| Facts |
On research on the |
Background
Through the 1980s and the early 1990s, some prominent reading researchers have argued for the teaching of phonics intensively and systematically (e.g. Chall, 1967/1983; Adams, 1990; Stahl, 1992). Unlike these researchers, however, those advocating the teaching of phonics in the popular media (as in letters to the editor) commonly imply that phonics is all that children need in order to learn to read. Such polemics can often be traced to one of two original sources: Samuel Blumenfeld, author of NEA: Trojan Horse in Education and of the Blumenfeld Education Letter, and/or Patrick Groff, who has written several items published by the National Right to Read Foundation, which has received substantial funding from the Gateway company producing the Hooked on Phonics program. These sources of phonics-first propaganda buttress their arguments with references to respected researchers and their research, which is commonly thought to have demonstrated the superiority of teaching phonics intensively and systematically. However, even these researchers do not advocate phonics only, or phonics first, as a means of teaching children to read (e.g., Adams, 1990). Furthermore, even some of these prominent phonics advocates have pointed out that the alleged success of the Hooked on Phonics program is not substantiated by research, a charge made by the Federal Trade Commission as well. Typically the other phonics programs on the market also lack research support, at least when groups receiving different instruction are contrasted on a wide variety of assessment measures.
In making educational decisions, it is vital that teachers and other educational decision-makers consider both the pros and cons of the actual research, broadly defined.
The early research base, considered and reconsidered
The major body of comparative research arguing for the teaching of phonics intensively and systematically was originally that summarized by Jeanne Chall in 1967 and updated in 1983, with few additions other than the 1965-1966 U.S.O.E. cooperative first grade studies (Bond & Dykstra, 1967). Chall writes: "In summary, judging from the studies comparing systematic with intrinsic phonics [phonics taught more gradually, in the context of meaningful reading] we can say that systematic phonics at the very beginning tends to produce generally better reading and spelling achievement than intrinsic phonics, at least through grade three. . . . Finally, there is probably a limit to the advantage that early facility with the code gives on comprehension tested after grade 4" (Chall, 1967, 1983). In a more recent pro-phonics book, Marilyn Adams (1990) cites no further comparative studies that can validly claim to support the intensive, systematic teaching of phonics. Note, however:
Research on phonemic awareness and decoding
The last decade has seen considerable research on phonological awareness and phonemic awareness. Phonological awareness may be defined as the ability to hear and manipulate sound units in the language, such as syllables; the major parts of syllables (any initial consonants = the onset, while the rest of the syllable = the rime); and phonemes (what we have learned ot hear as the individual "sounds" in words). One body of research has usually focused on phonological awareness and phonological coding skills in general, but typically included measures of phonemic awareness specifically. such research has demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between phonemic awareness and reading achievement, as measured by scores on standardized tests (e.g. summaries in Adams & Bruck, 1995; Beck & Juel, 1995; Foorman, 1995). There is also research showing the opposite correlation: Low phonemic awareness, low scores on standardized tests (e.g. Lyon, 1995, a and b; Vellutino & Denckla, 1991; Goswami & Bryant, 1990; Elbro, 1990; Boder, 1973). These correlations are hardly surprising, since readers with weak phonemic segmentation skills may be slower than those with strong segmentation skills in decoding unfamiliar print words, and standardized tests are commonly timed. Such correlation research has led to the argument that children should be explicitly taught phonemic awareness--not merely to help them sound out words, but to recognize words on sight, automatically (e.g. Stanovich, 1991,1992). However, a correlation simply means that the two go together, like bread and butter; it says nothing about whether one causes the other-for example, whether phonemic awareness leads to independent reading, whether learning to read results in phonemic awareness, or both. What does the research show?
1. Various studies demonstrate that many children (indeed most, with intensive tutoring) can be trained to hear phonemes and to segment words into phonemes. Often, such studies also suggest that teaching phonemic awareness carses, or at least facilitates, higher scores on standardized tests. These studies include, among others, Stanovich, Cunningham, & Feeman, 1985; Fox & Routh, 1976; Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Ball & Blachman, 1991; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Nation & Hulme, 1997. Several research studies focus on children considered to have severe reading difficulties (e.g. Torgeson & Hecht, 1996; Vellutino et al., 1996; Fox & Routh, 1976) and/or on children considered to be at risk of reading failure (Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, 1997). Ayers (1993) is exceptional in that the training groups were entire classes of kindergartners, rather than small groups. Some research has been interpreted as demonstrating that phonemic awareness is a necessary prerequisite to learning to read, or at least a necessary but not sufficient cause or facilitator in learning to read. One oft-cited example is Juel, Griffith, & Gough (1986), while another, more recent study is Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, 1997. Several studies indicate that phonemic awareness develops best when taught in conjunction with letter/sound correspondences (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1991; Goldstein, 1976; Treiman & Baron, 1983; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Wallach & Wallach, 1979; Williams, 1980).
