Editors' Note: When this article was posted in Reading Online in March 1998, readers were invited to comment on it through a bulletin board feature that was discontinued when the journal was redesigned in July 2000. Following are the comments posted to that bulletin board. Note that when the bulletin boards were migrated to new software, original posting dates were lost. Hence, posts dated July 7, 1999, were actually made in the months from May 1997 to June 1999.

Readers who would like the opportunity to comment on this or other articles in the journal are invited to contact the author directly (e-mail address is available on the opening page) or to post messages through ROL Communities.

Post 1

Author: Mary_Streenz
Date: 07-07-1999 16:44

This article was interesting to see how whole language evolved. It also became clear to me how the pendulum swing actually occurs between whole language and phonics. The article itself admitted there are deficiencies of whole language, and admitted that phonics are needed to predict the meaning from other cues at the outset and use their knowledge of the relationships of letters and sounds for confirmation. I agree with what I felt was the final conclusion of what to do with reading instruction, and that is to receive early intensive instruction in how to decode--bringing together the best features of both whole language teaching and phonics. I have always felt that a combination of whole language and phonics is necessary for reading instruction.

Reply 1a

Author: Bethany_Kirkpatrick
Date: 07-07-1999 16:44

I agree with the belief that whole language and phonics need to work together for the best education possible. Phonics and phonemic awareness are essential componants to successful literacy development. Without these componants a students can not become a motivated, successful reader. Whole language can not exist without phonics.

Post 2

Author: Valerie_Shaw
Date: 07-07-1999 16:45

I was fascinated with the different computer programs that are available for use in education. As a first grade teacher I would love to expose my students to the programs that help students learn to read. I think that the idea of having students read from a computer and be able to hear the different words and sounds pronounced is wonderful. I also agree with Jeremy Burnison's post that computers should be used in the classroom to enhance instruction. Children should not become dependent on the computer to teach them everything. The computer is an asset to a teacher that can work as a supplement or practice tool. In larger classes the computer may benefit both teachers and students. It is difficult to manage your time to work with every child independently. By using a computer students can continue learning while the teacher is meeting with other students. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has tried this method with using the computer as a supplemental learning tool. Please reply.

Post 3

Author: Annette_Huff
Date: 07-07-1999 16:46

Reading this article has brought me to a greater understanding of the way reading instruction has evolved in our own school systems in the United States. I found that the issues and develpments parallel each other very closely. We are not the only ones involved with a whole language vrs. phonics debate. Isn't it interesting to realize that the role of reading education is a world wide concern and not just in our own backyard?

Post 4

Author: Mabel_Moore
Date: 07-07-1999 16:46

I found this article to be extremely useful in describing the differences perceived between a whole language approach and a skills based approach to teaching reading.

Post 5

Author: Brenda_Bernier1
Date: 07-07-1999 16:49

When I think back to how I learned how to read, I remember the conversations my mother had with me as a child. We interpreted the story together, by using and building on my prior knowledge. These activities helped me gain a deeper understanding of the reading. My teachers at school merely taught me the pronunciations of words, and what they meant. I don't recall having discussions about the material. They mainly focused on the grammer involved. I beleive that teachers have a responsibility to their students to enhance their learning, by drawing from one's prior knowledge and building on it. I didn't feel actively involved in my learning, because of the approach my teachers took. Every child is an individual learner. It's the responsibility of the teacher to meet the individual needs of each child. A good whole language program focuses on the semantic, schematic, and grammatical context within a sentence. Each part is equally important in developing skilled readers. What is your personal view on the whole language approach? Do you agree with how I've defined whole language? I can be reached at ttaylor01@snet.net

Post 6

Author: Trook_Douglas
Date: 07-07-1999 16:49

Possibly the "Paradigm wars" to which Nicholson alludes could benefit from a page from the natural scientific debate surrounding the nature of light. Although a unified theory of light is the theoretical ideal and motivating telos of much research, the current state of affairs suggests that under certain conditions light behaves as a wave and under other conditions it behaves as a particle. Does our desire for parsimony blind us to the possibility of the complexity of the phenomenon? Translated into the reading whole language vs. phonics debate, Nicholson's both-and rather than either-or collaborative conclusion may be the direction which further research should be guided. Under what conditions does whole language achieve the best results and under what conditions does the phonetic approach excel? From the perspective of personality theory, one might hypothesize that children with burgeoning left-brained personality traits may require a more phonetic foundation, whereas children on the right-brained side of the spectrum may flourish in a whole language environment. Or using Howard Gardner's taxonomy, a child with a more logical/mathematical proclivity might thrive on phonetic detail, whereas the child who is more linguistically inclined might be more receptive to the whole language approach. Or from J.P. Guilford's theory, those children who have strengths in symbolic units may do well with phonics whereas the children with strengths in semantic relations may excel with whole language.

