The broader question then is the relationships between top-down (whole language) and bottom-up (skill-based) processes. A mastery of the sound-sight relationship between the spoken and written word is an essential. The critical question is how this competency can be achieved.

In this case, what happened? I can't say for sure, but this is how I see it:

(a) In context, they would have usually, but not always gotten that word. It would depend, in part, in how they were interacting with the context.

(b) When I had isolated the word on the board, they had a block that wouldn't allow them to put the sounds together into a coherent whole, even though they accurately pronounced most of the individuals sounds.

(c) After getting the word via the context clue, they were able to look at the sound and letter combinations and thereby make a connection with the informal phonemic exercise we had undertaken. That is, they were then able to work backward from the word to an analysis of the individual sounds.

This group of students benefits by consistent work on phonemic awareness, that much is clear. What is not so clear is the extent to which they would benefit from a systematic approach to phonics. They derive a great deal of value from the content of the materials we study, including that, which on occasion they create themselves. At the same time they need persistent work on a broad array of basic skills, which we incorporate into our regular program. That includes consistent phonics work, which is not synonymous with a systematic phonics approach.

Consequently, I emphasize the importance of a balanced or integrated approach, as advocated by P. David Pearson, Michael Pressley, and Victoria Purcell-Gates. This opens space for a variety of approaches within a given range that respects students' needs for both content-driven and skills-based methodologies and materials.

Part II

After giving up on having the group identify the word "restaurant" through phonemic strategies, I did not simply give them the word. I did give them a very strong prompt. With "restaurant" on the board and after their struggling engagement with the various sound combination of the last two syllables, I said, "It's a place to eat." The difference between simply giving them the word and providing a very powerful clue is minor, but significant. The significance being that it still required an inference on the part of the students and that is all the difference in the world. That is because an inference still requires thinking, even as in this case, the thought process was instantaneous.