Phonic Instruction vs. Whole Language There is a great debate in America about which is the better method to teach children reading, writing, and spelling skills: The phonic instruction method or the whole language method. This paper will analyze each method and determine which is the proper method to employ.

There have been many studies done on the effectiveness of phonetic instruction and those studies have been positive. The National Reading Panel conducted a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of phonetic instruction on reading and spelling. Overall, the impact of phonetic instruction on children had a large result of (.86) within this meta-analysis. Using phonetic instruction, reading and spelling improved moderately at (.53) and (.56) respectively (Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001).

However, there are some critics of phonics that find that the NRP study on phonetic instruction is flawed and does not prove that phonetic instruction is the way to teach. One critic claims that the NRP study choice of methodology, research, and subjects provided unreliable results (Garan, 2001).

Yet another study portrays phonetic instruction as a positive influence on eight whole language first grade classes. Composite gains, derived from the comparison of pre and post test scores equaled (7.15), (6.08), and (8.61) for three groups. Group one, which had 123 first graders, achieved a posttest reading level score equivalent to Grade 5 (Dahl, Scharer, Lawson, Grogan, 1999).

Heavy phonetic instruction can be extremely beneficial to a certain group of children. A linguistic units and instructional strategy study found that children who enter first grade with low literacy benefit greatly from constant exposure to phonics.

The method of instructions differed in three classrooms (2, 3, and 4) in this study; however, phonics instruction was more prevalent in Classrooms 2 and 4.

The result was that low-level children in classrooms 2 and...

Children with little attention span will not benefit and will not progress in reading and spelling skills.
Another flaw on relying solely on phonetic instruction is the theory that children, who spend time enunciating letters, decoding denatured paragraphs, and going over grammar drills, will not begin to think and read for themselves. Using phonics-only lessons may result in holding children back and keeping them ignorant (Zemelman, Daniels, and Bizar, 1999).

The whole language method pertains to having the reader and writer recognize words based on sound-symbols, such as beginning and ending consonants, modeling after the language that the reader and writer speak. It also pertains to predicting words based on the context of a sentence. The idea of whole language method is not reading parts of words and individual words, but understanding connected text. The teacher accomplishes this method by having the children practice writing, therefore, promoting good spelling skills, and having the children follow print while the teacher reads.

The benefit of whole language method is that it promotes "real reading and writing." Children are not only reading and writing individual words, they understand connected text and are able to think creatively about its content. This idea is to give the children a greater appreciation of literature and a want to read a story rather than individual words.

The flaw in teaching the whole language method only, is trying to teach unfamiliar words. If a child has never spoken, read, or written that word, how does the child learn that word?

The final analysis is not to employ one or the other teaching method but to incorporate both whole language and phonetic instruction into a lesson plan. Individuals, whether they…