Spelling: Approaches to Teaching and Assessment

Citation preview

Second Edition

Peter Westwood

This page intentionally left blank

Second Edition

Peter Westwood

ACER Press

Second edition published 2005 by ACER Press Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd 19 Prospect Hill Road, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124 First published 1999 Copyright © Peter Westwood 2005 All rights reserved. Except under the conditions described in the Copyright Act 1968 of Australia and subsequent amendments, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the publishers. Copying of the blackline master pages The purchasing educational institution and its staff are permitted to make copies of the pages marked as blackline master pages, beyond their rights under the Act, provided that: 1. the number of copies does not exceed the number reasonably required by the educational institution to satisfy its teaching purposes; 2. copies are made only by reprographic means (photocopying), not by electronic/digital means, and not stored or transmitted; 3. copies are not sold or lent; and 4. every copy made clearly shows the footnote (‘Copyright © Peter Westwood. This sheet may be photocopied for non-commercial classroom use.’). For those pages not marked as blackline master pages the normal copying limits in the Act, as described above, apply. Edited by Tony and Valina Rainer Sound Words Typeset by Ian Thatcher Printed by Shannon Books National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Westwood, Peter S. (Peter Stuart), 1936– . Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment 2nd ed. Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 0 86431 412 4. 1. English language – Orthography and spelling – Study and teaching (Primary). I. Australian Council for Educational Research. II. Title. 372.632044 Visit our website: www.acerpress.com.au

Contents Preface

ix

1.

Spelling: current perspectives and issues Current perspectives How important is spelling? Approaches to spelling instruction

1 1 2 3

2.

How do children acquire spelling skills? Developmental stages in spelling acquisition Using the developmental stages for diagnostic purposes Do we spell by mouth, ear, eye, hand or brain? A model of the spelling process The link between reading and spelling

7 7 11 12 16 17

3.

Individual differences among spellers Good spellers Average spellers Poor spellers Helping students with learning difficulties: what has research shown?

21 21 22 23 25

4.

Teaching: general principles and approaches Developing positive attitude and interest Strategy training A general-purpose strategy Investigative approach to spelling Word study Word Families Word Sorts Allocating time for word study Spelling lists Computers and technology

27 27 28 30 30 31 33 34 35 36 38

5.

Methods for intervention Prompt Spelling, Partner Spelling and peer tutoring Training visual imagery Fonetik Spelling Repeated writing Simultaneous Oral Spelling (SOS) Old Way – New Way Directed Spelling Thinking Activity (DSTA) Teaching proofreading for spelling errors Matching intervention to stage of development

41 41 43 45 45 46 47 48 48 49

6.

Assessing spelling Observation Work samples Use of benchmarks and profiles Indicators for spelling outcomes Testing Discussion with the student

53 54 54 56 58 60 63

7.

Resources for teachers Texts and materials Other useful texts Online resources

65 65 68 69

Appendices Appendix 1: Glossary Appendix 2: 125 most commonly used words in children’s writing Appendix 3: South Australian Spelling Test (SAST) (revised) Technical details Instructions for administration Interpretation of scores South Australian Spelling Test Form A South Australian Spelling Test Form B Appendix 4: Diagnostic tests Diagnostic test A: some predictable spelling patterns Diagnostic test B: some less predictable words Diagnostic test C: core list of hard-to-spell words Diagnostic test D: test of basic phonic knowledge

71 71 73 74 74 75 76 77 81 85 85 85 86 86

References

89

Index

99

For Chan Wing Yan

This page intentionally left blank

Preface The second edition of Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment is written at a time of renewed public and academic interest in the topic of children’s spelling. This interest is reflected in the amount of new research conducted over the past five years, and in the number of new books, articles, and curriculum guides written for teachers. Much of the research, and many of the new texts, are cited in this new edition. Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment has been completely revised, enlarged and up-dated, with many new references and additional information on research-based teaching methods and procedures. It is noticeable that the focus of interest in both research and pedagogy now seems to be on finding effective methods for helping children approach spelling as a problem-solving activity, rather than as a memorisation task. Strategy training continues to grow in importance as a key component in effective spelling programs – including the teaching of strategies for analysing and comparing words, encoding words, spelling by analogy, using word meanings where possible as cues to spelling, self-checking and self-correction. ‘Word study’ and ‘word analysis’ have become respectable activities again, after a period in the wilderness; and it is no longer politically incorrect to refer to the teaching of phonic knowledge in relation to spelling. The second edition provides an overview of effective ways of helping students develop and improve their spelling skills and strategies. The emphasis throughout the text is on the importance of explicit teaching. Students do not necessarily acquire effective spelling strategies simply through incidental learning; and research continues to support the view that spelling skills can be fostered best by a subtle combination of direct teaching and frequent opportunity for meaningful writing. Assessment is an essential aspect of the effective teaching of spelling. It is important that teachers can determine how far an individual student has come on the path toward independence. The formal and informal approaches to assessment described in the second half of this text will enable teachers to determine the instructional needs of individuals. This edition contains a new standardised spelling test, to be used as an alternative to, or in parallel with, the South Australian Spelling Test Form A. New norms (2004) are provided for both tests. I wish to thank Dr David Moseley for permission to reproduce his core list of common spelling errors that first appeared in the text The psychological assessment of reading, edited by J. R. Beech and C. Singleton (London: Routledge, 1997). My thanks also to the Department for Education, Training and Employment ix

in South Australia for permission to reproduce my South Australian Spelling Test which appeared as an Appendix in the resource book Spelling: from beginnings to independence, published by the Department in 1997. Finally, a really big ‘thank you’ to the students and teachers in South Australia for participating in the standardisation and re-norming exercise conducted in November 2004 – and to my colleague Kerry Bissaker for organising the administrative aspects of that exercise. Thank you all.

PETER WESTWOOD

x

1

Spelling: current perspectives and issues

Spelling is a tool for communication, not an end in itself (Chandler, 2000, p. 89).

The teaching of spelling is an issue that arouses strong emotions in parents, teachers, and employers (O’Sullivan, 2000). Almost everyone has strong views about the importance (or lack of importance) of accurate spelling in school and workplace. In the past few years, public and professional interest in the topic of children’s spelling and how it might best be taught in schools has grown exponentially, as evidenced by the increasing number of research papers, dissertations, books, articles in teachers’ professional journals, and items in the popular press. Two American experts in the field, Shane Templeton and Darrell Morris, have observed that, “For a number of reasons, spelling is once again a significant concern among both the language arts community and the lay public” (1999, p. 102). And as Laura Pappano (2004) reports, “Spelling is making a comeback in schools”. But it is not only in America that a resurgence of research interest in spelling has occurred – important studies have been reported from Australia, Britain, Holland, Germany, Finland, China, and France. An Internet search under the descriptors ‘spelling’ and ‘teaching spelling’ will reveal many of these studies for the interested reader.

Current perspectives After almost two decades in which classroom practice in the language arts was influenced very strongly by the ‘whole language’ or ‘natural approach’ to literacy learning, it has now become respectable again to debate how best to teach children essential spelling skills and strategies. The focus of concern in previous years hinged on the question of whether spelling skills are best learned naturally and incidentally through the process of engaging in authentic writing across the school curriculum (the view held by whole language enthusiasts), or whether specific time and effort should be devoted to the direct and explicit teaching of spelling skills and strategies (Schlagal, 2002). A decade of research into children’s spelling development, together with an on-going evaluation of various teaching methods, has led to the contemporary view that a well-balanced approach to writing and spelling is one that combines the best of whole language practices with direct teaching, to ensure that all students have the maximum opportunity to become 1

proficient spellers (Graham, 2000; Hammond, 2004; Hoffman, Baumann & Afflerbach, 2000; Scott, 2000; Thibodeau, 2002). There is also clear research evidence indicating that students who are not making normal progress in spelling need additional direct teaching (Graham, Harris & Chorzempa, 2002; Jackson, Konza, Ben-Evans & Roodenrys, 2003; van Hell, Bosman & Bartelings, 2003). When such teaching is provided, particularly in the early primary grades, these children make significant gains and maintain this improvement over time.

How important is spelling? One viewpoint is represented by those educators who argue that when students write, the ideas they attempt to convey and the quality of the language they use are far more important considerations than any accuracy in spelling. It is sometimes suggested that to place too great an emphasis on accuracy in spelling may even inhibit children’s willingness to write. Under this condition most of their mental effort has to be directed toward the lower-level cognitive process of encoding each word correctly, rather than to the higher-order processes involved in generating new ideas and expressing these in an interesting written form (Huxford, McGonagle & Warren, 1997). There is a great deal of common sense in this viewpoint, particularly in the context of the writing of very young children. One would not want to impede the creative aspects of their earliest attempts at writing by forcing them to concentrate from the start on correct spelling. Too much attention to accuracy can undermine a child’s motivation to engage in writing. For example, Lowe and Walters (1991) described a twelveyear-old boy, Darren, who found it extremely difficult to begin any piece of writing because he was frightened of making a mistake. There may be many other reluctant writers like Darren in our classrooms. Their self-esteem and confidence in relation to their writing ability are often impaired due to early criticism of their work by parents, peers or teachers (Gentry & Gillet, 1993; Leary & Johncock, 1995). An alternative viewpoint considers that learning to spell accurately is extremely important and that direct teaching from an early stage is necessary in order to help students master spelling principles (Meeks, 2003). It is argued that an individual’s literacy level is often judged by others in terms of his or her ability to spell words correctly in everyday written communications, such as in letters, notes, reports and application forms. Parker (1991) has remarked: In our society, being a proficient speller is important. Good spelling is regarded as the mark of a ‘well-educated’ person, and because of this it can affect a child’s future opportunities and choices in life (p. 64).

