Ediger starts the article by talking about literacy. She explains how in recent years, writing and oral skills have started to play a more important role in literacy development than they have in the past. Many new standards are including expectations for the development of the four main language skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking), not just reading alone. She explains how reading is a “complex, interactive process” where the reader finds meaning with a text through their own schemata. Teaching ELs literacy skills, however, can be challenging because students may bring different levels of language proficiency, different cultural backgrounds and a variety of experiences to the classroom. Teachers shouldn’t make assumptions about the students and be flexible in their teaching to accommodate for those differences.
A question that is presented in the article is, “Is there an optimal way to teach reading and writing?” Ediger addresses this question by dividing the many different approaches into two large categories: 1) Part-centered or 2) Socio-psycholinguistic.
Part-centered approaches start by teaching beginning readers “parts” and then moving towards the “whole”. There are many examples of instruction within this category. A phonics approach teaches students the different letter-sound relationships in hopes of being able to decode or break apart words in the future, or on the other hand, being able to put together different sound combinations to make words. A linguistic approach would teach words with similar spelling patters, common rhymes, or word-ending patterns so students could find relationships. The sight-word approach is based on the idea that if students are able to identify 100 of the most common words, then they should be able to know fifty percent of the words that they encounter. So, much time would be spent to ensure that students can rapidly recognize the common words. In a basal approach, children are taught to read through careful control and sequencing sounds at increased levels of difficulty.
In the socio-psycholinguistic category, Ediger discusses three different approaches. The Language Experience Approach has students come up with their own ideas for stories because it is based on the ideas that learning should move from the familiar to the unknown, and that if your schemata is similar to the topic of the text, it will be easier to understand. The literature approach focuses on the child gaining the meaning of the text, and addresses individual needs while teaching them to read. The Whole language approach teaches reading along with trying to create independent readers, writers and learners.
There are pros and cons to all of the approaches, and there has been much debate over which method is better. It seems that new evidence is supporting a “balanced approach” or a “whole-to-part-to-whole” approach. These approaches would try to be engaging and focus on meaning, while at the same time giving specific instruction on the technical features of becoming literate. Ediger includes 5 guidelines for teachers who decide to implement this sort of approach.
Ediger also points out that while standards have been very helpful in organizing and clarifying objectives, the standardized tests that come along with them are not always the best way to evaluate and assess ELLs. She makes her point by saying that an incorrect answer on a test doesn’t necessarily show that the student didn’t know the content; it was possible that he/she just couldn’t make sense of the question. She includes a list of things that teachers can do to encourage literacy development and achieve standards. Some of the things she mentions are labeling items in the room, creating areas in the room for specific literacy purposes and making available many different genres of books for the students to read.
TASK: What do you think about the debate between using a Phonics approach or using a Whole Language approach? Do you think one approach is better than the other, or would to rather try to implement something more similar to the “Balanced approach” that she describes? If so, what do you think of the 5 guidelines she gives, and would you use them in your own classroom?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not think one approach is necessarily better than the other. Students have many different forms of learning, so I think it's very important to incorporate quite a few language learning approaches. The "balanced approach" seems to be most fitting for an ESL classroom. The Whole Language approach does not just focus on reading, but it attempts to guide and assist learners to develop an independence with reading, writing, and learning. The Phonics approach focuses mainly on the sounds of the language. I think by using only this approach, it would be very difficult for ESL students to distinguish sounds, speak correctly, and comprehending what they have read.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the 5 approaches, I agree with the concept that "Skills and meaning should alway be kept together." Students need to be understanding what they are doing in the classroom and have a meaning behind everything they are learning. Learner variability is also very important because all students learn differently. With variety in the system, more students are likely to understand the material. Regular assessment of students' individual learning should take place. That way the teacher can determine what skills the student needs to work on. I think, for the most part, these guidelines are quite useful and I would use them in my classroom.
As with most teaching methods, debates are bound to arise as to which is most effective. While there are benefits to both the Phonics and Whole Language approaches, I tend to agree with Ediger’s in regards to the balanced approach. It is important to remember that each student learns differently and requiring all students to adhere to one technique is rarely successful. Her 5 guidelines are general, but provide a good outline for teaching reading.
ReplyDeleteNo matter which approach is implemented, reading for meaning is something that should be emphasized. We are all guilty of “reading “ entire pages and not comprehending or remembering what we have read. For ELLs, this is especially difficult when they are focusing on saying the word correctly and not on the meaning behind the sounds. In my classroom, I would like to use a balanced approach that is heavy on comprehension checks. While it is important that students learn to read with fluidity, it is more important that they understand what they are reading.
I think that the effectiveness of either approach sort of depends on the learner. For some students learning each individual sound/letter would be helpful, while looking at the language holistically from the start could become overwhelming. For others moving slowly through phonetics would be boring and frustrating. I really like the balanced approach. I was taught to read English that way (my parents taught me before I started school). I like most of the guidelines mentioned for the balanced approach, however I dislike the encouragement of invented spelling. My elementary school chose to encourage invented spelling (and we did have a few ELLs). Our misspellings being accepted led to confusion, and difficulty spelling correctly as we grew older. English spellings often do not make much sense, so learning to spell inventively does not help students that much, in my opinion. Other than that one point I think the guidelines are fine. I particularly like guideline one. When I think about teaching students to read or write I always think about students who didn't grow up in a home where a written language was used. The meaning and skills being integrated is especially important for these kids.
ReplyDeleteIt's understandable that there is a debate going on about which approach to use; Phonics vs Whole Language. Both approaches tackle important aspects of reading that every student should learn but it's difficult to decide if one is more effective than the other. At first, I was leaning towards the phonics approach because that is how I was taught to read. I have also noticed using the Phonics approach myself when I tutor elementary students. Although, my thoughts on the Phonics approach has changed once I read about what both approaches consist of. I do believe that it is important for students to use the phonetic rules to sound out words but there are many words that need to be memorized as sight words because they don't follow the rules. It might be difficult for ELs because of the differing dialects of English that change depending on the pronunciation rules. On the other hand, the whole language approach might be difficult for Els because it uses the student's previously learned knowledge to connect to new knowledge. This might result in a lack of comprehension depending on how much the student previously knew. Yet, I also believe that the whole language approach would be more beneficial for the students in the long run because it expands a students knowledge with the focus on meaning and the material can incorporate an ELs language and culture. Both approaches have pros and cons so I would have to say that neither approach is more effective than the other. As a teacher, I would want to my students to attempt to sound out the word and if they struggle then to use the whole language approach to figure out the meaning of the word. I know that this idea is too idealistic because it would involve a lot of time spent with students and on developing curriculums.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it seems that the phonics approach is used most frequently in schools, I feel that both approaches have their benefits, and would therefore opt for a more “balanced approach.” I feel that Ediger’s Five Guidelines are quite accurate, especially numbers one (skills and meaning should always be kept together) and two (instead of rigid, systematically predetermined instruction that is identical for all learners, such activities as word recognition skills and phonics, as well as invented spelling, can be systematically integrated intro programs that take learner variability into account). These two guidelines allow for meaningful instruction and learning that is directly connected to how that individual student learns.
ReplyDelete