The great misunderstanding

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 377.

There is certainly strong support among the public and the media for "phonics" instruction. What is not clear is whether the support is for Intensive Systematic Phonics, or Basic Phonics. Whole language advocates are regularly accused of supporting the Zero Phonics position, but most actually support Basic Phonics, maintaining that basic phonics is one way to help make texts more comprehensible. Public opinion might be much closer to the whole language view than to the extreme position taken by the National Reading Panel.

Anderson, R., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. 1985. Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.

Garen, E. 2002. Resisting Reading Mandates. Heinemann.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction: Reports of the Subgroups. Washington, DC: NIH Publication 00-4654.

Johnson, F. 2001. The utility of phonics generalizations: Let's take another look at Clymer's conclusions. The Reading Teacher, 55, 132-143.

Krashen, S. 2002. Defending whole language: The limits of phonics instruction and the efficacy of whole language instruction. Reading Improvement 39 (1): 32- 42.

Smith, F. 1994. Understanding Reading. Erlbaum.