“We know that students who speak their native languages ...



Orthographic Interventions in Two Hispanic Males Using Multi-syllabic Words Containing Doublets

Brittany A. Melendez

Michigan State University

The study and intervention of orthography skills of two native Spanish speaking students in my classroom correlates with the research conclusions of Echevarria which states, “we know that students who speak their native languages fluently and have developed age-appropriate literacy skill have increased opportunities for developing language and literacy skills in English (Echevarria & Graves, 2003, p. 5). Upon selecting students to receive literacy interventions it was clear that my native Spanish speaking population had the greatest need for intervention. I chose to work with two students who showcased similar difficulties with orthographic skills and phonemic awareness in Spanish. The goal of the research was to determine if the students were deficient in these areas in English as well and provide interventions that would support the growth of these skills in English and by proxy have a positive effect on their Spanish skills as well. (Standard I)

The first of these students is Esmerio. Esmerio is a 14 year old eighth grade Spanish student whose native language is Spanish. Esmerio does not qualify for Special Education services who meets with a migrant coordinator several times a year for emotional support but does not receive any English Language Learner (ELL) services. Esmerio spends the first part of the school year in Michigan however; he lives in Mexico from December until March every year. During this time, Esmerio attends a Spanish speaking school where he receives all of his instruction in Spanish. As a result of his time in the United States, and his exclusive use of English, Esmerio spends a few weeks of his schooling in Mexico at a primaria (elementary school) working on lower level reading and writing skills in Spanish. His teachers in Mexico have determined that he is not at grade level in reading or writing despite speaking Spanish exclusively at home. (Standard III)

Before beginning any assessments or interventions Esmerio was given a lichert scale survey (Appendix E) in order to determine his feelings regarding his literacy skills. Using a scale from one to five, with one being strongly disagree and five being strongly agree, Esmerio answered a series of questions regarding his orthographic skills. Esmerio stated that he somewhat disagrees that his spelling is a representation of his intelligence and he somewhat agreed that he is able to spell correctly when he is writing. Esmerio admitted that he avoids multi-syllabic words when he is writing because he worries about his spelling. Esmerio strongly agreed that he would like to spell with more accuracy which made him a promising candidate for intervention as he is motivated to improve his spelling. (Standard III)

The second student selected for intervention was Daniel. Daniel is a 14 year old eighth grade student. Daniel is a heritage Spanish speaker who uses what he calls “texican” (a mixture of Spanish and English or Texan) in the home. Daniel expressed that “we don’t speak your Spanish in my house, the educated Spanish.” Daniel was born in the United States and has received schooling from kindergarten to 8th grade in my school district. However, much like Esmerio, Daniel leaves for a portion of the school year to attend school in Texas. Although his school in Texas is an English speaking school, Daniel expressed that “we do school so differently there, the order of things is different and so I miss stuff when I leave”. Daniel was also given a lichert scale survey in regards to his orthographic skills with similar results. Daniel somewhat agreed that if he focused on his spelling he could spell correctly. Unlike Esmerio, Daniel said that he did not necessarily avoid multi-syllabic words when writing because he worries about his spelling. Daniel somewhat agreed that he would like to spell with more accuracy. The result of the lichert scale (Appendix D) indicated to me that Daniel believed he was able to spell but also acknowledged that he had deficiencies he would like to improve upon. (Standard III)

Currently, both Daniel and Esmerio are receiving low B’s or high C’s on average. Esmerio and Daniel have high reading comprehension (in Spanish) in comparison to their peers in this level one course. They are able to comprehend and create conversational Spanish with no deficiencies. However, when it comes to writing proficiency the boys lack the ability to produce grammatically correct written Spanish. Most of the errors are typical of a beginning Spanish student, missing accent marks, omitting silent letter sounds and misspelling consonant and vowel blends. However, when confronted with these errors, both students seemed complacent. Upon further investigation, both Esmerio and Daniel told me that they were satisfied with the grades they are receiving because they are better than their grades in other classes.

