Which is a better way to teach children to read: Whole language or phonics?

Whole

1 of 24

by Joseph Zavarella

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Phonics is a study of the component parts of words and the sounds made by letters in combination with one another. Hence, sounding out the words as the student speaks by remembering the sounds made when letters are in certain positions is a phonetic approach to learning how to read. The component parts of the word then become the important focus of the approach. Likewise, phrases, sentence structure and paragraph construction are studied as component parts of the language and learning to read, write, and effectively communicate orally are accomplished in this manner.

The whole language approach does not seek to study the component parts of words; instead the whole word is viewed, voiced and remembered in the context of its usage. Meaning is derived as the student remembers how the words are used in various contexts. In this same manner language is studied as a whole without breaking things up into their respective component parts and the student learns how to read, write and communicate orally by remembering how things appear in context. It can be argued that both approaches may be effective when learning how to read, but trying to determine which approach is better becomes the issue.

Conflict Between Old and New

The above simplified description of the two approaches forms the basis for much conflict among educators who like to put themselves into the categories of traditional and new. Invariably this usually becomes a conflict between old fashioned and more modern techniques for teaching. Phonics is the old and tried method for teaching many generations of children how to read and speak the language. Whole language is the new method which, based upon the logic presented by its proponents, does not necessitate the breaking down of words because the students will remember them each time they see them in context and understand what they mean. In addition, the whole language enthusiasts say that the phonics approach involves concepts that are too abstract for kindergartners through third graders to comprehend.

Those who espouse the phonics approach counter that argument by saying that phonics gives the student a tool to decipher unfamiliar words and derive meaning in their context. Whole language students do not have the tools necessary to decode the words because they have not learned the words by their component parts as the phonics students have.

The whole language enthusiasts say that students don't actually pause at unfamiliar words in order to decipher them. They argue that the word is more likely skipped and in this case over-all meaning is potentially lost because of the failure of a single component. The whole language student, they argue, will have the skill to view the entire sentence, paragraph or passage in order to gain meaning from its entirety. Both approaches rely heavily on the intuitive reasoning of those who believe in the technique.

Opinions and Intuition?

Large scale studies involving the uses of phonics groups, whole language groups and control groups have not been done, but small scale exercises are probably available to support one approach against the other. Hence, there is a serious difference of opinion as to which is the better approach. Intuition and gut feeling on both sides are the driving forces that keep this argument alive.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s when the whole language versus phonics debate was at its height among educators everyone had to take a position for or against whole language as the primary method. Some who were thoroughly enthralled with the whole language approach went to extremes and caused the elder establishment much consternation. However, as Don Marquis so eloquently stated, "An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it," the whole language approach was adopted by an apparently over-zealous body of teachers who often became disrespectful in their wish to supplant the old order with their version of the new. However, the whole language approach should not bear responsibility for the excesses of a few. On the other hand those promoting phonics were just as adamant about the teaching of phonics being the best way to teach children how to read and use the language. Parents were certainly confused by all the confusion among their children's teachers. Professionals were confused because of being involved in their daily conflict with those in the opposition which ever side that happened to be.

Are Positions Necessary?

Those of us who refused to take an extreme position for or against either of the approaches were called wishy-washy or worse, but I personally believed then and continue to believe that a blend of the two approaches is probably the best way to go. There are elements of both approaches that would be appropriately applied at specific times during the teaching process especially in the early grades. Whole language works better for some students than it does for others, but so too phonics works better for some students than it does for others. In my view, a blend of the two programs will work well for all the students in a class.

Real Teachers Concede the Value In Both Approaches

How does one blend the two? This is where the creative genius of a talented professional teacher comes into play. Tomes have been written on the subjects of whole language and phonics, but independent of one another as if they were alien concepts. The truth is talented teachers have always applied elements of a whole language approach even as they systematically taught phonics. So, to take a position in this debate I say yes to the whole language approach as long as the teacher finds a place for phonics in her daily lessons. How the teacher accomplishes this is, again, a matter of personal creativity on her part, but to mandate one approach to the exclusion of the other is certainly not a good idea.

Learn more about this author, Joseph Zavarella.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.