Phonics

1
Phonics

• and the Literacy
• Learner
• Bonnie Nicholas
• EDPY 591
• November 5, 2007

2
Linguistics 101 Review

• Phone from the Greek phon, meaning sound. A
  phone is a speech sound in language t and t.
• Phoneme is an abstract image /t/.
• Phonology is the study of themental system for
  representingand processing speech sounds
• Phonation is the production or utterance of
  sound.

3

• 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
• (OGrady, 2006)

4

• 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)

5

• 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
  spoken
• and written language.
• (Nebraska Dept. of Education, second definition)
• Phonics is phoneme /
• grapheme correspondence.

6

• 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).

7

• 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

8

• The minor benefits of phonics (In War Over
• Teaching Reading, March 9) refers to the
• finding of the National Reading Panel that
• extensive phonics instruction only impacts
• performance on tests in which children pronounce
• words presented on a list. The panel found no
• significant benefit on tests in which
• students have to understand what
• they read.
• Reading First supports extensive
• phonics, an extremist view which
• attempts to teach all the major
• rules of phonics in a strict order.
• -Stephen Krashen

9
What role does phonics play in adult literacy
education?What does the research tell
us?Fluency first? Oraccuracy first?
Bottom-up or top-down?
10
Key reading skills

• Vocabulary
• Syntactical processing
• Schema activation
• Phonological processing
• -including phonics
• (from class notes, Sept. 24)

11

• There is a bias in favour of top-down
• processing and research, but this is
• changing as interactive models gain
• authority.
• (see Nassaji, 2007, p. 85 Hudson,
• 2007, pp. 33-34 Grabe, 2004,
• p. 32).

12

• 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 the
• readers interpretation of the
• text (Grabe Stoller, 2001, p. 18).

13

• Current research believes that lack
• of automaticity in lower-level
• processing (i.e. automatic lexical
• access through bottom-up process)
• leads to poor skilled
• reading
• (Alyousef, 2006, p. 64)

14

• Phonemic awareness is an
• important precursor for alphabetic
• reading, but paradoxically, people
• often acquire it as a result
• of learning to read
• an alphabet.
• (Birch, 2002, p. 54 see also
• Bell and Burnaby, p. 62)

15

• . . . developing phonological sensitivity
• is critical for early success in reading
• acquisition and instructional
• programmes that emphasize sound-
• spelling decoding skills result in better
• reading outcomes because
• alphabetic coding is the critical
• sub-process that supports
• fluent reading (Stanovich and Stanovich,
• quoted in Grabe Stoller, 2001, p. 32)

16
Phonics issues for ELLs

• English spelling is phonemic rather than
  phonetic.
• English does not have a strict phoneme / grapheme
  correspondence.
• George Bernard Shaw
• famously suggested spellingfish as
  ghotilaugh women nation

17
doing, donegoing, gone
cough / tough / though / bough / through
read / read, bow / bow, wind / wind, record /
record, present / present
18
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 simple
• or childish may offend students
• and lead to a negative affect
• decoding words can impede
• fluency

19
Conclusions

• Research that demonstrates the effectiveness of
  specific instructional practices for greater
  fluency in word recognition is needed.
• (Grabe, 2004, p. 48.)

20

• This is not to say that phonics -
• decoding letters into sounds is not of
• use in learning to read. It does play a
• part, 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).

21
And finally. . .

• "????????..?????????..??????????????????????..????
  ?, ???, ??????????? ? "(Grabe Stoller 2001, p.
  29) ?

22
And finally. . .

• "?????te??? ep?p?d?? ???st???? d?ad??as?e?. .. se
  s??d?asµ? µe t?? ?aµ???te?e? d?ad??as?e?. ..
  d?aµ??f?ste t??? ???st????? p????? epe?e??as?a?
  p?? p?a?µat?p???ste t?? a?????s? ??a d??f?????
  ??????. .. ?? d?ad??as?e? ?ata???s?? a?????s??,
  p?? ß??p???e ?at' a?t? t?? t??p?, d????? ?µfas?
  st? ?a?µast? f?s? t?? ?ata???s?? a?????s??
  "(Grabe Stoller, 2001, se?. 29).

23
And finally. . .

• " ??????????????? ???????. . . ????????. . .
  ??????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ???????
  ???????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????
  ?????. . . ???????? ????????? ??????, ????????? ?
  ???? ??????, ???????? ????????????? ???????
  ????????? ?????? "(Grabe Stoller, 2001, P 29).

24
And finally. . .

• "?? ?? ?? ??. . . ??? ??? ????. . . ???? ?? ???
  ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??????. . . ? ???? ??
  ??? ???, ???? ??? ??? "???? (GrabeStoller2001?,p.
  29).

25
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).

26
And finally. . .

• Higher-level cognitive processes . . . in
• combination with the lower-level
• processes . . . form the cognitive
• processing resources that let us carry out
• reading for various purposes. . . .
• Reading comprehension
• processes, seen in this way,
• highlight the miraculous nature
• of reading comprehension
• (Grabe Stoller, 2001, p. 29).

27

• Questions
• If 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?

28
References for phonics controversy

• D'Agostino, Joseph A (2001). Conservative
  spotlight Joy Sweet. Interview in
• Human Events. Dec 24, 2001.
• Essberger, J. (1999). Ghoti Fish. Retrieved
  from
• http//www.englishclub.com/esl-articles/199909.htm
  
• Krashen, SD (2007) Reading Firsts Extremist View
  of Phonics. Unpublished
• letter to the editor, NY Times. Retrieved from
  http//sdkrashen.com/pipermail/krashen_sdkrashen.c
  om/2007-March/000720.html
• National Right to Read Foundation. www.nrrf.org
• Nebraska Dept. of Education (1999). Reading and
  Writing
• Frameworks, K-12. Retrieved from
  http//www.nde.state.ne.us/READ/FRAMEWORK
• /glossary/general_p-t.html

29
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 and
• Researching 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.
• OGrady, W. Archibald, J. Contemporary
  Linguistic Analysis
• Third Custom Edition for the University of
  Alberta. Boston Pearson