Esmerio and Daniel are both given heritage speaker curriculum options, however, they are not mandatory as they are not part of the district level one curriculum. These include enrichment activities such as studies of cultural events or history related to their own heritage, opportunities to engage with the Spanish speaking community outside of the school or use presentational Spanish such as plays or radio commercials to teach their classmates. Daniel and Esmerio rarely utilize the heritage speaker independent opportunities. Daniel and Esmerio have expressed that they feel like the enrichment is “more work”. However, when they are allowed to work cooperatively in order to complete the enrichment they are eager to have the independent work time away from the classroom in the media center and have completed work with diligence and a high level of success. This success most likely stems from the motivation that these students have when allowed to work together towards a common goal. This type of motivation is explained in the social cognitive model of motivation which states “motivation is not a stable trait of an individual, but is more situated, contextual, and domain specific.” (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003, p. 314) (Standard 1)

In addition to situational motivation, it may be possible that the boys are not willing to take on the enrichment as they are concerned that it will affect their grade. As earlier stated, Esmerio and Daniel are both low performing students and their grades in Spanish are the highest of any of their classes. The risk of completing more challenging heritage speaker curriculum may not appeal to the boys as they have a high self efficacy in regards to their Spanish ability. Despite their lack of enthusiasm for enrichment, when asked to participate in a research study in regards to their learning both were eager and willing participants. (Standard IV , VI)

Before completing any interventions with Esmerio and Daniel I gave each of them a lichert scale survey as discussed previously. This lichert scale survey was meant to address the students’ feelings in regards to their spelling abilities and the correlation (if any) between spelling and their intelligence in general. The test was administered to both students at the same time but apart from the rest of the students in the classroom. The students were instructed to read the questions carefully and answer to the best of their abilities. The results of this survey provided insight regarding the potential success of the intervention.

In addition to completing a lichert scale survey, both students were given the Schonell spelling test. The Schonell spelling test is a test comprised of 100 words (Appendix A). The 100 words increase in difficulty as the test is administered. Students were read the words aloud and when necessary were given a sentence in order to clarify the word. For example, the test began with the word “see”. Simply saying the word “see”, did not allow students enough information to decipher if the words was “sea” or “see” thus a sentence was provided. Students were given as much time as they needed and were not redirected on any of their spelling mistakes during the test. Both Esmerio and Daniel appeared confident when the test began. Both students laughed as the first words were given to them and commented about the easy nature of the test. Esmerio and Daniel did not misspell a word until test items 27 and 41 respectively.

The results of the Schonell test provided a “spelling age” for each student. Esmerio correctly spelled 42 words while Daniel correctly spelled 59 words. Calculating the total number of correct words divided by 10 and adding 5 years yielded a spelling age of 9.2 for Esmerio and 10.9 for Daniel.

Although the spelling age of the students was revealed though the grading process, the students’ answers on the test provided insight into the common orthographic errors. “Once data are collected, the next step is to identify the target structures or patterns that are consistently misspelled (e.g., long vowels, nasal consonant sequences, inflectional suffixes) and form hypotheses about possible factors contributing to these errors.” (Masterson & Apel, 2000) After the collection of orthographic data, the analysis revealed a tendency to misspell multi-syllabic words. Both Daniel and Esmerio began to spell less effectively as the number of syllables increased. Beginning at test item number 67, all words were more than two syllables with the exception of test items: breathe, broach, and leisure. Esmerio was unable to spell any of the multi-syllabic words while Daniel correctly spelled eight of the 31 possible.

The Schonell spelling tests contains 16 doublets, or words spelled with two of the same letter next to one another. Of these doublets, all 16 were misspelled by Esmerio and 15 were misspelled by Daniel. It should be noted that with the exception of one doublet, the word account, all of the doublets were also greater than two syllables. It can be hypothesized that the orthographic deficiency of identifying and using doublets exists because the native language of Daniel and Esmerio, Spanish, does not use doublets with high frequency. In Spanish there are only three doublets, ll, rr, and cc. The first two of these doublets, ll and rr make entirely different sounds than their singular counterparts. In fact, at one time these doublets were considered letters of the Spanish alphabets. The third doublet, cc, is used only at the end of Spanish words and each c is pronounced differently (one is soft and one is hard) making it more obvious to the speller that they should be using the doublet. (Standard II)