Poor spelling can impede a student’s academic performance in a variety of ways. For example, inaccurate spelling reduces intelligibility of written work, and conveys to others the impression that the writer is either careless or 2

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

less intelligent than other students (Graham, Harris & Chorzempa, 2002; Stewart & Cegelka, 1995). This is a serious problem for students who are, for example, genuinely dyslexic. Thomson (1995) reports that in many schools, colleges and universities the written work of intelligent students with dyslexia is frequently misjudged and undervalued due to the large number of spelling errors it contains. Readers wishing to explore in more detail the different perspectives on the importance of spelling are directed to the comprehensive review articles by Graham (2000) and Schlagal (2002). If spelling is important for communication purposes, how should it be taught in schools? How can teachers balance the conflicting demands of having to aim for steady improvement in children’s spelling skills while at the same time allowing the children the freedom to take risks and to experiment in their writing? What has research had to say about normal acquisition of spelling skills, and about specific difficulties in learning to spell? What should children be taught in order to become more proficient spellers? These issues will be addressed in the following pages.

Approaches to spelling instruction Steve Graham (2000, p. 236), a well-respected expert in the complementary fields of psychology, language and learning, has remarked: Evaluation of instructional approaches to spelling, such as the ‘natural learning method’, is necessary because ineffective programs may result in arrested spelling development. Arrested spelling development in turn may constrain other aspects of literacy. The acquisition of spelling knowledge, for example, enhances reading acquisition by extending and reinforcing children’s phonemic, orthographic and morphemic knowledge.

Twenty-five years ago ‘spelling’ often appeared as a specific lesson on the timetable of most primary schools. Teachers used this time to provide the students with weekly spelling lists, often based on the new vocabulary that had emerged from the various topics and themes studied within the week, or sometimes based on specific ‘word families’ sharing common sequences of letters. The time was also used to check that the students knew the meanings of the words and could use them appropriately in sentences. A weekly test was administered on Fridays to ensure that the words had been memorised correctly by the children. In addition, children were usually required to correct the errors they made within essays and other forms of written work, and were expected to write each correction several times for additional practice. This approach had a certain appeal to it. It was systematic. Children knew what was expected of them. Teachers felt that children’s spelling needs were being efficiently addressed. Regular test results showed which children needed more assistance with spelling. Parents knew how spelling was being taught in school. Spelling: current perspectives and issues

3

The major deficiencies in such an approach included the evidence that children might memorise words from lists but often not spell them correctly when they used them later in their writing (lack of generalisation and transfer of learning: Beckham-Hungler & Williams, 2003). There was also a major problem created by providing a common spelling list for all students in the class, when clearly there was wide variation in the children’s spelling ability and achievement levels. Some teachers responded to this difference in ability by presenting more than one list, each at a different level of difficulty; but this was not common practice. The most serious limitation in the list approach was that teachers often expected children to memorise the words without having taught them any specific strategies to use when attempting to learn words. The expectation was that rote learning through repetition and practice would establish storage of specific word patterns in each child’s long-term memory. For some students such an approach was simply not successful. Templeton (2004, p. 49) is adamant that, “. . . learning to spell is not just about memorizing words, but rather understanding patterns that apply to a large number of words”. Over a period of time, this formal approach to spelling instruction fell into disrepute, mainly for the reasons given above, but also because beliefs about children’s acquisition of literacy were changing rapidly. During the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s significant shifts occurred in the general approach to literacy teaching in primary schools. There was a movement away from skills-based instruction to a more holistic and integrated approach to reading, writing and spelling. In recent years, the development of children’s literacy skills has been facilitated in junior primary and primary schools through what is termed the ‘whole language’ or ‘natural’ approach to listening, speaking, reading and writing (Goodman, 1986; Weaver, 1994). In this approach, spelling is usually dealt with almost entirely within the context of the children’s daily writing, rather than as an area of skill deserving instructional time and effort in its own right. Teaching spelling as a separate subject is frowned upon, since it is felt that such an approach decontextualises word study and does not link the importance of spelling with authentic attempts at communication. It is believed that studying words in isolation will not help the child transfer and use this knowledge when writing. In the whole language approach, the underlying belief is that children can be helped to acquire proficiency in spelling simply through engaging in a great deal of daily writing with regular constructive feedback from the teacher and from peers. Graham (2000) suggests that teachers using this so-called ‘natural approach’ believe that spelling can be ‘caught’ by immersing children in a literacy-rich environment where they have plenty of opportunities to read and write for real 4

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

purposes. Assistance in developing spelling skill is mainly directed toward each individual student, based on his or her immediate needs during a writing task. Little time (if any) is devoted to whole-class or group spelling activities. The approach is child-centred and therefore deemed by its supporters to be preferable to any form of direct teaching based upon a pre-determined spelling list or wordanalysis program. In theory, the whole language approach to spelling appears to be an excellent way to individualise instruction; but in practice it is an extremely difficult approach to implement. In classrooms containing 25 or more students it is virtually impossible to find the necessary time to devote to each individual student as he or she writes. Even if a few moments can be given to those individuals with the greatest need of assistance during a writing lesson, the depth of teaching that can occur is inevitably very superficial and may have no lasting benefit for the child (Chandler, 2000). It can also be argued that dealing only with individual words as they occur at random in a child’s writing represents a fragmented approach to spelling instruction. An essential part of understanding how words are constructed involves recognising that many words share common and predictable letter sequences. Studying word families and discussing their similarities and differences has always been an important activity in this respect. It does not make sense to leave children to acquire this vital knowledge through incidental learning from individual words taught in isolation. Increasing concern was expressed about the suitability of whole language ‘immersion’ methods for children with learning difficulties. For example, Graham and Harris (1994) remarked that attempting to learn to spell primarily through incidental learning is a highly questionable approach for students with special educational needs. They state: We believe that these whole language methods of learning to spell are not powerful enough for students who are at risk or who have learning problems . . . (and) . . . in our opinion, advocates of incidental learning in spelling are overly optimistic (p. 283).

This view is supported by van Hell, Bosman and Bartelings (2003) and Birsh (1999) who suggest that students with spelling difficulties do not learn effectively through holistic approaches to literacy, and instead require direct teaching. Students with learning difficulties do not develop an understanding of spelling generalisations simply through random experience with words. On this important issue, Gentry (2001, p. 31) writes: Most students do not ‘catch’ expert spelling from mere exposure to reading and writing. They learn it from a combination of reading, writing, and direct Spelling: current perspectives and issues

5

spelling instruction. Without direct instruction, kids won’t learn word-specific knowledge to communicate precisely and effectively.

For a while, under the influence of whole language philosophy, it seemed that teachers lost their sense of direction in the matter of children’s spelling. A leading advocate for whole language, Mem Fox (1997), queried: Why have some teachers stopped teaching things like spelling? I think they heard statements such as: “You don’t do spelling lists in whole language”, so they stopped teaching spelling altogether. It was the wrong message. We must teach spelling. We need the power of being able to spell correctly (p. 124).

Of course, not all teachers abandoned the teaching of spelling while implementing whole language approach; some continued to embed spelling and word study experiences for children, often via ‘mini lessons’ conducted within the context of a more thematic program. Some even continued with the use of spelling lists to supplement the holistic approach. The teaching and learning activities described in this book, while certainly leaning strongly toward explicit teaching and a skills-based approach, are not incompatible with whole language principles as currently interpreted. The methods advocated here simply represent a research-based approach to ensuring that all students have a fair opportunity to acquire necessary knowledge, skills, strategies and understandings to become independent spellers. Independent spellers are capable of approaching word analysis in a rational manner, and they are competent in self-monitoring and self-correction.

6

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

2

How do children acquire spelling skills?

Spelling relies on the ability to connect sounds in language with visual symbols and is an essential component of everyday functioning. Writing involves the process of transferring sounds into symbolic signs that carry meaning (Weeks, Brooks & Everatt, 2002, p. 47).

