Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:38:43.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psycholinguistics Vs Phonemics: Can These Approaches Be Reconciled?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Judith Hall  and
Ron King
Judith Hall*
Affiliation:
University of Wollongong
Ron King
Affiliation:
National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET)
*
Judith Hall is a Special Education teacher with the NSW Department of School Education and doctoral student of the University of Wollongong. Dr Ron King is Counsellor, Higher Education Council of NBEET. Correspondence should be addressed to Judith Hall. Faculty of Education. University of Wollongong, PO Box 1144, Wollongong, NSW, 2500
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much of the international debate about reading and the acquisition of literacy skills has divided into support for psycholinguistic or phonemic approaches. Proponents of each have argued with evangelistic fervour.

More recently some researchers are suggesting an interactive model, which includes elements of both psycholinguistic and phonemic approaches. However, while recognising the need for cognitive strategies, the interactive model still fails to utilise fully the vast wealth of knowledge available from over two decades of cognitive research, and in particular, research into cognitive strategy training.

This article suggest that there is no one reading model to suit all learners, but that a reading program must consider the unique needs of each individual learner, and cater for the student by applying knowledge gained from a variety of relevant areas of research.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 27 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, S. (1989). Psycholinguistics and reading acquisition, the argument for decoding. The NSW Journal of Special Education, 10, 15–20.Google Scholar
Andrews, S. & Jardine, J. (1989). Recent research findings on reading acquisition. In G., Cassidy (Ed.), New Developments in Understanding & Assessing Reading Difficulties: Information for School Counsellors. Sydney: NSW Department of Education, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Association of Children with Learning Disabilities. (1989) Reading failure. ACW Newsletter, 17(4), 6–7.Google Scholar
Australian Association of Special Education Inc (AASE). NSW. Chapter Committee. (1989a). Reading K-12 Curriculum Review. The NSW Journal of Special Education, 10, 5–15.Google Scholar
Australian Association of Special Education Inc (AASE)(1989b, November). Reading K-12 revised draft. AASE NSW Chapter Newsletter, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
Becker, W., Engelmann, S. & Thomas, D.R. (1975). Teaching 2: Cognitive Learning and Instruction. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. & Engelmann, S. (1967). The educator and the child developmentalist Reply to a review. Educational Leadership, 25, 12–13.Google Scholar
School reading system wrong, says academic. (1990, April). Brisbane Courier Mail.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19, 1–15.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1966). Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cambourne, B. (1986a). The conditions of learning. In Walshe, R.D., March, P. & Jensen, D. (Eds.), Writing and Learning in Australia. Melbourne: Dellasta Books in association with Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cambourne, B. (1986b). Provide natural learning conditions. In Walshe, R.D., March, P. & Jensen, D. (Eds.), Writing and Learning in Australia. Melbourne: Dellasta Books in association with Oxford Univesity Press.Google Scholar
Carbo, M. (1988). Debunking the great phonics myth. Phi Delta Kappan, 70 (3), 226–240.Google Scholar
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dale, P.S. & Cole, K.N. (1988). Comparison of academic and cognitive programs for young handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 54 (5), 439–447.Google Scholar
deBettencourt, L.U. (1987). Strategy training: a need for clarification. Exceptional Children, 54 (1), 24–30.Google Scholar
Dwyer, B. (1986). Master language by using it enjoyably. In Walshe, R.D., P., March & Jensen, D. (Eds.), Writing and Learning in Australia. Melbourne: Dellasta Books, in association with Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S. & Bruner, E. (1969). DISTAR: An Educational System. Chicago: Science Research Assoc.Google Scholar
Englemann, S. & Carnine, D. (1970). Teacher’s Guide: DISTAR Arithmetic 1 and 11. Chicago. Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Feuerstein, R. & Jensen, M.R. (1980, May). Instrumental enrichment Theoretical basis, goals, and instruments. The Education Forum, 401–423.Google Scholar
Forell, E.R. (1985). The case for conservative reader placement. The Reading Teacher, 38 (9), 857–862.Google Scholar
Gaskins, I.W. & Baron, J. (1985). Teaching poor readers to cope with maladaptive cognitive styles: A training program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18 (7), 390–394.Google Scholar
Goodman, K.S. (1965). A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English, 42 (6), 639–643.Google Scholar