2. Some research has been interpreted as demonstrating that phonemic awareness is a consequence of learning to read. These studies include Morais, Carey, Alegria, & Bertelson (1979); Mann (1986); and Wimmer, Landerl, Linortner, & Hummer (1991). Another study that did not focus specifically on phonemic awareness but that supports this conclusion is Moustafa (1990, 1995, and in press). Tunmer and Nesdale (1985) found that the correlation between method of instruction and phonemic segmentation ability did not reach significance, which implies a reciprocal relationship between phonemic awareness and learning to read.
3. Most of the phonemic awareness studies support, or at least do not contradict, a reciprocal hypothesis: that phonemic awareness facilitates learning to read and that learning to read also facilitates phonemic awareness. Studies explicitly drawing this conclusion include Perfetti, Beck, Bell & Hughes; 1987; Ayers, 1993, and in press; Wagner & Torgeson, 1987; Wagner, Torgeson, & Rashotte, 1994). In some instances the researcher did not set out to explicitly test the hypothesis that learning to read promotes phonemic awareness, but found that by the end of first grade, the control group did as well as the experimental groups on measures of phonemic awareness and/or comprehension (e.g. Ayres, 1993). In fact, Ayres found that kindergartners whose reading experiences focused first (for ten weeks) on getting meaning and enjoyment from texts were better able to take advantage of direct instruction phonics than those children who were given direct instruction in phonics first.
4. With regard to decoding itself, the research is somewhat contradictory. Some research suggests that like proficient adult readers, most children decode unfamiliar print words by analogy with parts of known words (e.g. Moustafa, 1990, 1995, in press; Goswami, 1986, 1988). That is, they read unknown print words in chunks (Gunning, 1988; Gibson, 1985; Santa, 1976-77; and other sources cited in Gunning, 1995). Some studies suggest that phonemic awareness precedes the ability to decode unfamiliar print words (e.g. Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985; also see Ehri & Robbins, 1992, and Moustafa's reinterpretation of that study, in press). Other research suggests that the ability to read unfamiliar print words in pronounceable chunks precedes the ability to segment words into phonemes (Ehri, 1991, 1994, 1995; Goswami, 1986, 1988, 1993), and/or that knowing a lot of sight words is more helpful in decoding unknown words than is letter/sound knowledge (Moustafa, 1990, 1995, in press). More research is needed on these factors, since decoding is a reading skill that children need to develop and use, in conjunction with other skills.
5. The research on so-called "linguistic" or "decodable" texts (texts with phonically regular words exemplifying patterns already taught) shows clearly that they are harder to read than texts written in more natural language (e.g. Simons & Ammon, 1989; Kucer, 1985; Rhodes, 1979). One study is currently being cited as evidence for using decodable texts rather than texts with high interest words (Juel & Roper/Schneider, 1985). However, this study compared the effects of reading texts having mostly phonically regular words with the then-typical basal reading texts and concluded merely that the decodable tests were more likely to lead to a letter/sound strategy in reading. However, that strategy alone leads to a focusing on identifying words, at the expense of meaning (e.g. K. Goodman, 1973). Furthermore, to date there has apparently been no research that has explicitly compared the effects of decodable texts with "predictable" texts that have more natural language, except for their repeating and predictable patterns.
Typically the research alleging a high correlation between phonemic awareness and reading scores and the research showing that many seemingly poorer readers are not strong in phonological or phonemic awareness has led to the argument that many children need explicit help in developing the ability to segment words into sounds--not merely in order to sound out words, but to recognize words on sight, automatically, and thereby to read fluently and rapidly. Only a small body of research has addressed or been interpreted as having bearing on alternative hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that there is a reciprocal relationship between phonemic awareness and learning to read, with each facilitating the other. However, that body of research is growing.
Research comparing skills-oriented with literature-based and/or whole language classrooms
In the past decade, quite a few studies have compared the effects of literature-based and/or whole language teaching with the effects of traditional skills-oriented teaching.
