In Structured Literacy and Typical Literacy Practice: Understanding Differences to Create Instructional Opportunities , Spear-Swerling (2018) compares the two approaches to highlight the benefits of the former over the latter. The article concludes by noting that the adoption of the standard literacy (SL) approach is advantageous not only in cases of dyslexia but also in the prevention and management of other reading difficulties.
While research proves that SL approaches best meet the needs of the dyslexic student, an interrogation of its key features suggests that this approach could benefit other student categories as well. According to Spear-Swerling (2018), there are at least 4 basic features of this approach. Under this method, students are taught important concepts clearly and directly as the expectation that they will make inferences based on incidental or experiential learning is removed. Second, learning is done in a logical manner ensuring that the most basic skills are taught before advancing to more complex skills. This logical approach results in a built-in growing practice and continuous review of skills previously learned, enabling students to automatically develop and retain skills (Spear-Swerling, 2018). Also, there is a high level of student-teacher interaction that will occur as a result of it being a direct and explicit approach. This entails frequent student responses as well as immediate feedback with clear and necessary corrections from the teacher. The use of carefully chosen examples and non-examples also facilitates the direct and explicit approach of SL. Spear-Swerling (2018) notes that even though SL is preferred for dyslexic students because it directly addresses their core weaknesses, SL programs have obvious differences.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Likewise, typical literacy practice (TLP) programs exhibit marked differences. Critically, there are differences between SL and TPS programs and the latter does not include key features of the former. In the case of reading, partner activities and independent reading are prioritized over teacher-student interaction (Spear-Swerling, 2018). While beginner readers use predictable texts, there is no control for the different phonetic word patterns and this makes decoding a challenge. In the case of spelling, the explicit, systematic, and explicit SL approach is lacking. Similarly, in the case of higher-level literacy, the approach to higher levels of language structure lacks the systematic method and focus on basic skills (Spear-Swerling, 2018). Even though TLP highlights independent reading for practical reasons such as differentiated instructions, its core principles emphasize comprehension at the expense of foundational skills. Conversely, because SL is based on explicit and systematic teaching, it emphasizes direct student-teacher interactions (Spear-Swerling, 2018). Hence, the different features of both approaches are used to highlight the shortcomings of the TLP.
Fundamentally, it is the incorporation of certain SL practices that could benefit many students, not just those with learning disabilities. This approach favors students from low-income families and English learners because it contains practices that are important for preventing literacy difficulties (Spear-Swerling, 2018). Still, at-risk students can be identified earlier with properly scored oral reading assessments and attention to word-reading errors along with appropriate feedback. Also, SL practices address important basic skills through systematic and consistent instruction. Some evidence-based core literacy curricula enable general educators to differentiate instructions for high-achieving students. Generally, implementing SL practices in Tier 1 instruction and tiered interventions is, effectively, the prevention and improvement of dyslexia and other reading disabilities (Spear-Swerling, 2018). There are some of the reasons suggested by the author of the article above for the adoption of SL practices.
Reference
Spear-Swerling, L. (2018). Structured Literacy and Typical Literacy Practice: Understanding Differences to Create Instructional Opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children ,1-11. doi: 10.1177/0040059917750160