According to most experts in this field (for example, Bissex, 1980; Bryant, 2002; Gentry & Gillet, 1993; Helman, 2004; Moats, 1995; Templeton, 2003a; Zutell, 1998) learning to spell is a developmental process. Studies have indicated that spelling ability develops through a series of stages, each stage reflecting the children’s current knowledge about speech sounds (phonemes), the relationship of these sounds to letters and letter-strings (grapho-phonic knowledge), and the units of meaning within words (morphemes). The stages also reflect the extent to which children have acquired specific strategies for visualising, analysing, writing and checking words.

Developmental stages in spelling acquisition The key features of the developmental stages are presented below. It must be noted that, although age levels for typical acquisition have been suggested for each stage, these are only at best very rough approximations. A few children will pass through each stage earlier than the ages suggested here; and students with learning difficulties will be very much later in attaining mastery of the knowledge, skills and strategies typical of each stage. A few students may even leave school without having reached the final stage of independence in spelling, and may continue to have difficulties with spelling throughout their lives. It is also important to point out that a child’s rate of progress through the stages is influenced by the instruction he or she has received (Tangel & Blachman, 1995). Some children with a natural aptitude for spelling will progress quite rapidly, with little or no explicit teaching. Others will make much greater progress if explicitly taught the knowledge, skills and strategies needed to take them from one stage to the next (Graham, 2000).

Stage 1: Pre-phonemic Typical period of development: 3+ years to 5+ years. ‘Pretend writing’. The child imitates writing by copying down or inventing random strings of letters. Capital letters are used much more frequently than lower case 7

letters. The letters have no relationship to sounds within words. Often, the most commonly used letters are those found within the child’s own name, presumably because from an early age children have been exposed quite frequently to the written form of their names (Treiman, Kessler & Bourassa, 2001).

Stage 2: Early phonetic Typical period of development: 4+ years to 6+ years. The child begins to use incidentally acquired knowledge of letter names and sounds in an attempt to write words (for example, yl = while; lefnt = elephant; erpln = aeroplane; rsk = ask). Consonants are used much more consistently than vowels. The creation of invented spellings by young children is considered to be an indication that they have started to develop awareness of the internal sound structure of spoken words and how these units can be represented in print (Ehri, 1989; Silva & Alves-Martins, 2003; Tangel & Blachman, 1995). This example from the South Australian Spelling Test (see Appendix 3) shows that the child (age 9 years 11 months, with learning difficulties) is still unable to correctly identify the middle vowel sound in the words van, jam, and sit; and does not identify the final sound in lost. The child is, however, about to enter Stage 3, the phonetic stage.

Stage 3: Phonetic Typical period of development: 5+ years to 7 years. While most researchers describe this as the phonetic stage, there are actually several different sub-stages within it. In the beginning the child is making more accurate use of regular sound-symbol relationships. In doing so, most irregular words are written as if they are phonetically regular (for example, sed = said; becos = because; wos = was). The words below are fairly typical of children in the age range 6 years to 7 years attempting to spell done, fight, eye, stopped and beautiful.

[INSERT EXACTLY HERE THE SAME EXAMPLE FROM PREVIOUS EDITION, page 8] 8

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Children at this stage will still attempt to spell difficult words, some of which result in good approximations, others less so. Consider the attempt of this girl in Year 2 at writing the sentence: I saw a crocodile and in the crocodile was a ghost.

She also wrote elsewhere in her story that the crocodile had mean jaws.

As children move through this stage they become better able to identify sounds within more complex words. In the intermediate stage they may still have difficulty in discriminating certain sounds accurately enough to match them with the appropriate letter or letter cluster. This difficulty is reflected in the words they write (for example, druck = truck; grive = drive; chrane = train; sboon = spoon). They may also have difficulty in attending to and identifying all sounds within a word (for example, bow = blow; srong = strong; chrch = church). Consider this child’s attempt at writing the sentence: I saw a tall wave [and] I ran to shore:

Towards the end of the phonetic stage a few common letter-strings and morphographs (the written equivalent of a morpheme) are remembered and reproduced easily and accurately as whole units (for example, un-, -ing, -ed, -s). A few common vowel digraphs are also known (for example, -ee-, -oo-). It should be noted that the majority of students with poor spelling skills have reached this phonetic stage in their development but have not progressed beyond it. They have remained at what Templeton (2003a) refers to as a ‘phonocentric’ stage in which they rely too much on phonic cues. They need to be taught to use strategies such as visual imagery and spelling by analogy (Kirkbride & Wright, 2002) (see Chapter 4 and Chapter 5).

Stage 4: Transitional Typical period of development: 6 years to 11+ years. At this stage there is evidence that students have acquired a much more sophisticated understanding of word structure. They are becoming increasingly confident in using commonly occurring letter-strings such as -ough, -ious, -ai-, -aw- to represent sound units within words. They are also making reliable use How do children acquire spelling skills?

9

of familiar words, or parts of words, when attempting the spelling of unfamiliar words (spelling by analogy). In general, students at this stage are relying more on visual strategies rather than phonetic strategies alone to check the accuracy of what they have written. Also of help to them at this stage is their growing awareness of the way in which units of meaning (morphemes) are combined in complex words, sometimes with a particular rule needing to be applied (for example, un-happ-(y)i-ness, penalty - penalties, but monkey - monkeys). At this stage, most students who are progressing normally and engaging in a great deal of writing have stored a considerable mental ‘bank’ of correct word images. They can write almost all common words with a high degree of automaticity, and they have an increasing pool of known letter-sequences (orthographic units) from which to draw when attempting to spell unfamiliar words. Students who engage in a great deal of reading are adding significantly to this bank of word images through increased exposure to print; and conversely, students who read very little are likely to be remaining at the phonetic stage when spelling.

Stage 5: Independence Typical period of development: From 11+ years. Students at the independence stage are competent, but not necessarily perfect, spellers and may still make some errors. Note for example the two unusual spellings of went (wen’t) and the spelling of told in the following material written by a boy aged 10 years:

10

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

However, at the stage of independence most students do understand and can apply a wide range of complex grapho-phonic principles. Occasionally a word will still give the individual some difficulty; but he or she will have available for use a very wide range of strategies for checking and self-correcting words. Proofreading skills are used by the student with increasing proficiency.

Using the developmental stages for diagnostic purposes Examination of a child’s unaided writing will often help a teacher determine the overall stage of development the child has reached (Westwood, 2001; 2003). For example, a child whose work exhibits a high proportion of phonetic spellings will almost certainly benefit from being taught rather different word-attack strategies compared to a child whose errors indicate a lack of phonemic awareness. Similarly, a child who has no firm grasp of the correct spelling of certain suffixes and the rules that govern their attachment to words will need explicit teaching and practice in this area. It must be pointed out, however, that when an individual progresses beyond the beginning stage of spelling acquisition it is very common to find that his or her written work exhibits error-types typical of two or more different stages of development (O’Sullivan, 2000). This will occur, for example, when an older student is required to write about an unfamiliar topic with unique terminology. The student has had little or no prior exposure to these terms in print, and will almost certainly have to resort to a phonetic approach, spelling the words as they sound. Similar regressions can be seen in the writing of younger children, who may resort to early phonetic, or even pre-phonemic spelling, when very unfamiliar words are attempted (Moats, 1995). The box on the right reproduces some of the phonetic attempts of children in Years 4 and 5 when asked to spell the word sufficient. When seeking to determine the overall stage of development a particular student has reached in spelling it is always advisable to adopt the following approach: • examine several different samples of unaided written work covering different subject matter and produced under different conditions (for example, a short passage written from dictation; a story created by the student; notes taken from a lecture); How do children acquire spelling skills?

11

• discuss with the student the strategies he or she uses when faced with writing an unfamiliar word (Dahl et al., 2003); • observe the child as he or she writes, and again ask how the student attempted to spell the more difficult words. The book Understanding spelling by O’Sullivan and Thomas (2000), and a paper by Bryant (2002) throw additional light on children’s development of competence in spelling, and also discuss the implications for teaching. Both resources are recommended as additional reading.

Do we spell by mouth, ear, eye, hand, or brain? The answer to the question above is that we almost certainly use all of these resources and modalities on the path to becoming proficient spellers (CLPE, 2004; Westwood, 1994). The relative importance of any one of these sources of information over any other tends to relate to the child’s age and stage of development, and to the familiarity or complexity of the word being written. There is also some evidence to suggest that children may differ in their individual preference for taking either a phonetic or a visual imagery route to spelling (CLPE, 2004).