Post 7

Author: Malina_Kleepbua
Date: 07-07-1999 16:53

I am responding to different sections of this article. From "Teaching Reading in the 1800's", I feel that the style used to teach reading was very boring and non-inspiring to continue reading. The "Look and Say" method limits children to only those words that they have memorized. Strategies have not been used or aquired by the students to figure out words for themselves. I personally like the "Whole Language and the Revised Ready to Read: The 1980s". Many strategies are taught to children like: look at the picture, look at the words, look at the beginning sound, does it make sense, and the more proficient reader doesn't have to read every single word to make sense of the passage. Feel free to share your response with me:Malina Kleepbuae-mail: pkleepbua@Juno.com

Post 8

Author: Holly_Ehle
Date: 07-07-1999 16:53

I found this article very interesting. I am currently a Reading Recovery/Literacy Teacher and my professional training has been based on the research of successful reading programs in New Zealand. In my professional training, I have learned much about the newest and most promising research based models of reading instruction. I feel that I have received excellent training based on such models. I feel that due to this training I am a very effective literacy teacher. I feel that I have been presented with the most current reading research, and I attempt to instruct my students accordingly. What this article drew to my attention was the fact that although I have a solid understanding of what components quality reading instruction should be based on today, that I really did not have a detailed understanding of where the current methods were derived. I feel that this article did a nice job of providing me with an understanding of the history of the movements in reading education. It was very interesting to learn about the ABC, "Look and Say," and Ready to Read methods. Not only did this article provide me with a time-line of instructional methods, but it also did a finejob of explaining why each method was "outgrown" and improved upon. In the current day of "Whole Language" vs. "Phonics," across the country or even across a school district, I think that you will find avariety of teachers teaching using various methods cited in this article, each struggling to answer the question for themselves on what method is better. I believe that every primary reading teacher shouldread this article in order to gain a better understanding of current and past methods. I believe that with a better understanding of past methods and the reasoning why these methods were improved upon and changed,they would have a better foundation for understanding why the most current methods have been developed and should be practiced. In reference to the issue of "Whole Language" vs. "Phonics," I tend to agree with the article that as educators, our challenge is to bring together the best features of both methods to produce a generation of children who are literate and who enjoy using their literacy. As I would hope all teachers realize, each year we receive a new class with students who have new strengths and needs. I feel that it is preposterous to say that one method is "best" for instructing every class we have. As our classes change each year, so do their needs, and our instructional methods should change as well each year to meet the needs of each class.

Post 9

Author: Joyce_Herndon
Date: 07-07-1999 16:54

I received beneficial information from your article, Perspectives on Reading in New Zealand. It was interesting to see how Reading has evolved and the influence that New Zealand has impacted within the different countries. I am a Reading Recovery Teacher, and my philosphy is a representation of the article. Prior to receiving Reading Recovery training, I believed that phonics was the most influential tool used to teach Reading. In my opinion all teachers should evaluate each student's needs and build upon their strengths and weaknesses. My e-mail address is joyce_herndon_27@hotmail.com

Post 10

Author: Shelley_Gallion7
Date: 07-07-1999 16:54

The development of reading in New Zealand did not seem so different from the way our reading instruction in the United States has evolved. It was interesting to see the similarities. During my teaching career I have had the philosophy that each of my students is different and each learns in a different manner. Therefore, I have felt that no one teaching approach benefitsall. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone expects all students to learn in the same manner. I like the idea of incorporating phonics into the context of the material. Phonics does not necessarily have to be a workbook practicing all the rules, but I do believe that children need to be exposed to letter sounds and patterns. These sounds and patterns are another key which we, as teachers, may give our students to help them "unlock" the world of reading. Just as people traveling different routes to reach the same geographical destination, we should give our students the opportunity to travel different routes to reading success. I am glad to see the pattern of whole language and phonics being brought together.

Post 11

Author: Roxann_Tidwell
Date: 07-07-1999 16:55

Like all things in life, moderation is the key. Even those things that are "good" for us are still only good in moderation. Such must be the case with methods of reading instruction. From the 1800's with ABC methods until the current time with our debates over whole language and phonics, we have to remember our purpose: to foster literacy, reading proificiency, and a love for reading in our students. "Skill&Drill" day after day won't accomplish that. But neither will an approach where phonics remains taboo. All the "stages" and perspectives that Nicholson describes have merit, some methods somewhat more preferable than others, perhaps. But all the same, we ought to look at the history he describes, critically examine what has happened, and learn from that history in order to create the best reading programs that we can for students today. A surgeon doesn't apply the same procedure to all of his (or her!) patients; a musician doesn't use the same chorus (as successful as it may have been in another tune) for every song; an architect surely would not use the same blueprint for every structure just because it worked the first time. So how can we as teachers expect that one method need work every time for every student in every situation? Granted, most of us don't believe that, thank goodness! Just as I hope that most of us realize that a balance in literacy instruction has to be the key. Take what we've learned from all the perspectives Nicholson has documented, as well as the newer perspectives emerging now. Then, keeping our goals for our students in mind, do what we do best.

