## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **False dichotomy resolved**: Phonics instruction should come first, then literature exposure > - **Biological knowledge distinction**: Speaking (primary) develops naturally, reading (secondary) requires explicit instruction > - **Equity through systematic instruction**: Phonics equips all children regardless of background ## Definition **Reading Wars**: Ideological divide between phonics-based approaches and whole-language approaches to language acquisition. ## Connected To [[Maths Wars]] | [[Biologically Primary & Secondary Knowledge]] | [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Logical Fallacies]] --- The reading wars represent a [[Logical Fallacies|false dichotomy]]. The resolution is sequencing rather than balance: phonics instruction must come first before encouraging students to read children's literature independently. ## Whole Language Approach Whole language instruction immerses children in whole words within meaningful contexts, such as literature, without systematic phonics instruction. This approach misunderstands how literacy develops. The whole language model is based on the flawed assumption that, because children naturally learn to talk and understand language without explicit instruction, they should similarly learn to read and write without explicit instruction. This model ignores the distinction between [[Biologically Primary & Secondary Knowledge|biologically primary knowledge]] (like speaking) and biologically secondary knowledge (like reading). It overlooks the extensive adult input children receive during early language acquisition: thousands of hours of spoken language exposure before formal schooling begins. Disadvantaged students, whose parents may not provide as much linguistic modelling or responsiveness, often lag behind in literacy skills compared to their more advantaged peers. There is no robust research evidence supporting the effectiveness of the whole-language approach. The "balanced literacy" approach, which includes some phonics, has been criticised for being whole language with token phonics instruction. ## Phonics Approach Phonics involves [[Explicit Teaching|explicitly teaching]] the relationships between sounds (phonemes) and their corresponding letters or letter groups (graphemes). This method equips children with the tools to decode unfamiliar words independently, regardless of their background or home literacy environment. Phonics instruction is systematic and sequential, ensuring that each child develops a reliable toolkit for reading. This approach is important for disadvantaged students who cannot rely on extensive home support to compensate for instructional gaps. - Approximately 50% of English words have a straightforward phoneme-grapheme correspondence. - About 36% of English words deviate slightly from this pattern, typically with vowel sounds. - Around 10% of words can be read correctly if the reader understands morphology and etymology. - Only 4% of English words cannot be decoded using sound-letter correspondence (Share, 1995). ## Research evidence The National Reading Panel's (2000) comprehensive review of reading instruction research concluded that systematic phonics instruction produces substantial gains in reading achievement for children in kindergarten through Year 2 and for children at risk of reading difficulties. The panel found consistent evidence favouring explicit, systematic phonics over whole-language approaches. Castles, Rastle, and Nation (2018) conducted a systematic review aimed at resolving the reading wars, concluding that phonics instruction should be systematic and explicit rather than incidental. They found no empirical support for whole-language approaches that minimise phonics instruction. Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, and Willows (2001) meta-analysed 66 treatment-control comparisons, finding that systematic phonics instruction helped children learn to read more effectively than non-systematic or no phonics instruction. Effect sizes were strong (d = 0.54) for at-risk readers and children with learning disabilities. The biological distinction between speaking and reading matters (Geary, 2007, 2008). Speaking evolved over hundreds of thousands of years and represents [[Biologically Primary & Secondary Knowledge|biologically primary knowledge]] that children acquire naturally. Reading emerged approximately 5,000 years ago and constitutes biologically secondary knowledge requiring systematic instruction (Dehaene, 2009). The brain has no dedicated reading circuit; reading co-opts areas evolved for other functions. Adams (1990) found that successful readers develop strong phonological awareness and grapheme-phoneme correspondence knowledge. Her analysis revealed that whole-language approaches failed to develop these skills systematically. Moats (2000) critiqued "balanced literacy" as whole-language instruction with insufficient systematic phonics. She argued that token phonics instruction embedded in literature-based approaches lacks the systematic structure necessary for children to develop reliable decoding skills. Share (1995) found that phonological recoding (decoding unfamiliar words using phonics) allows children to become independent readers. Each successful decoding attempt builds orthographic representations. The percentage breakdowns for English word decoding patterns are based on extensive corpus analysis (Adams, 1990; Moats, 2000), demonstrating that systematic phonics instruction provides access to approximately 96% of English words when combined with morphological and etymological knowledge. ## Scientific adjudication of the reading wars The reading wars illustrate the high cost paid when peer-reviewed literature is ignored and normal processes of scientific adjudication are replaced with political debates and rhetorical posturing (Stanovich & Stanovich, 2003). A vast literature has been generated on best practices that foster children's reading acquisition, yet much of this literature remains unknown to many teachers, contributing to frustrating lack of clarity about accepted, scientifically validated findings. The determination of whole language advocates is sustained because people keep noticing that some children, especially those from print-rich environments, don't seem to need much more than having questions answered and things pointed out to them in the course of dealing with books and various authentic literacy acts. Proponents of phonics are equally fuelled by personal observation: people keep noticing that some children don't seem to figure out the alphabetic principle, let alone some of its intricacies, without having the system directly and systematically presented. Both observations are valid and not mutually exclusive. One doesn't negate the other. This is precisely the type of situation for which the scientific method was invented: a situation requiring a consensual view, triangulated across differing observations by different observers. ### Teachers and researchers: triangulation of perspectives The converging evidence from multiple research approaches, including laboratory studies of phonological processing, classroom intervention studies, longitudinal tracking of reading development, and neuroimaging research, consistently supports systematic phonics instruction whilst acknowledging individual variation in how much support children require. This convergence gives educators confidence that phonics instruction represents research-based practice rather than ideological preference. ## References Adams, M. J. (1990). *Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print*. MIT Press. Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, 19(1), 5-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271 Dehaene, S. (2009). *Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read*. Penguin. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. *Review of Educational Research*, 71(3), 393-447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393 Geary, D. C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), *Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues* (pp. 1-99). Information Age Publishing. Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. *Educational Psychologist*, 43(4), 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392133 Moats, L. C. (2000). Whole language lives on: The illusion of "balanced" reading instruction. Thomas Fordham Foundation. National Reading Panel. (2000). *Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction*. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. *Cognition*, 55(2), 151-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). *Using research and reason in education: How teachers can use scientifically based research to make curricular and instructional decisions*. National Institute for Literacy.