Ehri, L - Appalachian State University



Annotated Bibliography

Word Study

An Alternative Approach

To

Traditional Spelling Instruction

Heather Holland

&

Tracie Howard

RE 5710

June 26, 2007

Bloodgood, J. (1991).A New Approach to Spelling Instruction in Language Arts Programs. The Elementary School Journal. 92, 203-211.

Spelling instruction in the classroom has changed minimally since the publication of Noah Webster’s first Blue Backed Speller in 1783 (Bloodgood, 1991). Research has shown that spelling ability is closely related to reading ability. Because of this correlation between spelling and reading, Bloodgood (1991) suggests that spelling, reading, and writing should be taught cohesively and with a specific focus on the integration of all three in order to reinforce and facilitate the learning of language arts. Just as children should be taught reading at their instructional level, children should also be taught spelling at their instructional level. When children are not taught at their spelling instructional level, spelling becomes a rote memorization task and not a meaningful experience with word study. If spelling is approached in this way, not all children experience success, and teachers, often, do not see a transfer from spelling study to students’ writing.

Spelling instruction has a very methodical process and if integrated effectively, can produce astounding results. Bloodgood (1991) suggests that this instruction makes reading and writing a cohesive unit that facilitates the building of vocabulary knowledge. The first step in beginning this process in the classroom is to administer Schlagal’s qualitative spelling inventory. This spelling inventory, currently, consists of lists which contain 12 words, and are leveled from grade levels 1-6. According to Bloodgood (1991), each spelling level’s list was “…assembled according to the most salient features presented in word knowledge at that particular grade” (p. 204). From the results of the qualitative spelling inventory, the teacher is able to obtain a “baseline” for spelling and a qualitative and quantitative score for each child. From these scores, a power score (percentage correct) and an error type score can be acquired. Children can be grouped according to their spelling scores (often spelling and reading groups will be identical).

Once the children are grouped by their instructional spelling level in no more than three groups (limited for classroom management purposes), the teacher must compile lists of spelling words from basal readers, spelling series books, or other word lists that follow along a continuum for spelling development. After the word lists and the spelling groups are formed, the children will take pre- and post- tests with the teacher, work in small groups to create word banks or notebooks, complete word sorts, word hunts, and games reinforcing these word study skills.

The third step in creating an integrated approach to reading and language arts with instructional spelling levels is to be sure that reading, writing, and spelling are matched to the students’ word knowledge. This can be achieved by reviewing spelling and reading scores. Teachers can use pattern stories and extend them to word study and writing. Extension writing activities can be developed where the students describe characters and then list and compare word types such as action verbs. Unfamiliar words can also be taught by using word hunt techniques, rather than pre-teaching vocabulary. The children can become inquisitive explorers of unfamiliar vocabulary words with a partner or independently. It is important to note that all of this exploration needs guidance and supervision from the teacher.

Results from this type of leveled and integrated spelling instruction, can be observed through the results of the spelling inventory. Over time, Schlagal’s qualitative spelling inventory can be re-administered so that qualitative and quantitative scores can be compared to the student’s previous scores. From targeted spelling instruction on the students’ instructional spelling level, they develop an understanding of orthographic patterns and thus their writing demonstrates this expansion of spelling knowledge along with a transfer into daily spelling.

Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1987). Does learning to spell help beginners learn to read words?

Reading Research Quarterly, 22(1), 47-65.

According to Ehri (in press) there is a strong correlative link between learning to read and learning to spell. Researchers have found children’s ability to spell words is improved not only by their ability to read words (Ehri, 1985, in press; Ehri & Wilce, 1980a; Ehri & Roberts, 1979), but also by their acquisition of decoding skills through systematic phonics instruction (Chall, 1967; Ehri & Wilce, in press). For the purpose of this study, Ehri and Wilce speculated that learning to spell will improve students’ beginning reading skills.

Ehri and Wilce designed this study to ascertain whether “reading instruction might be improved by linking it to spelling instruction” (p.48). The authors proposed that the decoding skills children are taught during spelling instruction are also important components of reading and that “the learning of these skills as a part of spelling instruction should transfer and facilitate reading” (p.48).

In this study, kindergarten students who could name alphabet letters, but did not have the ability to spell words with consonant clusters, were identified and placed into one of two groups (experimental group and control group). The experimental group was given direct instruction in the segmentation and spelling of words and non-words, while the control group practiced identifying letters and associating them with isolated sounds. At the beginning of the study, four pretests were administered to each participant to measure reading skills and intelligence. The pretests included 1) letter name and sound knowledge, 2) word reading, 3) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (1981), and 4) nonsense word spelling. During the study, over the course of 36 days, participants were engaged in 7 to 18 training sessions, lasting 15 to 40 minutes each, according to their group assignment. At the conclusion of the study, four post-tests were administered to each participant to measure the effects of the training. The post-tests included 1) printed word learning, 2) nonsense word spelling, 3) spelling recognition test, and 4) phonemic segmentation. The researchers predicted that if learning to spell in fact facilitates word reading, then the experimental group participants should learn to read many more words than the control group participants.

