Letters to the Editor...
The "phonics" debate
I find it discouraging that some people still criticize phonics instruction on the basis of a false assumption: that phonics advocates think that students need only phonics in a reading program. Let me repeat: this assumption is false. I won't repeat the pro-phonics arguments. We've all heard them (if you haven't, go read "Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children" by the National Institutes of Health). But I know of no responsible phonics advocate who asserts that phonics instruction is all a reader needs to be successful. In addition to being able to decode individual words, a new reader: - Must be exposed to well-written literature to develop a love of language through stories - Must be exposed to well-written non- fiction to whet his appetite for information that can only be satisfied by learning to read himself - Must develop an ever-expanding sight word vocabulary - Must be taught how to use context clues to figure out the *meaning* of a word he doesn't know the definition of (NOT to use context clues to identify the word itself) - Must be taught strategies to help him comprehend a phrase, then a sentence, then a paragraph, .... - Must be taught how to extract the main idea from a text - Must be taught how to summarize longer text he has read on his own Phonics instruction cannot do these things, and no responsible phonics advocate is claiming that it can. Sami Moran
Sami Moran, sami_moran@yahoo.com,
5/27/02
This month's letters:
The "phonics" debate, 5/27/02, by Sami Moran.
A Letter to (so-called) President Bush, 5/23/02, by Rosheilla McCoy.
re the intentional design-evolution article, 5/22/02, by Tony DiCicco.
the intentional design-evolution article, 5/20/02, by stewart e brekke.
Jolly Phonics, 5/13/02, by Joan Williams.
Letter to President Bush, 5/03/02, by Sherri McWhorter.
adderol, 5/01/02, by anne browne.
|