Inspite of the various arguments given in support of these two approaches (phonics and whole language); classroom practice shows that both have advantages and disadvantages as regards their use. This is especially evident in English as a second language context like that of Malawi. It has been argued that the use of phonics may create problems in pupils’ understanding of the full meaning of a text, as a result of constantly breaking down words into parts (Devine 1984). In the Malawian situation, a pupil enters school with limited or no exposure to the English language; hence s/he hardly has prior knowledge of concepts related to phonemic sensitivity, letter knowledge, print awareness, the purposes of reading, general verbal skills, and vocabulary. Indeed, it can be argued that at this elementary stage, the Malawian pupil needs to learn English through the whole word approach first before phonics can be used. This approach could help pupils to read their first words in English through memorizing the shape of every word they learn. However, such pupils may not be able to read every new word they encounter by memorizing the words by shape.
Although the whole language approach provides a better understanding of the text and a more interesting approach to reading than the phonics one, on its own it cannot help pupils to read, especially in a second language situation. There are too many words in the English language for learners to rely on memorization as a primary word identification strategy. Therefore the use of the whole language method is also likely to be problematic. In this method the meaning of the text is dependent upon the background knowledge and understanding that the reader brings to the text (Hirsch (Jr.) 2006). For the Malawian pupil there is no understanding that the reader can bring because there is no connection between the written text and the speech of the text. Even if a pupil is able to decode a word that word has no meaning. Thus the Malawian pupil will have difficulty in understanding the connectionbetween text and speech. Wren says,
probably won’t help them much. The act of reading is really all about getting meaning from text, children who can only read a few words are not likely to learn that text has a function or to develop an appreciation for the value of that function (no date: 2).
Although there have been conflicting claims about instructional methods that constitute effective teaching of reading and writing in English, it has been argued that neither of the two approaches (phonics or whole-word) can be successful with all children. Torgesen et al. (2007) argue that no single approach to teaching is appropriate in all situations. According to Access Center (2004); MacGillivray and Rueda (2001); Torgesen et al. (2007); Tomlinson (2000); effective teaching requires alternative strategies to accomplish different goals.
Learning to read and write is a complex, multifaceted process that requires a variety of instructional approaches (IRA and NAEYC 1998; Snow et al. 1998). Teachers who use a variety of teaching approaches can safely accommodate differences in students’ learning needs (Levine 1990; Shann 1990; Tobin and McInnes 2008). Some children learn by means of one approach whereas others learn through another. A mixed approach that combines phonics with whole language is likely to be beneficial to most children (Curtis 1997; Tobin and McInnes 2008). This suggests combining the two approaches may lead to optimal results.
A combination of the two instructional approaches is bound to have advantages over and above either one of the two approaches. For instance, whereas one learner may need little or no phonics to identify unknown words, another learner may need much phonics to become a proficient reader. Similarly, visual learners are likely to benefit from the whole language approach while auditory students are likely to benefit more from phonics (Curtis 1997). According to Braunger and Lewis (1997) children learn best when teachers employ a variety of strategies to model and demonstrate reading knowledge, strategy, and skills. Research findings suggest that the best approach to the teaching of reading and writing is to combine phonics and whole language approaches (NICHHD 2000; Snow et al. 1998). Research has shown that teachers who use a variety of approaches to teach reading and writing are more likely to
succeed in their efforts (Taylor et al. 2002; Tobin and McInnes 2008) than those who do not. A study at New York University (2007) confirmed that the three reading processes: phonics in which words are decoded letter by letter; holistic word recognition, in which words are recognized by their shape and whole language in which words are recognized by the context of the sentence work together to increase speed.
A debate on effective instructional approaches to reading has evolved over the past ten years or so (Anderson 2000; Pearson 2004). Researchers and educators now agree that no single approach to reading is superior to all the rest (NRP 2000; Pearson 2004; Taylor 2008). Educators have celebrated the balanced reading approach for a number of reasons. First the balanced approach offers an alternative to the two extremes of either phonics or whole language. Secondly it provides an effective combination of instructional approaches. A combination of teaching methods used together will teach a greater range of learners. Thirdly the balanced approach recognises that children come to the classroom with different learning styles and so accommodates various learning styles. Auditory learners are likely to benefit from phonics instruction. Visual learners on the other hand are likely to benefit from whole word approach. In addition, there are different stages of reading acquisition such as spelling-sound and automatic. These different stages of reading require different approaches. Each learner enters the classroom with different skills and different level of skills. Each learner is likely to learn at different rates. As a result of such differences Gunning (2003); Pressley (2002) emphasise the need to use a variety of instructional strategies to address the needs of the individual learners.
Instead of focusing on which of the two (phonics or whole language) is a better approach, the debate now centres on the essential components of a balanced literacy approach. Some people such as Jeanne S. Chall and Marilyn J. Adams strongly feel that skill-based instruction should be emphasized within a reading curriculum while others such as Kenneth S. Goodman feel that more emphasis should be placed on authentic reading tasks (Snow et al. 1998). A number of educators have called for a
education (Arkebauer et al. 2002; Cesaron 2001; Cowen 2003; Gunning 2003; Pressley 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005).
It should be noted however, that the term balanced itself has become the centre for discussion. There is no agreement on what constitutes the term balanced approach. For some people, it means having instruction in phonics balanced with whole language instruction (Grossen 1997). For others, it means starting with phonics at the elementary grades followed by whole language or vice versa. It is not clear how exactly this mixture should be accomplished in the classroom situation. For Pressley (2002) balanced instruction is that which integrates skills instruction and holistic literacy opportunities. According to Pressley, the integration should include the development of decoding skills, sight words and rich vocabulary development, specific comprehension skills, and reading within a sociocultural context. Spiegel (1998) on her part departs from the debate of phonics versus whole language. For her, the balanced approach is an approach built on research. It views teachers as informed decision-makers. It is therefore flexible, and it is built on a comprehensive view of literacy. According to Spiegel “this comprehensive view of literacy is inclusive”. She argues that:
• literacy involves both reading and writing;
• reading is not just word identification, but word identification is part of reading; • readers must be able to take different stances in reading: aesthetic and efferent; • writers must be able to express meaningful ideas clearly;
• writing is not just grammar, spelling, and punctuation, but those are all part of effective writing;
• a comprehensive program develops life-long readers and writers.
Snow et al. 1998 are not happy with the use of the term balance. They suggest the use of the term integration rather than balance. They argue that an integrated approach brings into sharper focus all requirements necessary for understanding reading instruction. Strickland (1998) seems to agree with this view when she cautions against using instructional extremes. In order to avoid future debates she advises against advocating either phonics or whole language instruction.
The National Reading Panel (NRP) in America synthesised the extensive research on teaching students to read (Pressley 2001(a)), focusing on children from kindergarten age to third grade. The panel concluded that both phonics and whole language are important in teaching children how to read (NRP 2000). In its report, the panel contended that these two strategies-phonics and whole language-along with a good deal of time for children to read, to be read to, and to write, are important components of balanced reading instruction.
2.4 Research-based critical skills and effective approaches in teaching reading