Post 12

Author: Lauren_Gottlieb7
Date: 07-07-1999 16:56

I found the article "From ABC to Ready to Read" very informational. The description of how the teaching of reading in New Zealand evolved also reflects the development of literacy instruction here in the United States. The debate over the best way to teach reading is so widespread that I was not shocked to read about New Zealand's current debate. The debate of whole language versus phonics is also being argued here in the United States. I was made aware of the "big reading debate" during my undergraduate studies in elementary education. As a result of the debate, I learned the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches to teaching reading. Fortunately for me, the professors at my college supported a balanced approach to teaching reading- that is, using the strengths of whole language and phonics, and integrating them equally. Currently, many of my colleagues, in a New York City elementary school, are using a balanced approach to teach reading. However, there are still some teachers who choose to continue the big reading debate, even though the side they support may not come out ahead. As Tom Nicholson stated in the article, "the challenge now is to bring together the features of both whole language teaching and phonics to produce a generation of children who are literate." My e-mail: lg149@aol.com

Post 13

Author: kathryn_williams
Date: 07-07-1999 16:57

The key is to incorporate what works. This seems simple enough, but it is not. The problem is that people seem to think only one way works...their way. The debate over reading is so emotionally charged the author points out that Ken Goodman (advocate for whole language) at a meeting of the International Reading Association attacked Adams (advocate for phonics)"as a 'vampire' who threatened the literacy of America's youth". The study over the different approaches of teaching reading found, "that children will get off to a better start in reading if they receive early, intensive instruction in how to decode....The challenge ahead will be to bring together the best features of both whole language teaching (reading for meaning, reading for fun)and phonics (skill in decoding)to produce a generation of children who are literate, and enjoy using their literacy. I think teachers should try and incorporate both approaches in their classrooms. In one of my college courses at Miami University some of my classmate researched whole language and phonics and found that teachers who incorporated both approaches to teach reading had the most success.

Post 14

Author: Kar_Rado3
Date: 07-07-1999 16:58

As a graduate student in Reading Education, I must begin by saying that I found your article on the history of Reading in New Zealand extremely interesting. It clearly outlined the process through which reading instruction evolved. Looking back on my program of study, I realized that your article would have been very helpful when I first began my graduate work, as would have a greater and more focused emphasis on American reading history. Having only one more class before earning my Master's degree, I am able to see the significance of developing a solid understanding of reading history before delving into the study of current issuesand practices. I found your section entitled, "Paradigm Wars: The 1980s and 1990s" intriguing. I appreciated the way you identified the two sides of the reading debate (although I might argue for more than two sides), and provided key defining factors for both sides. This section caused me to step back and to evaluate my reading program in order to further identify my own philosophy about how children learn to read. It made me also look at my county's curricular requirements as well as my own practices in how I teach reading. It caused me to reflect on my methods of evaluation of studentsuccess as well. I gained a lot of insight concerning the issue of "which works better?" regarding the reading paradigms. I had always assumed that the simple solution was to combine approaches so as to meet the needs of all types of learners. I hadn't considered the fact that the evaluative components of the two philosophies were fundamentally different. The phonics-type paradigm assumes success based on quantifiable measures, while the whole-language paradigm measures success through more authentic, qualifiable means. This difference in philosophy bases suggests that our school districts must reevaluate their expectations and curriculum.. Can we teach using whole-language methods and then measure success through standardized tests? Can we use the phonics-based approach and then hold children accountable through the use of performance-based evaluations? It doesn't seem that either of these choices is fair to the students. I must agree with your final statement when you emphasize, "The challenge ahead will be to bring together the best features of both whole language teaching and phonics to produce a generation of children who are literate, and who enjoy using their literacy." I believe that this is where the idea of balanced literacy becomes relevant. My question after reading your article becomes however, if the two paradigms have conflicting goals or outcomes is it even possible or desirable to combine philosophies? It will be interesting to see where the future of reading instruction takes us!

