MS released some thrilling news in October 2022. National Assessment of Educational Progress results from the Urban Institute show that the state's fourth-grade reading scores increased from 49th to 29th in the country after phonics instruction began in 2013. Precisely 65 percent of the state's fourth-graders, ranked 29th, had only what the NAE P classified as basic skills, putting them on pace with the rest of the country. This information went unreported. Once at the bottom of the list, Mississippi was now on par with the rest of the states. The Basic Level, which is the level below proficiency, isn't that bad, according to some educators, therefore these numbers are deceiving.
Reading instruction has traditionally been presented as a conflict between whole language and phonics. Unlike the fragmented units taught in phonics, whole language exposes kids to entire novels. Its assumption is that exposure to quality material naturally facilitates the acquisition of reading skills, just as it does speech. Phonics has won the fight between these two methods. For instance, prominent proponent of balanced literacy and education professor Lucy Catkins announced a significant retreat in May 2022. She admitted that phonics produced better results, and Columbia University closed her section. Because phonics has been so successful, we have neglected to acknowledge the significant failure rate it causes and the data that suggests other systems should be developed.
Having worked as a childhood literacy specialist psychologist for most of my career, I have developed those systems. In my capacity as co-director of Columbia University's Developmental Neuropsychiatric Program, I developed a literary curriculum that assisted children with autism who were nonverbal in learning to read. I also develop game-like, language-based reading programs that can be used with kids of all ages. The Special Education Software Award was given to my computer program in 1990 by the Software Publishers Association. Few schools used it back then, as they do now, because it didn't satisfy their phonics requirements.
Dissecting phonics reveals its flaws in small parts. First, during the first few months of instruction, kids are taught how to decode a short list of straightforward, sounded-out three-letter words like "man," "cat," and "bus." The content of those words doesn't really correspond with any book, so kids aren't ready for real reading. For instance, only 40 out of the 236 words, or 17%, in Dr. Seuss' inventive The Cat in the Hat match the three-letter pattern that the kids have been learning for months. Second, kids have to commit dozens of intricate rules to memory for every other word. Just to deal with the CES in eleven, they require three rules. Because the rules make decoding complicated, time-consuming, and frustrating, many kids detest reading procedure rife with errors. Third, words like so, and what that cannot be decoded by sounding out make up about 60% of the words on any given page. Paradoxically, non-content words make up three of the five words in the title of The Cat in the Hat. Phonics treats them like "outlaws," giving them little instruction time. As a result, kids are left without any reliable resources to help them learn the words that they encounter on a daily basis.
There are ways to teach reading that do not use phonics, despite the fact that alternative approaches have not gotten much attention. One that directs my work combines two long-known but underappreciated behaviors: the ability to recognize words instantly, or automaticity;Neglected behaviors include the ability to recognize words instantly (automaticity) and the practice of overlearning (practicing a skill repeatedly until it becomes automatic). When combined, these actions create opportunities in a field that has stagnated for many years.
What you are doing now is automaticity, and within a few months of beginning to read, successful readers also adopt this behavior. Roughly 25–30% of readers are able to quickly and accurately decode words, even ones they have never seen, by "breaking the code." Whether phonics, whole language, balanced reading, or Sesame Street is watched, automaticity can happen. This enables the different programs to assert their achievements. These programs fail to recognize that kids can build an understanding of the entire system from the meager input provided by any reading program.
Automaticity is a challenge for kids who struggle with reading. But, due to the false belief that it can only be developed through intensive phonics practice, no efforts are made to teach them the skill. For children with lower reading proficiency, the secret to their success is Overlearning the Automaticity. A word must be exposed several times; generally, a word must be exposed 20 to 30 times for each of the 200 carefully chosen words from the content and non-content domains. Children acquire knowledge of words in all domains, including spelling, meaning, sounds, and sentence structure, through a variety of interesting exercises. This creates the foundation required for automaticity. Children can acquire this foundation in just over a year, even if instruction is restricted to just one word per day, in contrast to the phonics for three to four years.
Teachers do not have the time in today's classrooms to provide the extended one-on-one instruction that Overlearning to Automaticity demands. Nevertheless, computers are not limited in this way. I created the aforementioned software program for this reason. Since then, advancements in technology have increased the allure and efficacy of computer-based reading instruction. Research provides good suggestions for alternative approaches to teaching reading, which we should investigate for the sake of our country, our children's health, and the integrity of science. The monopoly on phonics should not exist. In the event that phonics proved to be ineffective, it would still be prudent to investigate substitutes, as they may offer advantages such as speed, cost, or other attributes. However, substitutes are not only preferable, given the failure rates that have dogged phonics for decades. It is essential that they exist.
The opinions and analysis presented in this article do not necessarily represent those of Scientific American. The author or authors may hold different opinions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.