Though whole language teaching involves much more than a different approach to reading and writing, one key element of whole language classrooms is that children receive the support they need to read and write whole texts and to develop reading and writing skills within meaningful reading and writing situations. This includes explicit help in developing phonemic awareness, phonics knowledge, and decoding skills. Part of what many whole language teachers do in the primary grades is spend significant time each day reading to children from a large text that all can see, then rereading the text with the children chiming in. Repeated rereadings and calling attention to words and letter/sound patterns help the children learn words and phonics, as well as basic concepts of print. For example, extensions of such reading activities may include discussing and making charts of words that alliterate or rhyme. Examining and comparing the spellings of children's names is another way phonics may be taught. Whole language teachers also promote phonics knowledge by helping children write the sounds they hear in words. By teaching phonics through reading, focused lessons, and writing, whole language teachers help children develop phonics knowledge in the context of the texts they enjoy reading and writing. The emerging body of comparative research reveals the following patterns, which deal with phonics but go beyond (Weaver, 1994b, and various research studies listed in References and Resources, all of which used diverse measures):
In two of these studies, the skills-based classrooms were characterized particularly by programs teaching phonics in isolation from literature and authentic writing; these were Ribowsky (1985) and Kasten & Clarke (1989). Some of the studies focused on at-risk children (Stice & Bertrand, 1990; Dahl & Freppon, 1992, 1994; Knapp and associates, 1995; and some of the studies discussed in Tunnell & Jacobs, 1989, which included some studies involving children identified as having reading difficulties, too). All of these studies used a variety of measures in addition to standardized tests. The following patterns seem to emerge from these studies and others referenced below:
1. Children in whole language classrooms typically do as well or better on standardized reading tests and subtests, including tests that measure phonemic awareness and phonics knowledge--though the differences are seldom statistically significant. For example, the whole language kindergartners in Ribowsky's study (1985) scored better on all measures of growth and achievement, including the tests of letter recognition and letter/sound knowledge. In the Kasten and Clarke study (1989), the whole language kindergartners performed significantly better than their counterparts on all subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test, including tests of beginning consonant sounds, letter/sound correspondences, and sounds and clusters of sounds in initial and final positions of words. In the Manning, Manning, and Long study (1989), children in the whole language classroom did better on the Stanford Achievement Test's subtest on word parts, even though only the children in the skills classroom had explicitly studied word parts.
2. Children in whole language classrooms seem to develop greater ability to use phonics knowledge effectively than children in more traditional classrooms where skills are practiced in isolation. For example, in Freppon's study (1988, 1991), the skills group attempted to sound out words more than twice as often as the others, but the literature-based group was more successful in doing so: a 53 percent success rate compared with a 32 percent success rate for the skills group. Apparently the literature-based children were more successful because they made better use of phonics in conjunction with other information and cues. (For another relevant study, see also A. E. Cunningham, 1990).
3. Children in whole language classrooms seem to develop the alphabetic principle, vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and punctuation skills as well as or better than children in more traditional classrooms. For example, see Elley's 1991 summary of studies on learning English as a second language; Knapp and associates, 1995, on a variety of skills; also McIntyre & Freppon, 1994, on development of the alphabetic principle; Clarke, 1988, on spelling; and Stice and Bertrand, 1990, which included spelling. A comparison of standardized test scores before and after implementation of whole language instruction in two school districts reveals essentially no difference in test scores (Traw, 1996). In addition, see Calkins, 1980; Gunderson and Shapiro, 1988; Smith & Elley, 1995. DiStefano & Killion (1984) is also relevant.
4. Children in whole language classrooms seem more inclined and able to read for meaning rather than just to identify words. For example, when asked "What makes a good reader?", the children in Stice and Bertrand's study (1990) reported that good readers read a great deal and that they can read any book in the room. The children in the traditional classrooms tended to focus on words and surface correctness; they reported that good readers read big words, they know all the words, and they don't miss any words. In a study by Manning, Manning, and Long (1989), children in the whole language classroom were more likely to read for meaning, read with greater comprehension, and read with greater accuracy (not counting the errors that resulted in no meaning loss).
5. Children in whole language classrooms seem to develop more strategies for dealing with problems in reading. For example, the children in the whole language classrooms in Stice and Bertrand's study (1990) typically described six strategies for dealing with problem words, while the children in traditional classrooms described only three.
6. Children in whole language classrooms seem to develop greater facility in writing. For example, in the Dahl and Freppon study (1991, 1994), a considerably larger proportion of the children in the whole language classrooms were writing sentences and stories by the end of first grade. The children in the whole language classrooms in the Kasten and Clarke study (1989) were similarly much more advanced as writers by the end of their kindergarten year.