Results revealed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in all four of the post-tests. The experimental group was able to read more words correctly on the printed word learning post-test; spell more words correctly, or at least include more correct sounds in words, on the nonsense word spelling production post-test; recognize more correct matches between spelling and pronunciations on the spelling recognition post-test; and segment more words correctly on the phonemic segmentation post-test. Researchers discovered that although the experimental group had the ability to sound out and blend words, it was their ability to use phonetic cue reading (using memory to read words by forming and storing associations between letters in a spelling and sounds in a pronunciation), promoted by the spelling instruction, that made them more successful.

The findings of this study hold important implications for spelling instruction. They indicate that children beginning to learn to read will benefit from spelling instruction, however additional studies are needed to identify which types of spelling instruction will have the greatest impact on spelling and reading acquisition.

Invernizzi, M., Abouzeid, M., & Gill, J. T. (1994). Using students’ invented spellings as a guide

for spelling instruction that emphasizes word study. Elementary School Journal, 95(2),

155-167.

Learning to spell is a developmental process acquired and improved through meaningful literacy activities. Further, the invented spellings of a child can inform the teacher of the child’s developmental spelling level so that appropriate instruction can be designed and delivered.

Research into developmental spelling theory reveals that children’s developing concept of written words can be divided into three progressive levels of English orthography: sound, pattern, and meaning. Each level corresponds with the stages of word knowledge (Read, 1971; Henderson, 1990). At the sound level, students are in the letter name stage, which is characterized by a one-to-one correspondence of letter to sound. At the pattern level, students are in the within word pattern stage, which is characterized by the use of silent, long vowel markers. At the meaning level, children are in the syllable juncture and derivations constancies stage, which is characterized by the acquisition of meaning units contained in the spelling of polysyllabic words. Studies show that progression through these levels and stages of spelling development occurs in the same order for all learners, with the only difference being in the rate of progress (Invernizzi & Worthy, 1989). By examining children’s invented spelling and categorizing it to the sound, pattern, or meaning level, teachers can identify and focus instruction on the “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1962), thereby facilitating children’s progression through the levels.

In this article, a program of word study is described for each level/stage of spelling development. Each program of study includes activities in picture sorting, word sorting, and word hunting. The first child, at the letter name stage/sound level, receives a program of word study with short vowels and word families. The second child, at the within word pattern stage/pattern level, receives a program of word study with short and long vowel sounds and word endings. The third child, at the syllable juncture and derivational constancies stage/meaning level, receives a program of word study with prefix, suffix, and root words.

In conclusion, this article supports the idea that most students need direct spelling instruction matched to their proximal zone of developmental word knowledge. A word study approach to spelling instruction allows students the opportunity to examine and categorize words leading to the discovery of word patterns and the principles of English spelling.

Joseph, L. M. (2002). Helping children link sound to print: Phonics procedures for small-

group or whole class settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 217-221.

In this article, the author describes two approaches to phonics instruction that promote children’s ability to “make connections between sound and print by gaining an awareness of the phonological and orthographic features of words” (p. 217). These approaches, word boxes and word sorts, engage children in explicit instruction of letter-sound associations through the manipulation of materials.

Research reveals that a limited knowledge of the phonological and orthographic structures of words (Levy & Carr, 1990) results in students struggling with basic word identification, spelling skills (Aaron & Joshi, 1992), and using letter-sound associations to read new words (Adams & Henry, 1997). The author reasoned that students who are experiencing difficulties with basic reading would benefit from the explicit phonics instruction that word boxes and word sorts provides.

In this article, the author describes the procedures for word boxes and word sorts instruction. She also provides variations for how to use these typically one-to-one methods with a small group or whole class.

Word boxes (Clay, 1993) consist of a drawn rectangle that has been divided into sections according to the phonemes in a word. In the word boxes method, students are led through three phases of instruction in which they are engaged in segmenting sounds, matching letters to sounds, and writing letters. The phases of the word boxes method are designed to “allow children to make connections among the sounds that make up a word, the letters that correspond to those sounds, and the spelling pattern (i.e., letter sequence) of the word” (p. 219).

The word sorts method engages students in the categorization of words that share common sound and spelling patterns (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 1996). Word sorts, also delivered in a three-step process, “helps children acquire phonemic awareness, recognize common and distinct spelling patterns in words, and write words that share common spelling patterns” (p. 219).

Students’ knowledge of the connection between sound and print is promoted through direct phonics instruction that incorporates phonemic awareness, word recognition, and spelling. Word boxes and word sorts are both phonic approaches that incorporate these crucial components, thus facilitating the phonological and orthographic understanding necessary for identifying and spelling words.

Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W., & Perney, J. (1995). Spelling instruction and achievement in six classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 145-162.

Students’ spelling abilities are closely linked to their reading ability. There have been numerous studies conducted on the effects of reading curriculum textbooks in the classroom but, very few have been done focusing on the use of spelling textbooks. In recent years, spelling instruction in the classroom has shifted and taken a new form. Many scholars and teachers are viewing spelling as a minor component of the writing process and are approaching the teaching of spelling as something that is acquired with more writing exposure. They are steering away from weekly spelling lists, spelling pattern study, and tests. Because of this recent shift, Morris, Blanton, Blanton, and Perney (1995) believe that it is important to study how teachers use spelling books in the classroom and how the use of spelling books affects student achievement.