Goodman, K.S. (1968). The Psycholinguists Nature of the Reading Process. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, F.S. (1973). The 13th easiest way to make learning to read difficult: A reaction to Gleitman and Rozin. Reading Research Quarterly, 8, 484–493.Google Scholar
Gow, L. (1987). Cognitive strategy training as a means of improving the efficiency of teaching work skills to adults with intellectual disabilities. The Journal of Practical Approaches to Developmental Handicaps, 11 (2), 18–23.Google Scholar
Gow, L. & Heath, S. (1988). Teaching techniques for facilitating integration. The Special Education Journal, 1, 16–19.Google Scholar
Gow, L. & Ward, J. (1985). The use of verbal self-instruction training for enhancing generalisation outcomes with persons with an intellectual disability. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 11 (3), 157–168.Google Scholar
Goyen, J. 1989). The illusion of knowledge. The NSW Journal of Special Education, 10, 26–27.Google Scholar
Hall, J.V. & Gow, L. (1989). Becoming a bird of the feather: A proposal for a cognitive strategy to improve socially acceptable behaviour. The Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 21(3), 22–26.Google Scholar
Harris, K.R., Graham, S. & Freeman, S. (1988). Effects of strategy training on metamemory among learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 54 (4), 332–338.Google Scholar
Havertape, J.F. & Kass, C.E. (1978) Examination of problem solving in learning disabled adolescents through verbalized self-instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 94–103.Google Scholar
Hohn, W.E. & Ehri, L.C. (1983). Do alphabet letters help pre-readers acquire phonemic segmentation skill? Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 752–762.Google Scholar
Johnson, T.D. & Louis, D.R. (1986). Literacy through literature. Methuen Australia Pry Ltd. Google Scholar
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.Google Scholar
Kemp, M. (1987). Testing in literacy: The hidden agenda. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 11 (2), 3–12.Google Scholar
Lloyd, T. & Goyen, J. (1986). Picking the literacy lock. NSW Journal of Special Education, 6, 37–46.Google Scholar
Maker, C.J. (1981). Problem solving: A general approach to remediation. In Smith, D.D. (Ed.), Teaching The Learning Disabled. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Meichenbaum, D.H. (1977). Cognitive-behavior Modification: An lntegrative Approach. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Meichenbaum, D.H. & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 115–136.Google Scholar
Nagy, W.E., Herman, P.A. & Anderson, R. C (1985) Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 223–253.Google Scholar
Neale, M. (1989). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability Revised. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Nicholson, T. (1986). Reading is not a guessing game-The great debate revisited. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 7, 197–210.Google Scholar
Nicholson, T., Lillas, C. & Rzoska, M.A. (1988). Have we been misled by miscues? The Reading Teacher, 42(1), 6–10.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. (1984). Reading acquisition and beyond: Decoding includes cognition. American Journal of Education, 92, 40–60.Google Scholar
Private teachers granted 25% pay rise. (1991, August). Illawarra Mercury, p.5.Google Scholar
Reynolds, M. & Dallas, S. (1989). Getting it right the first time. The NSW Journal of Special Education, 10, 21–25.Google Scholar
Serfontein, G. (1990). The Hidden Handicap. Haw to Help Children Who Suffer from Dyslexia, Hyperactivity and Learning Difficulties. Sydney: Simon Schuster.Google Scholar
Siegler, R.S. & Jenkins, E. (1989). How Children Discover New Strategies. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Slingerland, B.H. (1988). An adaption based on the Orton-Gillingham approach for classroom teaching of reading. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 20 (4), 5–15.Google Scholar
Smith, F. (1982). Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read (3rd ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Smith, F., Goodman, K.S. & Meredith, R. (1976). Language and Thinking in School. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (1988). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (4), 360–407.Google Scholar
Tendys, J. (1979). Problem areas in the psycholinguistic approach to reading. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 11(1), 19–24.Google Scholar
Torneus, M. (1984). Phonological awareness and reading: A chicken and egg problem? Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (6), 1346–1358.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F.R. (1987). Dyslexia. Scientific American, 256 (3), 20–28.Google Scholar
Watson, A. (1991). Do you have a problem? It can be solved. The Special Education Journal, 1, 12–14.Google Scholar
Wragg, J. (1987). Talk Sense to Yourself Program. South Coast Region, NSW Department of Education.Google Scholar
Yates, S. (1989). Instrumental enrichment: A strategy for modifying cognitive ability. The Australasian Journal of Special Education, 11(1), 15–27.Google Scholar