Upon evaluation of these common errors it seemed necessary to determine if the deficiencies in spelling multi-syllabic doublets also existed in reading these types of words (Standard V). A text was chosen from a unit of a sixth grade spelling and reading textbook that focused specifically on double consonants. (Appendix K) This text contained 86 words of which 7 words were doublets and 8 words contained 3 or more syllables. When reading out loud, neither student committed many errors. Esmerio committed three errors with pronunciation. These errors included a skipped prefix (on the word unexpected) and mispronunciation of “we’ll” (pronounced you’ll) and “Harry’s” (pronounced Henry’s). All of the doublets and all but one of the multi-syllabic words were pronounced correctly. Daniel committed four errors including mispronunciation of the words “mow” (pronounced maw) “Harry’s” (pronounced Henry’s) and “unexpected” (pronounced unexcepted) as well as skipping the word “do”. Like Esmerio, Daniel committed only one error when pronouncing words with three or more syllables. Overall both students were accurate when reading multi-syllabic words and doublets. There does not appear to be a correlation between pronunciation errors when reading and the spelling errors during the Schonell spelling test.

In addition to examining reading errors, two writing samples were requested from the 8th grade English language arts teacher. (Standard V) This teacher provided two samples of writing from a recent essay test. (Appendix I and J) The students were not aware they were going to be examined for this research and were writing for the purpose of answering English content based questions. In a case study on theory-guided spelling assessment and intervention, the authors state that “The student’s spellings of the words from these lists (lists like the Schonell spelling test) should be supplemented by collecting samples of authentic writing” (Apel, K., Masterson, J.J., 2001, p.183) (Standard I) In two paragraph long writing samples, Esmerio attempted to use three doublets (village, planning and differently), two of which were misspelled (spelled planing and diffently). In total, Esmerio used 5 multi-syllabic words and of these spelled 2 correctly. Esmerio stated in the Lichert scale survey he agreed he avoided multi-syllabic words when he writes because he worries about his spelling. The use of only 5 multi-syllabic words in two paragraphs of 112 words supports this survey finding. Previous research conducted would also suggest it is a common practice for students who struggle with spelling to avoid multi-syllabic words in order to maintain the appearance that they are competent spellers. (Apel & Masterson, 2001, p. 185)

When examining the writing sample of Daniel he misspelled three words however he successfully spelled four of five doublets attempted. Of these doublets only one contained more than two syllables and was spelled correctly (happened). Of 93 words, Daniel used only 2 words with more than two syllables. Unlike Esmerio, Daniel stated during the Lichert scale survey that he neither avoided nor used multi-syllabic words while writing. The sample of writing would suggest that Daniel does in fact avoid multi-syllabic words however, the sample does not account for the reason for this avoidance. The avoidance and misspelling of words were not tested during the series of pre-tests however, both students struggle with these same elements when asked to write in Spanish. Using the results of all pre-assessments, intervention instruction was based on multi-syllabic spelling with an emphasis on words containing double consonants (doublets). “A doublet uses two of the same letter to spell one consonant phoneme”. (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, p. 20)

In order to improve spelling of multi-syllabic words it was necessary to remediate the skill of identifying syllables and correctly spelling these syllables. Utilizing syllabification to improve spelling is a skill that will aid overall literacy not only in English but can be applied by Daniel and Esmerio in their Spanish writing as well.

Instruction began with syllabification of words containing double consonants. The

instruction is based on the 4th grade English Language Arts Standard W.SP.04.01: In the

context of writing, correctly spell frequently encountered words (e.g., roots inflections,

prefixes, suffixes, multi-syllabic); for less frequently encountered words, use structural

cues (e.g., letter/sound, rimes, morphemic) and environmental sources (e.g.,word walls,

word lists, dictionaries, spell checkers) (Michigan Department of Education, 2004).

Although Daniel and Esmerio are in currently enrolled in 8th grade, the 8th grade

standards are not appropriate for their ability level as they have not mastered the many

lower level spelling benchmarks and are unable to spell correctly when writing without

focused intervention. (Standard II)

In order to practice the skills of syllabification students were instructed using a variety of methods. (Standard V and VI) First, students were asked to express to me what they already knew about syllables. Both students articulated that they were able to divide words into syllables and both recollected that they had always clapped when they were first learning how to count the syllables in a word.