7. Children in whole language classrooms seem to develop a stronger sense of themselves as readers and writers. Take, for example, the Stice and Bertrand study (1990). When asked "Who do you know who is a good reader?", 82 percent of the kindergartners in the whole language classrooms mentioned themselves, but only 5 percent of the kindergartners in the traditional classrooms said "me." During the first-grade year, when the children were asked directly "Are you a good reader?", 70 percent of the whole language children said yes, but only 33 percent of the traditional children said yes.
8. Children in whole language classrooms also seem to develop greater independence as readers and writers. In the Dahl and Freppon study (1992, 1994), for instance, passivity seemed to be the most frequent coping strategy for learners having difficulty in the skills-based classrooms. But in whole language classrooms, those having difficulty tended to draw upon other learners for support: by saying the phrases and sentences that others could read, by copying what they wrote, and so forth. That is, these less proficient literacy learners still attempted to remain engaged in literacy activities with their peers. They didn't just give up.
In whole language classrooms like the ones in these studies, where phonics is taught explicitly in the context of reading and writing, the concepts of phonemic awareness, phonics, and decoding skills seem to be learned at least as well as in skills emphasis classrooms (Stahl & Kuhn, 1995), while other literacy behaviors are typically learned better. One ongoing, longitudinal study that compares phonics taught in isolation with phonics taught in context shows better results with the phonics in isolation, accompanied by a lot of reading and rereading (Wood, 1996). On the other hand, this study does not include various measures of success other than standardized tests, as did the aforementioned studies. Neither does the study by Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, and Fletcher (1997), nor is it clear from their article whether the "whole language" and "embedded phonics" teachers spent much time teaching phonics in context, compared with the direct instruction phonics group. If not, this might account for the fact that students in the direct instruction group scored better on letter-word identification and word attack, though not on one measure of comprehension.)
Various naturalistic studies also support the teaching and learning of phonics in the context of meaningful reading (Stephens, 1991). Share and his colleagues account for such learning in their self-teaching model of word reading acquisition (Share & Jorm, 1987; Share & Stanovich, 1995). And recent research suggests mechanisms by which such learning may take place (Moustafa, 1995; Peterson & Haines, 1992).
These research results corroborate conclusions from more naturalistic research; they do not stand alone in support of whole language. Furthermore, other comparative studies have generated similar results (see the summaries in Stephens, 1991; Shapiro, 1990; Tunnel & Jacobs, 1989; for the importance of reading and more reading, see Krashen, 1993). From these various studies, it appears that children in whole language classrooms develop reading skills at least as well as children in skills-oriented classrooms, and that they get off to a significantly better start at developing the attitudes, values, and behaviors of literate individuals--to becoming not only competent but eager readers and writers.
So, what are we to make of these bodies of research?
When it comes to implementation, all of this research must be interpreted cautiously. One reason is that both kinds of experimental research--that focusing on phonological and phonemic awareness, and that focusing on the development of a wide range of literate behaviors--have often focused on small numbers of children. Much of the research on teaching phonological and phonemic awareness, in fact, has involved teaching children either in small groups or tutoring them one-on-one (Ayers, 1993 and in press, is an exception). Furthermore, while research may sometimes show the greatest effects for direct instruction tutoring, the differences do not necessarily last, nor are they necessarily great enough to be statistically significant. In the Torgesen & Hecht study (1996), for example, the differences among the different tutorial treatments were very slight, while there was a substantial difference between all the tutorial groups and the children receiving no additional tutoring.
Another limitation of both bodies of research is that the studies typically do not assess comprehension on measures other than standardized tests (though sometimes children were asked to retell what they had read, in the latter group of studies). This is a major limitation that needs to be addressed in future research, and addressed over a period of years, in longitudinal studies--as do various aspects of literacy development.
Given these limitations and caveats, what can we tentatively conclude? The evidence seems fairly strong that whole language teaching produces about the same results on standardized tests (including measures of phonics, which ipso facto require phonemic analysis) as does traditional skills-oriented teaching, including teaching that has emphasized phonics. There is also some evidence that direct instruction phonics may produce higher initial scores on phonemic awareness and word attack skills and sometimes on comprehension tests, particularly with children labeled at risk or reading disabled, when they are tutored one-on-one or in very small groups. On the other hand, this advantage appears not to last very long, particularly for comprehension tests. Meanwhile, students in classrooms where skills are taught in the context of reading and writing whole texts have typically made substantially greater advances in a variety of literacy-related skills, strategies, behaviors, and attitudes.
