Abbott, M. (2001, October). Effects of traditional versus extended word-study spelling
instruction on students’ orthographic knowledge. Reading Online, 5(3).
Available:http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=
abbott/index.htm.
Traditional spelling instruction usually consists of using an adopted basal
program. Word lists usually consist of 15-20 words. Activities are completed during the
week to practice the set of words and then a test is given on Friday to measure for
mastery. However, many teachers report that they see very little transfer in student
writing after studying each set of weekly words. Therefore, this study was conducted to
examine the effect extended word study would have on students’ orthographic knowledge
versus traditional spelling instruction. Abbott also wanted to know if extended word
study improved the transfer of orthographic knowledge. However, orthographic
knowledge doesn’t always equal spelling achievement.
Research has shown a direct correlation between spelling ability and the ability to
read and write. In short, the ability to be a good speller also makes a student good reader
and writer. Research has also shown that there has been little change in the way we teach
spelling over the years Abbott selected 8 within word spellers for each of the two groups.
. However, just because there have been few changes doesn’t mean that it is the most
effective way to teach children to spell. We know that the more times children encounter
a word the better they become at spelling it. Research has also shown that children
misspell low frequency words more often than high frequency words. Orthographic
knowledge has been proven to be a developmental process and much of Abbott’s
research was based on the findings of the “Virginia Studies” completed by Abouzeid
1992, Bear & Templeton 1998, Henderson 1985, Invernizzi, Abouzeid, & Gill 1994 (p.
2). They concluded that spelling knowledge progresses through distinct levels including
alphabetic to letter patterns, syllable patterns, and finally meaning elements as students
become skilled spellers, writers, and readers. The Virginia Studies also concluded that a
literacy component termed “word study” was an effective way to teach orthographic
knowledge. Word sorting is one aspect of the word study component that is the process
of looking at words for their common sounds or orthographic features.
Abbott used The Qualitative Spelling Inventory (Bear et al., 1996) as a pre-
assessment of the students’ abilities. Abbott then selected 8 within word spellers to
participate in the study for each of two groups. Abbott’s year long study was divided into
3 phases: Phase I August-October, Phase II November-January, Phase III February-April.
The instructional practices of two third grade teachers from a low to middle income
neighborhood in Kansas were evaluated. Teacher A used a traditional spelling
instruction approach. Teacher B used an extended word study approach.
Teacher A’s instruction consisted of using a basal reader. Her entire class
received a 15-20 word list from the basal each week. There was no differentiation based
on ability. She averaged teaching 45 minutes per day. During Phase I and Phase II the
teacher spent instructional time during the lessons discussing word meanings, dictionary
skills, grammar, and punctuation. Teacher A did not teach common word patterns on any
of the lists. Many of her mini lessons were based on teaching skills such as how to put
words in alphabetical order and what to do if you made a mistake. Little attention was
given to commonalities among the words or their occurrence within the English
language. During Phase III the researcher stepped in one day a week for six weeks and
taught the class mini lessons about commonalities and categorization of their words.
Skills were also taught about relating what they had learned into common usage patterns.
The classroom environment was structured and Abbott notes Teacher A’s classroom was
often quiet during “work time”.
Teacher B on the other hand focused her spelling instruction on extended word
study. Her instruction was guided based on the phonetic and orthographic similarities
among words. Much of her basis for teaching came from Words Their Way (Bear et al.,
1996). She followed the Words Their Way curriculum during a 45 minute block of time
each day. Teacher B divided her class into 3 groups: Letter name, within word, and early
syllable juncture. Each day she rotated the groups through 3 activities. At their seats
students would perform word sorts with their words. During computer time they worked
on math or language arts programs or typed their word sort lists. Finally, during small
group instruction Teacher B would lead students through a variety of word study
activities such as brainstorming a list of words that fit a particular sound, dividing words
into common spellings, or taking non graded quizzes to chart progress. Teacher B also
explicitly taught her students the best strategy for guessing at the spelling of an unknown
words based on the most common spelling patterns. Her classroom environment was
lively and there was a hum of on task student noise.
As mentioned earlier a pre test was administered to determine students’ abilities.
During the study 12 transfer tests were given to chart students’ progress. The first four
tests contained high frequency words. The last 8 tests consisted of low frequency words.
Results of the pre-test found very little difference between the traditional spelling
instruction group and the extended word study group. There was a significant difference
in the post-test scores though. The extended word study group outperformed the
traditional spelling instruction group in transferring its spelling knowledge to low
frequency words with similar orthographic structures. However, the difference was
significantly reduced during the third phase when the researcher went into Teacher A’s
classroom and taught mini lessons about commonalities among words and how they most
commonly occur in the English language. Yet, this means there is no control group to
compare them to because the entire class received the mini lessons. As mentioned earlier
orthographic knowledge and spelling achievement do not necessarily relate. As a result
Abbott found little difference between the two groups on spelling achievement but did
show changes in orthographic growth. She cited many limitations to the study including
population size, the use of low frequency words, and the need for an additional control
group as mentioned above. Regardless, Abbott concludes that students that were
instructed using an extended word study approach possessed a more sophisticated
orthographic spelling ability than their peers that were taught using a traditional spelling
approach. Teacher B’s students had a greater understanding of the English language and
could make generalizations about orthographic patterns.
In conclusion, the goal of any spelling instruction is to promote the transfer of
knowledge. Traditional spelling instruction emphasizes learning word specific
knowledge that often isn’t carried over into other literacy areas. We need to provide
students with instruction on their level and emphasize orthographic knowledge instead of
rote memorization of words. Extended word study does just this and enables students to
make better generalizations or “best guesses” at the English language and improve their
orthographic knowledge.
Blanton, L., Blanton, W., Morris, D., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1995).
Teaching Low-Achieving Spellers at Their Instructional Level. The
Elementary School Journal. 96, 163-177.
Though teaching children to read on their instructional level is commonly
practiced, teaching children to spell on their instructional level is not. Most classrooms
use an adopted text to teach spelling that only provides one list of words for the entire
class. It is a one size fits all method. However, Blanton, Morris, Nowacek, and Perney
(1995) hypothesize that children are not “one size fits all” and that they need spelling
instruction on their instructional level. The researchers found that in many classrooms
there is no attempt made to individualize spelling instruction. They feel that if children
struggle in spelling and are only provided an on grade level list of words then they will
memorize them long enough to complete a test on Friday but won’t retain the information
in long term memory.
There is little research to date to support the effectiveness of teaching spelling at a
child’s instructional level (p. 164). There is little information about whether students are
penalized or benefited from only being given grade level spelling words. Therefore,
Blanton, Morris, Nowacek, and Perney (1995) decided to conduct a research study to
determine the effects of ability grouping and teaching students on their instructional
spelling level. The researchers hypothesized that poor spellers will learn less than their
more able peers when all students in a class receive the same grade-level spelling
instruction (165).
Blanton, Morris, Nowacek, and Perney (1995) decided to conduct their study with
7 third grade classrooms in three rural counties of western North Carolina. The study
began by using curriculum based spelling test scores to identify low achieving spellers.
The test consisted of a list of second and third grade words. Each student was graded on
correct spelling of each word as well as the quality of the mistakes made. In turn, they
selected 48 low spellers to participate in the study. The 48 children were divided into an
intervention group and a comparison group. The intervention group was taught for most
of the year in a second-grade spelling book. The comparison group was taught for the
full year in a third-grade spelling book. For the first seven weeks of the study everyone
was taught from the third-grade spelling book. After week 7 one intervention group
began to receive instruction from a second-grade spelling book for 16 more weeks. At
week 31 they rejoined their classmates in the third-grade spelling book. Another
intervention group remained in the third-grade book until week 18 and then they were
taught from the second-grade book for 10 weeks. Finally, the comparison group worked
the entire year in the third-grade book. Teachers could no longer teach spelling whole
group like they had done in the past. They had to set aside time each day to work with
each group on their own level.