  They designed their research study to describe how six elementary teachers use a traditional spelling book and curriculum during one school year and the qualitative amount of student achievement. Their research was organized around three central questions posed by Morris and his colleagues: “1.What is contained in a spelling book curriculum, including the nature of the word corpus and the suggested activities for learning words? 2. How do teachers of spelling use instructional time? (And how closely do they follow the instructional sequence outlined in the teacher’s manual that accompanies the spelling book?) 3. How well do students spell at the beginning of the year and how much do they learn and retain as the year advances?” (p. 146-147).

They set out to examine the use of spelling instructional texts in the classroom with hopes to demonstrate students’ growth when exposed to explicit spelling instruction using spelling textbooks. For their study, they observed spelling instruction during a full school year in four third-grade and two fifth-grade classrooms across five different schools in three rural school districts in western North Carolina. One third-grade and one fifth-grade class observed were located in the same school building. This study not only observed the spelling instruction, but it also recorded data from all students’ spelling tests. Every teacher involved in this research study volunteered to participate and had at least ten years of teaching experience. The mean class size was 23 and most students were from lower-middle socioeconomic class, Caucasian families.

The spelling programs they used consisted of student books and a teacher’s guide. The student books had basic spelling lists and supplemental activities. The teacher’s manual included the student pages, as well as ideas for teaching weekly orthographic spelling patterns. Spelling instruction consisted of 36 spelling units. The students were introduced to the spelling words on Monday, then completed spelling activities throughout the week, and then took the spelling test on Friday. The teachers’ spelling instruction was observed for a full week three times during the school year in October, January, and April. The observers viewed the teachers’ lessons on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On the other two days, the teachers’ lessons were audio taped and then transcribed by the observer. All teachers closely followed the spelling instructor’s manual. The following spelling activities were observed at various intervals: spelling pattern instruction, scripted text-based instruction, monitoring, checking, written test, oral reading of spelling list, oral spelling, discussion of word meanings, and supplemental worksheet instruction.

Data from the research was gathered at periodic intervals during the school year. In September, the students took a curriculum-based spelling pretest. From this a baseline of their knowledge was gathered. In each grade, a spelling test below-grade-level, on-grade-level, and above-grade-level was administered (third-graders were given a second-, third-, and a fourth-grade test). All of these tests were scored for accuracy. At the third-grade level only, the researchers used a bigraph measure to identify the quality of students’ misspellings (Deno et al., 1980). Spelling data was also collected from the students’ weekly spelling tests given on Fridays. Every six weeks, the teachers administered six-week review tests. At the request of the researchers, the teachers did not review for these six-week review tests in order to accurately measure the students’ true spelling retention.

The researchers, using the beginning of the year pre-test, divided the students into a low group (below 30% correct on the pretest) and a high group (above 30% correct).

The low group’s misspellings on the third-grade pretest were of a poorer quality than the high group’s misspellings. On the weekly spelling tests, both groups of students performed well (83% and 96% correct). One the six-week review tests, the low group spellers dropped 34 percent (83% to 49%). The high group spellers dropped only 11 percent (96% to 85%). Ultimately, on the end-of-the-year posttest, the low groups spelled only 46% of the third-grade spelling book words correctly. The high group spelled 86% of the same words correctly.

Results indicated that the low third-grade spellers did not have enough background knowledge of spelling patterns to make adequate progress and build from their previous knowledge each week. Whereas, the high third-grade spellers did have adequate background knowledge of spelling patterns to build the new spelling patterns into their schema each week and make progress. They had a sufficient foundation of orthographic knowledge to meet the weekly spelling instruction “head-on” and work to improve their spelling ability at the third grade level. While both groups did very well on the weekly tests, this knowledge was not at high levels by the low group.

This research study helped to discover several conclusions. The researchers note that spelling books generally lead classroom teachers along a continuum of study. Spelling books do not always have research based practices. Some spelling book activities presented well in ways that promote growth. The average teacher spends between 16 to 23 minutes a day on spelling instruction. Teachers generally follow the curriculum teacher’s manual very closely. When teachers branch out from the teacher’s manual, their practices do not always have “best practices” in mind. The six-week spelling retention tests provide teachers with valid insight into the knowledge level the students have gained. Weekly spelling tests do not provide this insight. Students who are low-achieving on the beginning of the year pre-test are at a high risk of not mastering the grade-level spelling words (Morris et al, 1995). Morris and his colleagues hope further research studies will be conducted in the future to further solidify their findings.

Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1995). Teaching low- achieving spellers at their "instructional level". The Elementary School Journal. 96(2), 163-177.

In the elementary school classrooms, reading instruction is consistently taught at the child’s “instructional reading level”. Spelling instruction however, is not usually taught at the child’s “instructional spelling level”. In the past, minimal research has been conducted to determine if spelling should also be taught on a child’s instructional level. Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek, and Perney “…were unable to locate studies showing that low-ability spellers are penalized by working in a grade-level spelling book, or that these students learn more if they work in a below grade-grade-level spelling book as opposed to a grade-level-spelling book” (p. 164). Because of this lack of research-based knowledge, they decided to carry out a series of studies designed to show the effects of ability grouping on students’ spelling achievement.

