use
of trade books, increased attention to the integration of the language arts, and greater reliance on informal
classroom assessment, teachers vary in their implementation of and adherence to various philosophies. Those
who emphasize meaning are likely to cite basic research on how children learn to read and write, as well as
classroom-based studies on long-term effects (Krashen 1993, Weaver 1994).
My experience suggests that these differences are much less apparent in the classroom than they are in the
debate. In practice, teachers who advocate holistic approaches are apt to include strong word-recognition
programs with phonics as a key tool for word recognition; and teachers who support intensive, systematic
phonics often read aloud to children and encourage invented spelling. Although the matter of emphasis is
important, it is unlikely that you will find classrooms that reflect polar ends of an instructional continuum. A
conceptual framework such as the whole-part-whole model allows for flexibility based on student needs.

Finding Common Ground


Most controversies have points of agreement. Educators on both sides of the phonics debate agree that,
ultimately, reading and writing for meaning is paramount. Both sides are keenly aware of the importance of good
literature in the lives of children and the need for responsive adults who support children's natural inclinations
toward making sense with print. Needless to say, both sides recognize the importance of the alphabetic code in
learning to read and write.
Today's educators are seeking to provide a comprehensive and balanced instructional program that is engaging
and rich with meaning, yet grounded in curricular expectations that are visible to teachers, parents, and students.
To plan such a program, they would do well to consider points of agreement, along with the following instructional
guidelines (Strickland 1998):
1.
Skills and meaning should never be separated. Instructional techniques that help children understand
and use the alphabetic code should be applied hand in hand with those that guide students in reading
comprehension and thoughtful response to literature and the effective use of the writing process.
2.
Instruction is systematic when it is planned, deliberate in application, and proceeds in an orderly
manner. This does not mean a rigid progression of one-size-fits-all teaching. Rather, it means a thoughtfully
planned program that accounts for learner variability. Encouraging invented spelling works side by side with
instructing students in word recognition skills, including phonics. Each informs the other.
3.
Intensive instruction on any particular skill or strategy should be based on need. Thus, intensity will vary
both with individuals and groups. Children who are fluently reading words that contain specific phonics
elements should not have to endure intensive phonics instruction in those elements. The best tests of a
phonics element are the ability to read words containing that element within connected text and the
successful use of that element in invented spellings.
4.
There is no substitute for ongoing documentation and monitoring of learning to determine the order in
which skills should be addressed and the level of intensity required to help a child or group of children

succeed in a particular area. The use of running records and analyses of invented spelling serve this
purpose well.
5.
To track specific goals and objectives within an integrated language-arts framework, teachers must
know the instructional objectives their district requires at the grade level they teach. They also should be
extremely familiar with the objectives at the grade levels above and below theirs. Alignment of curricular
goals with instructional standards and assessment helps give everyone involved (teachers, administrators,
and parents) a clear sense of direction.
The phonics debates have been with us for a long time, evoking contrasting points of view. Many educators are
feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the growing polarization and politicization of issues. Most classroom
teachers find themselves in a different arena from that of the staunch advocates on either side of the issues. Too
often these opponents have become entrenched in their positions, having based their reputation on being right.
Meanwhile, classroom teachers watch with growing impatience as the debates escalate, with little light shed on
the topic for their benefit and that of the children they teach.
Effective teachers recognize phonics and phonemic awareness as useful tools for successful reading and writing.
But they also are aware of the dangers of overreliance on one method of word recognition and the potential
deterrent to successful reading. If the debate is to serve any productive purpose, it must be used as the basis for
constructive dialogues and collaborative efforts to examine and take advantage of the best research and practice
available. This must be done in a way that makes sense and is most effective for students, teachers, and
parents.

References
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Text. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Ayers, L.R. (1993). "The Efficacy of Three Training Conditions on Phonological Awareness of Kindergarten
Children and the Longitudinal Effect of Each on Later Reading Acquisition." Unpublished doctoral diss.,
Oakland University, Rochester, Mich.
Chall, J. (1983). Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Krashen, S.D. (1993). The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Englewood, Colo.: Libraries
Unlimited.
Perfetti, C., I. Beck, L. Bell, and C. Hughes. (1987). "Phonemic Knowledge and Learning to Read Are
Reciprocal: A Longitudinal Study of First Grade Children." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 33, 283-319.
Strickland, D. (1998). Teaching Phonics Today: A Primer for Educators. Newark, Del.: International
Reading Association.
Weaver, C. (1994). Reading Process and Practice. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Weaver, C. (1998). "Experimental Research: On Phonemic Awareness and on Whole Language."
InReconsidering a Balanced Approach to Reading, edited by C. Weaver. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Dorothy S. Strickland is the State of New Jersey Professor of Reading at Rutgers University Graduate School of
Education, 10 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183.
Copyright 1998 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Reference : http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/mar98/vol55/num06/What's-Basic-in-Beginning-Reading%C2%A2Finding-Common-Ground.aspx

Potrebbero piacerti anche