In addition to the beginning of the year spelling test, students were given weekly
spelling tests, a six-week review spelling test, an end of year spelling test, and a transfer
test in May.
To compare their results they researchers combined both intervention groups and
analyzed their scores to the comparison group’s scores. As a result of this study the
intervention group did outperform the comparison group on several of the end of year
posttest measures. They scored higher on the second grade posttest (Intervention=75%
vs. Comparison 64%). There was very little difference between the groups on the third
grade posttest (Intervention 47% vs. Comparison 50%) but there was a significant
difference on the third grade transfer test (Intervention 47% vs. Comparison 37%) even
though the intervention group had received less instruction in the third grade book. The
low spellers also showed more retention than the comparison group did. The researchers
found that the low spellers lacked the foundation needed to be successful in the third
grade spelling book and could not have retained the words that they were taught.
However, after instruction on their level they mastered the second grade list and did just
as well on the third grade list as their peers who had been taught on grade level all year.
The researchers found that students that bring sufficient spelling pattern
knowledge with them tend to master the spelling curriculum. However, students that do
not possess that foundation for spelling will not master the curriculum. They also found
that the longer the students were taught on their instructional level the more they gained.
Teaching students on their instructional level did require more work but the results speak
for themselves, it is a worthwhile effort! The longer instructors wait the larger the gap in
a student’s ability to spell so there is no time like the present to teach children right where
they are.
Bloodgood, J.W. A new approach to spelling instruction in language arts programs.
The Elementary School Journal v. 92 (November 1991) p. 203-11
Integration of spelling has always been a challenge for many teachers. Knowing
what works and how to use it are very different things. Many teachers have the
knowledge to effectively teach spelling to their students but do not know how to get the
ball rolling in their classrooms. This article focuses on strategies that help teachers
integrate spelling into their curriculum. Such strategies are; word study, word play
activities, and word sorts. With the use of these strategies, teachers will be able to
“teach” spelling to their students and not just teaching a memorization tool.
The main focus or question of this article is how to make spelling meaningful and
lasting to students? In the article Dr. Bloodgood says “I experienced frustration as a
teacher because, although the ostensibly “Tried and True” approach to spelling lessons
clearly did not work, there were no viable alternatives” (Bloodgood 1991). The goal of
education is to make learning meaningful and lasting. Dr. Bloodgood's (1991) article
shows how educators can “marry” spelling with other language arts concepts. This
article discusses several strategies that enable teachers to challenge good spellers and
provide adequate support for the lower level spellers. The article is broken down into
three main sections; spelling assessment, word-study groups & learning centers, and
word-study activities.
Spelling Assessment would consist of administering a qualitative spelling
inventory. As the teacher checks for errors on the lists, the teacher gains the knowledge
of what a student knows about words. Another avenue for study is to administer Dr.
Robert Schlagal’s spelling assessment which consists of a spelling inventory consisting
of 20-25 words each from grade levels first through sixth. These select words consist of
word elements the student would encounter as they functioned at a given grade level. If
the teacher administers two or three levels of Schlagal’s inventory they will come up with
a clear view of where the student is frustrated and where their instructional level is at.
Research was conducted using three children with ages ranging from eight, nine,
and ten years old. All children were given the Schlagal spelling inventory and after
scoring their results the eight year old child was instructional at a first grade level and the
child’s frustrational level was on second grade words. The nine year old child’s
instructional level was at a fifth grade level and her frustrational level was sixth grade
words. After calculating the results for the ten year old child, the instructional level was
at fourth grade and frustrational level was fifth grade material. Memorizing words just to
pass a test is the result of students working with words above their instructional level.
This qualitative spelling inventory allows teachers to closely pinpoint their student’s
capacity for spelling and understanding.
Word-Study Groups and Learning Centers help teachers by grouping the students
according to instructional level. Research shows “Many student’s spelling ability,
closely matches their reading ability particularly in the early elementary levels”
(Bloodgood 1991). Teachers who have reading groups by level could possibly use these
groups with some minor “tweaking” as their spelling groups since reading and spelling
relate to each other. Once the groups are formed, teachers can compile groups of words
that will address that individual group’s area of weakness. By having the students
formed into groups, the teacher and students can work together learning the new spelling
strategy and skill using the group of accumulated words. This grouping will help
students work individually and with peers in their group while the teacher attends to
another group in the classroom.
Word Study Activities offer teachers another venue to promote spelling strategies
among their students. “Once the teacher identifies a student’s level of spelling
knowledge, activities can be planned to clarify a specific word feature and give practice
until the feature under investigation becomes automatic” (Bloodgood 1991). Word-study
means a wide variety of activities and games involving words. Some types of activities
are compare and contrasting using word cards. Students can compare and contrast
different vowel patterns and other patterns that become visible to the student. After
sorting the words a few times, students speed and accuracy gets stronger. Once students
master comparing and contrasting they can begin to sort the words into different
categories like beginning consonants, prefixes, and suffixes. All of these type activities
will help student to expand their sight vocabulary. Other games include; Word Card
Concentration is where students place their cards face down and pick two cards and see if
the patterns match taking turns with another student. Homophone Rummy where
students use their cards to make matches.
Bloodgood states “By engaging in activities of this type, students can learn how
the features of words work. Using this base, spelling becomes a meaningful activity
rather than a briefly memorized and soon forgotten list” (Bloodgood 1991). We as
teacher have to consider that reading, writing, and spelling can be integrated together.
“Instruction should be matched to a student’s word knowledge in all three areas. In this
way what the student reads will provide the vocabulary for what the student spells, which
in turn will support writing. (Bloodgood 1991).
Teachers need to be aware of all these issues if they want to effectively teach
spelling in the classroom. Knowing that reading, writing, and spelling all influence one
another, can help the teacher create effective and meaningful activities for students? The
ultimate goal is for students to remember and retain what they have learned. By
assessing the student’s level, grouping them according to that level, and providing
activities on their level, students can have developmentally appropriate material for them
to expand their knowledge.
Bloodgood, J.W., Pacifici, L. (2004). Bringing word study to intermediate
classrooms. International Reading Association, vol. 58, No. 3, 250-263.
Many upper elementary and middle school teachers are uncertain about the value
of word study and how to incorporate it into their classroom curriculum. Bloodgood and
Pacifici sought to understand how classroom teachers view and implement word study
and in turn develop word study activities in response to their research. Their two research
questions were: What factors affect the use of word study activities? How do teachers
implement word study?
They found that many teachers, especially teachers of older students, do not make
word study a part of their instruction. They perceive it as a fancy version of traditional
spelling instruction that uses manipulative activities and games which often appears to be
supplemental rather than essential learning. Many teachers incorporate spelling with the
editing portions of their writing process but fail to point out the regularity of spelling
patterns or the spelling-meaning relationships evident in words (Cramer, 2001 : Rief
1992). Many upper elementary and middle school teachers find little time for systematic
spelling instruction and fail to make important connections that help students see the
bigger word-knowledge picture and improve all written language areas (Templeton,
2002).
Research based on the work of Read ( 1971) and Henderson (1990) has led to the
identification of several word-knowledge development that reflect students understanding
of how sound, pattern, and meaning are represented in English spelling. Stages include,
Within Word Pattern spellers (students who misspell single syllable, long vowel words
and homophones), Syllable Juncture spellers (struggle when to double the final
consonant) and Derivational Constancy spellers (face challenges with words derived from
Greek and Latin roots). Analysis of spelling errors informs teachers of student’s word
knowledge level and appropriate instruction (Bear et al., 2000).
The research project was conducted with a limited voluntary sampling of teachers
and preservice teachers enrolled in U.S. university reading and language arts courses
across two semesters. In their initial research, they had thirty-five respondents, 18
undergraduates, and 17 graduates, complete surveys, journal reflections, or action
research projects as a part of their course work. They also conducted school visits to
three classrooms and did interviews with teachers.
Participants identified a number of positive aspects for implementing word study.