Morris’ (1986) preceding study explored the concept of “spelling instructional level” by observing the types of spelling errors made by good and poor spellers at a specified grade level. The results of this study supported that an “instructional level” in spelling does make a difference in the overall permanence of spelling ability. From this research study, Morris hypothesized that poor spellers will learn less than their more able peers when all students in the class receive the same grade-level spelling instruction.

In another study, Morris (1995) and his colleagues observed teachers’ spelling instruction and the achievement of their students across a full year in four third-grade classrooms and two fifth grade classrooms. A series of tests were administered at different times during the school year. Based on the pre-test (baseline test), children were grouped as either low spellers (below 30% correct on the pretest) or high spellers (above 30% correct). The results of the spelling tests were charted and the researchers found that the low achieving spellers scored almost as well as the high achieving spellers on the weekly tests, but on the 6-week tests and the post-tests, the low achieving spellers scored significantly lower than the high-achieving spellers. The low achieving spellers were not able to transfer their weekly studied lists into their long-term spelling memory.

Because of these two previous studies, the researchers asked, “Would these students learn more spelling words, and more about the spelling system, if they received instruction at a lower difficulty level?” (p. 166). This question was the basis for their research and led them into the present study “Teaching Low-Achieving Spellers at Their Instructional Level”. The subjects of this study were seven third-grade classrooms in three rural western North Carolina counties. Seven teachers taught spelling each day using the following commercial programs: Houghton Mifflin Spelling (Henderson et al., 1985) and Steck-Vaughn Spelling (Pescosolido, 1984). The average class size was 22, with mostly Caucasian, lower-middle class socioeconomic status levels. The researchers designed the study based on results from a curriculum based second- and third-grade pre-tests given to all students during the first two weeks of the school year. The pre-tests were scored for accuracy (percentage correct) and quality of misspellings using the bigraph measure developed by Deno et al. (1980). The children were grouped into two categories: low-group (below 30% correct on the third-grade pretest and below 65% correct on the second-grade pretest), and high-group (above 30% and above 65%).

The researchers designed an intervention plan using both the third- and second-grade books in the Houghton Mifflin and the Steck-Vaughn spelling programs. During the first six weeks of school, the seven teachers taught all children from a third-grade spelling book. The intervention classes were specified as classes A, B, C, and D with a total of 24 students making up this section. The comparison classes were specified as classes C, F, and G and also contained a total of 24 students. The low spellers in classes A and C worked in the second-grade spelling book for 16 weeks, reviewing the first eight units in the third-grade book for 8 weeks, and then rejoining their classmates at unit 31 in the third-grade book for the last 6 weeks of the year. Intervention teachers with classes B and D followed a comparable plan of second-grade instruction with their class, but they began later in the year. After teaching all students in the third-grade spelling book through unit 18, teachers in classes B and D placed their low spellers in a second-grade spelling book in January. During the final 8 weeks of school, they completed the beginning of the third-grade book. Teachers in classes E, F, and G, the comparison class, did not intervene with their low spellers and taught their students the third-grade spelling book throughout the school year. The performance measures for this study included the following methods: weekly spelling tests, six-week review tests, and end-of- year posttests. The researchers also had the teachers administer a transfer list to all of the students to ensure for differences between instruction using different published curriculum materials.

The results of this study were conclusive. They revealed that the low-achieving students who received intervention and were taught at a lower difficulty level outperformed the students who were taught consistently at grade-level. The intervention group scored higher than the comparison group on the second-grade posttest (75% to 64%), scored nearly as high on the third-grade curriculum-based posttest (47% to 50%), and scored higher on the third-grade transfer test (47% to 36%). On the pretests there were no significant differences between the groups’ scores. The results paralleled what the researchers had expected. One surprising finding showed that there was a significant difference on the third-grade transfer test (a list of 25 third grade words not taught during the school year). The intervention group had a higher percentage of correctly spelled words on the transfer list than did the comparison group (47% to 37%). This was especially surprising since the intervention group received less third-grade spelling instruction during the school year than the comparison group.

The researchers have concluded that the results have possible implications. For example, the intervention group scored higher than the comparison group on the second-grade posttest (75% to 64%). They attribute these results to the fact that the intervention group spent a greater part of the year in the second-grade spelling book. The test results of the third-grade curriculum-based posttest revealed that the intervention group scored almost as high as the comparison group (47% to 50%). By the same logic, the comparison group, who worked all year in a third-grade spelling book, should have notably surpassed the intervention group on the third-grade posttests but they did not.

Teaching spelling on students’ instructional level seems logical since reading is taught in the same manner. However, many teachers have pertinent questions about doing this very thing. They ask: Will the lower spellers experience self-esteem issues being taught at a lower level? How can the low spellers catch up when all the other children are being taught grade-level materials? While these questions are valid, the researchers noted the following: pretest scores showed that the low spellers already had poor performance on the third-grade spelling words, and were already grouped into a lower-leveled reading group, and the low spellers need a strong foundation of lower level spelling patterns to find success with higher level spelling patterns. It is important to note that from this limited research of only 48 students in the third grade, more research is needed to prove more conclusive results. This study has opened many minds about spelling instructional theory, but it also calls for further investigation into other grade levels, covering a larger spelling range.

