 |
 |
Yesterday's Mope & Wail had a story reporting some American research that apparently showed that phonics-based reading instruction was superior to whole-language-based instruction. It got me to thinking. The research, it must be emphasized, was done on economically disadvantaged kids in the south of the U.S. I have always assumed that a whole language approach has much to recommend it. Over the years, however, I've noticed mounting evidence that phonics are apparently useful for many kids much of the time, and that a pure whole-language approach can have high costs. I'm beginning to wonder if there is a loose analogy here for our goals in learning how to read beyond the primary years. It seems to me that part of what we try to do as we read beyond the word recognition level is to read fluently across whole texts. Some of us are happy to attain fluent, whole-text reading. Personally, I learned a lot in my university Shakespeare and Milton courses by learning how to read locally, slowly, carefully. I also learned from Nabokov the importance of reading carefully for the local and the particular, not the theme or "lazy -ism" or general idea. Now, I reckon I'm a pretty good slow reader, pretty careful, fairly analytic. I sometimes wish I were a better fast-fluent reader. I'm beginning to think that phonics may be a good way to start kids (most? all?) reading, but that as soon as they can read short texts with a fair degree of accuracy, they should be encouraged in some of the whole-language precepts. When they gain some speed and can read across whole texts with a good deal of comprehension, they should be encouraged in some slow-careful reading techniques . . . On and on in a spiral, if you will (or is it twin tracks?). Has anyone else been doing any thinking or re-thinking about phonics and whole language? Has anyone else considered analogies for advanced reading (or "English Literature") instruction? Jamie MacKinnon