They recognized the benefits of word study for vocabulary development. Teachers also
were very aware of the way word study activities met the needs of diverse learners. They
enjoyed the hands-on, interactive, discovery learning aspects of the activities. They felt
the word study activities were informative and exciting. Students and teachers developed
an interest in word origins, spelling-meaning relationships and grammatical connections.
The hands on activities helped the participants go beyond memory and apply logic and
critical thinking to spelling as well as vocabulary.
Although most feedback was positive, teachers did voice concerns about
implementing word study in their classrooms. The pressure to get curriculum covered
and fit word study activities (with having to prepare materials for games) into their daily
schedule presented time constraints for some participants.
The research revealed that teachers need a gradual introduction to word study and
time to build their confidence, knowledge base, and implementation strategies. The
findings provided rational for the researchers to develop several short, integrated word
study units that intermediate grade teachers could implement. Since time and planning
were concerns of the teachers, these short, integrated word studies made it possible for
the teachers to fit it into their tight schedules. They use the word incidental for their word
study because they are not a part of an extended curriculum, but instead fit easily into
brief periods of the school day. Some of the incidental activities include Root of the Day,
Homophone Rummy, Homograph Concentration, and Uner, Unor, Unar. These brief
activities may pique curiosity and encourage students to learn more. These activities
improve spelling, vocabulary, and written grammar, without relying totally on memory
and drill.
Results from this study show the value and benefits of word studies in
intermediate classrooms. Word studies support students’ development as readers and
writers and facilitate vocabulary, grammar, and spelling growth. However, given the
time constraints, uncertain knowledge, and lack of materials, teachers in upper
elementary grades welcomed the incidental approach to word study more openly. Since
they can be done in brief time periods, the activities are more doable for teachers. Whole
classes can become “word nerds” without even realizing it.
Brown, J., Morris, D. (2005). Meeting the Needs of Low Spellers in a
SecondGrade Classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21: 165-184. Taylor &
Francis Inc. ISSN:1057-3569.
After twelve years of teaching in her second grade classroom, Judy Brown
realized her spelling instruction needed improvement. Through graduate work, Ms.
Brown realized that learning to spell is a developmental process and that in general about
one third of her new second graders were deficient in word recognition and spelling
ability. She saw a need for differentiation of her spelling instruction in order to close the
gap between her higher performing spellers and her struggling spellers. The purpose of
the research was to see if the differentiation of spelling instruction would indeed close the
gap between the two groups of spellers in her second grade classroom.
Research supported the idea that spelling, far from being a simple visual memory
activity, is a complex, knowledge-based process that evolves slowly over time
(Henderson 1990, Templeton & Morris, 1999). In the first and second grade, average–
achieving children progress through at least three stages in learning to spell; semi-
phonetic, phonetic, and within-word pattern. With extended opportunities, many first
graders and most second graders move into the within word pattern spelling stage.
However, the weak spellers who did not master short vowel sound in the phonetic stage
are lost in the within-word stage. They were often times overwhelmed and unsure of
themselves as spellers. As the year advanced, the low spellers had a tendency to fall
further and further behind. This problem with the slow-developing spellers led Ms.Brown
to revamp her spelling instruction and begin to group her students for spelling instruction.
The subjects for the study were second graders in a small town in western North
Carolina. The school serves a mix of working class and middle class families. During the
first week of school, Ms. Brown administered the first and second grade lists of widely
used informal spelling inventory) Schlagal, 1992) to her entire class. She looked at not
only misspellings, but at the quality of their errors as well. She placed students in groups
according to the percentage of correctly spelled words.
For her spelling group she placed the students in their appropriate instructional
groups, obtained lists of first and second grade spelling words that were graded in
difficulty, and developed instructional activities that would engage the children in
learning their words.
She came up with grade level group of twelve students and below grade level
group that consisted of seven students. The grade level group’s words were taken from a
second grade spelling book, and the below grade level words were taken from Early
Steps (Morris, Tyner, and Perney, 2000). With the lower spellers, she focused on short
vowel word study. For her instructional activities she used the word sort approach
developed the University of Virginia. Column sorting games, word searches and old
fashioned memorization were used to help students over time internalize the spelling
patterns.
The low spelling group spent 15 weeks in the alternative list and then moved into
the second grade spelling book. They were only nine weeks behind the on level group at
the end of the study. A posttest was administered that contained first, second, and third
grade lists from Schlagal’s informal spelling inventory. The class as a whole did very
well. However, the low speller’s performance was phenomenal. These seven students
showed huge pretest to posttest gains on the first and second grade spelling lists and
performed well on the third grade list. With the appropriate level of instruction, the
achievement gap was closed significantly between the on grade level and the lower level
struggling spellers.
As educators, we must realize the need for differentiation of all subjects. Not
only do children need to be placed in appropriately leveled reading groups, but spelling
groups as well. In order for a student to continue progressing at their developmental
level, we as educators must meet them where they are. If we teach above their level, they
will undoubtly fall further and further behind and their frustration level will escalate.
Early intervention is the key to keep the spelling gap from widening.
Joseph, L., & Orlins, A. (2005). Multiple Uses of a Word Study Technique. Reading
Improvement. 42, 73-77.
It is known that in any given classroom that students’ abilities range over several
grade levels as well as different stages. All children cannot be taught at the same level.
Each child needs to be assessed and taught at his or her instructional level. One way of
doing this is through a process called Word Study. Word study techniques are gaining
popularity among many instructors today. There are various techniques if implementing
word study into a literacy program but this study focused on the effectiveness of word
sorts. Word sorts are designed to help children examine, discriminate, and categorize
words according to spelling and sound patterns (p.73). There are multiple uses of word
sorts such as helping children automatically recognize words, help children become
aware of the phonemic structure of words, and gain meaning of words just to name a few.
One key component to word sorts is that the student must be able to read the words they
are being asked to sort.
The use of word sorts is supported by The Developmental Spelling Theory, which
states that children progress through different stages of spelling ability. There have been
few investigations though about the effectiveness of implementing word sorts into daily
instruction. Many studies including word sorts have been found useful but there has been
little research that narrowed in on the effectiveness of word sorts alone. In one study
however, word sorts were found to be more effective than traditional spelling instruction
for improving spelling performance on spelling tests (Dangle, 1989). Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to illustrate the multiple purposes of a word sorting technique.
The study focused on the improvement of word recognition and spelling performance
based on the implementation of word sorts (p.74).
This study took place in an urban school district in Central Ohio. Two students
were selected to participate in the study based on difficulty they were having in spelling.
Word sorts were implemented for Sara in hopes to improve her word recognition
performance. Word sorts were implemented for John in hopes of improving his spelling
performance.
Sara was a second grade student diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder. She was receiving special education services and was selected for the study
based on her severe delays in reading as well as her need for intervention for word
recognition. Her teacher reported that she had the ability to recognize some two and
three letter words but said she had difficulty reading words that contained more than 3
letters. Sara was administered a 120 word screening measure that contained several four
letter words such as consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel, double consonant-vowel-
consonant, consonant-double vowel-consonant, and consonant-vowel-double consonant
patterned words. The words she read incorrectly or words that she didn’t know were
placed into 3 different sets of word lists (p. 74). Probes were administered during
baseline session. Each set contained 10 words and the words were printed on index
cards. Set 1 consisted of words: mold, bold, told, bank, rank, tank, rent, vent, and dent.
Set 2 consisted of words: wave, save, gave, cave, tore, pore, sore, mate, date, and hate.
Set 3 consisted of words: wade, made, fade, back, lack, rack, tack, spin, shin, and skin.
Sara was taught the first set of words using word sorts. At this point list 2 and 3 were not
taught using the word sort technique. Sara was asked to sort the words into 3 categories.
After she finished she would read the words in each category. She was encouraged to
self-correct words that she had mistakenly placed in the wrong column or words that she
had read incorrectly. At the end of each session Sara was tested for mastery of that set of
words. She read 90% of the words accurately during 2 instructional sessions. Once she
met mastery they moved on to the next set of words.
