Jenny Curtis suggests that whole language learning is considered to be better in providing a greater understanding of the text, however, she does indicate that this method may result in less accuracy and less correctness. She indicates that phonics on the other hand, builds upon a reader’s pronunciation and word recognition skills. ( [23.10.01]) John Holdren, director of research and communication of the Core Knowledge foundation gives an example of the phonics based bottom-up approach to reading from a Merrill basal reading series as follows:
Is a cat on a mat?
A cat is on a mat.
Is the cat fat?
Is the cat Nat?
The cat on the mat is Nat.
( [4.11.99]) Note the rhyming of words in the above text. A word may be divided into its onset and rime, the onsets in the above reading example for cat, mat, fat, Nat are c, m, f, n respectively whereas the rime for cat, mat, fat, Nat is ‘at’ (all four words having the same rime. Thus by making an analogy in reading it is possible to use the rime in a word to decode another word with the same rime (Goswami,1996, p.29). The use of grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules (in this case single phoneme onsets) is in Goswami’s opinion as the best way for young readers to develop their phonemic skills (Goswami, 1996, p.28). John Holdren’s view is that for a child to decode words, reading such texts as the Merrill basal series can help him/her to encounter a sensational sense of success from reading. ( [4.11.99]) From the above example we may observe that the bottom-up approach is suitable for young children who are beginning to learn how to read. Phonics reading involves repetition and drills, this may interest children. Adults however, might find drills both boring and too basic. ( [4.11.99]).
Both top-down and bottom-up approaches claim that their technique is the valued one to good reading. Whole language supporters are against direct, systematic instructions, in their opinion such a technique inhibits invention, creativity and discovery which as a result attacks the reader’s natural development of his/her reading skills. (/ckproto2/about/nwsltr/phonicsNwsltr.htm [4.11.99]) There is a big debate about the concept that the ability to read is a natural one, analogous to speaking a language, this statement is supported by the whole language purists. Holdren argues that written language is exactly the opposite from being natural, he stresses it is artificial, a human artefact. Readers need to decode text and they must be given the knowledge to do so. ( [4.11.99]) Clear drawbacks in the perspective of the top-down proponents are being exposed, the comparison between learning to speak and learning to read in my opinion is unconvincing. I feel that top-down proponents are underestimating the complexity that is involved in successful reading. Holdren is firm with his response and is strong with his argument.
Elizabeth Goodacre explains that the decoding method in phonics may be beneficial to children but warns us that if children stick with this approach for a lengthy period of time and keep on looking for graphic similarities, they will lose the practice required for applying syntactic and semantic cues. The result will be a failure to acquire flexibility in the techniques of reading. The problem of concern is that an over reliance on a programme with a consistent letter sound correspondence may condition a child in this type of reading situation, they will acquire a ‘mind set’ for consistency which will hinder their progress in reading (Goodacre, 1971, p.52). Ken Boothe, Leah B. Walter and Glenys Waters in ‘What is a top down reading model?’ highlight Frank Smith, a reading researcher’s comments on top-down reading, he states that reading should not involve the decoding of written language into spoken language and he specifies that ‘reading is a matter of bringing meaning to print, not extracting meaning from print.’ (McCormick.T, 1998) ( AtopDownReadingModel.htm [20.10.01])
In my assessment of the phonics approach, it is my judgement that this approach falls short of particular qualities for successful reading such as, it is doubtful whether this approach allows the reader to differentiate the purposes of different texts, also, the approach allows the readers to read but not to question either the contents or the author’s perspective in the text. It is my understanding that the bottom-up approach mostly involves simple reading with less depth in a reading context. Comparing this method with the top-down approach leads me to believe that whole language reading is holistic in style and thus gives the reader a clearer understanding of the whole of the text. Whereas the phonics reader masters reading in steps by associating sound with letters before identification of a word, the whole language reader masters reading by the direct identification of the word. Schonell & Goodacre highlight a drawback for the phonics readers. They refer to the fact that certain letters have more than one sound (Schonell, Goodacre, 1945, p.71). It is my assessment that the only way that the bottom-up reader can become competent in identifying the different sounds for the same letter in different words is by trial and error. An example of a letter with different sounds is ‘g’ in words such as gate and giraffe. I understand that the whole word reader eliminates this confusion by seeing the word as a complete unit with its own individual meaning. Dr. Marvin L. Simner, PH.D at the department of psychology, University of Western Ontario, Canada claims that he has evidence that suggests that whole language is not beneficial for all children, he goes further to say that it may even result in serious reading problems amongst some children. He is most concerned for children from disadvantaged backgrounds who do not have the required literacy skills. He feels that these children will greatly benefit from a stronger emphasis on phonics. ( [23.10.01]) No reading approach is ideal, we have heard arguments both for and against each approach, if we are to produce successful reading amongst children, we will need an approach that covers the various aspects that motivates children’s learning and in the process gives the child the skills necessary to read .
