Phonicsand the Literacy

Learner

Bonnie NicholasEDPY 591November 5, 2007

Linguistics 101 Review

• Phone: from the Greek phon, meaning sound. A phone is a speech sound in language: [t] and [ť].

• Phoneme is an abstract image: /t/.• Phonology is the study of the

mental system for representingand processing speech sounds

• Phonation is the production or utterance of sound.

• Phonotactics are the set of constraints on how sounds may be combined in a language: “ztmikn”

• Phonetics is the branch of linguistics that examines the inventory and structure of the sounds of language.

• Phonic means to hear, for example, symphonic means “to hear together”(O’Grady, 2006)

But what is phonics?

• Phonics is a way of teaching reading and spelling that stresses symbol-sound relationships, used especially in beginning instruction. (Nebraska Dept. of Ed., first definition)

• Phonics is not a method of teaching reading. (National Right to Read Foundation)

•Phonics is a word attack skill.

•Phonics is a body of knowledge consisting of 26 letters used to symbolize 44 English speech sounds. (National Right to Read Foundation)

•Phonics is the sound-symbol relationship between spokenand written language.(Nebraska Dept. of Education, second definition)

•Phonics is phoneme / grapheme correspondence.

• We used to talk about “phonics rules” which students had to memorize (see, for example, the “Phonics Primer” on the NRRF website, in which the word “drill” appears 8 times.)

• Now, the language has shifted to “phonic generalizations”(Birch, 2002, p. 92).

• Phonics generalizations may have “low or unpredictable

utility” (ibid, p. 93).

Phonics is also controversial:“At the National Right to Read Foundation,

our mission is to return scientific research-based, explicit, systematic phonics instruction along with good literature to every elementary school in America. The simple mission of NRRF is, unfortunately, opposed by vast numbers of educational apparatchiks, who detest the proven method of phonics instruction.”-Joy Sweet, NRRF

“The “minor benefits” of phonics (“In War OverTeaching Reading,” March 9) refers to thefinding of the National Reading Panel thatextensive phonics instruction only impactsperformance on tests in which children

pronouncewords presented on a list. The panel found nosignificant benefit on tests in whichstudents have to understand whatthey read.

Reading First supports extensivephonics, an extremist view which attempts to teach all the major rules of phonics in a strict order.”

-Stephen Krashen

What role does phonics play in adult literacy education?

What does the research tell us?

Fluency first? Oraccuracy first? Bottom-up or top-down?

Key reading skills:

• Vocabulary• Syntactical processing• Schema activation• Phonological processing

-including phonics (from class notes, Sept. 24)

There is a bias in favour of top-downprocessing and research, but this ischanging as interactive models gainauthority.

(see Nassaji, 2007, p. 85; Hudson, 2007, pp. 33-34; Grabe, 2004, p. 32).

“Reading is . . . interactive in the sense that linguistic information from the

text interacts with information activated by the reader from long-term memory, as background knowledge. These two knowledge sources (linguistic and background) are essential for building thereader’s interpretation of the text” (Grabe & Stoller, 2001, p. 18).

“Current research believes that lackof automaticity in ‘lower-levelprocessing’ (i.e. automatic lexicalaccess through bottom-up process)leads to poor skilled reading”

(Alyousef, 2006, p. 64)

“Phonemic awareness is animportant precursor for alphabeticreading, but paradoxically, peopleoften acquire it as a resultof learning to readan alphabet.”

(Birch, 2002, p. 54; see alsoBell and Burnaby, p. 62)

“. . . developing phonological sensitivity

is critical for early success in reading acquisition; and instructional programmes that emphasize sound-spelling decoding skills result in betterreading outcomes becausealphabetic coding is the criticalsub-process that supportsfluent reading” (Stanovich and Stanovich,

quoted in Grabe & Stoller, 2001, p. 32)

Phonics issues for ELLs

• English spelling is phonemic rather than phonetic.

• English does not have a strict phoneme / grapheme correspondence.

George Bernard Shawfamously suggested spelling

“fish” as “ghoti”:laugh women nation

doing, donegoing, gone

cough / tough / though / bough / through

read / read, bow / bow, wind / wind, record / record, present / present

More phonics issues for ELLs

•comprehension skills are equally important•phonics instruction may be decontextualized and inaccessible•instructional materials may be inauthentic and irrelevant•materials viewed as too simpleor childish may offend students and lead to a negative affect•decoding words can impede fluency

Conclusions

“Research that demonstrates the effectiveness of specific instructional practices for greater fluency in word recognition is needed.”