This study found that Sara met mastery on all 3 sets of words by using the word
sort technique. She actually had an immediate increase in performance for each set of
words when word sorts were implemented. Remarkably she was also able to maintain
her word recognition ability even after the word sort activities stopped. Her maintenance
scores ranged from 90-100%.
John was the second subject in this study. He was a third grade student that had
severe difficulty with spelling. He was found to be well below average in his spelling
ability after he was administered the Diagnostic Achievement Battery-Third Edition.
Then a 40 word screener was administered to more specifically determine John’s
performance. Word sorts were hoped to improve his spelling performance. Three sets
of words consisting of 10 item spelling probes were administered to John. After a
baseline was established, the word sorting technique was introduced to John with the first
set of words. Again, the words that John missed during the probe were printed on index
cards. Set 1 consisted of words: carry, marry, pretty, silly, happy, scary, lazy, angry,
fancy, and weary. Set 2 consisted of words: coil, foil, boil, soil, broil, foul, loud, shout,
route, and cloud. Set 3 consisted of words: burn, turn, blur, fur, church, torn, storm, born,
core, and dorm. John was asked to sort the set of words into 2 categories based on the
similar spelling patterns. He like Sara was asked to make self-corrections and the
instructor assisted him when he was unable to self-correct. At the end of each session
John was given a spelling probe. He scored 90% on two consecutive probes. Then
probes were administered to gauge his retention of the words taught.
Results found John making gradual increases in the number of words he spelled
correctly. He made an immediate increase in words spelled correctly on sets 2 and 3.
The study found that only when word sorts were implemented that John’s spelling
improved. He was also able to maintain scores ranging from 90-100% of the words
taught during the word sort instruction.
Overall, Sara and John made improvements in their performance after word sorts
were implemented into their daily instruction. The study found word sorts effective when
teaching spelling as well as word recognition. Word sorts are an inexpensive way to
teach multiple literacy skills to children experiencing difficulty. There are so many
variations of the typical word sort that they lend themselves well to students at many
different levels. Word sorts can be differentiated based on a student’s need and academic
level. Word sorts can be as simple as picture sorts or can be extended into different
activities such as word hunts in which students look for words in text that have already
read that can be sorted based on similarities. Word sorts afford instructors the
opportunity to develop lessons that relate word study directly to the aspects of words that
a child is currently having difficulty with. Word sorts are one way we can meet children
where they are academically and developmentally and help them achieve academic
success.
Morris, D., Blanton L., Blanton W., Perney J. (1995). Spelling
instruction and achievement in six classrooms. The Elementary School Journal,
96(2), 145-161.
The researchers of this study wanted to understand how teachers use spelling books
in the classroom and how the use of spelling books affects student achievement. Their
study was exploratory in nature and they focused on the analysis of traditional spelling
book instruction. They organized their research around three questions. What is
contained in a spelling book curriculum? How do teachers of spelling use instructional
time? How well do students spell at the beginning of the year and how much do they
learn and retain as the year advances?
Researchers have studied textbook use in reading, mathematics, social studies, and
geography, but they have overlooked one subject – spelling ( Morris, Blanton, Blanton,
Perney, 1995). Spelling has been de-emphasized as a formal topic of instruction, with a
growing number of scholars and teachers viewing spelling as a minor component of the
writing process- a language skill to be taught incidentally and informally as children learn
to write for meaning (Schlagal and Schlagal 1992). Researchers have not ignored the
psychological and linguistic study of spelling ability. Henderson & Beers, 1980; and
Read, 1971, 1975, have provided a new and powerful framework for understanding the
developmental nature of learning to spell. Ironically, educators have come to understand
more about cognitive/developmental strategies children use in learning to spell, they
agree less about the best way to teach spelling in the classroom ( Morris, Blanton,
Blanton, Perney, 1995).
In this year long study, the researchers examined spelling instruction and
achievement in six elementary classrooms, four third-grade and two sixth-grade classes.
The classrooms were spread among five schools in three rural school districts of western
North Carolina. Each of the six teachers who volunteered to participate in the study had
more than ten years of elementary school teaching experience. Average class size was
23, with students coming mostly from Caucasian, lower-middle socioeconomic status
families.
The researchers examined the spelling program and teaching materials. The
spelling book instruction was organized around the weekly spelling unit (36 units per
year), with students introduced to a set of words on Monday, engaged in word study
activity during the middle of the week, and administered a spelling test on Friday. They
examined each teacher’s spelling instruction for a full week three times during the school
year. Several measures of student performance were used across time. Beginning of the
year pretests were administered in September. End of the year posttests were given in
May. An additional posttest, the transfer list, was also administered in May as well.
Weekly spelling test were given as well as six week review tests.
Researchers concluded that spelling books provide teachers with a carefully
selected corpus of developmentally appropriate words, but did not consistently emphasize
research based strategies for learning the words. Spelling books included a weekly
activity routine for teaching the words. Some of the spelling book activities were
questionable in value, as were the activities choices of the teachers when they deviated
from the textbook. Teachers who use spelling books, spend from 16 to 23 minutes per
day on spelling and follow the activities closely. Regarding assessment, 6 week retention
tests provided teachers with a valid estimate of individual students’ end of the year
spelling achievement, however, weekly spelling test were not. Researchers also
discovered that students scoring below 30% on a beginning of year pretest are at great
risk of not mastering the grade level list. The students varied greatly in their mastery of
the grade level spelling patterns.
Results from this study indicated that using spelling textbooks can yield positive
results on student learning. They do provide developmentally appropriate material.
However, we can never forget the fact that no two children are alike. They all develop at
different rates. Just because students are in the same grade does not mean they are on the
exact same level. Spelling textbooks can be an important instructional resource in the
classroom, however, results from the study revealed the need to teach students at their
independent level. Students who were on the lower end did not show the growth of the
higher achieving students. Just as we differentiate instruction in reading, we must also do
so in spelling if we want to ensure success for every child.
Phillips-Birdsong, C., Williams, C. (2006). Word Study Instruction and Second Grade
Children’s Independent Writing. Journal of Literacy Research. 38, 427-465.
Modern spelling instruction is moving toward the use of “word study”, which
actively engages students through the study of orthography and its principles. Basically
to be better spellers students need to understand how words work. They also need to
learn specific strategies to help them spell unfamiliar words.
Word study is grounded in the developmental spelling theory. Students don’t just
become good spellers by rote practice. They go through several developmental stages
along the way. Spellers go through five stages: Emergent, Letter name-alphabetic, within
word, syllable juncture, derivational constancy (Ganske, Henderson, Templeton & Bear).
However, there has been little work specifically about the effect of word study on
children’s’ writing. Therefore, their primary goal was to conduct research themselves
and examine the impact that word study had on students’ writing.
Phillips and Williams wanted to know what specific content should be taught to
each developmental group. They also wanted to know if the instruction the students
received would carry over into their journal writing. Finally, they were curious the
influence of social interaction on the use of word study as a mediational tool.
Initially the study was proposed to provide word study within small,
homogeneous guided reading groups. The instructor was going to use specific words
from the text for the word study component. However, early on the instructor found that
a child’s spelling ability and reading ability didn’t always correlate and this was
problematic when a child read on a different level than they could spell. She found
herself trying to juggle reading groups and rearrange students based on their ever-
changing needs. This was quite time consuming so they revised the study to focus on
words that were not part of the reading text. They were based solely on each child’s
spelling level and need.
Phillips and Williams administered the Elementary Spelling Inventory (Bear
2000) to develop a baseline among the students. Then they selected six students to
participate in the study. Two students were from the Letter Name-Alphabetic, two from
Within Word, and finally two from Syllable Juncture. Colleen was the instructor in the
study and she decided to teach three word study lessons each Friday. She taught one
lesson to each ability group. She used the framework provided in Bear et al. (2000b).