Spelling by ear and mouth Research has shown that in the early stages of learning to read and spell it is important that a child can identify the different sound units within spoken words (phonemic awareness) (Castiglioni-Spalten & Ehri, 2003; Goswami, 1992; Helman, 2004; Silva & Alves-Martins, 2003). Studies have clearly demonstrated that the ability to work with the sounds of the language is crucial to the development of proficient spelling (Brann, 1997). These phonological skills include the ability to recognise rhyme and pattern, to discriminate sameness and difference in words, to be able to analyse words into their component sounds and to synthesise or blend the sounds back into whole words again, and the ability to recall a correct sequence of sounds. As indicated above, children’s early invented spelling reflects the way in which they are beginning to notice sounds within words and are attempting to represent these sounds with appropriate letters. It is suggested that the quality of a child’s invented spelling may be a better predictor of later progress in literacy learning than tests of phonological awareness used alone (Morris, Bloodgood & Perney, 2003; Silva & Alves-Martins, 2003). At any age level, individuals will ‘spell by ear’ a word they have never seen in print. They will, however, tend to modify what they have written if the letter sequence does not ‘look correct’, given their prior experience of English orthography. Gentry (2001, p. 31) states that, “It is good practice to encourage 12

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

invented spelling and [at the same time] teach correct spelling; the two go hand in hand”. Obviously, simply identifying sounds in words provides a necessary but insufficient condition for spelling. The learner must also acquire knowledge of which letters and letter clusters represent the sounds in print – usually referred to as ‘phonic knowledge’ (Sprenger-Charolles, Siegel, Bechennec & Serniclaes, 2003). As Pumfrey and Reason (1991) point out, basic awareness of the sound– symbol relationship in English needs to be developed to a level of automaticity for fluent writing and spelling, as well as for reading. Research findings seem to indicate that a ‘synthetic phonics’ approach, in which children develop phonic skills and knowledge by blending and building words from their components sounds, is superior to an ‘analytic’ approach in which they learn phonics by deducing letter–sound correspondences within words already known by sight. Johnson and Watson (2003) report that children taught synthetic phonics in first year of primary school later show a distinct advantage in reading and spelling over children taught by analytic method. It is fairly important that children can say clearly the words they wish to write. Working out the sounds they will need to use to spell the word usually requires them to articulate the word correctly. Inaccurate pronunciation can lead to errors. For example, ‘our’ written as ‘are’ is a common error made by primary age children (‘this is are house’). Even in the case of older students with spelling difficulties, how a word is said often determines how the word will be written. If, for example, students say ‘Feb-u-ary’ it is unlikely that they will spell it as February. If they say ‘somethink’ for something, or ‘samridge’ for sandwich, that is how they are likely to spell those words. There are occasions, of course, when poor or careless speech articulation does not correlate highly with spelling ability; but speech is one possible factor to consider when searching for reasons for a particular student’s problems. Hoffman (1990) points out that children with articulation or phonological problems sometimes misspell words containing the specific sound units with which they have most difficulty. Helman (2004) highlights some of the difficulties experienced by second language learners who are attempting to spell in English. The phonology of their first language may not be identical to the phonology in English, leading to problems in accurately identifying and representing some phonemes with their correct graphemes.

Spelling by eye The most common way of checking one’s own spelling and detecting errors is to look carefully at the written word and ask oneself ‘Does this word look right?’ Writers will sometimes stop while writing simply because a word they have written doesn’t ‘look right’ on the page, and they may decide to refer to a dictionary or to the spell-checker on the computer. How do children acquire spelling skills?

13

Proficient spellers appear to make very effective use of visual information when writing words. The increasing ability to recognise commonly occurring letter strings (orthographic units), and to store mentally a bank of high-frequency words, are the two main characteristics of the ‘transition stage’ of spelling development. They represent significant steps in progress toward greater independence. Andrews and Scarratt (1996) have observed that skilled spelling reflects highly effective lexical storage and retrieval processes in memory. ‘Lexical storage’ implies that the word image, or some key feature of its letter pattern, is stored in the learner’s mental ‘word bank’ and is recognised instantly by sight and written correctly without conscious effort. As a child moves out of the phonetic stage of spelling he or she begins to rely much more on the visual characteristics of a word, and very much less on a simplistic translation from sound to symbol. Moseley (1997) confirms that good spellers eventually come to rely on visual as much as phonological skills in spelling; but he suggests that this may not occur much before the age of eleven years. Part of becoming a good speller involves internalising the visual characteristics of words through extensive experience with written language. It is important to recognise that automatic recall of correct spelling patterns is one aspect of what psychologists call an individual’s fund of ‘declarative knowledge’ (Gagne, Yekovich & Yekovich, 1993). For example, through experience and teaching the individual knows that the word house is written using that sequence of letters. He or she also knows that the spelling howse does not look right because it does not match the image of the word stored in long-term visual memory. In a later section particular attention will be given to the teaching of strategies that will help students to make more effective use of visual perception and visual imagery when spelling (see Chapter 5).

Spelling by hand Since the spelling of a word is typically produced by the physical action of writing, it is fair to assume that kinaesthetic memory may also be involved in the storage and retrieval of spelling patterns, particularly those of very high frequency words. The extremely rapid speed and high degree of automaticity with which a competent speller translates a familiar word from its meaning to its graphic representation supports the view that kinaesthetic (motor) memory is involved, at least to some extent. Peters (1974a) regards accurate spelling as being quite heavily dependent upon ‘motor habits’. The frequent action of writing may be one of the ways of establishing the stock of images of commonly occurring words and letter-strings in orthographic memory. According to Nichols (1985): Spelling is remembered best in your hand. It is the memory of your fingers moving the pencil to make a word that makes for accurate spelling (p. 3). 14

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Some researchers (for example, Cripps, 1990; Peters, 1985) have observed a connection between swift, neat handwriting and spelling ability. It cannot be inferred that good handwriting per se causes good spelling; but laboured handwriting and uncertain letter formation almost certainly inhibit the easy development of automaticity in spelling. There have been suggestions that spelling development is aided by learning joined handwriting from the beginning of school entry, rather than first learning to print each separate letter (Cripps, 1990). However, Moseley (1997) queries this practice, indicating that there is little evidence that learning joined writing helps beginning spellers to store commonly occurring letter-strings.

Spelling by brain Some writers (for example, Poulter, 2002; Roberts, 2001; Rowe & Lomas, 1996) encourage teachers and students to regard spelling as a thinking and problemsolving activity. Working out the most probable way to spell an unfamiliar word requires the child to compare and contrast the word mentally with a known word. Arriving at a good approximation of a spelling may be facilitated if the child can deduce the morphemes involved in that particular word. For example, if a student has written a book in class he or she may want a friend to write a Foreword to the text. There is a temptation to write Forward, but thinking about the meaning of the term leads the student to realise that the first part of the word implies ‘coming before’ or ‘in front of’ (fore rather than for); and that word fits the context here, rather than ward. According to Elbro and Arnbak (1996), knowledge of morphology can help with spelling. The most economical and efficient way to store spelling-patterns in the long-term memory may be by their morphemes rather than as whole-word forms. English spelling appears to be much more logical when we understand that words are made up from meaningful units (morphemes) and that word meanings can assist with spelling (Nunes & Bryant, 2004; Templeton, 2003b). Unfortunately, even older students rarely seem to use the meaning of a word as a clue to its spelling. These students benefit from being taught how to make the necessary connections between meaning and spelling, because they do not appear to discover this relationship for themselves (Chandler, 2000; Templeton & Morris, 1999). The ability to recall and apply spelling rules, or to recognise when a word is an exception to a rule, also reflects a rational and thoughtful approach to spelling. Similarly, devising some form of mnemonic to help one store and recall a particularly difficult word illustrates a creative solution to that particular problem. Darch, Soobang, Johnson and James (2000) suggest that many students with learning disability benefit from instruction that helps them understand morphemes and master basic spelling rules. Another example of reasoning applied to spelling involves making a decision about the best strategy to use to learn or check a difficult word. Students should How do children acquire spelling skills?

15

be able to look at a group of relevant thematic words and decide how best to go about the task of learning and remembering them. It is clear that most children do develop their own unique strategies for attempting to spell difficult words (Dahl et al., 2003), but some of their strategies are not effective and can contribute to ongoing problems. It is important therefore that teachers devote adequate time to helping children acquire a range of useful strategies for generating and checking the spelling of the words they need to write (Chandler, 2000). Sometimes teachers appear to be unaware of the need to help children adopt a strategic approach to spelling, and instead they focus the children’s attention on rote practice and memorisation of words in a list. The brain allows the learner to coordinate and integrate the various sources of cognitive and perceptual information that are available to help with the spelling of words. As the learner progresses through the various stages from novice to proficient speller he or she gains greater control of these sources of information, and can use each to its best advantage. ‘Connectionist’ models of proficient spelling argue a close interaction between phonological, visual, semantic, kinaesthetic and morphological knowledge (Moats, 1995; Leary & Johncock, 1995). These models also suggest that the more frequently words and letter-strings are seen and written, the more powerful they become and the more likely they are to be recalled and used appropriately.