Toward a consensus on the teaching of phonics
There are still critical differences in how reading researchers conceptualize and characterize reading. Those who have examined the reading process through an analysis of the miscues ("errors") made by proficient readers have concluded that what most obviously characterizes proficient reading is the reader's drive to construct meaning (Goodman, 1973; Brown, Goodman, & Marek, 1996). Those who have examined word identification and the teaching of phonological skills more than the process of reading whole texts have concluded that what most obviously characterizes proficient reading is the ability to read most words in a text automatically and fluently (e.g., Adams & Bruck, 1995; Beck & Juel, 1995; Stanovich, 1991). Nevertheless, both groups agree that children need to develop and use phonics knowledge in reading familiar and unfamiliar print words, before they can be considered truly independent readers.
In the 1990s, various whole language researchers and educators have done research and written books, articles, and other documents demonstrating how phonics is learned and/or taught in the context of reading and writing whole texts (McIntyre & Freppon, 1994; Mills, O'Keefe, & Stephens, 1992; Powell and Hornsby, 1993; Weaver, 1994a; Routman & Butler, 1995). On the other hand, some researchers who most adamantly insist on teaching phonemic awareness and phonics are suggesting teaching methods and materials that resemble those of the whole language educators (Adams & Brock, 1995; Beck & Juel, 1995; also P. Cunningham, 1995; Griffith & Olson, 1992). For example, some educators within both groups recommend using nursery rhymes, tongue twisters, and books like the rhymed Dr. Seuss books. Both groups recognize the importance of reading to and with children. One remaining difference, however, is that phonemic awareness researchers and educators often advocate oral language play and games in the preschool years (Yopp, 1992), while whole language educators typically are convinced this is unnecessary and that children will learn more in less time when the teacher focuses on phonemic awareness in the context of written texts (e.g., see Kasten & Clarke, 1989; Richgels, Poremba, & McGee, 1996; and the aforementioned studies showing that phonemic awareness is best learned when letter/sound correspondences are also taught). But despite these practical and theoretical differences, there is nevertheless a greater degree of consensus than a few years ago.
Considering, then, the major theoretical differences and the resulting emphases, it is particularly noteworthy that researchers and educators from various backgrounds are beginning to converge on several major points about the teaching of phonics: (1) that phonemic awareness facilitates learning to read, and that learning to read--and write--also facilitates the development of phonemic awareness (the reciprocal hypothesis); (2) that worksheets and mindless drill are not the best means of developing phonemic awareness and phonics knowledge (e.g. A. E. Cunningham, 1990); (3) that children should be given explicit, direct help in developing phonemic awareness and a functional command of phonics; (4) that for the majority of children, such direct teaching does not have to be intensive and systematic to be effective; (5) that about 15-20% of our children will need additional help, often tutorial help, in developing phonemic awareness, phonics knowledge, and/or decoding skills (Lyon, 1996); (6) that some children need explicit help in developing strategies for comprehending, as they read; (7) that reading and rereading familiar and enjoyable texts is critical for developing the ability to read and comprehend texts, and even for developing phonics knowledge and skills; and (8) that even emergent readers should read whole texts with appropriate support, and not be limited to, or focused mainly on, skills work.
To summarize, then: teaching phonics in context and through discussion and collaborative activities seems to be effective with a majority of our children. Additionally, more intensive and systematic teaching of phonemic awareness and phonics skills can be provided in daily tutorial sessions for children who appear to need it--either within the classroom, or in pull-out programs (Clay, 1987; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; Vellutino et al., 1996). Together, such instruction and support can enable virtually all children to develop phonological and phonics skills. Furthermore, most of the children in classrooms where skills are taught in the context of reading and writing whole texts learn to read for meaning and get a better start on becoming proficient and independent readers of texts, not mere word-callers (e.g., Dahl & Freppon, 1992, 1994; Stice & Bertrand, 1990; Kasten & Clarke, 1989).