(Grabe, 2004, p. 48.)

“This is not to say that phonics -decoding letters into sounds – is not

ofuse in learning to read. It does play apart, and it can be a very useful tool, but it should not be the only route or even the primary route we choose” (Bell & Burnaby, 1984, p. 10).

" 高水平認知過程。．．與底層過程的組合。．．形成讓我們執行讀書因為各種目的認知處理資源。．．理解力過程 , 看這樣 , 突出理解力的神奇的本質 年 "(Grabe & Stoller 2001, p. 29) 。

And finally. . .

"Υψηλότερου επιπέδου γνωστικές διαδικασίες. .. σε συνδυασμό με τις χαμηλότερες διαδικασίες. .. διαμορφώστε τους γνωστικούς πόρους επεξεργασίας που πραγματοποιήστε την ανάγνωση για διάφορους λόγους. .. Οι διαδικασίες κατανόησης ανάγνωσης, που βλέπουνε κατ' αυτό τον τρόπο, δίνουν έμφαση στη θαυμαστή φύση της κατανόησης ανάγνωσης "(Grabe & Stoller, 2001, σελ. 29).

And finally. . .

" познавательныйа процесс. . . процессы. . . сформируйте познавательные обрабатывая ресурсы препятствуют нам унести чтение для различных целей. . . Процессы понимания чтения, увиденные в этой дороге, выделяют нерукотворную природу понимания чтения "(Grabe & Stoller, 2001, P 29).

And finally. . .

" 상급 수준 인지 과정 . . . 저수준 과정와 조화하여 . . . 우리들을 각종 목적을 위해 독서를 실행하는 시키는 인식 가공 자원을 형성하십시요 . . . 이 방법안에 보는 독해력 과정은 , 독해력의 신기한 성격을 " 강조한다 (Grabe&Stoller2001년 ,p.29).

And finally. . .

"Higher-level cognitieve processen. .. in combinatie met de processen op lager niveau. .. vorm de cognitieve verwerkingsmiddelen die lezing voor diverse doeleinden uitvoeren. .. Op deze wijze de gezien het begripsprocessen van de lezing, benadrukken de wonderbare aard van lezingsbegrip "(Grabe & Stoller, 2001, p. 29).

And finally. . .

“Higher-level cognitive processes . . . incombination with the lower-levelprocesses . . . form the cognitiveprocessing resources that let us carry

outreading for various purposes. . . . Reading comprehension processes, seen in this way, highlight the miraculous natureof reading comprehension” (Grabe & Stoller, 2001, p. 29).

And finally. . .

QuestionsIf we use phonics with adult literacy

learners, how would our instruction be different than if we were teaching children?

How would our use of phonics be different with learners who have no literacy in their L1, or with learners whose L1 does not use the Roman alphabet?

References for phonics controversy

D'Agostino, Joseph A (2001). Conservative spotlight: Joy Sweet. Interview inHuman Events. Dec 24, 2001.

Essberger, J. (1999). Ghoti = Fish. Retrieved fromhttp://www.englishclub.com/esl-articles/199909.htm

Krashen, SD (2007) Reading First’s Extremist View of Phonics. Unpublishedletter to the editor, NY Times. Retrieved from http://sdkrashen.com/pipermail/krashen_sdkrashen.com/2007-March/000720.html

National Right to Read Foundation. www.nrrf.org

Nebraska Dept. of Education (1999). Reading and WritingFrameworks, K-12. Retrieved from http://www.nde.state.ne.us/READ/FRAMEWORK

/glossary/general_p-t.html

References

Alyousef, H. (2006) Teaching Reading Comprehension to ESL/EFL Learners.Journal of Language and Learning, Volume 5 Number 1

Bell, J. & Burnaby, B. (1984). A Handbook for ESL Literacy. Markham, ON:Oise Press.

Birch, B. (2002). English L2 reading: Getting to the Bottom. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,24, 44-69.

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. (2001). The Nature of Reading Abilities. In Teaching andResearching Reading. Boston: Pearson.

Henry, M. (2003). Unlocking Literacy: Effective decoding & Spelling Instruction. Baltimore, ML: Paul H. Brookes

Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching Second Language Reading. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Nasaji, H. (2007). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 57, 79-113.

O’Grady, W. & Archibald, J. Contemporary Linguistic Analysis: Third Custom Edition for the University of Alberta. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2007.

Animation by Peter Marriott