Reply 14a

Author: Tom_Nicholson
Date: 07-07-1999 16:59

Hi KarenThanks for your question. The question was, whether it is possible, given the divergent philosophies of whole language and phonics, for them ever to be combined. The New Zealand government has just formed a literacy task force with the goal of ensuring that every 9-year-old will be able to read and write for success by the year 2005. The task force is a mix of practitioners and "academic experts". I am one of the experts on the task force. The task force representatives include a range of reading philosophies, but basically whole language and phonics. Whether the people on the task force will come to agreement on what reading and writing are, on how to assess them and on how best to teach them, remainsto be seen. If you read Ken Goodman's article in Reading Online, you get a sense that whole language and phonics are irreconcilable. That laws to ensure phonics gets taught are destructive of education, and represent an orchestrated attack on whole language. It's hard to see whole language and phonics people in the United States sitting at the peace table in the near future. In New Zealand, the government has now created a peace table. But there has to be a willingness to compromise and negotiate. Otherwise, nothing positive will happen. In regard to your point about the divergent assessment techniques of whole language and phonics: we can assess whole language and phonics outcomes in both quantitative and qualitative ways. But to do this, each side has to compromise. Whole Language people say that you can't reduce reading to numbers. They are against testing. Phonics people think that testing is a "reality check". The compromise position is to be open to a mix of assessment, both quantitative and qualitative. Thank you for the comment about the value of knowing the history of reading instruction. You mentioned that you wished you had this information as part of your graduate training. I now incorporate an historical perspective into my courses at The University of Auckland. I include lectures on the history of reading instruction, the history of the reading debate, and also the history of writing. I think it's important for teachers (and parents) to have a sense of where the alphabet, the reading debate, and the different reading methods, have all come from. Many of my students do not know these things. Yet they enter the course in their last stages of teacherpreparation. If you are interested in other things about reading, you can download some of my papers from my website: My website is: http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/edu/school/Nicholson.htmlTom As a graduate student in Reading Education, I must begin by >saying that I found your article on the history of Reading inNew >Zealand extremely interesting. It clearly outlined the process >through which reading instruction evolved. Looking back on my >program of study, I realized that your article would have been >very helpful when I first began my graduate work, as would have >a greater and more focused emphasis on American reading history. > Having only one more class before earning my Master's degree, >I am able to see the significance of developing a solid understanding >of reading history before delving into the study of current issues >and practices.> > I found your section entitled, "Paradigm Wars: The 1980sand >1990s" intriguing. I appreciated the way you identified the two >sides of the reading debate (although I might argue for more than >two sides), and provided key defining factors for both sides. >This section caused me to step back and to evaluate my reading >program in order to further identify my own philosophy about how >children learn to read. It made me also look at my county's curricular >requirements as well as my own practices in how I teach reading. >It caused me to reflect on my methods of evaluation of student>success as well. > I gained a lot of insight concerning the issue of "whichworks >better?" regarding the reading paradigms. I had always assumed >that the simple solution was to combine approaches so as to meet >the needs of all types of learners. I hadn't considered the fact >that the evaluative components of the two philosophies were fundamentally >different. The phonics-type paradigm assumes success based on >quantifiable measures, while the whole-language paradigm measures >success through more authentic, qualifiable means. > This difference in philosophy bases suggests that our school >districts must reevaluate their expectations and curriculum..Can >we teach using whole-language methods and then measure success >through standardized tests? Can we use the phonics-based approach >and then hold children accountable through the use of performance-based >evaluations? It doesn't seem that either of these choices isfair >to the students. > I must agree with your final statement when you emphasize, >"The challenge ahead will be to bring together the best features >of both whole language teaching and phonics to produce a generation >of children who are literate, and who enjoy using their literacy." > I believe that this is where the idea of balanced literacy becomes >relevant. My question after reading your article becomes however, >if the two paradigms have conflicting goals or outcomes is iteven >possible or desirable to combine philosophies? It will be interesting >to see where the future of reading instruction takes us!

Post 15

Author: heather_saylor
Date: 07-07-1999 15:51

Author: Diane_Collins
Date: 07-07-1999 17:07

After reading the article "From ABC to Ready to Read: Perspectives on Reading in New Zealand" by Tom Nicholson, it is evident that the whole language versus phonics debate is still alive today. New Zealand is clearly a success story for the whole language approach, which stresses reading in context. Some critics challenge New Zealand's "success", stating that one in four children recieve remedial reading at the age of six. Nevertheless, this article clearly shows how far literacy has come from the ABC method of practice, and drill and rote memorization. In his closing, Nicholson states that the "challenge ahead is to bring together the best features of both whole language teaching...and phonics...to produce a generation of children who are literate and enjoy using their literacy." I strongly agree with this statement. I believe that reading for meaning and for fun are equally as important as the skill of decoding. Children learn to read and write by reading and writing, with guidance from more experienced individuals. This guidance must be balanced meeting the needs of all students. Teacher - led instruction and modeling is pertinent, and must gradually be withdrawn to lead all students to independence. I believe skills such as spelling and word identification should be placed in the context of reading and writing. This balanced literacy approach will surely foster higher - level thinking among readers and writers.

