El derecho a fundar una familia, matrimonio y cargas materiales

A number of researchers (Aram, 2006; Beard, 2000; Brady, 2011; Carbo, 1996; Donat, 2006; Freppon & Dahl, 1998; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; Pressley, 2006; Soler & Openshaw, 2007) support the idea of combining both phonics and reading in context. It is reasonable to assume that combining both approaches will benefit children.

Aram (2006) investigated the differential outcomes on vocabulary and alphabetic skills of (1) storybook reading (2) alphabetic skills teaching and (3) a

combined approach. Children from 12 low-SES preschools were in the study, and were divided into small groups of four to six children. They received 20-30 minute teaching sessions twice a week for 50 sessions. The results indicated that the combined group performed better than the alphabetic group on book vocabulary and better than the storybook reading group on alphabetic skills-initial letter retrieval.

Donat (2006) evaluated Reading Their Way (RTW), which combined phonics and whole language. She taught phonemic awareness and phonics directly, and used these skills for reading and writing. The aim was to accelerate the overall achievement of students in language arts when compared to students who received whole language. The study took place in a rural school district where whole language had been the main reading approach for 15 years. The RTW programme was gradually implemented into schools in the United States, from kindergarten to elementary schools over a period of 5 years. Approximately 4,500 children were involved in the study. The programme provided shared reading of literature, creative writing, and systematic, explicit phonics and phonemic awareness instruction with decodable books. The results showed the RTW program reduced the need for supplementary remedial services in later school years, from 40% to 19%. Those students involved in the combined program achieved higher instructional reading levels than students who did not receive the combined programme.

Ryder, Tunmer, and Greaney (2008) reported a New Zealand intervention study for 24 underperforming 6- and 7-year old readers. The study combined phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, and reading of text. The children were put into matched

pairs and then randomly assigned to training (experimental group) or to no extra training (control group). A trained teacher aide, using scripted lesson material, taught small groups of three children at a time, for 56 lessons over a period of 24 weeks, four lessons a week, 25 minutes a lesson. Children learned phonemic awareness and letter- sound correspondences, supported with decodable reading materials and activities. The control group received regular instruction and supplementary activities provided by their classroom teachers. The results showed that the intervention group performed significantly better in phonemic awareness, pseudoword decoding and word reading, compared with the control group. Two-year follow up measures for the 20 remaining students at follow up showed the intervention group was significantly better in word reading and in passage oral reading. These results suggested that the combination of phonemic awareness instruction, phonics, and reading of books had significant, positive long-term effects on reading progress.

Blaiklock and Haddow (2007) used a combined approach in a primary school classroom setting in Auckland, New Zealand. The teacher used the Jolly Phonics approach in a whole language classroom. The reason for the study was that her class had a significant number of children who struggled with learning to read and write. Although many children made good progress through the whole language approach, there was still a big gap between high achievers and low achievers. This was a case study research design with no control group. The sample in the study included 24 Year 1 students in the first year of the study and 22 Year 2 students in the second year. They were two different groups of children. In Year 1, the teacher covered letter sounds, digraphs and vowels and also grammar (e.g., parts of speech, sentence construction) in the third and fourth term. In Year 2, the teacher decided to go through all 42 sounds in the first 2 weeks of the first term as a revision for the students, with extra attention for lower readers. She taught one spelling pattern and one grammatical feature each week. All lessons started with a revision of sounds/spelling, then writing, then shared reading, and instructional reading. The teacher provided group and individual instruction to each child during writing sessions, and focused on sounds and spelling patterns taught in class. The teacher assessed pupils throughout the year for reading (running records) and spelling skills (weekly spelling quiz and dictation sentences). She also used a

Spelling Test). At the end of the year, the children in Year 1 and 2 were about a year ahead of their chronological age in reading and spelling.

Tunmer, Chapman, and Prochnow (2002) modified the reading programme in Year 1 classrooms in Palmerston North, New Zealand by incorporating phonological instruction into whole language. Teachers in the modified programme used commercial packages which provided them with lesson plans or activities on teaching of letter- sound patterns, phonemic structures of speech, and phonemic awareness. Pupils in comparison classrooms received standard whole language literacy instruction. A total of 133 pupils in both groups were tested three times during the first year of the

intervention, and then at follow up assessments at the end of the second year. The results showed no differences between the two groups at school entry, but students in the modified literacy programme showed significant improvement in standardised reading at the end of the first year. By the end of Year 2, the pupils in the modified programme were 14 months in reading age ahead of pupils who had not received the combined approach. This study suggests that a phonological approach should be part of the literacy programme, but that whole language is also important for learning to read.

Another study by Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005) compared the

effectiveness of adding phonics through supplementary tutoring sessions. Fifty-seven Grade 1 students in the lowest quartile in reading were randomly assigned into one of three conditions: phonics and reading practice (RP), phonics and word study (WS), and a control group who received regular classroom reading instruction. The two treatment groups received one-to-one tutoring sessions for 30 minutes a day, 4 days a week during the 8 month intervention. The phonics-based intervention provided instruction in letter- sound correspondences, decoding strategies and spelling strategies. The difference between the two treatment groups was the RP group spent also 10-15 minutes practicing oral reading on decodable text, while the WS group only learnt the alphabetic principle and word-level reading skills. The results indicated that both treatment groups

outperformed the control group on measures of reading accuracy, reading comprehension, passage reading fluency, and spelling. There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups, except that the Reading Practice group performed significantly better in passage reading fluency and reading accuracy than did the Word Study group. Although the study was not exactly a combination of phonics

and shared reading, it suggested that phonics could be combined with reading by using decodable text.