For each lesson she followed the same routine. First, she taught a specific orthographic
principle. Then she engaged students in various games and activities that allowed them
to apply what they had learned. Finally, the students were allowed to write in their
journal twice a week for 20 minutes on self-selected topics. During this journal time
Colleen was looking for evidence of application of what they had previously learned
during her word study lesson. She was also looking for their social interaction skills.
Colleen carried out this study for 20 weeks. She kept extensive notes on how the lessons
went and observations that she made on each child. In addition to her own word study
she was also required to teach the spelling and phonics program adopted by her district.
For the Letter Name-Alphabetic group Colleen focused on teaching short vowels
a, i, and u. She also taught blends s, r, and l. She also explicitly taught students skills for
using other resources when spelling unknown words such as the word wall, dictionary,
and environmental print. There were times when she added lessons for things such as
past tense inflected endings. These lessons were really for the next stage but the need
arose so she addressed it.
For the Within Word group Colleen mainly studied vowel patterns. She
compared the short and long vowel patterns and they looked closely at common as well
as less common patterns. Students also received lessons on consonant doubling when
adding –ed or words. Again, this is a lesson typically associated with the next group but
the need arose so she taught the lesson anyway. She also taught homophones and
homographs.
Colleen encountered the most trouble and frustration in the Syllable juncture
group. She started with plural and inflected endings and then moved into open and
closed syllables. Colleen concluded with teaching the morphological component of
orthography. She provided lessons on adding suffixes and Greek and Latin roots.
The researchers analyzed the data that Colleen collected both individually and
collaboratively. They felt that this would ensure accuracy. The first and most important
finding was that word study instruction did not integrate well with guided reading. That
is when the entire study was revised. Once the study was revised they found that
separating word study from guided reading allowed Colleen to provide instruction that
better met each student’s needs. Results differed for each of the three groups.
In the Letter Name-Alphabetic group there was little evidence of their use of word
study instruction during journal writing. Patricia was one student that Colleen followed.
Her journal was filled with numerous misspellings. Many of the misspellings were words
or patterns taught during the study. This child did latch onto the strategy of using her
spelling dictionary though. She used this strategy repeatedly when trying to spell
unknown words but Colleen noted that she never used the word wall. This child never
mastered any of the concepts taught through word study and showed no improvement on
her posttest. However, she was found to be dyslexic at the end of the year. The other
student, Wayne, also made growth on the posttest. Colleen noted that he was a reluctant
writer and wrote only a few sentences in his journal. This didn’t provide enough to
gather information from about his spelling. One thing that was apparent was the fact that
strategy instruction benefited both Patricia and Wayne but was not necessary in the
following two groups.
Sarah was a student from the Within Word group. She grew 11 points over the
course of the 20 week study. Again, there was little show of growth by looking at her
journal. Samuel was the other student in this group and he like Wayne didn’t like
keeping a journal. Therefore, he didn’t produce enough writing to even evaluate. He
made a 10 point growth on the posttest but was later diagnosed ADD.
Rebecca and Andrew were the participants in the Syllable juncture group. It was
nearly impossible to use their writing to assess their orthographic growth because most
everything was spelled correctly. Colleen found that Rebecca only grew 3 points by the
end of the study and even though it was on her instructional level Colleen deemed the
lessons too fast paced for Rebecca. Andrew on the other hand did better than Rebecca
but Colleen felt that he really needed more time to process what he had learned for the
carry over to be visible.
This study found that word study instruction alone isn’t enough. It doesn’t teach
students how to extend this knowledge into text that they encounter. The study found
that students need more explicit demonstration of ways that knowledge can be applied. It
also concludes that students need to participate in frequent shared and interactive writing
experiences with the teacher. The study also found the schedule Colleen had arranged
didn’t allow enough time each day for word study instruction and the students’ journals
didn’t provide enough information about whether or not the knowledge gained had been
applied to their writing. Finally, this study found that word study could be a mediational
tool when it build upon a student’s strengths. They found evidence that word study was
beneficial when using what they already knew and in turn increased their confidence in
using this knowledge.
Putnam, L. (1996). How to Become a Better Reading Teacher: Strategies for Assessment
and Intervention. Des Moines, IA: Merrill.
Much research states that spelling is a key indicator of one’s ability to read and
write. This has recently become a well-known observation that much research supports.
We have learned that readers that have poor word knowledge also have more difficulty
identifying words quickly and fluently. However, spelling can’t just develop as a part of
reading and writing. We now know that spelling needs to be taught explicitly and words
need to be examined in their own right.
Chapter 29 in How to Become a Better Reading Teacher: Strategies for
Assessment and Intervention asks the question “How can we most effectively and
engagingly facilitate the struggling reader’s development of spelling knowledge”? They
wanted to find best practices that facilitated the development of spelling knowledge
regardless of the child’s level. It is common knowledge that struggling readers many
times also struggle with spelling but what isn’t commonly known is what to do to better
instruct them. Templeton proposes that the mind is not a camera and we aren’t carrying
around “pictures” of words in our minds. When children struggle with spelling they have
not been provided with instruction on their developmental level (p. 318).
After reviewing several student samples Templeton places six children in six
different spelling levels. Julie is Semiphonetic. In this stage children normally include
the first and last letter of a word. Ziangze is Early Alphabetic/Letter Name. Denise is
Later Alphabetic/Letter Name. At this point children begin to include vowels in their
invented spellings of words. Todd is Within Word. Within Word spellers typically spell
more conventionally. Evan is Syllable Juncture. in this stage children represent the
stressed syllables in polysyllabic words with conventional vowel pattern spellings.
Finally, Adrienne is Derivational Constancy. This stage possesses the most
sophistication about word knowledge.
In order to provide instruction that best meets each child’s needs we much first
establish his/her independent, instructional, and frustrational level in spelling. We have
known this for years in reading and it is just as important in orthographic knowledge as
well. A short diagnostic spelling inventory was used (Schlagal, 1992). Ideally the
spelling inventory should be given individually but can be administered in a small group.
The inventory is broken into lists of words ranging from Level 1-Level 6. Only two lists
should be given at a time to avoid frustration and tiring. You can discontinue the test
when the student misspells more than 60% of the words in that list. To determine each
level Schlagal provides the following guidelines (p. 322):
Independent Level: Over 90%-The student should be examining higher grade
level words.
Instructional Level: Between 40%-90%-The student should be examining words
at this grade level.
Frustration Level: Below 40%-Student should be examining words at a lower
grade level.
Instructional practices that best meet the developmental nature of spelling include
using a core list of words that share common patterns or features. Templeton
recommends the pre-test/posttest strategy in which students correct their own test. This
enables students to pay close attention to what they missed and also celebrate what they
already knew. Often times words students get correct are dropped off the list for the
week but Templeton proposes that all words must be kept on the list whether they are
correct or incorrect. He states that the more children work with words that share a similar
patter the more likely they are to learn that pattern and transfer that knowledge into other
writing activities.
Focused word study begins with what children already know and then progresses
into the unknown. Children must be able to easily identify a word before they can be
expected to spell it. Words need to be looked at from different angles: meaning, pattern,
sound. Word sorting is one way of achieving this. One variation of word sorting can
begin with as little as 10-12 words. You need at least 2 different patterns for the sort to
work efficiently. Children are asked to read a word and then place it under the
appropriate category. As they add words to each column they can read down each list.
As they master 2 categories you can add more categories to increase the difficulty. You
can also add a category for “everything else” that doesn’t fit the common patterns you are
working with. To observe a child’s thinking you can ask why they sorted a word they
way they did or even allow them to create the categories to sort by. Word hunts are an
extension activity of word sorts. After a word sort students take time to look for other
words that fit into the categories in which they have sorted previous words. They can
look through textbooks, on the word wall, in the dictionary, and environmental print.
Any word will work as long as it follows the pattern. Word games are another beneficial
component of word study. Games such as Junior Scrabble or Boggle involve students
creating words. You can also use the word cards from your word sorts to play games
such as Go Fish (Bloodgood, 1991).