Post 16

Author: Kelly_Harber8
Date: 07-07-1999 17:08

This article gave a very interesting history of the teaching of reading in New Zealand. I could not believe the use of ABC method in teaching reading. The rhymes and riddles presented in the text could not give children a suitable beginning for reading. Of course, I can say this now because we have progressed beyond those primitive methods of teaching reading. I am sure that if America's 19th century reading techniques were analyzed, I would have thesame reaction. The article then moved on to the history of reading instruction in the 1920s. It is interesting to note that phonics at that time was considered a "back-up" skill to the method of learning words and sentences. It would be more logical to think that phonics would come first, a skill that would be needed before a student could read whole words and sentences. The author states that the "look and say" method of reading was not necessarily the best choice for reading instructin. Nicholson says, "What Crowder was getting at was that the look and say approach did not necessarily lead to inferences about letters and sounds." This is an example of the kind of rote learning that is still taught today with basal readers. Often times the stories that were incorporated into the readers were those that involved the majority class and socio-economic group, excluding many children from completely understanding the text. Phonics were taught on an "as-needed" basis, which is often the case in today's schools. The movement now, both in New Zealand and America, is toward the Whole Language method of learning. The Ready to Read series that is now used in New Zealand moves away from the rote teaching of phonics. This series allows children the power to teach themselves how to read through simple clues and texts. I think this is a fantastic way of teaching children to read. By giving students the power to teach themselves to read, it might be possible to generate more interest in reading, especially in those students who would most likely not respond to phonics instruction. While I am not sure of its success in the secondary schools, it is definitely a good method for beginning and remedial instruction.

Post 17

Author: JILL_LITTLETON
Date: 07-07-1999 17:08

What ever happened to giving children the best of both worlds? or How about giving children "what they need". As teachers we need to get to know our students very well so that if it is decoding skills they are lacking, we can get them the help they need to survive in our literate world. I see nothing wrong with combining both methods and allowing our students to obtain the best education that they so deserve. Not every teacher has the same kind of children in his/her classrooms and we all know how that changes every year.Furthermore, different children need varied amounts of phonics instruction, which means we need to look at what each child needs individually in order to help them achieve success. Therefore, do we really need to say that one must teach one way or the other? Although this is a powerful debate, I thought we "put it to bed" and have moved forward with this issue. I agree strongly with the whole-language approach, however, I am a strong advocate of supporting phonics(that are taught within the context of a meaningful lessons) in the classroom. I truly believe that they work hand and hand.

Post 18

Author: Victor_Froese
Date: 07-07-1999 17:09

Seems to me that Tom Nicholson's article simply refuels (re-arms!)the argument, rather than clarifying it. To some extent the problem has always been a lack of clarity about what the argument really is. I don't believe that it is really "phonics" vs "whole language"; the two designations are not comparable in any sensible way. To some extent the problems is that neither term is ever reasonably defined; that is, what I mean by "phonics" and what Tom means by "phonics" are very likely not the same thing. Is it what we think phonics entails, how we teach it, to whom we teach, etc? The same holds true for "whole language". Ironically the reasearch on aspects of whole language is rarely cited. Dissertation abstracts lists 26 dissertations between '82-'87, 126 dissertations between '88-'92, and in '93 there were 50 (that was as far as I checked). If we are going to revive the wars, let's at least look at theevidence!

Reply 18a

Author: Tom_Nicholson
Date: 07-07-1999 17:09

Hi Vic,My look back at the "good old days" was designed to show that the reading debate about phonics and whole language has a history. A lot of teachers (and parents) don't know about the history. It is helpful to know that the debate did not just come out of the blue. You mention that it's hard todisinguish phonics and whole language. But I think the hostorical perspectivegives some insight. You mentioned that you found 50 dissertations on WL in Dissertation abstracts in 1993.But you really need studies that compare whole language AND phonics.I scanned 1993-1998, and found only 4 that compared phonics and whole language.Two found no difference, 2 found a difference in favour of phonics. It's strange how few dissertations have been doneon such a contentious issue. I've been reviewing published studiesthat explicitly compare WL and Phonics. So far, I've found 2 that favoured WL, and 8 that favoured Phonics. A number of studies foundno difference, which isinteresting. Is it possible to personalise the differences in the sense of what would a whole language or phonics reader/writer look like? Some of the researchI've read suggests the following: (a) If a child has learned to read in WL, she will be a person who loves to read, who will skip a hard word rather than sound it out, who is a creative writer, writes long stories, is an inventive speller rather than a 100% accurate one. (b) If a child has learned to read in phonics, she will be a code-breaker, who loves cracking long, hard words. A meticulous writer, great spelling, someone who doesn'twrite a lot, but writes carefully. How would you characterise the differences?Cheers, Tom