Helping children develop phonics knowledge
Without using programs for teaching phonics intensively and systematically, parents and teachers can do various things to help children gain phonics knowledge and develop phonemic awareness in the context of meaningful reading and writing and language play. Educators differ as to which particular practices they adopt or recommend, but many educators and researchers advocate at least some of the following: (1) read and reread favorite nursery rhymes, and enjoy tongue twisters and other forms of language play together; (2) reread favorite poems, songs, and stories; discuss alliteration and rhyme within them; and play with sound elements (e.g. starting with cake, remove the c and consider what different sounds could be added to make other words, like take, make, lake); (3) read alphabet books to and with children, and make alphabet books together; (4) discuss words and make lists, word banks, or books of such words that share interesting spelling/sound patterns; (5) discuss similar sounds and letter/sound patterns in children's names; (6) emphasize selected letter/sound relationships while writing with, for, or in front of children; (7) encourage children to play with magnetic letters and to explore letter/sound relations; (8) help children write the sounds they hear in words; (9) when reading together, help children use prior knowledge and context plus initial consonants to predict what a word will be, and then look at the rest of the word to confirm or correct (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Mills et al., 1992; Powell & Hornsby, 1993; Freppon & Dahl, 1991; Griffith & Olson, 1992; Weaver, 1994a and b; Routman & Butler, 1995; P. Cunningham, 1995; Wagstaff, no date). The latter activity is especially important for helping children orchestrate prior knowledge with context and letter/sound cues in order not merely to identify words but to construct meaning from texts--which, after all, is the primary purpose of reading.
Teaching phonics and phonemic awareness in such ways helps keep letter/sound cues in proper perspective, but only when children spend substantially more time daily in listening to books read aloud (live, and on tape); in reading independently or with a partner (even if they still read the pictures more than the words); in discussing the literature they have heard and read; in reading classroom messages, signs, directions, and other informational print; in composing and writing together with the teacher, as a group; and in writing independently. Teaching phonics first and only, as some people urge, is a good way of separating children who can do isolated phonics from those who can't, but it is not a good way to teach children to read, since reading is much more than attacking words. Phonics first-and-only can be particularly difficult and limiting for children whose prior experiences with books have been quite limited. Furthermore, we should not assume that children or adults who have difficulty recognizing and/or sounding out words cannot comprehend texts effectively; indeed, even "dyslexic" readers can often comprehend well (Fink, 1995/96; Weaver, 1994c), because of the redundancy of language and the knowledge they bring to texts. Research suggests that our best plan may be to teach phonics and phonemic awareness in the context of reading and writing, to all children; provide tutoring for children who need more individualized and/or more direct help with phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, and/or using these skills as part of effective reading strategies; and possibly to discontinue such help for children who have benefited little from a year's daily individualized tutoring, while increasing the emphasis on developing strategies for deriving meaning.
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Adams, M. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Resolving the "Great debate." American Educator, 19 (2), 7, 10-20.
Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (1996). Schools that work: Where all children read and write. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Ayres, L. R. (1993). The efficacy of three training conditions on phonological awareness of kindergarten children and the longitudinal effect of each on later reading acquisition. Rochester, MI: Oakland University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Ayres, L. R. (In press). Phonological awareness training of kindergarten children: Three treatments and their effects. In Weaver (in press).
Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.
Beck, I. L., & Juel, C. (1995). The role of decoding in learning to read. American Educator, 19 (2), 8, 21-25, 39-42.
Boder, E. (1973). Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach based on three atypical reading-spelling patterns. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15, 663-687.
Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 5-142.
Brown, J., Goodman, K. S., & Marek, A. M. (1996). Studies in miscue analysis: An annotated bibliography. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read--a causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.
Bradley, L, & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. I.A.R.L.D. Monographs No. 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451-455.
Calkins, L. M. (1980). When children want to punctuate: Basic skills belong in context. Language Arts, 57, 567-573.
Carbo, M. (1988). Debunking the great phonics myth. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 226-240. Chall, J. (1967/1983). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J. (1967/1983). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clarke, L. K. (1988). Invented versus traditional spelling in first graders' writings: Effects on learning to spell and read. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 281-309.
Clay, M. M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22, 155-173.
Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429-444.
Cunningham, P. (1995). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing. New York: HarperCollins.
Dahl, K. L, & Freppon, P. A. (1992). Learning to read and write in inner-city schools: A comparison of children's sense-making in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Final report to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education (Grant No. G008720229)
Dahl, K. L., & Freppon, P. A. (1994). A comparison of inner-city children's interpretations of reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 50-74. Reprinted in Weaver (in press).
DiStefano, P., & Killion, J. (1984). Assessing writing skills through a process approach. English Education, 16, 203-207.
Ehri, L. C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 383-417). New York: Longman.
Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 323-358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in reading words. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 116-125.
Ehri, L. C., & Robbins, C. (1992). Beginners need some decoding skill to read words by analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 13-26.
Elbro, C. (1990). Differences in dyslexia: A study of reading strategies and deficits in a linguistic perspective. Copenhagen: Munksgaard International Publishers.