With this knowledge shared, I expressed the objective for working together. Students were told that they were going to work on dividing words into syllables and that through this division they would be discussing the different sounds and combinations of sounds that letters make as well as practicing spelling of words with double consonants. Students began by determining the number of syllables in a word. I called out a word and the students clapped the word and determined how many syllables the word contained. When students completed 10 words successfully with no errors, the instructor decided to move forward with the instruction.

Students were then asked to show how words are divided into syllables. I asked both students to explain how they look at a word and are able to tell where to divide the syllables. The students responded again that they can clap their hands and tell where the word splits. The students were not able to articulate any common rules and so I told them that we were going to discuss a few rules that would help them to divide words into syllables. I then expressed four rules to the students: divide between the two middle consonants, usually divide before a single middle consonant, divide before the consonant before an le syllable and divide off any compound words, prefixes, suffixes and roots which have a vowel sound. Each of the rules was written on the board and a sample word was provided for the students to witness what the rules looked like. A few of the grammatical terms needed to be reviewed for Esmerio and Daniel, such as the word suffix, and this was done as the students had questions.

In order to practice these rules, students took turns at the interactive Smartboard in the classroom, demonstrating how they believed words should be split into syllables. At this time, words were displayed using a pre-existing game on . A word would flash onto the screen and students would touch where they believe the words should be divided. Upon touching the board, the correct answer was revealed to the students. () Before each student revealed their selection they would say it out loud and give their classmate an opportunity to scrutinize their choice. During this activity, I noticed that Daniel had a greater grasps on the rules and was separating the words with more ease than Esmerio. When Daniel would correct Esmerio, it was not uncommon that he would simply tell Esmerio the correct answer. I asked Daniel to expand and to explain to Esmerio why the answer was incorrect, specifically using one of the rules on the board. This task was a little more difficult for Daniel, however, with some guidance he was able to express the rules and apply them to the words as they were projected on the screen. (Standard IV, V, and VI)

Both boys worked well through the dividing syllables activity. They enjoyed using the Smartboard and expressed their discontentment when this part of the lesson ended. When it appeared that the boys were able to divide the words into syllables, we moved into an activity that built upon their previous practice. Instead of the words being given to the students, they were read a word aloud and asked to spell the words using plastic letters. These manipulatives allowed the students to change their answers frequently as well as allowing them to practice without actually writing anything which for Esmerio can be stressful as he struggles with handwriting (Standard IV). Both students laughed at using the plastic magnetic letters because they recalled using them when they were little but before long they were expressing their enjoyment at spelling this way.

To begin this activity, I informed the students that we would be working specifically on double consonant words and that they should remember the rules regarding division of syllables and double consonants. We began by spelling the word, “account”. This was the shortest of the doublets that was spelled incorrectly on the Schonell spelling test. Beginning with this word, I asked Daniel and Esmerio to show how the word was spelled using the letters. They placed the letters on their desks, Esmerio spelled the word incorrectly (acont) but Daniel spelled the word correctly. Daniel also spelled this word correctly when taking the Schonell spelling test. I then asked the students to show me how they would split the word based on syllables. Both students used the earlier clapping method and then separated their word into syllables. I then asked Esmerio to pronounce each syllable out loud. After attempting several times, Esmerio took his letters and placed them back in his pile and expressed his frustration at not believing he had spelled the word correctly. Upon seeing this, I told Esmerio that we should look at Daniel’s word and discuss each syllable and review the words for division. (Standard IV, V) We also discussed the vowel combination of “ou” and how this specific blend is spelled in account.

A large portion of time was spent on the first word; however, subsequent words contained more syllables and the students spent less time on them as we continued. In total, 20 words were practiced over two periods. During our first session, students only had enough time to spell and divide the first 5 words. The second session continued with the final 15 words. The first 10 of these words were completed with the students collaborating as well as receiving redirection from myself. The next five were given with no collaboration but small amounts of redirection. The final five words were spelled with no collaboration or redirection. Of these 20 words (none of which appeared on the Schonell spelling test except for “account”) Daniel correctly spelled 10 words and Esmerio correctly spelled 6 words. Although no redirection was given for the final 5 words, discussions did take place after the students made their final spellings in order to help the students apply the rules more appropriately in the future. (Standard IV, V, and VI)

The final assessment was planned to take place during the second session but the students did not finish in time and as a result the assessment was moved to the following day. Due to an absence by Daniel, Esmerio took the final assessment alone and Daniel was not able to take the final assessment until nearly 11 days later when the students returned from Spring Break.