Reply 18b

Author: Terry_Underwood
Date: 07-07-1999 17:10

Tom's suggestion to focus discussion on what a WL-taught vs. Phonics-taught reader/writer might look like is interesting. What would be interesting is to collect a hundred or so profiles of such readers/writers, white out the category names on the documents so that no one would know which profile was written to fit which category, and then see if people could sort the profiles into the intended categories. We have a profile of a casualty of DISTAR in Marvin, a middle school student written about in Jeff Wilhelm's book "Gotta BE the Book." Check out pg. 96 where Wilhelm describes a conversation with Marvin about a story about baseball. Marvin resists self-correcting his pronunciation of "kuh- nee" even after Wilhelm asks him a question about what might happen to someone sliding in to second base. The alphabetic principle has a powerful hold on Marvin. Margaret Phinney has given us a nice profile of a potential casualty of WL in Ricky, discussed on pg. 30+ in her book "Reading with the troubled reader." Ricky, a boy at the end of first grade who manages to catch a butterfly in the first stanza of the poem, is stopped in his tracks in the second stanza when he must "work with a rake." Ricky hasn't learned enough about the alphabetic principle to see him through a first grade text. I guess what we may want to think about, rather than discussions of theoretical children undergoing mythological instruction, are real children undergoing real instruction. Perhaps that's why there are so few dissertations on the topic -- it's probably impossible to find either WL or Phonics instruction in pure enough form to suit a dissertation committee biased in the direction of experimentalism.

Reply 18c

Author: Tom_Nicholson
Date: 07-07-1999 17:11

I like the idea of finding out what whole language and phonics pupils are like. A friend of mine's son, who has had a full Whole Language programme, and who is now 12 years of age, was reading the title of a new book, called "Sacred Soil". He initially read it as "Scarred Soil" (drawn by the illustration of a landscape which was devastated). It was the title of a new book on New Zealand's Land Wars. When asked why he thought the title was "Scarred Soil" he self-corrected it to "Scared Soil". Then he re-read the spelling of "sacred" as "s-c-a". Then he re-read it as "s-a-c". Then he read "sack-red". Then "Sacred". This is a true anecdote. But it would be nice to do a study to see if this kind of incident is typical of a Whole Language pupil when tackling a difficult word. It would be interesting to see what a phonics pupil would do. I have found some recent dissertations in the States (in Dissertation Abstracts) comparing phonics and whole language classes. So presumably a study is possible. All the best, Tom

Post 19

Author: Barbara_Maxwell
Date: 07-07-1999 17:11

I found this article to be particulary interesting because right now I am participating in an Orton-Gillingham class. This class teaches a solely phoncics based method. After experiencing working with children using this method, I do feel that some children need a phonics based approach and it is unfortunate that they are not able to get this instruction in a whole language classroom. As Tom mentioned, these children will fall by the wayside. I agree that it is important to combine the best of phonics and whole language. This will enable children to be equipped with decoding skills, while viewing reading as an enjoyable experience.

Post 20

Author: Marion_DelGiudice
Date: 07-07-1999 17:12

I have always thought the philosophy and methods used in New Zealand schools were most aligned with my own. From the article, I see that the "great debate" rages over there as well. When educators and administrators world-wide end the impossible search for the one way to teach all children, we might be able to focus on teaching kids to read. I am fortunate to be a reading specialist in a multiage (1-3)class. The classroom teachers are gifted observers who take responsibility for the literacy of every member of their community. We are anchored by a whole language philosophy, and we make critical, individualized decisions based on what children need.Since our learners represent a range of ages and strengths, we can't assume one way can reach them all. Our students might need help with phonemic awareness, invented spelling, prereading predictions, creating a story map, or making connections between the new and known. As professionals we are trained to recognize what they need, not what we think should be taught because a particular method prescribes something.It isn't easy. We are guided by sound theoretical and philosophical principles, but we spend lots of time (that we don't have) discussing our kids, reviewing portfolios, and conferencing with our multiagers. As Clay suggests, "we roam around the known" and try to learn from our learners. The debate will end, when we accept the diversity of needs that is present in every classroom.