Spelling instruction cannot be rote memorization of lists of words. It has to be
meaningful and engaging. It like all other instruction has to be on each child’s
developmental level. When you bring all of this together the result is an effective
spelling program in which everyone benefits.
Schlagal, B. (2002, January 1). Classroom Spelling Instruction: History, Research
and Practice. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(1), 44. (Document
Reproduction Service No. EJ664228) Retrieved June 13, 2007, from ERIC
database.
Currently in the vast world of education, there seems to be no real answer to the
question, how do we teach spelling? Many educators have their own theories or methods
and this article discusses some of the most common methods from the past as well as
some methods used today by educators. There seems to be no one method that is
superior over the other but the common thread that all the methods need to be composed
of is the level at which the child can spell. This article discusses three methods for
teaching spelling. Those methods are the incidental position, developmental word study
position, and the basal study approach.
The incidental position is based on the notion that a specific spelling curriculum is
unnecessary and even undesired. This method bases that spelling is best learned from
reading broad material and writing that is meaningful to the student. If the teacher has to
teach a lesson then it is done in the form of a mini-lesson. This method is all about
relevance to the speller. If the word is meaningful to them then they will become
effective at spelling the word through interactions with the word. These interactions
involve writing the word in a dictionary, using the word in composing a draft, and
general communication between peers using this word.
The developmental word study position insists that spelling should be taught in an
individual and systematic way so that the students’ spelling level is addressed. Different
developmental stages track the progress of each student. Teachers tailor the spelling
instruction to the students’ growth by monitoring their progression. Students can be
taught individually or in small groups how to sort words based on patterns and word
families. Students can use this orthography tool to learn how to sort the words and group
them according to their structure.
The basal study approach uses grades two through eight and a group of three thousand
words as its core. Frequent testing and study help the students remember the words and
internalize them. Developmentally appropriate word patterns and families are taught in
each grade level. This approach uses a systematic study of words to provide a foundation
for spelling and reading.
This article also reviews many practices of the past as well as contemporary
methods of teaching spelling. Some of the most important ideas and successful methods
of the past include,
Learning to spell from a list is more beneficial than learning from the context
Teachers should create list from words used frequently rather than from context
Study of the spelling words should be spread across the week in small amounts
Students need to be able to read the words they have to spell
Any pattern or words taught should be reviewed regularly
Using these strategies from past research would allow teachers to help students
understand spelling and ensure success in the classroom. Spelling books of the past were
used for whole class instruction where the teacher taught the same content and lesson to
every student.
New methods of teaching focus on the speller as an individual and create lessons
and strategies that are beneficial to that single speller or a group of students that have the
same struggles and weaknesses. Instructors test the students and pinpoint their
instruction level and frustration level in spelling. Contemporary research suggests that
students will be able to make gains if the words are at their instructional level. They will
be able to retain, remember and use the words effectively in spelling applications. If
student are taught words at the frustration level they will be less likely to remember and
retain the words. This article gives an example of an effective week long activities
teachers and instructors can do in the classroom to promote spelling success among the
students.
On Monday a pretest is given to the students so they will know how prepared they are
for the weeks words. Students assess their missed words and copy them no more than
two times. Word patterns are targeted using the missed words to alert the students what
needs to be addressed and reviewed.
Tuesday’s activities consist of giving the students a copy of the week’s words that have
been copied onto a sheet of paper. Students cut out the words and sort them on their
desks into correlating word families. Students can work with partners and sort the words
or play games like memory, and word bingo.
On Wednesday the students work with other students playing the games or studying
alone. Students can also participate in timed drills or word hunts with other students.
The Thursday activities consist of student giving each other practice tests using dry
erase boards. The student taking the test has to correctly spell the word and sort the word
into the proper word family.
Friday is test day and the students are given the spelling test.
In conclusion, the article suggests systematic spelling instruction should be the
best method for teaching spelling. Assessing the student’s ability, grouping students
based on ability, administering lessons and activities on student’s level, and practice with
peers proves to be an effective way of teaching spelling in the classroom. Too long have
teachers taught to the whole group and not to the individual speller. Society has to
understand that spelling is different for each person. No two people are alike. There are
good spellers and those who struggle at spelling. Teachers and instructors should base
their instruction on the student’s spelling level. In today’s classes there are twenty plus
students and no matter where you are in the world, there will be twenty plus ways of
spelling the same word. Just like a snowflake, no two spellers are ever the same.
Scott, C. (2000 May). Principles and Methods of Spelling Instruction: Applications
for Poor Spellers. Topics in Language Disorders 20 (3), 66. Retrieved June
12, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database.
In the elementary grades a child is taught roughly 3,800 words (Graham, Harris &
Loynachan, 1996). This may seem a bit much, but an adult writer knows how to spell
between 10,000 and 12,000 words. It is a classroom teacher’s job to make sure that
students have the understanding and knowledge to spell the words they need to know.
“Spelling frustrates not only the poor speller but also the teachers and the language
specialists who try to help them improve” (Scott 2000). Poor spelling also can affect the
teacher’s views of writing even though the structure and control are present. This article
shows an overview of three types of spelling instruction that are typically found in
elementary classrooms. Memorization of weekly word lists, word analysis / word sorting
and spelling that is integrated in authentic reading and writing are three areas discussed in
this article.
Teachers must ask themselves how much of spelling is actually “taught”.
Teachers give students new words every week to take home and study, and maybe once
or twice a week a small activity or worksheet involves those words or the word family
being studied. These types of activities will not help a student learn how to spell.
Teachers and students need to be active participators in spelling. The major types of
spelling instruction common in most classrooms are; the teaching of spelling by
memorizing weekly lists of words, word analysis and word sorting, and the indirect
teaching of spelling integrated within the context of authentic writing.
Memorization of Weekly Word Lists
In most classrooms, the teacher ask students to memorize 10-15 words and at the
end of the week a test is given to see if the students can properly spell the words. Most of
the words chosen in this list come from basal readers or spellers. Many publishers of the
basal texts will have a specific strategy that all the words have in common. Teachers can
also invent their own list of words consisting of high frequency words, words pulled from
thematic units within the classroom setting or common words used in children’s writing.
Research shows that “Motivation for learning is presumably increased when students are
likely to use the word in their own writing” (Scott 2000).
Many researchers have criticized the memorization of weekly spelling lists
especially when it’s the only major component of the spelling curriculum. A major
downfall of the weekly list is the lack of individualization. If teachers could
individualize the lists to fit each students needs and offer effective study techniques, the
memorization of words could be validated as a part of an effective spelling curriculum.
The major things to think about when using word lists in the classroom are:
Use only unknown words.
Use words that occur frequently in children’s writing.
Use self-selected words.
Practice fewer words more often over a longer period of time.
“Good spellers search for patterns and consistency in spelling” (Scott 2000). Allowing
the students to find these patterns and learn what they are leads into the next portion of
the article.
Word Analysis & Word Sorting
Focusing on patterns is the key in word sorting. In addition to memorizing
specific lists of words many children need to be involved in word sorting activities to
strengthen their knowledge. In word sorts, words are usually grouped together to reveal
certain phonemic patterns or rules of spelling. Once students know what category the
words belong in, they can start looking in other text for additional words that fit their
categories. By doing word sorts in the classroom, students will develop a word bank they
can use when creating text of their own.
The main elements in teaching word analysis and sorting are:
Use known and unknown word patterns.
Use words that have or do not have a target spelling pattern.
Use high frequency words
Spelling Integrated in Authentic Reading and Writing
This indirect approach starts with having students write with an authentic purpose.
After the student has completed his or her writing, the teacher either in writing circles or
individual writing conferences can point out words the child spells correctly first and then
comment on the words the student did not spell correctly and ask questions concerning
these words. This is a great “teachable” moment for teachers because by asking
questions about the words misspelled, this will give the teacher an understanding of what
the student knows. After conferencing with the class, the teacher may see areas that need
further deciphering.