A final assessment was administered containing 10 doublets and 10 mutli-syllabic words. Students were allowed to use letters during the assessment if they chose to do so but were not permitted to clap or speak. Each of the 10 words on the final assessment was also a word that appeared on the Schonell spelling test. Esmerio correctly spelled 4 out of 10 words and Daniel correctly spelled 7 out of 10 words correctly. Daniel was not present during the planned day of administration and as a result he was administered the exam on a separate day. Although Esmerio had already taken the assessment, he asked if he could try one more time. I allowed Esmerio to take the assessment for a second time and on his second try he received a score of 5 out of 10 words correct. This was a one point improvement.

The errors committed during the post test were different than the errors committed during the pre-test. The spelling of both students improved which represented their improved phonological awareness. For example, Esmerio spelled the word slippery incorrectly during both the pre and post test, however, the spelling of the word improved. During the pre-test, Esmerio inaccurately spelled almost every syllable of the word with his spelling of “sperary”. During the post-test Esmerio was able to represent 2 of the 3 syllables correctly with his spelling of “slipperrly”. (Appendix F, G, and H)

There were many critical moments during the lesson, the first of these moments was building the students confidence in their ability to learn how to spell. By having a discussion with the students about their ability to learn how to spell before beginning interventions, we began to build the students confidence which is critical to their success during the lessons. “Thus, spelling intervention also should focus on increasing self-esteem and self-regulation skills (Apel & Masterson, 1997; Apel & Swank, 1999; Graham & Harris, 1999; Singer &Bashir, 1999).

The second of the critical moments during the lesson was the use of manipulatives in order to teach syllabification. The students were very receptive to this method and were much more willing to respell words when they were able to do so by simply repositioning letters. The feedback during this activity was critical especially for Esmerio. Esmerio would spell each word but did not sound out each syllable until he was asked to do so. As I instructed him to pronounce each syllable out loud he would typically pause and say “I know that this is not right”. Simply asking Esmerio to look at his spelling was enough of a prompt to make him use the tool of syllabification.

Although the lesson produced desirable results, a few changes could have made the students more successful. The first of these changes could be the addition of a writing activity. All of the spelling that the students were asked to do during the lesson was focused to the word level. Esmerio and Daniel were not asked to use the syllabification skills in any type of contextualized writing activity. If I was to re-teach this lesson, I would include some type of short writing assignment to focus on the spelling of words in context. In doing this activity, I could create an additional opportunity for peer feedback which proved valuable during the original lesson.

The second change that I could make in order to increase the success of the lesson would be to differentiate the lesson between Daniel and Esmerio. As evident by examination of pre and post test data, Daniel is spelling at a slightly higher level than Esmerio. Although the support of Daniel was beneficial for Esmerio, I am certain that Daniel could have had more success if the tasks were designed with his level in mind. Moats suggested that the growth for older students will be much slower than that of younger language learners. (Moats, L.C., 1999) With this in mind, it is critical to spend time working on skills that need to be remediated and move forward once mastery has been demonstrated. Although Daniel needed to focus on improvement of spelling in regards to doublets, I am confident I could have identified an additional area of need and provided interventions for both of these weaknesses.

This study provided data pertinent to the immediate success of the lesson however it would be valid to study the long term possibilities of such interventions. Although Esmerio took a second post-test, it seems as though a second post test for both students would provide data that would speak to the long term effects of spelling interventions.

One week after the conclusion of all interventions and assessments, Esmerio approached me and inquired, “when are we going to get to work on spelling again?” When I told him that I did not have any plans to do so in the immediate future, he responded, “I just got some English essays back and I spelled a lot of words better than I usually do and so I think we should do it some more.” This conversation with Esmerio made me consider an additional post intervention assessment that would be valuable. I had collected a writing sample from both students prior to intervention but did not collect any post intervention. The collection of post intervention writing samples from an unbiased writing experience (one not directly linked to the spelling research) would allow me to determine if the students are applying the rules of syllabification to improve spelling in other classes.

Overall the interventions proved successful, however, with continued interventions based on individual students needs both Esmerio and Daniel could see improvement with both orthographic knowledge and phonemic awareness.