Post 21

Author: Kelley_Miller8
Date: 07-07-1999 17:13

I strongly feel the most important aspect of these reading wars is that educators should stop arguing and start focusing on the needs of our students. Obviously, all children learn in various ways. After reading this article, I felt it is very clear that some aspects of both methods are beneficial to the success of a student's reading progress. First of all, if there are positives to both methods, we need to incorporate both methods into a balanced reading program. Secondly, because we all learn differently, some children are going to benefit from different aspects of both programs. Therefore, I realized the importance of incorporating the ideas behind both Whole Language and Phonics Instruction. Lastly, I truly believe in the idea that children need to learn the art of reading meaningful text and that spelling patterns and letter/sound correspondences can be taken from that text and expanded upon. Overall, we need to consider the needs of each child. I think for the most part all are going to benefit from a mixture of both theories. Along the way, as we understand our students more, we will begin to see where certain facets need to be emphasized more for the individual students.

Reply 21a

Author: Vannessa_Downey
Date: 07-07-1999 17:13

I don't think there should be a war between whole language and phonics. Students can benefit from both. Using both provides variety and balance. My son is in first grade and he is a successful reader. When he was ready to learn to read, his teacher started with phonics. I supported and encouraged him at home to sound out words. Once he put sounds together, we moved on to put words together. Now, he reads stories to me and comprehends what he is reading to me. I think by integrating phonics and whole language, even struggling readers can benefit. Phonics is a stepping stone and if properly used, students with varying backgrounds and abilities can benefit. Starting with phonic exercises may boost a student's confidence enough to tackle the more difficult task of putting sentences together. By all means, I do not support the use of numerous worksheets. Teachers and parents can create ideas to make whole language and phonics fun and useful. by Vannessa Downey

Reply 21b

Author: Rebecca_Eschmeyer
Date: 12-01-1999 16:21

Amen!!!! We, as educators, should be the first ones to realize that all children do not learn in the same ways. We must vary our methods in order to be sure to reach each child. I do not disagree with either method of teaching reading/writing skills. I believe that both phonics and whole language have their place in the classroom, but they should be blended together. We often jump on the newest bandwagon that comes our way and forget those methods that have worked in the past. I believe the key is to incorporate a few together... and remember, you must feel comfortable with what/how you are teaching. The children will pick up on your hesitation or weaknesses.

Post 22

Author: Charity_Bonelli3
Date: 07-07-1999 17:14

I agree with the author's conclusion that reading instruction should be a combination of whole language and phonics. Children should always be exposed to whole texts, but phonics is important as a reinforcement. Not all children will pick up on the rules of letter/sound relationships simply by being exposed to texts. I don't see any reason why the two methods have to be used in isolation.

Post 23

Author: lori_sherman
Date: 07-07-1999 17:14

I'm currently a graduate students at St. Joseph's College in Ct. After reading the article Perspectives on Reading in New Zealand I wanted to share my comments. I agree with Melissa Jones' perspective (4/20) that the individual child needs should be taken into consideration. I believe it is important to have children want to read and we should provide as much encouragement as we can. The whole language approach seems to best fit this philosophy. I think that phonics is a great tool to help children when they incounter problems and that we need to strike a balance on this continuim incorporating both principles from the whole language approach as well as phonics.

Reply 23a

Author: Robyne_Ridge
Date: 07-11-1999 01:46

Yes, I do agree that we should consider the child and the child's needs when we are trying to teach that child to read, Lori, but what does worry me about the whole language approach is that it does not seem to give the child the ability to attack new words in unexpected environments!

Phonics does at least give a child a handle on word attack skills.

Most of the students I see in remedial-type situations in high school have no idea how to break a word into its components and read it. They grab at a few letters and guess the rest of the word!

When they begin to grasp the basics of phonics their word-attack skills improve dramatically!

Robyne_Ridge

Post 24

Tom Nicholson's article is comprehensive, readable, and informative. I am using it with my preservice teachers in order to provide them with a brief historical overview of the reading controversy because their exposure to the issue has been through popular press. And, as Nicholson points out, popular press has tended to focus on extremes in views since this makes it popular.

I would like to address three point in his article which are deemed to be associated with the negative effects of whole language:

"First, one-in-four children receive remedial reading tuition (instruction?) at the age of six."

I personally don't find this statistic to be amazing!! If one looks at the shifting definition of reading and the high expectations for reading achievement in the last ten years, it is amazing that this statistic isn't even higher! In "Changing Our Minds: Negotiating English and Literacy," Meyers (1996) discusses how literacy education, purposes for reading, purposes of literacy, perspective of the nature of the student and the perspective of the mind have changed over time. Research, social expectations, and economic and social needs are demonstrating the complexty of the reading process, and this reductionist perspective of phonics versus whole language simply avoids the greater issue. If reading were simply decoding, his statistic would not exist. Bu, reading is much more than sounding our words. Therefore, I am interested in the nature of the reading problem and the intervention that the one fourth of New Zealand's children need and receive.

"Second, trainee teachers are given virtually no instruction in how to teach phonics, so they have no alternative ways of teaching reading which might reduce the high casualty rate.

