Editing Phonics (section)

==The Reading Wars – phonics vs. whole language==

A debate has been going on for decades about the merits of phonics vs. [[whole language]], often known in the UK as "look and say". It is sometimes referred to as the ''Reading Wars''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/ending-the-reading-wars-reading-acquisition-from-novice-to-expert.html|title=Ending the reading wars, Psychological sciences, 2018-07-11}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-30/australian-phonics-war-on-how-to-teach-kids-to-read-rages-on/11258944|title=Reading wars rage again as Australian Government pushes to introduce phonics test, abc.net.au, 2019-06-29|website=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]|date=29 June 2019}}</ref>

[[File:McGuffey's Primer 1836.jpg|thumb|upright=1.4|McGuffey's Primer 1836]]

Phonics was a popular way to learn reading in the 19th century. [[William Holmes McGuffey]] (1800–1873), an American educator, author, and Presbyterian minister who had a lifelong interest in teaching children, compiled the first four of the [[McGuffey Readers]] in 1836.<ref>{{Cite book|title=McGuffey's Eclectic Primer|author=William McGuffey|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|date=1999-05-04|isbn=0471294284}}</ref>

Then, in 1841 [[Horace Mann]], the Secretary of the [[Massachusetts Board of Education]], advocated for a whole-word method of teaching reading to replace phonics. [[Rudolf Flesch]] advocated for a return to phonics in his book ''[[Why Johnny Can't Read]]'' (1955).

The whole-word method received support from [[Ken Goodman|Kenneth J. Goodman]] who wrote an article in 1967 entitled ''Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game''. In it, he says efficient reading is the result of the "skill in selecting the fewest, most productive cues necessary to produce guesses which are right the first time".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Goodman|first1=Kenneth J.|title=Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game|journal=Journal of the Reading Specialist|volume=6|issue=4|year=1967|pages=126–135|doi=10.1080/19388076709556976}}</ref> Although not supported by scientific studies, the theory became very influential as the [[whole language]] method.<ref>{{cite book|title=Reading at the Speed of Light: How we Read, why so many can't, and what can be done about it|pages=247–281|date=2017|author=Mark Seidenberg|publisher=Basic Books |isbn=978-1-5416-1715-5}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://seidenbergreading.net|title= Reading Matters: Connecting science and education}}</ref> Since the 1970s some whole language supporters such as [[Frank Smith (psycholinguist)|Frank Smith]], are unyielding in arguing that phonics should be taught little, if at all.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://archive.org/stream/UnderstandingReading-FrankSmith/frank-smith-reading_djvu.txt|title=Frank Smith, 2004, Understanding Reading}}</ref>

Yet other researchers say instruction in phonics and [[phonemic awareness]] are "critically important" and "essential" to develop early reading skills.<ref name="Language at the speed of sight, pag">{{cite book |author=Seidenberg, Mark |title=Language at the speed of sight |pages=267, 300–304 |publisher=Basic Books|location=New York, NY|year=2017|isbn=978-1-5416-1715-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://robertslavinsblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/26/science-of-reading-can-we-get-beyond-our-30-year-pillar-fight/|title=Science of Reading: Can We Get Beyond Our 30-Year Pillar Fight|page=2|author=Robert Slavin|date=2020-03-26}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pdf/pspi22.pdf|title=HOW PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE INFORMS THE TEACHING OF READING, American Psychological Society, page 1, 2001}}</ref> In 2000, the US [[National Reading Panel]] identified five ingredients of effective reading instruction, of which phonics is one; the other four are phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf|title=National reading panel, nichd.nih.gov}}</ref> Reports from other countries, such as the Australian report on ''Teaching reading'' (2005)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=2&article=1004&context=tll_misc&type=additional |title=Teaching Reading  |format=PDF |work= Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. }}</ref> and the [[Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Rose Report 2006)]] from the UK have also supported the use of phonics.

Some notable researchers have clearly stated their disapproval of whole language. Cognitive neuroscientist [[Stanislas Dehaene]] has said, "cognitive psychology directly refutes any notion of teaching via a 'global' or 'whole language' method." He goes on to talk about "the myth of whole-word reading" (also: [[sight words]]), saying it has been refuted by recent experiments. "We do not recognize a printed word through a holistic grasping of its contours, because our brain breaks it down into letters and graphemes."<ref>{{cite book|author=Stanislas Dehaene|title=Reading in the brain|publisher=Penguin Books|date=2010-10-26|isbn=9780143118053}}</ref> [[Mark Seidenberg]] refers to whole language as a "theoretical zombie" because it persists in spite of a lack of supporting evidence.<ref>{{cite book |quote =The persistence of the [whole language] ideas despite the mass of evidence against them is most striking at this point. In normal science, a theory whose assumptions and predictions have been repeatedly contradicted by data will be discarded. That is what happened to the Smith and Goodman theories within reading science, but in education they are theoretical zombies that cannot be stopped by conventional weapons such as empirical disconfirmation, leaving them free to roam the educational landscape. |title=Language at the speed of light |date=2017 |page=271 |first=Mark |last=Seidenberg|isbn=9780465080656|publisher=Basic Books }}</ref>

