Today I spent some time reading the Sousa article. I found it to be a wealth of information in regard to how complex it is for a person to be able to read fluently, requiring the coordination of visual processing, auditory processing and with an understanding of both to interpret the meaning (semantics).
An interesting fact presented early in the article was the statistic of 50% of children do not automatically respond to formal instruction with ease when learning the process of converting spoken language to abstract symbols/the alphabet. It was said that 20 to 30 % of children will find it the most difficult task of their childhood.
It was also very interesting to find out that the English language, compared to some other languages - such as Italian and Spanish - is considered a deep orthography in that English has a poor correspondence between how a word is pronounced and how it is spelled; the complexity of the orthography results in more than 1,100 ways to spell the sound of English's 44 phonemes.
One section in the chapter that specifically caught my attention was the 'Response to Instruction as an Indicator in Second Grade'. Using this program of instruction - as described in the study - was said to reduce the 'many biases inherent in the traditional referral systems that rely heavily on the interpretations and perceptions of classroom teachers'. (It was previously noted that boys were identified more often than girls probably because of behaviour concerns when both genders have reading difficulties.) Using a technique of incremental periods of instruction in regard to phonemic awareness, spelling, phonics and fluency that requires the feedback of tests to indicate progress, it was found to be easier to identify which students required extra instruction. Supplemental rounds of instruction in identified problem areas were then administered.
I look forward to exploring how educators can facilitate the process of learning to read with all students in the classroom.