Morris, D., Nelson, L., & Perney, J. (1986). Exploring the concept of "spelling instructional level" through the analysis of error-types. The Elementary School Journal. 87(2), 180-200.

Year after year, standardized tests and research studies plainly demonstrate that there are clear differences between spelling aptitude and ability between children of the same grade level. However, in most elementary school classrooms, teachers instruct spelling to all students using only one spelling level. Many language arts educators have noted that there is (emphasis added) an instructional spelling level for students just as there is an instructional reading level for students, but collectively they still do not implement this ideology into the classroom. Spelling instructional levels seems simplistic and relatively easy to implement, yet there has not been wide-spread implementation in classrooms. Morris, Nelson, and Perney (1986) note that spelling instructional levels are vital to children’s success in their development of orthographic knowledge in the classroom. They designed a research study with the following questions in mind: “Is there a significant relationship between spelling power and quality of spelling errors at each of grade levels 2-5? Are there significant differences in qualitative aspects of children’s spelling when they are operating at prespecified power (accuracy) levels?” (p. 186). With their research, they have taken the concept of spelling instructional levels one step further to hypothesize that “…there would be a significant positive correlation between the number of words a student can spell correctly on a given list and the quality or sophistication of his/her errors on the same list” (p. 180).

Before beginning their research study Morris and his colleagues closely examined other researchers’ work on instructional spelling levels. They found that Henderson (1985) stresses that children need to be taught spelling at their instructional level. This method promotes further growth of orthographic patterns and concepts and creates a solid foundation for spelling. Next, they found that Manolakes (1975) discovered that when giving a developmental spelling list to a large number of children, the children who scored well, relatively made the same spelling errors. However, the children who did not have a high score and spelled a larger percentage of the list incorrectly had many different variations of spelling errors. Manolakes’ research became a precursor to Morris and his colleagues work studying the types of spelling errors made by good and poor spellers at a given grade level. Furthermore, Schlagal (1982) conducted a study that, in many ways paralleled Manolakes’ findings. Schlagal’s work provided a spelling inventory that revealed developmental differences in elementary school students’ spelling ability. It also reinforced the idea that spelling errors should be looked at qualitatively (error types), as well as quantitatively (percentage correct).

Morris and his colleagues set out to conduct their studies with 252 children from three elementary schools in suburban Chicago. In each of the three schools, one entire classroom was tested in grades 2-5. The first school, “school A” was made up of primarily middle-class children. The second school, “school B” was a laboratory school within a teachers’ college and consisted of an upper-middle-class, professional population. “School C” was made up of a primarily lower-middle-class population. To begin, all children were given selected lists from Schlagal’s spelling inventory that consisted of three different level lists (below, on-grade-level, and above-grade-level). Because Schlagal’s spelling inventory was relatively new, they also administered the spelling subtest of the Standard Achievement Test (Gardner et al., 1983) to all students in the study. The results had a very strong positive correlation and supported the claim that Schlagal’s spelling inventory (1982) was a valid measure of students’ spelling ability. Next the researchers applied a Guttman scale analysis to the students’ performance on the Schlagal spelling lists. The results of this analysis concluded that Schlagal’s spelling inventory measures only a single trait (spelling ability) and it is developmental in its nature. Because of these highly valid results, the researchers preceded with their data from Schlagal’s spelling inventory.

Morris, Nelson, and Perney, then developed a scoring system for the data from the spelling inventory that they collected. The quantitative scoring of the spelling inventory was quite simple. They calculated the percentage of words a child spelled correctly on each list. Subsequently, they developed a valid qualitative system for analyzing the children’s spelling errors. The two scoring systems used in this study, qualitative and bigraph count, correlated highly at each grade level. Although the systems appear to be very different, they both share a left-to-right bias. The qualitative system was created using a point system that examined the students’ words individually. They chose to compare the students’ power scores with a sample of their misspellings. The researchers then, derived a sample of words on which qualitative assessments were to be made. They used developmental stage characteristics identified by researchers from the University of Virginia (Henderson & Beers, 1980) to help them create their qualitative scoring model. There system consisted of the following bench-marks: nonphonetic spellings (0 points), preconventional phonetic spellings (1 point), conventional phonetic spellings (2 points), and morphemic spellings (3 points). Next, the research team had to develop a qualitative scoring system for the 20 fourth- and fifth-grade words. This task was extremely challenging and taxing since developmental spelling errors at the fourth- and fifth-grade levels are frequently “trans-syllable” in nature. They used Henderson (1985) and Schlagal’s (1982) work as a guide to create a scoring system that was similar to the second- and third- grades’ method. After creating a qualitative scoring system, a bigraph count was used to score misspelled words. Then raw data was converted so that comparisons were able to be made across grade levels.

Results from this study supported the hypothesis previously mentioned that there would be a significant positive correlation between the number of words a student could spell correctly on a given list and the quality or sophistication of his/her errors on the same list (Morris et al, 1986). The correlation range between spelling accuracy and quality of misspellings ranged from .55 to .79 across all grade levels tested. Higher-level spellers (scored 60% and above accuracy on the spelling tests) obviously misspelled fewer words, but also displayed good orthographic strategies on the words they misspelled. Lower-level spellers (scored below 40% on grade-level spelling lists) misspelled more words and demonstrated a limited orthographic knowledge. These results, thus support the notion that instructional level spelling is worthy of serious consideration in the elementary school classrooms. The reason for this is because students who have limited spelling-pattern (orthographic) knowledge are beginning their instruction needing to have greater gains than the higher-leveled spellers when using grade-level spelling instructional texts.

