From Teaching Phonics Today: Word Study Strategies Through the Grades (second edition) by Dorothy S. Strickland. © 2011 International Reading Association, CHAPTER 4 Finding the Balance: Systematic, Intensive, Code-Driven Phonics Versus Holistic, Embedded, Meaning-Driven Approaches complete without addressing the issues as they are likely to appear in their most extreme form—the debate surrounding systematic, intensive phonics versus holistically oriented approaches. This is the form in which the controversy most likely is to be cast to the general public. The distinction between these two approaches is most significant at the very earliest point of formal instruction in reading. This chapter provides the background required to make thoughtful and informed curriculum choices. Stated briefly, educators who promote systematic, intensive phonics advocate an emphasis on phonics that is highly sequenced, skills- or code-driven, and initiated early in the child’s schooling. Children begin by learning about the parts of words and build toward whole words. Correct identification and automaticity of response is stressed. Much of the research cited to support this view is grounded in experimental studies in which children’s demonstration of performance is based on the results of standardized tests (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1983). Holistically oriented approaches include philosophies and practices frequently associated with terms such as whole language, integrated language arts, and literature-based curricula. In practice, these terms share certain characteristics; however, they are not synonymous. For example, the trends in literacy education outlined in Chapter 3 (.e., greater emphasis on writing and its relation to reading; increased attention to the integration of all the language arts; greater use of a variety of materials, including trade books and library books; and greater reliance on informal classroom assessment) are visible in virtually all classrooms where a holistic orientation T: discussion of the controversies surrounding phonics is not 46A teacher observes and listens as @ student reads independently, is espoused. However, implementation and adherence to various philosophies varies widely from teacher to teacher. To make matters more confusing, teachers who support intensive, systematic phonics often include some of the instructional elements considered to be holistic in nature In a discussion of phonics, the distinction between an explicit code or skills emphasis (.e., systematic, intensive phonics) and an embedded code or meaning emphasis (i.e., reading- and writing-based phonics) rests in how reading is taught from the very beginning, Advocates of reading- and writing-based phonics focus on instruction that is embedded within the processes of learning to read and write and emphasize the child’s ability to make meaning with text. Children begin with the use of whole texts involving shared literacy activities with an adult and move to the identification of phrases and words and the examination of word parts Emphasis on meaning is maintained even as children examine word parts, because the purpose is to help them see the patterns in the language so they can apply the knowledge to new situations. Those who endorse a meaning emphasis are likely to cite basic research on how children learn to read and write as well as classroom-based studies on long-term effects of reading- and writing-based phonics (Krashen, 1993; Weaver, 1994). 7Recognizing that in most controversies there is something to be learned from both sides, I have attempted in this book to avoid extremes on the phonics debate. For example, educators on both sides of the debate agree that, ultimately, reading and writing for meaning is paramount, Both sides are keenly aware of the importance of good literature in the lives of children and the need for responsive adults who support children's natural inclinations toward making sense of print. Both sides of the phonics debate could learn from educators in Finland Because the Finnish language is said to be the most regular alphabetic writing system in use today (Venezky, 1973), it is not surprising that educators there turned to synthetic phonics as the major instructional approach to beginning reading. It also is not surprising that Finnish researchers report that phonies instruction decreased poor readers’ decoding problems in the first grade. “Even the students with low IQs can learn fluent mechanical reading skills” (Korkeamaki & Dreher, 1993, p. 478). However, the jump start in phonics given to Finnish children has not created a country free of reading problems. Studies suggest that a large proportion of Finnish children have serious problems with reading comprehension: 20% in Grade 3 (Vahapassi, 1977a), 50% in Grade 6 (Vahapassi, 1977b), and 30% in Grade 9 (Vahapassi, 1987). These findings parallel Venezky's (1973) finding that although Finnish students achieve a surprisingly high level of sound-letter mastery by the end of first grade, only 25% of the variation in the students’ reading ability in the second and third grades could be attributed to the mastery of sound— letter correspondence. It could be that for many learners, an instructional program (in any discipline) that is devoid of meaning and purpose produces mindless, quick results at the expense of long-term strategies for independence and self-improvement. This should not be viewed as an indictment of phonics; rather, it is an indictment of how phonics was taught in this situation. The questions educators and parents face regarding phonics never has been about whether to teach it, but about how much phonics to teach, to whom, and at what time. Educators who seek to provide a comprehensive and balanced instructional program would do well to consider the following: + Instruction is systematic when it is planned, deliberate in application, and proceeds in an orderly manner. This does not mean a rigid progression of “one-size-fits-all” instruction. Rather, it means a 48thoughtfully planned program that takes into account learner. variability * The intensity of instruction on any particular skill or strategy should be based on need. Thus, intensity will vary both with individuals and groups. There is no substitute for ongoing documentation and monitoring of learning in order to determine the level of intensity needed to help a child or group of children succeed in a particular area, * The use of techniques to track specific goals and objectives within an integrated language arts framework is essential. Alignment of curricular goals with instructional planning and assessment helps provide everyone involved with a clear sense of direction. Instruction should be engaging and rich with meaning, yet grounded in curricular expectations that are visible to teachers, parents, students, and concerned others. * Instructional techniques that help children understand and make use of the alphabetic code should be applied with those that guide: students in reading comprehension, thoughtful response to literature, and the effective use of the writing process. Avoiding instructional extremes is at the heart of providing a balanced program of reading instruction. However, finding the balance should not imply that there is a specific balanced approach. Nor should it suggest a sampling method in which “a little of this and a little of that” are mixed together to form a disparate grouping of approaches euphemistically termed “eclectic.” Ultimately, instruction must be informed by how children eam and how they can best be taught. Achieving informed balance is an ongoing endeavor that requires knowledge, time, and thoughtfulness Gtrickland, 2004). 1. Most educators advocate for balance in the literacy curriculum. What does the term balance mean to you? Share some ideas about how it might be achieved in the areas of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. 49