References

Apel , K., & Masterson, J. J. (2001). Theory-guided spelling assessment and intervention: a case study . Language, Speech, And Hearing Services In Schools , 32, 182-195.

Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (2003). Teaching English-language learners with diverse

abilities. In J. Echevarria & A. Graves (Eds.), Sheltered content instruction:

Teaching English-language learners with diverse abilities (pp. 1-33).Boston:

Allyn&Bacon.  

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic

success. School Psychology Review, 31, 313-327.

Michigan Department of Education. (2004). English language arts: Grade level

content expectations (v.12.05). Lansing, Michigan: State of Michigan.

Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of

Teachers. 

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School

Officers. Council of Chief State School Officers, (2010). Common core state standards (english language arts). Retrieved from National Governors Association Center for Best Practices website:

Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 102-112.

Appendix A

[pic]

Appendix B

[pic]

Appendix C

[pic]

Appendix D

[pic]

Appendix E

[pic]

Appendix F

[pic]

Appendix G

[pic]

Appendix H

[pic]

Appendix I

[pic]

Appendix J

[pic]

Appendix K

[pic]

Literacy Intervention Lesson Plan

Content: English Language Arts (ELA)

Beginning Date: March 15, 2012

Duration: 120 minutes over 2 days

Standards Based Objective: Students will learn basic rules of syllabification focused specifically on spelling using double consonant combinations. Students will use the rules of syllabification to correctly spell new and previously encountered vocabulary.

Standards (GLCE’s):

W.SP.04.01 In the context of writing, correctly spell frequently encountered words (e.g., roots inflections, prefixes, suffixes, multi-syllabic); for less frequently encountered words, use structural cues (e.g., letter/sound, rimes, morphemic) and environmental sources (e.g.,word walls, word lists, dictionaries, spell checkers).

W.AT.04.01 Students will be enthusiastic about writing and learning to write.

Materials/ Technology: Vocabulary list, smartboard, syllabification online practice (), letter manipulatives, paper.

Rationale: In order to spell words correctly students must understand that words are made up of syllables. It is important that students are able to apply this skill in order to spell words with greater accuracy. “The explicit use of morphological knowledge becomes an increasingly improtatnt spelling strategy as students mature and face the demands of writing multi-morphemic words (Carlisle, 1995; Fowler and Lieberman, 1995).

Objective and Prior Knowledge: The teacher will express that students will be working on strategies to correctly spell multi-syllabic words. Teacher will ask students to express their previous knowledge about syllabification by posing a series of questions.

1. What is a syllable

2. How do you decide how many syllables a word has

3. How can knowing about syllables help us to spell correctly

Guided Practice Activities

1. Teacher will direct student’s attention to the four syllabification rules written on the board.

A. Divide between two middle consonants (examples: hap/pen , bas/ket, sup/per, din/ner)

B. Usually divide before a single middle consonant. (examples: o/pen, i/tem, e/vil)

C. Divide before the consonant before an “le” syllable. (examples: fum/ble, rub/ble, mum/ble)

D. Divide off any compound words, prefixes, suffixes and roots which have vowel sounds. (examples: un/happy, hope/less, stop/ping)

Teacher will review the rules and answer any questions that the students have

2. Students will take turns dividing words into syllables using the Smartboard and the website . The words will appear on the board and students should express where they believe the word should be split into syllables. They may utilize the clapping method before they make their guess and feedback from their peers should be allowed before the final answer is revealed. The student will touch the word where they believe the syllable breaks occur and in doing so the Smartboard will reveal the correct answer. Teacher should ask students to declare their answer and rationalize their answer by expressing one of the rules that

3. When students have successfully completed the quia exercise, they should move to a second guided activity at their seats. Each student will have a set of plastic letters. The teacher will give students a word and using the letters, students should spell each syllable of the word using the letters. Teacher will provide feedback for the students based on the answers they provide. Students will also provide feedback for one another.

Individual Practice Activity: Using the same method as the guided practice, teacher will give students words to spell using the plastic letters but provide no remediation until students have completed each word.

Closure: Teacher will ask students if they have any questions and review the rules of syllabification.

Assessment: Students will be given a 10 word spelling test using previously assessed words from the Schonell spelling test.

Adaptions and/or Extensions

- Vocabulary words can be chosen to suit the deficiencies of individual students.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download