Morris, D., & Perney, J. (1984). Developmental spelling as a predictor of first-grade

reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 84(4), 440-457.

According to the authors, observant teachers notice that “as beginning readers progress in learning to read words, there is a corresponding growth in their ability to write and spell words, even in the absence of direct instruction in spelling” (p. 440). For many years, researchers have been investigating this important developmental relationship between young children’s early reading and spelling ability (Bissex, 1980; Chomsky, 1979; Clay, 1979a, 1979b; Henderson, 1981; Henderson & Beers, 1980; Read, 1971, 1975). The authors of this article set out to further test the relationship between early reading and spelling ability by asking the question: “Will children’s spelling at the beginning of first grade be a good predictor of their end-of-year reading achievement?” (p. 442).

Based on Read’s (1971, 1975) study of preschoolers’ early spelling development, researchers from the University of Virginia (Henderson, 1980, 1981) analyzed hundreds of writing samples of first and second grade public school children. The Virginia researcher’s findings closely matched Read’s, in that the children “applied tacit phonological knowledge in a systematic manner in their spelling” (p. 442). With this information, the Virginia researchers used children’s writing samples over time to identify a progression of developmental spelling stages. Their pre-phonetic stage is characterized by writers using beginning and sometimes ending consonants in their spelling of one-syllable words. Their phonetic stage is characterized by the addition of vowels to the spellings. In this stage, children write words with a one-to-one sound-letter correspondence. Long vowels are represented with their corresponding letter name, while short vowels are represented with their appropriate phonetic substitutions. Their transitional stage is characterized by children beginning to “represent short vowels correctly and to mark long vowels, even though the vowel markers are incorrectly placed” (p. 443). As children progress through the transitional stage, they become increasingly aware of, and eventually adopt the patterns of letters used to represent the sounds of spoken language in our English spelling system.

For the purpose of this study, researchers reasoned that children’s invented spellings, “analyzed within a developmental framework, could be a good predictor of later reading achievement” (p. 445). Subjects in this study consisted of seventy-five first-graders from four different classrooms. The participants were tested on three occasions during the school year. In September, students were administered an 18-word spelling test and an alphabet production test. Also considered were the Metropolitan Readiness Test scores obtained at the end of kindergarten from approximately ¾ of the participants. In addition, the four classroom teachers were asked to use prediction to rank their students “from high to low, according to where they thought each child would be reading at the end of the school year” (p. 445). In January, teachers re-administered the 18-word spelling test used in September. In May, the children participated in two reading achievement tests: an informal word recognition test and the Metropolitan Achievement Test, which included word knowledge and comprehension tasks.

Results revealed that “developmental spelling performance in September was a fairly good predictor of subsequent reading achievement in first grade” (p. 448). Furthermore, researchers found an even higher correlation between the January spelling measure and first grade reading achievement. A high correlation was also found between the teacher predictions and students’ end-of-year reading performance. Findings from the study support the researchers’ hypothesis that the level of a first-grader’s word knowledge, as demonstrated on a September spelling test, is related to that student’s growth in reading over the course of the school year. According to the authors, the developmental spelling test used in the study gave a good indication of each participant’s phoneme awareness and orthographic awareness, both critical to reading acquisition. This, they determined, “accounted for a good part of the test’s predictive power” (p. 453).

Practical instructional implications can be gleaned from the results of this study. Children should be engaged in meaningful writing activities early in the first grade, regardless of the fact that they cannot yet use “correct” spellings by adult standards. According to Morris (1993), children should be encouraged to produce phonetic or invented spellings as they develop a concept of word through early reading experiences. Chomsky (1979) has stated that in order for children to engage in invented spelling, it is necessary for them to “segment the sounds in the word and then match an appropriate letter to each sound as they write the word” (p. 455). As children engage in this sound-to-letter encoding during the process of writing, a positive impact will be made on the decoding skills they need as beginning readers.

Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading Research

Quarterly, 34(1), 102-112.

Historically, spelling instruction was centered on rote memory due to the fact that English spelling does not consistently represent word pronunciations. More recently researchers have gained a deeper understanding of the nature of the English spelling system. They found that memory, as well as the understanding of how words work, are both important contributors in learning to spell. As controversy continues to surround the methods, nature, and degree of spelling instruction, recent research supports the idea that spelling or orthographic knowledge plays an integral role in reading and writing. The research community has come to the understanding that “the process of writing words and the process of reading words draw upon the same underlying base of word knowledge”(Ehri, 1993; Gill, 1992; Perfetti, 1992; Templeton & Bear, 1992). As students gain a deeper understanding of the patterns found in words in regards to sound, structure, and meaning, they become more efficient and fluent readers and writers.

In an effort to facilitate in teachers a broader, more in-depth knowledge of the spelling system and how to effectively teach spelling, the author wrote this article to address nine of the most frequently asked questions about spelling.