Another way to encourage students is to have them proofread and self correct
spelling errors in their writing by using references like spell check, dictionaries, or
spelling software. Peer editing is a great way to strengthen the use of these reference
skills. If students know their peers are going to be looking over their writing, it may
encourage them proofread or self correct their writing.
Key elements for this practice are:
Schedule enough authentic reading and writing.
Capitalize on teachable moments for individualized spelling goals.
Use high interest text (Email/ Internet)
Scott states, “Eventual outcomes of spelling instruction will depend on several
factors. One critical factor is the student’s strengths and weakness in other language
domains. Few poor spellers are only poor spellers” (Scott 2000). What this statement
means is that if a student is struggling in spelling then the student is probably suffering in
reading and writing as well. In education, reading, writing, and spelling all work together
to form a cohesive language arts experience. To lack in one are will ultimately affect the
others. Teachers need to be aware of their student’s needs and struggles in spelling. By
using word lists that are individualized to each student, word sorts that focus the learner
in on a specific grouping, and authentic text to read, research and keep the learner
motivated, any classroom teacher will have an effective spelling curriculum they can be
proud of.
Sipe, R., & National Association of Elementary School Principals, A. (1994,
February 1). Strategies for Poor Spellers. Here’s How. (Document
Reproduction Service No. ED365962) retrieved June 12, 2007, from ERIC
database.
At the beginning of this article, the author refers to spelling as a piece of spinach
in a person’s teeth. The spinach doesn’t physically affect your smile, but it makes it less
appealing to others. In the classroom setting, spelling can be the teacher’s piece of
spinach. The article discusses how spelling has become one of the great concerns among
parents. There are several different strategies the article gives to help spelling in the
classroom. Every teacher has a child that can write well, read well, but spell horribly.
The article shows some ways we as educators can help those students increase their
spelling knowledge and boost their confidence in spelling.
The question the article asks is how can educators use strategies to promote better
spellers in their classrooms?
Methods Used:
One strategy the article talks about to use with poor spellers is let them use
dictionaries, and teach them how to look up words. Many teachers do not realize
that the younger children do not know how to use a dictionary.
For use in the early grades, an emphasis on phonics and the art of sounding out
words is a great strategy to use. Teaching students to sound out words and listen for
the individual sound is a great and effective strategy in the lower grades. This
strategy is not as effective when the words become more advanced with silent
letters and advanced blend combinations.
Another method of teaching successful spelling is to study word families. Honor,
honorable, honorary, honoring, and honored are all examples from the same word
family. Teaching students the root word for this family can show the student they
can spell many other words in that family. This strategy will help students with
beginnings, and endings of words.
Other methods would be to use mnemonic devices. Students can create rhymes,
jingles, or phrases to learn spelling rules or how to spell difficult words.
The article talks about how spelling is a writing skill. It is not as important in the
rough drafts of writing as it is in the final stages. Research suggests that teachers should
not emphasize spelling in the early stages of writing because it could cause students to
become anxious and doubt their writing abilities. Spelling is also a developmental
process because preschoolers begin to experiment with language in print the same way
they learn to talk, by connecting sounds and letters. Eventually by the end of grade one,
most children are ready to begin using strategies that will lead them to correct spelling.
As the research continued, questions arose about spelling instruction. The questions
range from; why doesn’t the teacher correct spelling? How do you teach spelling? Do
you need spelling books? How do you grade?
Answers to Commonly asked Questions
Why doesn’t the teacher correct spelling? The article states that children learn to read
and write the same way, and teachers try to encourage children to have confidence in
their writing. Students should concentrate on the message they are trying to say rather
than the spelling. After children are confident writers, then it is time to learn the spelling
mechanics.
How do you teach spelling? This answer can be different depending on the school
environment. Some teachers use the traditional spelling methods, such as lists,
memorization, and repeated writings, while others integrate spelling with other
instruction. This is dependant on the guidelines between the grades and the school
systems.
Do you need spelling books? As more and more schools move toward integrating the
language arts, the need for a separate book for spelling, handwriting, and grammar will
decrease. Most schools still have a few copies of spelling books if teachers want to use
them. Most of today’s spelling is integrated in the basal text and language arts
curriculum.
How do you grade? This is a big debate among educators whether to use letter grades or
a point system. For those educators who integrate instruction, it is difficult to isolate
grades for each area of the language arts. A recent trend is to replace the letter grades
with behavioral listings, such as “Takes risks when spelling,” with the teacher checking
off “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “rarely.” This form of grading has shown positive
outcomes in the school districts that have implemented it.
Spelling instruction is still a big debate among educators. What is the right way
to teach spelling? What methods prove to be the most effective? One of the biggest
obstacles is the fact that every school systems, grade level, and teacher’s method of
spelling instruction is so different. What works for one school doesn’t always work for
the other. Until there is some cohesiveness among the school systems, the debate of how
to teach effective spelling strategies will continue.
Snowball, D. (2001, January 1). Spelling Strategies That Work. Instructor, 110(8),
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ627305) Retrieved June 12,
2007, from ERIC database.
Many educators have different strategies and styles when it comes to teaching
spelling to their students. Some use a phonics based instruction method while others use
a basal integrated strategy. When it comes to teaching spelling there seems to be more
diversity among the teachers than the diversity in the classroom. This article gives
educators examples of effective spelling methods and how to implement them in the
classroom setting.
One of the main ideas in this article is to develop the student’s sense of purpose
for spelling. To become good spellers, a child needs to have authentic reasons for
learning how to spell. Questions should be asked to help students come up with their
reasons for being good spellers. Many times the children’s reason to study spelling is to
simply pass the weeks spelling test. Educators must take the focus off the test and put it
onto the mechanics and structure of spelling. Students should not have to worry about
passing a test as long as they have successfully learned the skills for spelling. To aid in
developing a students sense of purpose teachers should encourage peer review. Have the
students share their writing and work with other students in the classroom. Their peers
may ask questions about the writing which will encourage students to closely examine
their own writing. Teachers can help develop a students’ sense of purpose by offering
clear feedback. When examining a students writing, teachers need to comment on what
they notice about the students spelling. Asking questions like what they think they are
doing well on? and, what they need to work on? will help the students self-analyze their
writing and spelling. Teachers can also look for commons struggles among their
students and offer mini-lessons to help them gain the knowledge they lack.
Proofreading is another strategy teachers can instruct their students on to help
them develop a sense of purpose. If the student carefully reviews their own work, they
can pinpoint words and grammatical skills they need to focus on. This article is broken
down into two main strategies; Learning Useful Words and Learning Sounds, Spelling
Patterns and Meanings.
Learning useful words is important when teaching spelling because these are the
words that students come into frequent contact with. The article says to have students
help in the selection of a group of words that the whole class uses often but spells
incorrectly. Once the words have been chosen, the teacher can write the words on a chart
or overhead and have the student look for patterns in the words or similarities between
them. The next step in this strategy is to list more and more words and group them
according to their structure or pattern. Once a large group of words have been formed,
the instructor can post the words onto a “word wall” or chart for students to use and
reference.
This continuing activity of gathering words and compiling them in a chart or word
wall will give the students a visual reference in their writing and also the students will
have a sense of ownership because they helped the teacher choose the words.
The second strategy in this article is Learning Sounds, Spelling Patterns, and
Meaning through the use of a 10 minute mini-lesson. This mini-lesson can be use for
sounds, patterns, and meanings. To start the mini-lesson the teacher selects a focus or
area of weakness common among the students. The teacher and students find examples
in text or around the classroom or words they know fit the pattern being studied and list
them on a chart or reference. Then the students find more examples and write them on
blank index cards. Once the students have compiled the words onto cards, the teacher
and the students group the words into different categories like sound, structure,
prefix/suffix etc. Once the words have been sorted the teacher and students discuss their
findings by formulating questions or finding similarities between the words. After the
discussions have ended the last part of the mini-lesson is to apply the knowledge they
have learned. This will allow the teacher to focus on the student’s needs either
individually, in small groups, or even whole class.