Elley, W.B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning , 41(3), 375-411.
Fink, R. (1995/96). Successful dyslexics: A constructionist study of passionate interest reading. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 268-280.
Foorman, B. R. (1995). Research on "The great debate": Code-oriented versus whole language approaches to reading instruction. School Psychology Review, 24, 376-392.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997) Early intervention for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal, 8, 63-71.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1980). Phonemic analysis and severe reading disability in children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9, 115-119.
Freppon, P. A. (1988). An investigation of children's concepts of the purpose and nature of reading in different instructional settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Freppon, P. A. (1991). Children's concepts of the nature and purpose of reading in different instructional settings. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 139-163.
Freppon, P. A., & Dahl, K. L. (1991). Learning about phonics in a whole language classroom. Language Arts, 68 (3), 190-197.
Gibson, E. J. (1985). Trends in perceptual development. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd Ed., pp. 144-173). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Goldstein, D. M. (1976). Cognitive-linguistic functioning and learning to read in preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 680-688.
Goodman, K. S. (1973). Theoretically based studies of patterns of miscues in oral reading performance. Detroit: Wayne State University. (ED 079 708)
Goodman, Y. M., & Marek, A. M. (1996). Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and reading. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
Goswami, U. (1986). Children's use of analogy to read: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 73-83.
Goswami, U. (1988). Orthographic analogies and reading development. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 239-268.
Goswami, U. (1993). Toward an interactive analogy model of reading development: Decoding vowel graphemes in beginning reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 443-475.
Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonolnological skills and learning to read. Hove, East Sussex: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Griffith, P. L. , & Olson, M. W. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break the code. The Reading Teacher, 45, 516-525.
Gunderson, L., & Shapiro, J. (1988). Whole language instruction: Writing in 1st grade. The Reading Teacher, 41, 430-437.
Gunning, R. G. (1995). Word building: A strategic approach to the teaching of phonics. The Reading Teacher, 48, 484-488.
Gunning,, T. (1988). Decoding behavior of good and poor second grade students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Toronto.
Iverson, S., & Tunmer, W. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the reading recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112-126.
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255.
Juel, C., & Roper/Schneider, D. (1985). The influence of basal readers on first grade reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 134-152.
Kasten, W. C., & Clarke, B. K. (1989). Reading/writing readiness for preschool and kindergarten children: A whole language approach. Sanibel, Florida: Educational Research and Development Council. (ED 312 041)
Knapp, M. S., and associates. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Kucer, S. B. (1985). Predictability and readability: The same rose with different names? In M. Douglass (Ed.), Claremont Reading Conference 49th yearbook (pp. 229-246). Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate School.
Lyon, G. R. (1995a). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 120-128.
Lyon, G. R. (1995b). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27.
Lyon, G.R. (1996). The state of research. In S. Cramer & W. Ellis (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Lifelong issues (pp. 3-61). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.
Mann, V. (1986). Phonological awareness: The role of reading experience. Cognition, 24, 65-92.
Manning, M., Manning, G., & Long, R. (1989). Effects of a whole language and a skill-oriented program on the literacy development of inner city primary children. ED 324 642.
McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P. A. (1994). A comparison of children's development of alphabetic knowledge in a skills-based and a whole language classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 391-417.
Mills, H., O'Keefe, T., & Stephens, D. (1992). Looking closely: Exploring the role of phonics in one whole language classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Morais, J., Bertelson, P., Carey, L., & Alegria, J. (1986). Literacy training and speech segmentation. Cognition, 24, 45-64.
Moustafa, M. (1990). An interactive/cognitive model of the acquisition of a graphophonemic system by young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Moustafa, M. (1995). Children's productive phonological recoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 464-476.
Moustafa, M. (In press). Reconceptualizing phonics instruction. In Weaver (in press).
Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 154-167.
Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L. C., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283-319.
Peterson, M. E., & Haines, L. P. (1992). Orthographic analogy training with kindergarten children: Effects on analogy use, phonemic segmentation, and letter-sound knowledge. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 109-127.
Powell, D., & Hornsby, D. (1993). Learning phonics and spelling in a whole language classroom. New York: Scholastic.
Rhodes, L. (1979). Comprehension and predictability: An analysis of beginning reading materials. In J. Harste & R. Carey (Eds.), New perspectives on comprehension (pp. 100-130). Bloomington, IN: School of Education, Indiana University.