A model of the spelling process The notion of a ‘dual coding system’ for processing and storing a variety of verbal and visual information has been suggested by Clark and Paivio (1991). In the field of spelling a dual coding system seems to be particularly relevant. A simplified model of the spelling process can illustrate how one of two different pathways may be followed according to the writer’s familiarity with a particular word (see Fig. 1 below). The dual-processing model suggests that information about the sound structure of words is stored in a mental ‘phonological information bank’, while visual information about words and letter-strings is stored separately. Very familiar words appear to be retained efficiently in the writer’s long-term visual and semantic memory store (or mental lexicon). Some researchers refer to this as the ‘visualorthographic’ memory bank (Moats, 1995). This store is accessed easily for instant retrieval of information about whole words and common letter-strings. Familiar words retrieved from this store can be written with a high degree of automaticity. To some extent, kinaesthetic memory of the writing or typing of the particular letter sequence may also support this process. On the other hand, unfamiliar words have to be processed quite differently by giving attention to the component sounds within the word, and the mapping of these sound units to probable letter 16

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

sequences (Jackson, Konza, Ben-Evans & Roodenrys, 2003). This process to some extent may be supported by morphological knowledge of the specific meaning of parts of words. Proficient spellers draw easily and appropriately on both banks of knowledge as they write. The most commonly written words require no mental effort for their retrieval. More conscious effort has to be devoted to writing complex and less frequently used words. In both cases, however, the writer appears to process the word visually as it is written, to check that it ‘looks right’.

Familiar word ‘dog’

Write word ‘dog’

Kinaesthetic Memory Check visual image

Product ‘dog’ ‘engram’

Morphemic Knowledge

Unfamiliar word ‘engram’

Phonological Processor Identify sounds and syllables

Phonic Knowledge Translate sounds to letters or letter clusters

Write word ‘engram’

Source: adapted from Jorm 1983; Ellis 1984; Adams 1990; Westwood 1994

Mental Lexicon Immediate recall of letter sequence d-o-g

Figure 1: Theoretical model of the spelling process

The link between reading and spelling According to Graham, Harris and Chorzempa (2002) some experts in the literacy field believe the relationship between reading and spelling is very close, and that learning about spelling enhances reading ability. They state: Knowledge of the alphabetic principle and decoding are presumably strengthened when children analyse the connection between the letters and sounds in words, attempt to spell unknown words phonetically, and are taught that specific letters stand for particular sounds. Finally knowledge of the spelling system provides schemata that should help children make sense of the words they read, making them easier to remember (Graham, Harris & Chorzempa, 2002, p. 670).

In support of the notion that processes of reading and spelling are connected, there is some evidence available to suggest that explicit instruction in spelling How do children acquire spelling skills?

17

has a beneficial impact on children’s reading in the early years of schooling (Berninger et al., 1998). For this reason, most intensive remedial reading intervention programs include systematic training in spelling and word study, as well as activities to improve word recognition, fluency and comprehension. Other experts are less certain that reading and spelling are closely related, instead suggesting that reading (decoding) is a rather separate process from spelling (encoding), although drawing on some of the same underlying knowledge and skills. For example, Bradley (1983) suggests that reading, as a cognitive process, is generally easier than spelling. In reading, one can use contextual information to aid word recognition. Spelling differs from reading in that it requires accurate retrieval and reproduction of sequences of letters that cannot be guessed from context (semantic cues) or from sentence structure (syntactical cues) (Reason & Boote, 1994; Peters, 1974b). It is probable that the links between spelling skills and reading are strongest when a learner is attempting to decode an isolated word with no supporting context (Zutell, 1998). In this case attention has to be given to translating letter patterns to sounds. According to Clarke-Klein (1994) while reading and spelling skills do interrelate, they tend to function independently of one another, particularly in the early years of learning. For example, some of the work of Bryant and Bradley (for example, 1980) indicates that six-year-old children appear to approach the processes of reading and spelling quite differently. When reading, they tend to use visual and contextual information; but for spelling they use phonological information. For most learners, increasing experience with print and writing diminishes this difference over time; and as children become more proficient with reading and writing, they make more effective and integrated use of visual, phonological and contextual information. By the age of eight years the correlation between spelling ability and reading achievement is in the order of .89 to .92, suggesting a very close (but not perfect) association between the two processes (Westwood, 1973). The correlation never becomes perfect – even as adults most of us can quite easily read words that we possibly cannot spell correctly. Spelling ability was once considered merely to be a by-product of reading experience. It was thought that as children steadily built a stock of words known instantly by sight, and as they acquired phonic decoding skills for reading, they would simultaneously be able to write and spell words. This has been shown not to be the case; spelling and reading are not simply the same process employed in reverse. We know that not all good readers are necessarily good spellers. Good readers who are poor spellers seem to prefer using the meaning of what they are reading, together with partial letter cues (for example, initial letter, or word-ending), to identify words rapidly as they read. They may pay less attention to processing orthographic patterns occurring within and across the words (CLPE, 2004).

18

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Although children do not learn to spell simply by engaging in reading (Dougherty & Clayton, 1998) most children do spontaneously begin to notice and store frequently occurring words and letter-strings the more they read. Moats (1995) suggests that they will be helped to do this most rapidly and successfully when letter sequences are pointed out to them and discussed; and when they engage in activities requiring this information to be recalled and used when writing. Researchers concerned with spelling development suggest that children, in addition to learning informally how to spell through reading and writing, need to explore English spelling by investigating how words are constructed (Bryant, 2002; Fox, 1997; Marten & Graves, 2003). According to Bouffler (1997), learning to spell involves the integration of a considerable amount of knowledge (phonemic, grapho-phonic, morphemic, semantic and syntactic) gleaned from all aspects of language, both written and oral. It is unrealistic to assume that all learners will acquire this important knowledge base incidentally, simply by engaging in reading activities; and it appears that poor readers are the least likely to improve their spelling ability simply by doing more reading. Graham (2000, p. 244) sums up the situation thus: Poor spellers are not very adept at picking up the spelling of uninstructed words or acquiring new spellings through reading. Transfer effects from reading instruction to spelling are also quite limited for poor readers, and the spelling progress of students with special needs in whole language or process writing classes (programs compatible with the natural learning approach) is relatively limited.

How do children acquire spelling skills?

19

This page intentionally left blank

3

Individual differences among spellers

The ability to spell well is not a measure of intelligence, nor does its lack of automaticity reflect laziness or carelessness (Chandler, 2000, p. 89).

Learners appear to fall into one of three categories in relation to acquisition of spelling ability (Westwood, 2003). The first category comprises those who seem almost to have a natural aptitude for language and easily accomplish the task of learning to spell in the same effortless way that they learned to speak, listen and read. It is difficult to place a figure on the percentage of students falling into this category; but unfortunately it is not large. The second, much larger group comprises those students who have no major problems in getting under way with spelling, but who benefit considerably from some degree of regular explicit teaching of word-study strategies appropriate to their level of development. Given this guidance, their progress through the various stages from beginner to independence is more likely to be smooth. The last group comprises those students who appear to find the task of spelling incredibly difficult, and who become frustrated by their inability to write correctly the words they can so easily use in speech. The on-going experience of failure can make these students vulnerable to stress, often resulting in ego-defensive and avoidance-type behaviours that further undermine confidence and motivation (Poskiparta, Niemi, Lepola, Ahtola & Laine, 2003). Students in this group are not necessarily of low intelligence; a few may be highly intelligent. Educational psychologists might label some of these students as ‘learning disabled’ or ‘dyslexic’. They only know as much of the process of spelling as they have been directly taught. Graham, Harris and Loynachan (1996) indicate that these students require much more extensive, structured and explicit teaching than is necessary for their peers.

Good spellers Apart from their obvious accuracy and confidence when spelling words, what are the typical characteristics of ‘good’ spellers? It is important to ask this question, as the answers may help to indicate what less-proficient spellers need to be taught. Good spellers appear to have developed strategies for recognising sound sequences in words, grapho-phonic relationships, and visual patterns. They use 21

phonetic, visual and morphemic information in flexible and integrated ways to help them write the words they want to use (Dahl et al., 2003). They also have a good knowledge of word meanings. Good spellers also develop an attitude of self-monitoring; they take responsibility for their own learning and they check for errors (Leary & Johncock, 1995). According to Butyniec-Thomas and Woloshyn (1997), competent spellers possess a repertoire of effective spelling strategies, such as visual imagery and the use of analogy, and can apply them appropriately. Moats (1995) agrees and suggests that: Good spellers are those who have learned to attend to several levels of word structure – sounds, syllables, and meaningful parts – as well as orthographic conventions for representing them (p. 48).

In addition to the points above, proficient spellers also develop a range of mnemonic strategies (memory joggers) to apply when learning particularly difficult and irregular words. They are also skilled in using appropriate resources to check the spelling of specific words (for example, dictionaries, wall charts, vocabulary lists, computer spell-checkers). From an early age good spellers may show a genuine interest in, and curiosity about, words. They ask what specific words mean when they hear them and when they encounter them in books or in the wider print environment. When they write they are willing to take risks, and rather than use a simple word in place of a more complex word, they will attempt the more difficult one and check it later. It must be pointed out that proficient spellers are not always careful spellers; sometimes their ideas and the speed with which they want to record them take priority over accuracy. Good spellers still need to be taught effective strategies for proofreading their own work (see Chapter 5).

