We have all heard statements like, “Carrots improve your vision,” “Chocolate causes acne,” or, my favorite, “Sitting too close to the TV will hurt your eyes.” Although these statements are universally known and are often accepted as fact, they are completely untrue. Along those same lines, statements like, “English isn’t systematic,” “Most words in English do not follow rules,” or “Phonics isn’t important” are absolutely false.
Why is it important to dispel the untruths, to bust the myths? It is important because incorrect information leads to misguided actions and unexpected and, often, disappointing results. Even though the debate about the importance and efficacy of phonics continues, research has produced convincing results of its value.
Although most of us do memorize whole words on occasion, it would be impossible for us to memorize every word in the English language. There is no way children learning to read could memorize all of the words necessary for them to read state tests or all of the books used in their classes. If students are taught the connection of the sounds to the letters and how to put those together, then they are able to handle unfamiliar words. Phonics is a valuable tool for every student, but it is a complete necessity when teaching students with processing issues, such as dyslexia, to read.
On three different occasions, Jean S. Chall, psychologist and reading instruction expert, surveyed the entire body of reading research available to assess the best practices in reading instruction (1967, 1983, 1996). Chall concluded that comprehensive, systematic, phonics-first instruction as the most effective type of reading instruction was overwhelmingly supported by the vast majority of the research (reference: Chall, Jean S., “Learning to Read: The Great D,” 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.”
Dr. Marilyn J. Adams, internationally regarded for her research and applied work in the area of cognition and education, was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Education Research & Improvement to survey the entire body of reading research. Adams reached the same conclusion that Chall did, and her results are found in her research-based textbook, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print (1990). Her final conclusion, on page 416, was: 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.”
Teaching phonics and decoding as a first, systematic approach to reading has been shown to be the most effective and significantly beneficial mode of teaching reading. Students need and respond to different types of instruction, but the evidence is clear that a foundation in explicit phonics sets them up to be successful, efficient readers.
www.projectpro.com/ICR www.examiner.com/examiner www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews