The debate around whether the phonics approach or whole world approach should be used in the teaching of reading to young children is heavily polarized, with lots of research evidence for both sides of the argument. While the disagreement is still very prominent among scholars today, there are clear advantages and disadvantages that can be identified for both methods.
In the UK, school children were generally taught with the whole word approach, with a focus on reading books and guesswork in understanding words until the Independent Review of Early Reading, published in 2006. This was shortly followed by the release of ‘Letters and Sounds’ by the Department of Education in 2007, building on the recommendations for teaching phonics and reading made in the Rose Review. Three years later, the 2010 government white paper ‘The Importance of Teaching’ argued the case for the phonics approach, including the introduction of a simple reading check intended to measure children’s reading progress made by Years 1 and 2. It was also created with the purpose of identifying learning disabilities at a young age. The test is carried out by teachers and includes rather vague guidance for them. Teachers are told that if a child chooses to sound out phonemes before blending the word, they cannot be prompted, and failure to form the whole word by themselves would count as a failure on that question. This puts teachers in a difficult position, if they know a child was capable of forming a word but were not doing it on this occasion, they are obliged to fail the child anyway. It would be difficult for teachers to explain to children the importance of these tests and that they must try their best; some children may listen to this and do as such, whereas others may simply not be in the mood to do so that way, seeing as the test is being carried out on six- and seven-year-old children. Even more challenging for teachers is the expectation placed upon them to make a judgment call regarding children who speak with accents; not only is this difficult for teachers, but presumably there would be variance among teachers in what judgments they decide to make, hindering the efficacy of the test. Teachers are expected to make further judgments regarding pronunciation difficulties as young children cannot always produce all sounds for numerous reasons – for example, if they are in the process of losing their milk teeth – carrying the same issue of varying judgment among different teachers and thus inconsistencies in results.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
These tests were initially viewed as successful, with year-on-year increases in scores being observed. However, this prompted accusations in the media that teachers were altering the marks to have higher pass rates. To overcome this issue, the government responded to this issue by withholding the passing mark for the tests from teachers so that they would not know the required standard for children to pass the test. A further issue with the phonics approach to reading is that it was argued to be detrimental to children who arrive at school already able to read. The BBC reported that Andrew Davis of Durham University argued that “being forced to move back from reading for meaning to a mechanical exercise of blending and decoding is likely to be off-putting”. This carries the moral issue of whether it is fair to negatively impact strong readers in the hope of bringing the rest of their cohort up to the same standard. Numerous research studies find that the phonics method is superior to the whole-word approach. Johnston and Watson’s report, published in 2005, found that the synthetic phonics method was more effective in developing numerous skills in learning to read. Following research comparing the two, their results showed: “At the end of the experimental programs, the synthetic phonics group read 7 months ahead of chronological age, and 7 months ahead of the other two groups. They were also 7 months ahead of chronological age in spelling, and spelled 8 to 9 months ahead of the other two groups”.
The whole-word approach focuses on reading sentences as a whole rather than focusing on individual words and sounds. It encourages the use of guessing in children, whereby they use the words they understand to decipher the ones they do not. This relies on children holding a large bank of words in their memory, which could be an issue if certain children do not have the ability to hold this. Focusing heavily on learning to read through the literature, the whole-word approach involves reading and writing activities that intertwine and support each other. This approach would be beneficial to children who enjoy reading and do it independently, both in the classroom and at home, for pleasure, as they would continue to build their skills even when not supervised by a teacher. The whole-word approach supports the notion learning to read depends on a desire to learn knowledge and communicate. This is a benefit as it develops vital independent learning skills in children, as opposed to the synthetic approach, where individual sounds are taught to children, rather than them having to think for themselves. Reading becomes an enjoyable activity through this approach, creating a genuine motivation for children to read, and as such they would be more likely to read at home with their parents. Johnston et al found that the benefits of each method varied between boys and girls. Following experiments, they found: “Newman-Keuls tests showed that girls comprehended equally well regardless of teaching method, but that boys did better if taught by synthetic phonics; it was also the case that boys taught by analytic phonics had poorer reading comprehension than girls. There was no sex difference with synthetic phonics teaching, but with analytic phonics, teaching girls had better reading comprehension”.
Despite its benefits, the whole-word approach lacks a clear structure, which might be disliked by both some students and teachers who would like more guidance. It also relies on the experience of reading, which may not be shared by all children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. While it may encourage a love of reading in some children, it simultaneously risks disadvantaging children who do not share this, as they are unlikely to engage in reading activities outside the classroom as opposed to those who do. The whole method approach poses the value to teachers of simply enjoying reading books with children, allowing them to develop somewhat independently, and supporting them where necessary. At the same time, it does lack a clear structure, something which some teachers may prefer to have. On the other hand, the synthetic approach does hold this systemic nature, while it is difficult for teachers as it requires a lot of judgment, and thus pressure, on their part, especially when conducting assessments.
Overall, the whole-word approach seems to hold more benefits for children learning to read. It facilitates a natural enjoyment of reading and will encourage children to develop their skills even when they are not in the classroom. However, both methods have specific advantages for different groups of children, and this should be addressed. When the whole word approach is used, special attention should be made to ensure that those who start school not being able to read are given extra support to ensure that they are at an equal standard to their peers.
Stuck on your essay?