Curtis attempts to answer a difficult question; Which reading method is best for one’s child? She explains that children may be categorised as either visual or auditory learners. Whereas visual learners may benefit from whole language (due to their strength in word recognition and word sequence recognition), auditory learners learn what they hear ( thus depending more on phonics. Curtis argues against pushing a child to a particular approach, instead she supports a mixed approach as being probably the best method. (.shtml [23.10.01]) This suggestion of a mixed approach to learning is supported because it is understood that most children learn by combining different techniques as well as the various strengths offered by the individual methods thus giving a good ground for developing a mixed approach. ( [23.10.01]) Further writers give their support to a mixed approach. David Eskey in his article ‘Models of reading…’ links successful reading with applying both top-down and bottom-up models simultaneously; readers decode and interpret as they read. His message to teachers is that students with difficulties in either kinds of processing (top-down or bottom-up) or with both will have problems with their reading. Eskey has identified the merits of both approaches working together. (http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ncsall/fob/1997/eskey.htm [20.10.01]) John Holdren takes the discussion further. Holdren argues that children learning to read will most benefit from both phonics and whole language techniques, he admits that combining the two techniques may not settle the debate of phonics v. whole language but he stresses that it is helpful to attempt to bring these two techniques together. (.org/ckproto2/about/nwsltr/phonicsNwsltr.htm [4.11.99]) This approach is otherwise known as the interactive approach which deals with the deficiencies of both the top-down and bottom-up approaches. ( [16.10.01]) The interactive approach identifies limitations in the bottom-up model, Frehan explains, it does not allow background knowledge to intervene prior to lower level decoding likewise the top-down approach limits its technique by not permitting lower level processes to have an effect on the higher level processes. A reader who is poor in one technique may compensate by introducing another reading process, thus the advantage of the interactive approach. ( [16.10.01]) Frehan refers to Stanovich (1980) and his interactive compensatory model which deals with the limitations of the two approaches. Frehan explains, excessive highlighting of either approaches will not identify a reader’s ability for a comprehension of a text. Those developing reading skills need to master top-down interpretation and bottom-up recognition techniques. Readers who put too much emphasis on individual words will, by the time they complete reading a page, forget what the top was about. (Eskey & Grabe, 1988) ( [16.10.01]) Professor Connie Juel of the University of Virginia, U.S.A reviews the debate of phonics v. whole language as an artificial debate. Holdren states that the challenge is to bring about a balance of the two approaches. ( [4.11.99]) Frehan is quite convincing, he uses Eskey and Grabe well to support his explanation. Both he and Holdren reveal a sincere need for a combined approach which in my view brings greater depth and understanding in reading.
Let us examine what is meant by a balanced approach to get an understanding on how we can initiate such an approach on children’s learning. Sebastian Wren in his article ‘Topics in early reading coherence…’ informs us that many interactive theorists and teachers have argued for a balanced approach but this is not a straight forward concept. ‘Most people do not agree with what the term “balanced approach” means. (l [23.10.01]) Some agree that teaching phonics first and then progressing to whole language may be a good method, this is referred to as the eclectic approach (using ideas from many different systems. [Crowdy & Walter, 1989 p.164]). Another approach is to intermix phonics with whole language or alternatively the phonics instruction may be made explicit, but also allowing children to read connected and authentic text. (l [23.10.01]) Wren writes about an argument that is to use the best elements of each approach and to discard the worst elements but then we would have to decide which were the best elements and which weren’t exclaims Wren. His answer to this is to rely on science and to ask the researchers about what information concerning reading and reading instructions has been supported by them in their studies. This, Wren considers to be the first step and then he urges us to move on with this as a base. Wren draws our attention to focus more on the reader than the teacher and his/her reading instructions. Only then will children become literate when teachers look at their needs which will become apparent from assessments. Children’s reading skills if diagnosed and responded to by teachers will not be a debate ( [23.10.01]).
We have dealt with the merits and limitations of both top-down and bottom-up approaches. The discussion has shown that there are three main approaches to reading. While the debate of phonics v. whole language can continue without compromise, this debate will not yield successful reading inspite of the individual merits of both top-down and bottom-up reading. The discussion above has shown sufficient support for the third way, the interactive approach but above all, it is my understanding that the reader’s needs comes first, each child has an individual way of learning, teachers must nurture and develop the child’s reading approach and further his/her skills by introducing a variety of approaches, using phonics and whole language at such a level and combination that the young reader is most receptive to the style of training. I understand the successful reader to be one who applies the various strategies of reading and who’s mind is enriched with knowledge and meaning as a result of his reading approach. In short the balance should reflect the needs of the reader. Assess the reader and balance the approaches accordingly. This is in my opinion, the key to successful reading.
Word Count: 2,692.
Bibliography.
Barrs, M., Thomas, A. (1991) The Reading Book, CLPE, London, U.K.
Beard, R. (1993) teaching literacy, balancing perspectives, Hodder & Stoughton, London, U.K.
Carrell, P.L. (1988a) Introduction: Interactive approaches to second language reading. In P.L. Carrell, J.Devine, & E. Eskey (Eds), Inteactive approaches to second language reading, (pp.1-7) New York: Cambridge University Press cited in
Carrell, P.L (1988b) Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading. In P.L. Carrell, J. Devine & E. Eskey (Eds), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.103-113) New York: Cambridge University Press. Cited in
Cooper, M. (1996) Helping Children Read, United Kingdom Reading Association, Herts, U.K.
Crowdy, S., Walter,E. (1989) Longman Top Pocket English Dictionary, Longman group U.K limited, Harlow, U.K.
Goodacre, E.J. (1971) Children and learning to read, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, London, U.K.
Goodman, K.S. (1971) Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. In P.Pimslear & T.Quinn (Eds.) The psychology of second language reading (pp.135-142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cited in
Goswami, U. (May, 1996) Rhyme Analogy, Child.
Layton, L., Upton.G. (1992, March) Phonological training and the pre-school child, Education 3-13, volume 20, number 1, Longman Group, Harlow, U.K.
Schonell, F.J., Goodacre, E. (1945) The Psychology and Teaching of Reading, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, U.K.
Trask, R.L. (1997) A student’s dictionary of language and
linguistics, Arnold, London, U.K.
AtopDownReadingModel.htm