1. Why don’t we just spell words the way they sound?

English spelling started out with its roots in an alphabetic writing system. Letters consistently represented sounds in a left-to-right correspondence. Over time, as many words from other languages were infused into our English vocabulary, the integrity of their spellings in their original languages were often maintained resulting in a transformation of our once alphabetic letter-sound writing system. According to Henderson and Templeton (1986) the characteristics of English spelling can be categorized into three groups. 1) The alphabetic group is characterized by words with a straightforward left-to-right letter-sound correspondence. 2) The pattern group is characterized by words with consistent patterns of letters within a syllable like long vowel marker patterns, and across syllables like open and closed vowel patterns. 3) The meaning group is characterized by words with units that represent meaning that are spelled consistently from one word to the next regardless of sound changes that may occur.

2. How do students learn to spell?

Learning to spell is a developmental process that is constantly building upon prior knowledge and understanding. It begins “at the level of individual letters and sounds, and progressively advances through pattern and meaning (Ehri, 1993; Frith, 1985; Henderson, 1990; Templeton & Bear, 1992). When students are in the alphabetic level of spelling development they are learning to attend to consonants and vowels, and match sound to letters in a left-to-right sequence. Students who are in the pattern level of spelling development are more conceptually advanced. They are beginning to realize that “spelling does not always work in a strictly left-to-right fashion; groups or patterns of letters work together to represent sound” (p.105). Students who are in the meaning level of spelling development have mastered alphabetic and pattern levels and are ready to attend to the meaning units contained in the spelling of polysyllabic words.

3. How should spelling words be selected and organized?

As you observe students’ writing you look for spelling features the students “use but confuse” (Invernizzi, Abouzeid, & Gill, 1994) in order to select words/patterns that are developmentally appropriate. Then the words, which are familiar to the students, are organized according to their spelling patterns. There are many resources, including published spelling programs, with word lists organized according to pattern and arranged in a developmentally appropriate progression. The length of weekly spelling lists will vary with the student’s age and spelling stage. Alphabetic stage (typically 2nd half of first grade): less then 10 words; with-in word pattern stage (typically second and third grade): 10-12 words; syllable juncture stage (typically forth grade and beyond): 20 words. Word lists can be supplemented with high-interest words or frequently misspelled words.

4. How do I determine my students’ spelling levels?

Determining the students’ spelling levels is important to providing developmentally appropriate instruction. A qualitative spelling inventory is one of the most effective methods for determining spelling levels. Results of a spelling inventory not only determine the spelling instructional levels for the students, but also provide specific information about the students’ word knowledge and spelling misconceptions.

5. Should I allow invented spelling? If so, for how long?

Invented spelling is a natural process by which children attempt to represent their speech with letters. As children are engaged in meaningful literacy experiences that focus on letter sounds, they will build the phonemic awareness necessary to engage in invented spelling. Conventional spelling instruction can take place when students have achieved full phonemic awareness “defined as the ability to attend consciously to both consonants and vowels within words” (p.108) usually by the middle of first grade.

6. What type of instructional activities work best?

Contextual reading and writing is an effective way to develop the word knowledge necessary for more skilled reading and writing, however many students need more explicit spelling instruction in order to internalize the basic spelling patterns. This examination and exploration of words and patterns can take the form of word sort activities for categorizing words by sound, spelling pattern, and meaning (Barnes, 1989; Bear, Invernizzi, & Templeton, 1996; Morris, 1992; Weber & Henderson, 1989), game-like activities, and word-building activities like word wheels, flip charts, and making words (Cunningham, 1995).

7. What type of spelling strategies should be taught?

Reasoning by analogy, a type of thinking that occurs during word study activities, allows children to learn to spell unfamiliar words by comparing them to other words that are similar in sound or meaning. In addition, it is important to look critically at students’ misspellings, pointing out how much they already know about spelling a particular word, and then focusing on what needs to be corrected.

8. How can I assess how my students are progressing?

Looking at students’ writing is a good way to assess their application of spelling patterns they have learned. Beginning and end-of-the-year spelling inventories also give information about students' spelling knowledge and progress over the course of the school year. Weekly spelling tests yield some information, however “student performance on 6 weeks review tests provides an accurate, ongoing measure of spelling achievement” (Morris, Blanton, Blanton & Perney, 1995).

9. How should instruction be adjusted for students with a learning problem in the area of spelling?

Students with learning difficulty in the area of spelling have been found to progress through the same developmental stages as other students, although at a slower rate. Providing developmentally appropriate spelling instruction is crucial for these students regardless of their age and grade. Other adaptations to instruction, such as shorter spelling lists and longer amounts of time on practice and review, can be made as needed.

According to Cummings (1988), “It seems probable that a better understanding of the American English orthographic system would lead us toward a better teaching of literacy” (p. 463). To be more effective in the delivery of spelling instruction, educators must combine their knowledge of how children learn with a more informed knowledge of the spelling system.

Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (2000). Reconceptualizing spelling development and instruction. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from Reading Online-Articles Website:

In the late twentieth century, few researchers invested themselves in the study of spelling processes. At the same time, public schools did not display much interest in spelling either. This was a noticeable change from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when spelling was revered as the first stepping stone into reading. Ideas about spelling, in the most recent decades, have shifted once again. According to Templeton and Morris (2000) researchers and educators are beginning to realize that “…spelling offers perhaps the best window on what an individual knows about words” (p. 1). Spelling has undergone an evolution or a reconeptualization. A review of this phenomenon is revisited though meaningful discussion by Templeton and Morris.

Spelling is a system that is represents three layers of information. The first layer is the alphabetic layer in which sounds are represented by graphemes or letters. Next, the pattern layer is the portion of spelling that can been seen within syllables and is reflected in patterning within words. For example, in the word take, the silent e creates a long a. Patterns can be seen in many ways such as the ai, pattern in the words plain and claim. The third layer in spelling is the meaning layer in which word parts that have related meaning are spelled the same despite pronunciation changes. An example of this would be the words define and definition. These three layers of information are an integral part of spelling and can be readily called upon by proficient readers, writers, and spellers when trying to figure out spelling patterns or meanings.

During the twentieth century, three different theoretical and research perspectives emerged that had an effect on the teaching of spelling in public schools. The first was the theoretical perspective that Spelling is a Process of Rote Memorization. Researchers had a phonocentric view of the English spelling system. They assumed that spelling was irregular and had very few patterned derivations to build upon. Because of this belief, the conclusion was quickly drawn that spelling instruction should be based on rote memorization. The focus of the research that led to these conclusions was based on the following assumptions: one should identify appropriate words for instruction based on frequency in the English language, identify words in each grade level to determine what characteristics make spelling difficult, and discover successful teaching practices of spelling. Because of these assumptions, for decades spelling instruction took a new turn.

The second perspective that took form during the latter period of the twentieth century with researchers was that Spelling was a Process of Abstracting Regular Sound-Spelling Patterns. Researchers Hanna, Hanna, Hodges, and Rudorf (1966) revealed the effects of position and sound on spelling. “Whereas frequency of usage previously guided the selections of spelling words, frequency of usage and of pattern occurrence now guided the selection” (p. 3). Morphology, the study of the structure of words in language, including patterns of inflections and derivation took root and later became an area that other researchers further investigated.

Thirdly, Spelling is a Developmental Process was the perspective that guided the work of Chomsky and Read in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. Their studies concluded that children are able to construct knowledge about the relationships between sound and letters with out precise instruction. Later, more research extended this perspective. In the 1960s, Henderson hypothesized that examining how children spell words can provide insight into how they read words. Henderson labeled the stages that children progress through in spelling as in the following way: preliterate, letter name or alphabetic, within-word pattern, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy. The various stages in which this occurs have not been agreed upon collectively by researchers, but they tend to follow along the same continuum of learning. Researchers have also noted that invented spelling is also an important step in the process of spelling. Children who are guided through invented spelling gradually progress through the various stages of spelling and eventually conceptualize important patterns and word-sound relationships.

Researchers have noted, specifically in the past decades that there is a strong relationship between word knowledge and spelling and-- word knowledge and reading. Perfetti (1992) observed that spelling and reading use the same lexical representation and insights can be gained from spelling errors in relationship to word knowledge in reading. Morris found that writing and the development of phonemic awareness are closely related. Spelling and phonemic awareness develops along a continuum. The children will begin representing beginning sounds, followed by representing beginning, ending, and then eventually the vowel sounds. The spelling process moves from left to write and can be strengthened by spelling instruction and writing.

Spelling instruction in the twenty-first century has reverted back to the early foundations of spelling instruction from the eighteenth century. The instructional theories have been built upon the foundations of developmental appropriateness and the logic of the English spelling system. Learning to spell is a developmental process that follows along a continuum and for most children requires a direct progression of instruction and guidance from the teacher. Templeton (1991) suggests that word study, rather than mastery of conventional spelling, should be emphasized in instruction. Templeton strongly suggests several aspects of spelling instruction. He emphasizes that in order for students to advance in spelling sizeable amounts of reading and writing must be done. He also states that invented spelling should be encouraged in the early grades with an emphasis on looking for patterns and comparing words.

To begin spelling instruction, a teacher must first, assess students’ knowledge of the spelling system. This is a vital step in spelling instruction because children must be presented with specific words when they have a strong foundation or have solidified what they already know about known words. Morris notes that when children are taught “over their heads” they tend to not perform as well as children who are taken back a level or two to create a solid foundation from which to build upon. Teachers often wonder if children should be taught explicitly with word study instruction. Templeton points out that for most students, an exploratory approach is extremely effective. However, for struggling spellers, a more systematic approach is needed. During instruction, an emphasis should also be placed on the meaning. For example, one word is frequently derived from another word that children know (i.e. inform to information).

Spelling is now viewed as an integral part in the entire literary process. In order for spelling instruction to be highly beneficial to students, teachers must become very familiar with the word-study approach and understand both the spelling system and the stages of the learner. Because many teachers, themselves, are uncomfortable with the spelling system and the systematic progression of it, “…more attention needs to be given to developing a knowledge base in the content and application of a word-study curriculum in both preservice teacher education and at the in-service level” (p. 7). If this occurs, Morris and Templeton suggest that literacy will be improved in schools across America.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download