Once again, this is no longer true. One need only look at the phenominal number of books, articles, and brochures on this topic! Every textook I have considered for my reading courses addresses phonemic awareness, phonics, and decoding. Dorothy Strickland, L. Ericson and M. F. Juliebo, A. Heilman, and Mustafa are a few of the auther/researchers who have written on the topic giving theory and practical application strategies. However, the preservcie teacher must understand the complexity of the reading process in oreder to understand when, how, and why to teach phonics. Not all children need the same type and degree of instruction.

"Third, researchers are finding that those who are least well-served by whole language are children from disadvantaged backgrounds, whose parents do not have the "cultural capital" to overcome the deficiencies of whole language."

Frankly, this last statement bother me the most. The fact that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are lacking in the middle class "cultural capital" does not mean they need the skill and drill of phonics instruction. In my mind, they need the richness of the cultural experience that other children have! They need to be read to! They need to experience the joy of reading a book, of hearing a good poem, of telling a story!

My students always ask me the $64,000 question. But, what's the best way to teach reading? I have no formula, no schema, no hierarchy to offer other than to say that we create the enviornment in which children learn to read. We must invite them to Frank Smith's Literacy Club!

Regina Chatel

Post 26

Author: Tari_Lawson
Date: 07-07-1999 17:15

Again, I am glad to see using a combination of whole language and phonics being brought forth. Excellent teachers have been doing this all along. I have often wondered about educators in districts that push and push for the whole language concept to be used and then order a phonics workbook. These skills should not be taught in isolation. They should be encountered within the context of reading and the reading should be enjoyed. Teaching the workbook is boring, so the students are bored too! Phonics can be incoroporated into wonderful lessons and not be so boring. The history of reading in New Zealand was of great interest to me and how it compared to the United States.

Post 27

Author: John _Young
Date: 10-16-1999 02:48

A recurring theme at the recent Dunedin Reading Conference was the idea that we should address boys lack of achievement in reading by being more permisve and even encouraging boys to read comics.

Lester Flockton spoke about this in his speech and Harry Hood gave the idea, his approval in the final keynote address. I have serious questions about this approach. Harry illustrated his point by arguing that Ro Griffiths, one of the Ministry of Education's leading reading advisers in recent times is an avid Disney comic reader? So What ? In addressing the reading achivement of our low achieving boys we are not talking about the Ro Griffiths of this world. We are talking about our Matthew effect boys; boys with both a low achievement and a negatitive attitude to reading.

In my observation of this type of reader when given comics and sports magazines they don't engage with the text, they only look at the pictures. Their reading behaviour is quite different from the capable reader who when given visually rich text such as comics and sports magazines read both the text and the pictures. If my obersvations are correct giving the green light to comics and sports magazines is not the answer to rasing the reading achivement of this group of readers.

An example from pre- teaching days may more graphically illustrate this issue. Before teaching I worked for a number of years in labouring jobs. Reading material in the smoko rooms often included Hugh Hefners periodical. One of the best parts of Playboy is the interviews; extended, indepth, intelligent interviews. I remember devouring every word and rereading the Jimmy Carter, Muhammed Ali and Bernadette Devlin interviews.. Many of my literate workmates also enjoyed them. However the majority of the workers tended to only look at the pictures. Their literacy skills were not being extended by their choice of reading material. They enjoyed what they were reading but they were not becoming better readers.

Boys like reading comics - but the boys whose reading we are most concerned about will not improve on a comic diet. There are better answers!

John Young - St Teresa's Karori

Reply 27a

Author: Sue
Date: 11-18-1999 21:57

I couldn't agree more -- I've seen the same thing. When you look closely, these kids aren't *reading* the comics at all. I used to assume they were and I fear many teachers do too.

It's pretty predictable -- the people who want to "immerse them in literature, they'll figure it out -- explicit teaching will only bore them" are the ones who did that, and gee, they got along fine so what's wrong with everyone else? Except for the fact that they can't read, of course...

Reply 27b

Author: hj_richmond
Date: 11-24-1999 00:11

what can you recommend for boys?

Reply 27c

Author: John _Young
Date: 11-26-1999 04:37

You ask what I would recommend for boys ?

I would recommend that teachers have a wide knoweldge of the best books for the class/level which they teach.

In New Zealand schools and principals have put a lot of attention in the last few years into performance management systems with teachers having to select professional development goals.

I haven't heard of many teachers who have selected reading and developing their knoweldge of the best of children's literature for their class as their professional development goal for the year. Yet I think this would have great effect on their children's reading achievement.

Books I would recommend for boys 10-15+ anything by Gary Paulsen Maniac Magee Jerry Spinelli ( spelling ? )

John Young - St Teresa's karori

Go back to the article