Furthermore, a 2017 study published in the ''Journal of Experimental Psychology'' compared teaching with phonics vs. teaching whole written words and concluded that phonics is more effective. It states "Our results suggest that early literacy education should focus on the systematicities present in print-to-sound relationships in alphabetic languages, rather than teaching meaning-based strategies, in order to enhance both reading aloud and comprehension of written words".<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://doi.apa.org/fulltext/2017-17326-001.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://doi.apa.org/fulltext/2017-17326-001.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Comparing and Validating Methods of Reading Instruction Using Behavioural and Neural Findings in an Artificial Orthography|publisher=Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, volume 146, No. 6, 826–858|date=2017|doi=10.1037/xge0000301|last1=Taylor|first1=J. S. H.|last2=Davis|first2=Matthew H.|last3=Rastle|first3=Kathleen|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: General|volume=146|issue=6|pages=826–858|pmid=28425742|pmc=5458780}}</ref>

More recently, some educators have advocated for the theory of [[balanced literacy]] purported to combine phonics and whole language yet not necessarily in a consistent or systematic manner. It may include elements such as word study and phonics mini-lessons, differentiated learning, cueing, leveled reading, shared reading, guided reading, independent reading and sight words.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://theconversation.com/reading-is-more-than-sounding-out-words-and-decoding-thats-why-we-use-the-whole-language-approach-to-teaching-it-126606|title=Reading is more than sounding out words and decoding, The conversation.com, 2019-11-11|date=11 November 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://districtadministration.com/teaching-phonics-builds-balanced-literacy|title=Teaching phonics builds balanced literacy, District administration, FL|date=24 June 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.edutopia.org/article/3-ways-make-better-use-reading-science|title=3 Ways to Make Better Use of Reading Science, Edutopia.org, 2020-02-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://medium.com/inspired-ideas-prek-12/4-reasons-to-use-the-balanced-literacy-approach-4e6556ccb19a|title=4 reasons to use balanced literacy|date=27 May 2021}}</ref> According to a survey in 2010, 68% of K–2 teachers in the United States practice balanced literacy; however, only 52% of teachers included ''phonics'' in their definition of ''balanced literacy''. In addition, 75% of teachers teach the [[Reading#Three cueing system (Searchlights model)|three-cueing system]] (i.e., meaning/structure/visual or semantic/syntactic/graphophonic) that has its roots in whole language.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.edweek.org/media/ed%20week%20reading%20instruction%20survey%20report-final%201.24.20.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.edweek.org/media/ed%20week%20reading%20instruction%20survey%20report-final%201.24.20.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Early reading instruction survey, EdWeek Research Center, USA|website=[[Education Week]]|date=2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading|title=At a Loss for Words, AMP Reports, USA|date=2019-08-22| author=Emily Hanford}}</ref>

In addition, some phonics supporters assert that ''balanced literacy'' is merely ''whole language'' by another name.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.margaretkay.com/PDF%20files/Dyslexia%202010/Whole%20Language%20High%20Jinks%20by%20Louisa%20Moats.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101229134022/http://margaretkay.com/PDF%20files/Dyslexia%202010/Whole%20Language%20High%20Jinks%20by%20Louisa%20Moats.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2010-12-29 |title=Whole language high jinks: How to tell when scientifically based reading instruction isn't|work=Louisa Moats on margaretkay.com}}</ref> And critics of whole language and sceptics of balanced literacy, such as neuroscientist [[Mark Seidenberg]], state that struggling readers should ''not'' be encouraged to skip words they find puzzling or rely on semantic and syntactic cues to guess words.<ref name="Language at the speed of sight, pag"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/unbalanced-comments-on-balanced-literacy|title=Unbalanced Comments on Balanced Literacy, Timothy Shanahan, 2014-10-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394/|title=Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of Balanced Reading Instruction - LDOnline}}</ref>

Over time a growing number of countries and states have put greater emphasis on phonics and other [[evidence-based practice]]s (see [[#Practices by country or region|Practices by country or region]] below).

===Simple view of reading===
[[File:School in Laos - Reading time.jpg|thumb|Reading time at a primary school in rural [[Laos|Lao PDR]]]]

The ''[[simple view of reading]]'' is a scientific theory about reading comprehension. The creators of the theory hoped it would help to end the reading wars. According to the theory, in order to comprehend what they are reading students need both ''decoding skills'' and oral ''language comprehension ability''; neither is enough on their own.

The formula is: Decoding × Oral Language Comprehension = Reading Comprehension.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kendeou |first1=Panayiota |last2=Savage |first2=Robert |last3=Broek |first3=Paul |title=Revisiting the simple view of reading |journal=British Journal of Educational Psychology |date=June 2009 |volume=79 |issue=2 |pages=353–370 |doi=10.1348/978185408X369020|pmid=19091164 }}</ref>

Students are not reading if they can decode words but do not understand their meaning. Similarly, students are not reading if they cannot decode words that they would ordinarily recognize and understand if they heard them spoken out loud.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Castles |first1=Anne |last2=Rastle |first2=Kathleen |last3=Nation |first3=Kate |title=Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert |journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest |date=11 June 2018 |volume=19 |issue=1 |page=27 |doi=10.1177/1529100618772271|pmid=29890888 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.readingrockets.org/article/simple-view-reading|title=Simple view of reading, Reading rockets|date=6 June 2019}}</ref>