Average spellers The majority of the population falls within this category. For most purposes of communication individuals in this group produce accurate spelling. They have progressed steadily through the stages of spelling acquisition, although they may still exhibit characteristics of an earlier stage when writing very unfamiliar words. They have a significant bank of words they can recall and spell correctly from memory; and most importantly, they tend to know when they need to check the spelling of a word they have just written. Average spellers may have a somewhat more restricted range of spelling strategies to call upon when compared with very good spellers. The support required by the average speller often needs to focus on increasing the individual’s repertoire of strategies for learning and recalling words, and on improving proofreading and self-correcting skills. Sometimes it is necessary to help students 22

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

identify, and then remedy, any specific and persistent errors that occur within their written work.

Poor spellers The weaknesses evident in the spelling of students with learning difficulties and learning disabilities may be related to underlying problems with language, memory, phonological awareness, visual processing and inefficient learning strategies (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin, 1995). On the other hand, poor spelling skills may be indicative of inadequate or insufficient instruction. In a few cases, the problems may be due to a combination of these two factors, with a student’s underlying cognitive processing difficulties being exacerbated by teaching methods that take no account of them. For example, approaches to literacy instruction that do not explicitly teach phonological processing skills place some students at risk of failure. Methods that do not provide for adequate practice and overlearning in spelling also disadvantage some students (Graham, Harris & Chorzempa, 2002). Within the context of whole language classrooms Bean (1998) reminds teachers that they need to provide abundant opportunities for writing with feedback to occur to ensure that children’s spelling skills are being advanced. She advocates daily writing, with the amount of support and direction given to students being determined by careful assessment of each individual’s special needs. It was pointed out earlier that phonological awareness is an essential prerequisite for reading and spelling (Chan & Dally, 2000; Dougherty & Clayton, 1998). According to Weeks, Brooks and Everatt (2002), the act of spelling is to a large degree a phonological translation task. Many students with spelling difficulties show poorly developed phonological analysis skills (Goswami, 1992; Lyon, Fletcher & Barnes, 2003). This is particularly true in the case of dyslexic students. Read and Hodges (1982) report several studies indicating that poor spellers, particularly those assessed as dyslexic, have problems in segmenting spoken words into separate units of sound. These students also appear to be particularly insensitive to the connection between letter patterns and the sound units they represent in words; or put more directly, they have particular difficulty in learning basic phonic skills. Intervention for such students should aim to help establish the connection between sound units and letter-strings (for example, str-, pre-, -ent). Studying families of words sharing common letter sequences is particularly useful for this purpose (Varnhagen, C., Varnhagen, S. & Das, 1992; Joseph, 2002; Peters, 1985). Dyslexic children and others with spelling problems need to be taught to identify similar letter-strings within different words. According to Gunning (2004), instant recognition of these letter-strings also facilitates rapid progress in reading. Individual differences among spellers

23

Accurate identification of the sounds at the ends of words appears to be particularly difficult for some dyslexic students. They are reported to have major problems with identifying endings such as -ed, -ent, -er, -ly, -ally, -ous, -ent (Moats, 1995). Persistent failure to spell word-endings (suffixes) also suggests a lack of morphemic knowledge. Elbro and Arnbak (1996) quote research indicating that young adults who are very poor spellers also tend to have poor awareness of morphemic principles. Dixon (1991) suggests that too little instruction is given in both phonemic and morphemic aspects of word study, compared with the attention given to purely visual memory approaches to spelling. Learning is much more likely to generalise to other words when phonemic and morphemic information is combined with visual information. Some writers have suggested that the spelling errors made by dyslexic students are qualitatively different from those made by other students with learning difficulties. The errors they make are often referred to as ‘bizarre’ in that there is little connection between the letters they write and the sound units within the word (Thomson, 1995). Others have argued that the dyslexic student’s errors are simply typical of an earlier stage on the developmental spelling continuum, in this case the pre-phonemic stage (Padget, Knight & Sawyer, 1996). Similarly, Mather and Roberts (1995) suggest that the onset of spelling difficulty in any individual is indicative of arrested progress through one of the stages in spelling development. If this is the case, then instruction for the individual needs to be linked carefully with that particular developmental stage (Invernizzi & Hayes, 2004) (see also Chapter 5). Problems will be exacerbated if a child is required to attempt to learn strategies beyond his or her current stage of development. As Ralston and Robinson (1997) indicate, the most effective spelling intervention for a student is one that takes into account the individual’s current knowledge, skills, strategies and metacognitive processes. When training in phonemic awareness is provided, spelling skills generally improve, at least toward a higher level within the phonetic stage of development (Silva & Alves-Martins, 2003). Studies have tended to show that where students with literacy problems improve over time they are beginning to make better use of phonological strategies for both reading and spelling (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Waring, Prior, Sanson & Smart, 1996). Problems with phonological analysis, and with the use of grapho-phonic information, are not the only causes of spelling difficulty. These problems apply most to young students and to older students with dyslexia. A significant number of students with general learning difficulties have progressed to the phonetic stage of spelling, but then appear to remain there, unable to switch easily to the application of visual imagery and 24

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

other strategies that would enable them to move to the next stage (Templeton, 2003a). Some poor spellers seem unable to conjure up a word image from their visual-orthographic memory, so they remain overly dependent on sound and spelling ‘by ear’ (Moats, 1995). The poorest performers seem to have a very restricted range of strategies to use when spelling, and their foremost need is to be taught other ways of writing and checking words. For such students, simply dealing incidentally with spelling as a minor aspect of writing activity is not enough. They need direct teaching of a wide range of effective strategies (Bissaker, 1999; Graham, Harris & Chorzempa, 2002; Ralston & Robinson, 1997). Moats (1995) cites research to indicate that children do benefit from explicit teaching of word study and spelling strategies. There is wide agreement that instruction in spelling for students with learning difficulties, while linked closely with writing for authentic purposes, needs also to be intense, direct, systematic and regular (Graham, 2000; Graham & Harris, 1994; van Hell, Bosman & Bartelings, 2003; Mather & Roberts, 1995). It must also be instruction that promotes full knowledge of the spelling system and how it operates.

Helping students with learning difficulties: what has research shown? Can poor spellers become better spellers? This is an important question. Moats (1995) has reached the conclusion that: Spelling improvement can be brought about in poor spellers if proper instruction is carried out systematically over a long period of time, and the spelling instruction is tailored to match the developmental level of the student’s word knowledge (p. 89).

Many studies relating to the teaching of spelling have been carried out over the years, often with a particular focus on students with learning difficulties. Some of the most relevant studies have been reviewed by Gordon, Vaughn and Schumm (1993), Graham (2000), McNaughton, Hughes and Clark (1994), Fulk and Stormont-Spurgin (1995) and Moats (1995). Among the most important conclusions emerging from these reviews are the following. For students with learning difficulties in spelling: • Limit the study of words in one session; three words a day appears to bring the best rate of learning and retention. • Early instruction should focus on high-frequency words and ‘easy’ words children have misspelled in their own writing. • Use of different and multisensory response modes can be motivating and can aid assimilation (for example, writing, tracing, copying using pens of different colour, using plastic letters, keyboarding). Individual differences among spellers

25

• Some children require many opportunities to write a word correctly before they can store it in long-term memory. • For some students, particularly in secondary school, having them name the letters (not give the sounds) as they write them at the learning stage is helpful. • Error imitation, modelling of correct response together with discussion of the differences usually results in improvement (see also Old Way – New Way method in Chapter 5). • Use of computer programs can develop positive attitudes toward drill and practice. • A few students with poor levels of motivation and confidence may require extrinsic reinforcers to be used at first (for example, stamps, tokens). • Peer tutoring and paired learning can be beneficial. • Teaching students strategies for self-monitoring is essential. • Frequent revision and periodic re-testing are vital. Important principles for teaching spelling to all children will be presented in the next chapter. Additional strategies for supporting students with learning difficulties will be discussed in Chapter 5.

26

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

4

Teaching: general principles and approaches

Good spellers really know how words are structured (Hodges, in Pappano, 2004, p. 2)

In a study of children learning to spell in early primary school, O’Sullivan (2000) found that teachers varied a very great deal in their approaches to teaching spelling. She identified at one end of the scale teachers she described as taking a concerned yet non-interventionist approach, while at the other end of the scale there were teachers who took a very formal approach using graded word lists and regular testing. O’Sullivan (2000, p. 11) concluded that: [Effective teachers] actively involved children in thinking about spelling, discussed issues in relation to spelling, and actively demonstrated approaches to learning to spell.

Redfern (1993) suggested some basic principles to guide any approach to spelling instruction in the classroom. They include: • building in children positive attitudes toward spelling; • promoting their on-going interest in words and language; • teaching strategies for learning to spell and check words. Graham, Harn’s and Loynachan, (1996) also stress the vital importance of teaching children strategies for spelling, but indicate that an effective spelling program must also involve three other components: • frequent reading and writing; • the direct teaching of high-frequency words; • active involvement in comparing and contrasting words according to patterns and structures (word study). Some of these basic principles will be discussed in more detail in this section.

