EARLY SUCCESS WITH READING

Twentieth century instruction of children in the art of reading has taken two forms. The one best known since the 1960’s is the sight vocabulary or language method, based on the theory that if a child has spoken or heard a word, that word will be recognised in print and automatically read with meaning.

The other is the alphabet method which involves identifying each letter of the alphabet by its phonetic sound. The sounds are then blended in the correct sequence to pronounce the word. As words become familiar through repeated pronouncing, phonetic sound blending becomes more fluent.

The reality is that many children use both of these strategies to become successful readers, irrespective of any method used in classroom instruction. This fact can be understood in the light of the knowledge that reading is a function of neurological maturation. The ideal child’s brain is so organised that, in the first six years of life, the right brain hemisphere does the work of seeing words as a whole while the left brain hemisphere breaks up words into sequenced sounds. Between the ages of six and eight, ideally, the hemispheres begin to work in coordination. The separate letters and the whole word are processed simultaneously, leading to automatic reading.

The fact that many but not all children read independently of instruction, indicates that all children do not enjoy the benefits of ideal neurological organisation. It raises the question of which approach in reading should be used for these children.

This question is all the more important since the whole language method has fallen into disfavour consequent to the publication of findings which suggest that the decline in literacy skills in schoolchildren in the last few decades is associated with the exclusive use of whole language methods for reading instruction. With figures showing that possibly forty to fifty percent of school children have difficulty reading English, a new interest in the alphabetic approach to reading has been generated

Unfortunately, the rediscovered alphabet approach to reading has been subsumed under the rubric of ‘phonics’ and as such has covered a multitude of instructional mistakes. These include:-

• not being told early or long enough that each written character of the alphabet (grapheme) has a spelling name and a phonetic sound (phoneme);
• that the spelling names of letters are used only when we spell, the graphemes when we read and write and the phonemes when we speak;
• that the spelling names of the letters a-e-i-o-u are the names of five letters of the alphabet and that they constitute only a small proportion the vowels of English used in speech.

These mistakes are evident in the lack of recognition, in most readers, of the phonetic sound of each letter as distinct from the name of the letter used when spelling and in the inability to divide a word into phonetic letter or syllable sequences and re-assemble them into a whole word in speech.

This confusion can be corrected with a pronunciation model for reading instruction and lead to successful reading for those who have failed to learn with whole language methods or with previous phonic approaches. Theoretically, the explicit sequencing of each letter sound will stimulate the left hemisphere and, at the same time, complement the right side which is responsible for whole word recognition.

Educators who support the phonics approach would not necessarily foresee problems with either the theory or the practice of sequencing or blending phonetic sounds to make words. Indeed the proponents of whole language as a reading method would also be likely to argue that no problems exist in phonics insofar as grapho phonic cues are included in strategies for assisting whole word recognition.

Both whole language and phonics advocates appear to deal with problems in phonetic irregularities and sound patterns of English spelling by traditional techniques. For instance they show the regularity and ease of pronunciation in ‘consonant-short vowel-consonant’ combinations; or display lists of words as ‘word families’ which have the same spelling pattern with a consistent pronunciation ( words for example containing “ay” “ar” “oor”). The pitfalls in this form of instruction relate to the fact that the English language is not phonetic: the sound patterns of English spelling are notoriously irregular and ambiguous. The sound pattern in “oor” can for instance be spelt in fifteen different ways: the spelling pattern “ea” can be sounded in fifteen ways . This renders ineffective those programmes which ask pupils to make words by placing consonants at the beginning and end of vowel combinations.

Another strategy for dealing with irregularities of sound and spelling patterns in English is to use the forty five generalisation rules that presumably cover all possible contingencies in English spelling. The mistake in this approach is again that the first instructional goal in literacy is accurate reading, not spelling. Moreover, the application of rules is a higher order thinking function of the brain. It requires a level of neurological maturity that is not usually enjoyed by ‘at risk’ readers. Observers of children will note how difficult it is for pupils who, while they can recite a simple punctuation rule, cannot see when to apply it in practice.

This common inability to apply rules to minimise ambiguity is just as apparent and more serious in English pronunciation. When children cannot pronounce words, they either stop reading or continue to guess words. Answering comprehension questions in writing becomes impossible if the reader does not actually register the word in print, which is a result of guessing and just ‘getting the gist’ of the text. Ambiguity constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for many pupils who are unable to ‘discover ‘ the pronunciation for themselves and are by nature not able to tolerate guessing because they have a need to be sure before they ‘have a go’.

English pronouncing dictionaries have recognised the need to reduce ambiguity in written English by using pronunciation marks (diacritics) to denote the specific sound of any letter combination. Some reading models have adopted diacritics from the international pronunciation code to indicate long and short vowels. However, having too few indicating marks yields too many unknowns for the pupil. Neither does it address the fact that in English speech there are six short vowels, six long vowels and six diphthongs which need to be reproduced in oral reading if all words are to be intelligible.

It seems extraordinary to persist in using methods on which a significant percentage of children fail. We know that, from the age of six, normal children have the neurological maturity to use phonetics in the form of sound blending (the more correct definition of ‘phonics’). The English language itself is the major obstacle. We now know also that a simple but effective solution to the problem is a pronunciation code suitable for the reader of English in any age range beginning at six years.

On this basis, the programme “Reading for Sure” has been trialed and shown to produce success for both teacher and pupil in the mastery of English reading. By using a pronunciation mark for each of the eighteen speech vowels in English, rules become redundant until the pupil is ready for rules. In the meantime, when the motivation of the child is at its highest for succeeding in reading, the pronunciation code makes that success possible. The research studies on Reading for Sure have concluded that not only are word attack skills enhanced; the comprehension levels of the pupils are significantly increased. There are measurable improvements in the child’s self esteem.

Julia Solomon
World Literacy International