The big idea to take away from this article is that spelling is only part of the
bigger picture. Reading and writing are the most important focuses for a teacher.
Spelling is one part of this process. By focusing on individual needs of the students,
teachers can isolate the problems that effect spelling and successfully correct them which
will help the ultimate goal of becoming better readers and writers. Teachers have to stop
focusing on all there is to teach and focus on what the students are struggling with. If we
can effectively teach the little things then the bigger areas of learning will be that much
easier to teach.
Taylor-Heald, G. (1996).Three paradigms of spelling instruction in grades 3 to 6.
The Reading Teacher, 51(5), 404-413.
Spelling instruction remains one of the most debated aspects of the language arts.
It is these debates and arguments that prompted the writing of this article. Hearld-Taylor
thoroughly examined the research literature and identified three main spelling
perspectives that originate from diverse philosophical and research
foundations(traditional, transitional and student oriented). In this article the researcher
examined the obvious differences and similarities in order to gain a deeper understanding
about spelling instruction used in grades 3-6.
The traditional spelling strategies are based more on traditional attitudes and
practices rather than on theory or research. These practices are supported by theories of
empiricists who advocate formal direct instruction, drill memorization, imitation, rote
learning, and emphasis on correctness. Spelling instruction of this model is generally
taught formally as a separate subject with word lists from commercially graded spelling
texts that emphasize instruction in phonetics and spelling rules in preparation for weekly
test. In the traditional paradigm, teachers are mainly givers of information. They
determine what is taught, while students are considered “empty vessels” (Heald-Taylor,
1996). Several aspects of this model have been challenged over the years. The singular
emphasis on phonics is a huge issue since about only 46% of English words can be
spelled phonetically. Other criticisms include, the great deal of tedious practice
involving low-level exercises that require little thinking, and the scope and sequence of
skills in spelling books often fail to accommodate the wide range of student abilities.
The transitional model is distinguished by two main features, the integration of numerous
spelling strategies(phonics, graphic/visual, syntactic/word patterns, semantic, meaning)
and the significance of reading in learning to spell. Theories of integration emerged
because phonetics alone could not explain the spelling of about half of the English words,
especially the irregular spellings. Because reading and spelling are so closely linked,
Templeton(1992a) emphasized that words studied in spelling should come from student
reading material so that phonetics, spelling rules, and semantic and visual functions are
learned in a context meaningful to the child. Transitional practices are like traditional in
that they both include direct instruction in phonics, spelling rules, study procedures, and
weekly spelling test. However in this paradigm, spelling is mainly learned in conjunction
with various types of word study such as word sorts and word games. Children are tested
on words at the beginning of the week and are required to study on those they had
difficulty with. Teachers in this model integrate both direct and interactive instruction.
Students are more involved with their own learning. One of the main concerns of this
paradigm is the role of reading, writing, and spelling. Many researchers advocate the
reading of literature as a way to support spelling development, however many of the
practices of this model (word sorts, spelling games) are done separately.
The student oriented perspective builds on the theory and research of previous
paradigms that phonetic visual and semantic functions are continually valued, and that
spelling and reading development are mutually supportive. There are three main
differences in this paradigm; learning to spell is seen as a developmental process, reading
provides a context for learning to spell and spelling is a functional component of writing.
Theories supporting this category state that much language learning is a self-determined
process as students read and write in a discovery oriented systematic program of word
study. The instruction of this category takes into account the needs and developmental
stages of students and is linked to contexts of reading and writing. In this paradigm, the
teacher’s role changes dramatically from predominantly giving information to facilitating
learning based on developmental levels and individual student needs. Students are
expected to engage actively in their own learning at they figure out much of their spelling
for themselves through word sorts, word games, word study. One main challenge for this
category is the lack of research to support its effectiveness.
Teachers at all grade levels use the strategies mentioned above. It may be that
they have an integration of all paradigms or stick strictly to one model. This research
gives teachers the opportunity to examine spelling instruction in their own classroom and
make decisions on what they feel would be most effective. Unfortunately, more research
is needed to determine what might be the best model for students. As in many areas of
education there is no one answer to spelling instruction. I believe as we get new students
each year, out instruction will have to be adjusted according to their needs.
Templeton, S., Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling.
Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1), 102-112.
Spelling is an ongoing area of concern among both the language arts community
and the lay public. A lot of the concern has to do with the perception that students are
misspelling many more words in their writing than they used to. This observation,
however is difficult to document. Many teachers express concern that they do not have a
strong foundation either in how to teach spelling or in the nature of the spelling system
(Gill & Scharer, 1996; Henry, 1988; Moats, 1995).
Although there have been some efforts to address the need for a broader
knowledge base with respect to spelling instruction, often times they do not reflect the
importance of pulling words out of the immediate context of reading and writing in order
to examine and explore them for common patterns. The research community has come to
a general consensus 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). The more students understand about the structure of
words- their spelling or orthography- the more fluent and efficient their reading will be
(Perfetti, 1992). Thus orthography is the engine that drives efficient reading as well as
efficient writing.
In an effort to broaden the current professional dialogue regarding spelling
instruction, the researchers addressed teachers most frequently asked questions about
spelling. The questions come from teachers in all contexts, preschool through university.
Generations of students and teachers alike ask the question “Why don’t we just spell
words the way they sound?” English spelling did start out as a primarily alphabetic or
phonemic writing system, representing sounds in fairly straightforward left to right match
up. It still has a strong alphabetic foundation, however as a succession of languages
brought an influx of new vocabulary into English over the centuries-Germanic,
Scandinavian, French, Latin, Greek, and Spanish-the way these words were spelled in the
original language was usually brought in as well. This had an inevitable effect of moving
spelling away from its straightforwardly alphabetic, letter-sound foundation (Templeton;
Morris, 1999). In English spelling, however, there are patterns. These patterns provide a
level of consistency that operates within and between syllables, providing consistent
information about how sounds are spelled. Awareness of these patterns helps students in
both reading and spelling.
Learning about the spelling of words is conceptual learning and proceeds from a
more concrete to a more abstract level of understanding and analysis. Spelling begins in
the extended period of emergent literacy where children learn about the forms and
functions of print. In English, consonants emerge first because they are easily heard.
Vowels emerge somewhat later. The pattern layer is more conceptually advanced
because learners come to understand that spelling do not always work in a strict left to
right fashion, but groups or patterns of letters work together to represent sound.
Inventive spelling is valuable because children are attempting to represent their speech
with letters, they are applying phonics in a truly authentic context. Exploration of
conventional spelling can begin when children have attained full phonemic awareness
(for most children, the middle of first grade).
Spelling instructional levels will vary among students in a classroom. When
selecting and organizing words for students, they should be developmentally appropriate.
They should reflect spelling features that students use but confuse when they write
(Invernizzi et al, 1994). Teaching students above their instructional level is not
productive because the underlying word knowledge and conception of how the system
works does not support memory for such words. If students are taught at their
appropriate instructional level, they will make more progress than if they attempt words
and patterns that are at their frustration level (Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek, &
Perney, 1995). Students’ levels can be determined by administering a spelling inventory.
Words taught should be organized according to spelling patterns.
When teaching spelling, strategies that can help students support their spelling are
derived from the type of thinking that occurs during word study activities. One of the
most powerful strategies for determining the spelling of a word it to try to think of a word
that is similar in terms of sound or meaning. This strategy should be modeled for students
because many will not discover it own their own. Students should be shown how to look
at their misspellings in context of the whole word. When a spelling error occurs the
message is sent that the whole word is wrong. Word knowledge is not an all or nothing
affair. We need to focus on the part of the word the student got correct and then move to
what needs to be fixed. Students need to spend time examining words and patterns in
order to lock in the spelling pattern.
This article addresses many concerns educators have regarding spelling
instruction. Understanding and the nature of the spelling system better equips educators
in their instruction. However, in order to effectively plan spelling instruction, educators
must first know where their students are developmentally and proceed from there.