Phonics Approach Vs. Whole Language Approach: Research Proposal Research Proposal Samples

The task herein concerns the development of a Research Plan Proposal for a literacy class. The concept, discussion, and outline explore the advantages and disadvantages to both the phonics approach and the whole language approach. Code-based phonics, in terms establishing strong decoding skills early on and supporting vocabulary instruction, is quite imperative. An incorporation, however, of both methods of the whole language approach and the code emphasis approach is ideally desirable to utilize together in the classroom. Therefore a balanced literacy approach and outlook best serve the aim and goals, ultimately, of the research investigation paper.
There has been sustained controversy over the supremacy of code emphasis in using the phonics-based method in teaching literacy, versus using the whole language approach. Different opinions allocate various arguments among educators, pedagogical experts, and classroom teachers – whom, with all due respect are on the ‘frontlines’ of teaching, if you will. For example, Sue Lyle (2014) in her article declares that “phonics is not the answer” (p. 68). Citing instances for her argument that the short CVC words cannot always follow an accurate, or formulaic suit such as: ‘cat’ and ‘mat’ versus ‘fir’ and ‘sir’, or ‘hay’ and ‘say’. Others still would argue that whole language holds remarkable benefits, or teaches children rote memorization as they ‘read’ literature.
Obviously, benefits exist in both literacy learning styles. Praises were sung for phonics, for example, by Thai tonal-language educators according to Burnham et al. (2013), in that learners grasped increased spelling accuracy (p. 60). One educator used a creative approach in the classroom allowing 3rd-graders to take an imaginary flight, and used “Ethnic Additive paradigms” to reinforce the splendors of the phonics approach (Toppel, 2012, p. 99). He acknowledges that cultural learning for teachers is still an ongoing process. Still others (Karemaker, Pitchford, & O’Malley, 2010) would interject and explore whether multimedia software adequately supports the whole language approach.
One thing is certain. Educators have much responsibility on their plates in terms of best practices in literacy acquisition. Not all are going to agree. NIFDI provides a nice overview of the historical disputes. They also note public interest in terms of high rates of literacy failure, particularly in Australia. Policy reactions threw a $6.5 billion-dollar-package at the problem in teacher educational reforms. But money cannot solve everything.
Finally, educators must also consider literacy advancements special needs children. If only to provide a cursory overview of the situation and concerns, regarding the aspects of phonics versus whole language approaches in their lives, is only equitable. Growing numbers of cases of autism recently fuel this demand. Also, the intellectually disabled and those learners who are deaf may benefit from a combination of the approaches, so tailored specifically to their needs. In light of these considerations, the following outline may help to guide boundaries of the paper, while still allowing for fleshing-out points of interest to the educational investigator.

Proposal Outline:

I. Introduction: State the problem, and a background of concern, with clear thesis and explanation why the research cogently adds value to the discussion of sorting out the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of the phonics approach vs. the whole language approach.
II. Discussion: Review the positive aspects of phonics, giving examples supported by current literature. Mention any negative aspects, or challenges about phonics approaches. Give the benefits of whole language literacy learning, and demonstrate the successes and challenge of the method. Propose your idea of a balanced approach (should tie-in to your thesis). Include the observations of the Speaker lecture series, about practices for teaching reading in the classroom and review at least two (2) modern theoretical perspectives on language acquisition and literacy, as presented in Lecture 3.
III. Conclusion: Wrap up with a reiteration of your thesis, and why you think it is important. Review other supports for the perspective, for example, any new studies or discoveries that are currently in the news about the situation. Propose a recommendation as a final commentary and follow-up.

References

Burnham, D., Luksaneeyanawin, S., Kantamphan, S., & Reid, A. (2013). Phonics vs.
Whole-Word instruction in a tone language: Spelling errors on consonants, vowels, and
tone over age. Written Language and Literacy, 16(1), 60-76. doi:10.1075/wll.16.1.03bur
Callinan, C.O., & van der Zee, E. (2010). A comparative study of two methods of synthetic phonics instruction for learning how to read: Jolly Phonics and THRASS. Psychology of Education Review, 34(1), 21-31.
Cardenas, J.M. (2009, January 1). Phonics instruction using pseudowords for success in Phonetic
Decoding. ProQuest LLC;
Cologon, K., Cupples, L., & Wyver, S. (2011). Effects of targets reading instruction on phonological awareness and phonic decoding in children with Down syndrome. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 116(2), 111-129.
Finnegan, E.G. (2012). Two approaches to phonics instruction: Comparison of effects with
children with significant cognitive disability. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 47(3), 269-279.
Halcyon House – Critical Issues in Education. (2015). Whole language vs. phonics [Data file].
Retrieved from http://www.halcyon.org/wholelan.html
Karemaker, A.M., Pitchford, N.J., & O’Malley, C. (2010). Does Whole-Word multimedia software support literacy acquisition? Reading and Writing: In Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 31-51.
LD Online. (2015). Whole language lives on: The illusion of balanced reading instruction
[Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394/
Lyle, S. (2014). The limits of phonics teaching. School Leadership Today, 5(5) 68-74.
Narr, R.F., & Cawthon, S.W. (2011). The “Wh” questions of ‘Visual Phonics’: What, Who,
Where, When, and Why. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(1), 66-78.
National Institute for Direct Instruction – NIFDI. (2014, February 7). Part 1: Whole Language!
What was that all about? [Data file]. Retrieved from http://nifdi.org/news/hempenstall-blog/441-part-1-whole-language-what-was-that-all-about
National Institute for Direct Instruction – NIFDI. (2015). A history of disputes about reading instruction [Data file]. Retrieved from http://nifdi.org/news-latest-2/blog-hempenstall/396-a-history-of-disputes-about-reading-instruction
New York State Reading Association. (2015). The language and literary spectrum – A journal of the New York State Reading Association [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.nysreading.org/sites/default/files/Final%20Language%20and%20Literacy%20Spectrum%20Vol%2024.pdf
Nottlemeyer, A.L., Joseph, L.M., & Kunesh, C.E. (2013). Effects of supplemental small
group phonics instruction on Kindergartners & apos; World Recognition Performance.
Reading Improvement, 50(3), 121-131.
Reed, D.K. (2013). The effects of explicit instruction on the reading performance of adolescent English language learners with intellectual disabilities. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 743- 761. doi:10.1002/tesq.94
Rising to the Literacy Challenge: Conservative Party Conference. (2010). Literacy Today,
(65), 15.
SEDL – Ready Resources. (2015). Glossary of reading terms – Balanced literacy [Data file].
Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/reading/framework/glossary.html
Speaker, R.B. (2015). Lecture 3 – Perspectives on the acquisition of language and literacy
[Supplied handout]. Department, Institution, City, and State.
Speaker, R.B. (2015). Lecture 4 – Practices for teaching reading and classroom organization
[Supplied handout]. Department, Institution, City, and State.
Speaker, R.B., & Dermody, M. (2015). Lecture 5 – Practices in literacy assessment – also see
Powerpoints and handouts on miscue analysis and running records [Supplied handouts].
Suh, R.R., & Gerson, V.V. (2013). Using technology for phonics instruction in Kindergarten.
California Reader, 46(3), 30-33.
Toppel, K. (2012). Phonics instruction with a culturally responsive twist: Three approaches to
transforming curriculum. Multicultural Perspectives, 14(2), 99-102.
Vadasy, P.F., & Sanders, E.A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for
low-skilled Kindergartners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Education Psychology, 102(4), 786-803.