What are some of the major differences between a skills approach to literacy and a comprehensive or sociopsycholinguistic approach?
A skills approach is recognized as a “bottom-up” approach which focuses on identifying words by knowing the letter-sound relationships first and then decoding words letter-by-letter. According to Weaver, it “starts with the smallest pieces of language and works “upward,” only later giving children meaningful texts to read and expecting them to read for comprehension”. (Weaver, 3) This reminds me of the “sound it out” phrase I often hear in classrooms during reading time along with sight word flash cards. This process stresses that the children should break up each sound in one word which is teaching them the basic phonics. I feel that this approach is teaching the word in isolation which might become confusing since the English language has many words that are homophones and homonyms. This approach states that fluency will come once a child knows all of the words. Also, the teacher focuses on printing neatly, spelling correctly, and using sentence punctuation appropriately before children can expand their writing.
Conversely, the comprehensive or sociopsycholinguistic approach
appears to be a more realistic technique because reader-text transaction occurs
within situational and social contexts. It
is an approach that uses everything a reader knows in order to construct the meaning
of texts. It involves reading simple rhymes,
poems, songs, and stories that are more predictable but are high-quality. The children pull from the skills method when
they are reading unfamiliar words.
However, the student and teacher construct meaning while using phonics. The teacher encourages the child to write
sounds they hear in the words.
Eventually, children are taught strategies for spelling, checking their
spelling, and finally correcting their spelling. Children master major grammar and conventions
within their reading and writing because it is their main form of
communication. A student taught with the
comprehensive approach may not be able to identify and say every word in the
sentence correctly like a child who was taught with the skills approach. However, a child taught with the
comprehensive approach will be able to make sense of the sentence due to the
strategy of using context clues within the sentence.
Weaver,
C. (2002). Reading process and practice (3rd
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lindsey,
ReplyDeleteI liked how you explained what each approach meant. The skills approach also reminds me out the "sound it out" phrase, that I grew up with. I think it is interesting that you pointed out that the comprehensive approach constructs meaning using phonics. That reminded me of the skills approach. While I was reading the assigned text, I thought it was not very reasonable to say that you define meaning by practicing phonics, the comprehensive approach also says that while decoding phonics, you determine meaning. It is interesting how the two approaches are so different, but also somewhat connected.
Lindsey,
ReplyDeleteYour explanation of both literacy approaches was very informative. You gave examples of activities associated with each literacy approach. This has helped me identify which approach that I utilize in my classroom. My conclusion is that I have implemented both approaches, but have tended to favor the skills approach. Your reflection suggests that children will pull from their skills instruction when they encounter unfamiliar words in context. I think this is an important indicator that a blended approach consisting of components from both skills and sociopyscholinguistic might well be the best of both worlds!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLindsey,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your last two sentences. Occasionally as adults we still come across words that we don’t know exactly how to pronounce or exactly what they mean, but typically we can use context clues to figure out the meaning. Dr. Ritchie mentioned this as well in his Power Point. I think teaching a child how to use context clues is the best way to teach both how to read and reading comprehension. What good is being able to identify every single word in a passage or a book if you have no idea what it was about after you read it? The skills approach definitely has its place, especially in the primary grades, but it alone will not benefit children in the long run. Being a teacher who has experience in the primary grades I believe it is best to use a combination of the two approaches. Since I have never had any long term experience with third through fifth graders, I am curious about the opinion upper grades teachers would have about this topic. Would third through fifth grade teachers favor the sociopsycholinguistic approach only, or would they still see the need for both approaches?
Lindsey,
ReplyDeleteI really like your definitions and examples of both models. You helped me identify which ones I am using throughout the school day. Since my students have a language deficit, we spend a lot of time on communication and comprehension in a general sense. Then we use literature and language building skills as a contextual setting in which to work on phonics and grammatical skills. I agree that understanding is the goal and students need instruction in all areas.