Ribowsky, H. (1985). The effects of a code emphasis approach and a whole language approach upon emergent literacy of kindergarten children. Alexandria, Va. (ERIC: ED 269 720)
Richgels, D., Poremba, K., & McGee, L. (1996). Kindergartners talk about print: Phonemic awareness in meaningful contexts. The Reading Teacher, 49, 632-641.
Routman, R., & Butler, A. (1995). Why talk about phonics? School Talk, 1 (2). (National Council of Teachers of English.)
Santa, C. M. (1976-77). Spelling patterns and the development of flexible word recognition strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 12, 125-144.
Shapiro, J. (1990). Research perspectives on whole-language. In V. Froese (Ed.), Whole language: Practice and theory (pp. 313-356). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Share, D. L., & Jorm, A. F. (1987). Segmental analysis: Co-requisite to reading, vital for self-teaching, requiring phonological memory. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 509-513.
Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: A model of acquisition and individual differences. Issues in Education: Contributions from educational psychology, 1, 1-35.
Simons, H. D., & Ammon, P. (1989). Child knowledge and primerese text: Mismatches and miscues. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 380-398.
Smith, J. W. A., & Elley, W. B. (1995). Learning to read in New Zealand. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
Stahl, S. A. (1992). Saying the "p" word: Nine guidelines for exemplary phonics instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45, 618-625.
Stahl, S. A., & Kuhn, M. R. (1995). Does whole language or instruction matched to learning styles help children learn to read? School Psychology Review, 24, 393-404.
Stahl, S. A., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. R. (1994). The effects of whole-language instruction: An update and a reappraisal. Educational Psychologist, 29, 175-185.
Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 418-452). New York: Longman.
Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculations on the causes and consequences of individual differences in early reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 307-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 8-46.
Stephens, D. (1991). Research on whole language: Support for a new curriculum. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
Stice, C. F., & Bertrand, N. P. (1990). Whole language and the emergent literacy of at-risk children: A two-year comparative study. Nashville: Center of Excellence: Basic Skills, Tennessee State University. (ED 324 636)
Treiman, R., & Baron, J. (1983). Phonemic-analysis training helps children benefit from spelling-sound rules. Memory and Cognition, 18, 559-567.
Torgeson, J. K., & Hecht, S. A. (1996). Preventing and remediating reading disabilities: Instructional variables that make a difference for special students. In M. F. Graves, P. Van Den Broek, & B. M. Taylor (Eds.), The first R: Every child's right to read (pp. 133-159). New York: Teachers College Press.
Traw, R. (1996). Large-scale assessment of skills in a whole language curriculum: Two districts' experiences. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 323-339.
Tunnell, M. O., & Jacobs, J. S. (1989). Using "real" books: Research findings on literature based reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 42, 470-477.
Tunmer, W. E., & Nesdale, A. R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 417-427.
Turner, R. L. (1989). The "great" debate: Can both Carbo and Chall be right? Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 276-283.
Vellutino, F. R., & Denckla, M. B. (1991). Cognitive and neuropsychological foundations of word identification in poor and normally developing readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 571-608). New York: Longman.
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321-363
Vellutino, F. R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.
Wagner, R. K., & Torgeson, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.
Wagner, R. K., Torgeson, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). The development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.
Wagstaff, J. (No date.) Phonics that work! New strategies for the reading/writing classroom. New York: Scholastic.
Wallach, M. A., & Wallach, L. (1979). Helping disadvantaged children learn to read by teaching them phoneme identification skills. In L. A. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading, Vol. 3 (pp. 197-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weaver, C. (1994a). Phonics in whole language classrooms. ERIC Digest: ED 372 375.
Weaver, C. (1994b). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Weaver, C. (1994c). Reconceptualizing reading and dyslexia. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 16 (1), 23-35.
Weaver, C. (In press). Reconsidering a balanced approach to reading. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Williams, J. P. (1980). The ABD's of reading: A program for the learning disabled. In L. A. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading, Vol. 3 (pp. 179-195). Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.
Wimmer, H., Landerl, K., Linortner, R., & Hummer, P. (1991). The relationship of phonemic awareness to reading acquisition: More consequence than precondition but still important. Cognition, 40: 219-249.
Wood, F. (1996, Dec.5). Presentation to members of the North Carolina State Board of Education. Raleigh, NC.
Yopp, H. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 45, 696-703.
Prepared for the Michigan English Language Arts Framework project and © 1996, 1997 by Constance Weaver. In C. Weaver, L. Gillmeister-Krause, & G. Vento-Zogby, Creating Support for Effective Literacy Education (Heinemann, 1996). May be copied.