Developing positive attitude and interest The teacher has an essential role to play in raising children’s interest in words and in influencing their attitude toward spelling (CLPE, 2004; O’Sullivan, 2000; Poulter, 2002; Roberts, 2001). Attitudes are acquired almost entirely by observation of the behaviour and reactions of others and cannot be ‘taught’ directly. 27

If teachers are interested in, and enthusiastic about words, this enthusiasm is conveyed indirectly to children, and they are likely to become more interested. There is a need, from the very start, to build a positive and supportive classroom environment where children are encouraged to take risks and experiment with their writing. Teachers need to show genuine interest in children’s attempts at spelling unfamiliar words, and descriptive feedback given to children should be positive and helpful, not critical in a way that undermines confidence.

Strategy training Students with learning difficulties are characterised mostly by their lack of a strategic or thoughtful approach to spelling. They appear so preoccupied and overwhelmed by the mechanics of writing sentences that they never progress far toward developing appropriate word-attack skills and self-help strategies (Darch, Soobang, Johnson & James, 2000). These students do, however, appear to benefit if taught effective ways of thinking about and analysing the words they want to use. There can be no doubt that improvement in spelling can be achieved when students are taught more about how to learn words, and how to check the spelling of words they have attempted (Butyniec-Thomas & Woloshyn, 1997; Dahl et al., 2003; Maki, Vauras & Vainio, 2002). Effective instruction in spelling involves not only teaching knowledge about words (phonemic, grapho-phonic and morphemic), but also teaching specific strategies to enable students to approach the task of spelling an unfamiliar word, or checking the spelling of a word, with a systematic plan of action (Ralston & Robinson, 1997; Snowball, 1997a). Strategies are usually taught most effectively when the teacher models how he or she approaches the same task of spelling or checking a word. ‘Thinking aloud’ is the standard way of showing students how they might apply a strategy. After demonstration, the students then need to have an opportunity to apply the strategy themselves with guidance and feedback from the teacher. Such strategies usually involve teaching the student to ask himself or herself a series of questions. For example: • Do I know this word? • How many syllables can I hear? • Do I know any other words that sound almost the same? • How are those words written? • Does this word I have written look right? • I’ll try it again. • Does this look better? During the primary school years children can be taught simple ‘self-talk’ strategies to apply when making discoveries about words. One example is the 28

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

use of the Talk to Yourself Chart (Gaskins et al., 1997a; 1997b). The chart teaches a six-step procedure for studying a target word: • The word is . . . • Stretch the word . . . I hear the sounds . . . • I see . . . letters • The spelling pattern is . . . • The vowel says . . . • Another word like . . . is . . . Dahl and her associates (2003) carried out an interesting study to investigate the spelling strategies used spontaneously by children in the age range from kindergarten through Grade 6. They suggest that children tend to use five main strategies: • Visualising: Remembering the appearance of words; picturing the word in the mind; writing two or more alternative spellings and choosing the one that looks correct. • Making connections: Spelling words by analogy; drawing on knowledge of word families; identifying component letter patterns; recognising syllables. • Attending to sounds: Sounding out the target word; identifying onset-rimes; using syllables. • Reflecting: Verifying the spelling of the word by self-checking, self-correction, use of dictionary, list, or computer spell-checker. • Combining information: Using several cues together; applying several of the above strategies. Dahl et al. (2003) reported that the range of strategies the children use increases with age and experience. Proficient spellers tend to combine information from multiple sources and use strategies in a flexible manner. Less competent spellers are more limited in their choice of strategies. These researchers conclude that teachers need to observe closely the strategies their children are using at this moment, so that the classroom program can help them refine these strategies and add others to their repertoire. Some small-scale exploratory work by Weeks, Brooks and Everatt (2002) suggests that, in the case of children with learning difficulties, it may also be important to target a student’s particular cognitive and perceptual strengths (visual or auditory) when selecting the strategies to emphasize. A study of students in Year 5 by Ralston and Robinson (1997) identified nineteen possible strategies that spellers might use. They stated that spelling accuracy is enhanced when several strategies for generating and checking words are applied in combination. Salend (1994) and Dahl et al. (2003) hold a similar view, and suggest that skills and strategies are more powerful when used together. The study by Ralston and Robinson also indicated that the students most

Teaching: general principles and approaches

29

frequently used only the strategies they had been specifically taught (mainly grapho-phonic cues and visual recall), but some had also devised other strategies of their own. The writers comment that if students were to be taught explicitly to use a greater variety of spelling strategies they might use them more effectively and selectively when they write. The general evidence from this study seems to suggest that teachers themselves are not well acquainted with a broad range of spelling strategies. This message has important implications for reviewing the content of language arts methodology programs in teacher education courses. Are our teachers in training being taught enough about how to teach spelling?

A general-purpose strategy Graham and Freeman (1985) and Fulk (1996) have used the following five-step strategy very successfully with learning disabled students. It has wide applicability, including use with adults. The strategy is particularly helpful when attempting to learn a word that does not conform to phonemic or morphemic principles (for example, a word imported from a foreign language). Having selected a target word for study: • Say the word. • Write and say the word. • Check the spelling. • Trace and say the word. • Write the word from memory and check it.

Investigative approach to spelling As indicated earlier, some experts believe that we should regard spelling as a problem-solving process (for example, Chandler, 2000; Roberts, 2001). The investigative approach recognises this and treats spelling as an activity in which the learner must discover orthographic features of words and deduce any rules that may be governing them. Many of the ‘compare and contrast’ aspects of Word Sorts, Word Families and Directed Spelling Thinking Activity (see below) can be utilised within such an investigative approach. One of the main aims of investigative activities is to arouse children’s interest in words and help them find useful relationships among words. The bank of words may come from any area of the curriculum, or from brainstorming with the class. Children are then encouraged to find patterns within words and to use these particular letter-strings to work out unknown vocabulary or generate additional words. Poulter’s (2002) approach encourages active word study across school subject areas and involves whole-class activities (such as brainstorming), pair activities, and a weekly test on words the children have studied. Poulter (2002, p. 11) explains the rationale in these terms: 30

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

An investigative and problem-solving approach helps pupils become more confident about unknown words. They realise that the English language has some rules that are useful and many that are broken. Perhaps more importantly, children become interested in words, more enthusiastic about the vocabulary they encounter in all areas of life, and more prepared to have a go at spelling them.

Word study Studying the structure and composition of words is (or should be) an essential component of all effective classroom approaches to spelling. As Templeton (1992) has observed: Spelling knowledge grows out of and supports reading, writing and vocabulary study. It also grows out of examining words in and of themselves [emphasis added] (p. 455).

The type of word study undertaken with any individual student or group of students should reflect an awareness of the stage of development they have reached (Invernizzi & Hayes, 2004; Templeton, 2003b; Yetter, 2001). With beginning spellers, the focus may be at the phonemic awareness stage, with the analysis of simple spoken words into sound patterns. For example, drawing the children’s attention to the way in which we can ‘stretch out’ a word as we say it, and hear the sounds more clearly: S - a - m; t - o - p; sh - o - p. The work of Silva and Alves-Martins (2003) with preschool children suggests that phonological training activities do help to move the children from the pre-phonetic to the phonetic stage of spelling development. Games can be played to help young children develop the ability to identify what is termed the onset and rime characteristics of single syllable words (onset = the first sound unit heard in the word; rime = the vowel and all letters following it: e.g. track: /tr/ [onset] /- ack/ [rime]). Activities to help children blend sounds to make words can also be used: ‘I spy with my little eye a /cl/-/o/-/ck/. What can I see?’ At this stage early spelling is being directly related to phonemic awareness training. At the same time the children will need to be taught explicitly how to map the sounds they hear in words to particular letters and letter clusters (Johnson & Watson, 2003). At first this will usually involve single letters, followed by commonly occurring digraphs (for example, sh, ch, th, ck) and consonant blends (for example, bl, tr, cr, st, pr). At this stage, some children will also begin to recognise and store certain phonemically irregular but highfrequency words which they will need to remember and write without reference to sound cues (for example, the, all, are, one) (see Appendix 2). When spellers are already operating successfully within the phonetic stage of development, attention will need to be devoted to analysing words with slightly Teaching: general principles and approaches

