A whole language and traditional instruction comparison: Overall effectiveness and development of the alphabetic principle

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of whole language instruction in first-grade classrooms. Three whole language classrooms were compared with three traditional classrooms. Data were collected for end-of-the-year achievement in reading comprehension, vocabulary, phonemic awareness, decoding, spelling, and writing. There were no significant differences between the two instructional programs on any of the variables. The study also examined whether there would be differences between whole language and traditional instruction in end-of-the-year reading, writing, and spelling achievement for children with varying levels of incoming phonemic awareness, reading, and writing ability. Results suggested that neither program was more likely to close gaps between children high and low in these incoming abilities.

Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading

“…Although carried out with very different samples, the experimental studies by Walton et al (2001), Landerl (2000) and Spencer and Hanley (2003) all reach the same conclusion. The conclusion is that no one method of teaching phonics to children learning to read in English appears to be superior to any other method.…”

“…Nevertheless, German children learn phonics much faster than English children (Frith et al , 1998; Landerl, 2000). This is because of the second critical factor affecting the efficient acquisition of phonics skills, the consistency of the symbol‐to‐sound mapping (Ziegler et al , 1997).…”

“…Direct cross‐language comparisons of teaching beginning readers by synthetic phonics support the empirical evidence shown in Table 1. Landerl (2000) compared English children taught via synthetic phonics to German children taught using similar methods. She commented that in German initial reading was typically taught via ‘a straightforward phonics teaching regime … through heavy emphasis on teaching of letter–sound correspondences and blending and sounding out words’ (p. 240).…”

“…Accordingly, most children are fluent readers long before the end of their first year of instruction (Seymour et al , 2003). For such languages, teaching reading by synthetic phonics can be extremely effective (Landerl, 2000). In English‐speaking countries, such early fluency has proved elusive.…”

The role of korean parents in the literacy development of their children

“…As children become involved in various oral language activities on a daily basis with parents, visitors, siblings, extended family members, and peers, they develop phonemic awareness, print concepts, alphabet symbols, and the structure of language. Talking experiences with people in their society assist children to build basic linguistic concepts, which leads them to be more successful readers and writers (Caserta-Henry, 1996;Juel, 1991;Lee, 1992;Lee, 1993;McGee & Richgels, 1996;Klesius, Griffith, & Zielonka, 1991;Rosberg, 1995). Halliday (1974) and Newman (1985) support Korean parents' view that language acquisition is an active interpersonal process and is the product of oral language interaction.…”