31

more complex structures, and also to helping the students attend more carefully to key visual features of particularly difficult words. In order to move from the phonetic stage to the transition stage, students will need to make more effective use of visual imagery. Additional advice on improving visual strategies for spelling is provided in Chapter 5. As they move from the phonetic to the transitional stage, spellers also need to make more effective use of knowledge of letter-strings representing more complex sound units within words (for example, -ight, -ous, -ough). Coltheart and Leahy (1996) suggest that children need a great deal of experience with basic grapho-phonic decoding of unfamiliar words before they can easily use these larger orthographic units (letter-strings) for more rapid and automatic word recognition and spelling. Similarly, spelling by analogy becomes easier as the child gets older and more experienced with word forms and can better hold important letter-strings in mind (Kirkbride & Wright, 2002). It is at this stage that attention also needs to be given to the mastery of some of the variations in vowel sounds. Children need to consider vowels used in combination with other letters (for example, -ar, -aw, -ie-, -ea-). The section titled ‘Learning to manage the vowel system’ in the book by Rowe and Lomas (1996) is particularly helpful at this stage. Also of great value are the activities embedded in the Grapheme Word Chart and Phoneme-Grapheme Big Book provided as part of the Teaching Handwriting, Reading and Spelling Skills (THRASS) program (Davies & Ritchie, 2004). At the transition stage students need to be helped to make efficient use of the strategy of spelling by analogy (Kirkbride & Wright, 2002). They need to discuss how knowledge of one word can help to predict the spelling of another word. Much of the content of spelling instruction will focus on recognition of commonly occurring letter-strings, including prefixes and suffixes. To assist with spelling at this stage students need to be taught basic morphemic principles (for example, how the word try becomes tried and tries; or how the word study becomes studied). There is good evidence to support the belief that students with learning difficulties can benefit greatly from rule-based spelling programs of this type (Darch, Soobang, Johnson & James, 2000). Given that many teachers are themselves not particularly confident in dealing with this aspect of written language (Templeton & Morris, 1999), reference to Dixon and Engelmann’s (1976) Spelling through Morphographs can be extremely helpful. To aid word study, Gaskins et al. (1997b) developed a program in which students were instructed (through direct teaching and modelling) how to analyse and segment target words and how to match these sound units to letter-strings. Students were also taught to use words they already knew to decode and encode words that were unfamiliar. The authors stated that: We realized that word-learning efficiency could be improved by teaching students procedures for learning words in a fully analysed way, rather than expecting them to figure out the spelling system on their own (p. 326). 32

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Graham, Harris and Loynachan (1996) are in full agreement with this perspective and suggest that an important component in any effective spelling program is helping students learn how to recognise and take advantage of the regularities and patterns underlying English spelling. For example, instructing Grade 2 children in the use of common rimes (-ent, -ate, -at, etc.) within the context of a whole-language approach has been found to result in improved spelling (Brown, Sinatra & Wagstaff, 1996). As students become increasingly aware of spelling patterns and their applications they can better predict the structure of unknown words. When they become familiar with meaningful units such as prefixes and suffixes, as well as root words, their grasp of word structure expands. Cunningham (1998) has recommended using lists of multisyllabic words, such as impossible, impatient, and improper to help students at the transitional stage of development identify and master common spelling patterns based on units of meaning or on phonic principles. The results of a training study by Kirkbride and Wright (2002) give good support to the belief that children’s spelling ability can be improved if they are taught explicitly how to make use of analogy. Zutell (1998) has suggested that when students operate with groups of letters rather than single letters, English spelling is more consistent than it at first appears when analysed in terms of single letter-to-sound correspondences. At the level of the individual letter English orthography is highly variable, but this variability is reduced when children begin to process clusters of letters (orthographic units). Studies indicate that sound units in words are represented predictably by specific letters or clusters of letters at least 80 per cent of the time. The English spelling system is then not as chaotic as many would have us believe (Bouffler, 1997; Kessler & Treiman, 2003; Nunes & Bryant, 2004). Templeton (2004, p. 48) remarks: . . . teachers must step away from the expectation that English spelling is highly irregular because it doesn’t represent sounds in a consistent manner. English is more consistent in representing sound than is often realized, but it also represents meaning quite consistently through its consistent spelling of prefixes, suffixes and most base words and Latin and Greek root words.

Additional information on word study will be found under the sections on Word Families and Word Sorts (below) and the Directed Spelling Thinking Activity (Chapter 5).

Word Families This is perhaps the most traditional way of helping children recognise the similarities among words, and has much to commend it (Gunning, 1995; Teaching: general principles and approaches

33

Johnston, 1999). A word family could be based on a number of different criteria. For example: • A rhyming sound pattern represented by simple letter-to-sound correspondences (for example, man, van, pan, fan, can, ran, tan). • A sound pattern represented by a long vowel, rather than a short vowel unit (for example, bind, find, kind, mind, wind, hind; or fame, game, lame, name, same, tame, flame, frame). • A sound pattern based on a particular letter-string (for example, right, tight, might, light, fight, sight, flight, bright). • Words containing the same letter-string but with less predictable pronunciation (for example, bomb, comb, tomb). • Words containing silent letters (for example, scent, climb, knee, wrap, gnaw, debt). Snowball (1997c) recommends Word Families to help build the child’s knowledge of base words and their associated prefixes, suffixes, derivatives, and compound words. For example: play, plays, played, playing, playful, playfully, replay, replays, replayed, replaying, player, playtime, playground. The important principle to stress here is that word families are an essential part of helping children understand word structures, but they should always be linked with the children’s reading and writing needs (Bean, 1998). If this does not occur there is a danger that the ‘families’ become a ‘spelling program’ in their own right, with little likelihood that learning from them will generalise to the children’s writing. One way of preventing this is to use words from the children’s writing as the starting point in order to generate a specific word family for study.

Word Sorts Word Sorting is an activity designed to stimulate students’ critical thinking. The words to be studied and compared are provided on cards. For example at a fairly simple level: back, sock, black, suck, pluck, truck, lock, rack, kick, track, trick, block, brick, lick, rock, sack, and pack. The students are asked, ‘What is the same about these words?’ The response might be that they all end in ck. The words can, however, be categorised in other ways. The students are helped to sort the word cards into categories using longer letter-strings. At higher levels the students might be working with -ation words, for example, presentation, invitation, station and relation. They might be studying the way in which vowels sounds are frequently modified by the consonant that follows them. In relation to this type of activity, Invernizzi, Abouzeid and Gill (1994) comment: Students must have the opportunity to examine, manipulate, and make decisions about words according to categories of similarities and differences. It is up to teachers to direct students’ attention to a particular contrast and 34

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

to create tasks that require students to do so (p. 166).

The use of Word Sorts is strongly supported by Zutell (1998), Joseph (2002), and Joseph and McCachran (2003) as a valuable means of helping children recognise important letter patterns in and across words. Zutell states that middle primary school students introduced to Word Sorts showed positive changes in their spelling strategies, were enthusiastic about engaging in the activity, and indicated improved ability to use information about letter patterns to edit their own writing. Templeton (2003b), Bhattacharya and Ehri (2004) and Chandler (2000) suggest that comparing and contrasting words helps older students discover basic spelling rules. For example, comparing ‘tapped’ and ‘hopped’ with ‘taped’ and ‘hoped’ enables students to recognise the principle of doubling the consonant in certain words. Selection of the actual words for study should be made relative to the students’ developmental spelling stage. For students with learning difficulties it is important to begin with easy, straightforward Word Sorts in which the students can quickly experience high levels of success. The cognitive demands of the activity can be increased slowly over time.

Allocating time for word study There are many ways in which activities for word analysis can be embedded within the total literacy program. The most common approach is for the teacher to set aside a brief period of time on several occasions in each week to focus on interesting words from the children’s own writing, or words that are related to some of the subjects and themes studied within the curriculum (Chandler, 2000; Yetter, 2001). These brief word study sessions are often referred to as ‘mini lessons’. Fox (1997) described how she uses mini lessons and games to integrate word study activities within her program. She causes children to focus on, and take interest in, the ways in which words are constructed from particular letterstrings, such as -ough or -tion, or, for example, how the consonant digraph ck is often used to end words but never to begin them. The content for her word study is taken from vocabulary used in the children’s own reading and writing, not from predetermined lists. Her approach to embedding explicit spelling instruction within her whole language program is fully supported by Bouffler (1997) who indicates that spelling instruction would never have been abandoned within whole language classrooms if teachers had really understood the philosophy behind the approach. Other writers (for example, Davies & Ritchie, 2004; Graham, 2000; Hammond, 2004; McCoy, 1995; Westwood, 2003) advocate a rather more formal allocation of time for specific instruction in phonics and spelling in the early primary school years, particularly for those students who are experiencing difficulties in learning. Gentry (2001) advises using at least 15 minutes of language arts time for word study and spelling. This specific time allocation does not replace, but rather Teaching: general principles and approaches

35

complements, the attention given to spelling and word study within all writing lessons across the curriculum. To do justice to programs specifically designed to increase spelling skills, adequate time must be made available in the school day. Most of these programs completely lose their impact and benefits if they are implemented piecemeal. Examples of such programs include Spelling Mastery (Dixon & Engelmann, 1990), Spelling through Morphographs (Dixon & Engelmann, 1976), THRASS (Davies & Ritchie, 2004), and structured curricula such as the CASL Spelling Program (Graham, Harris & Chorzempa, 2003). Where programs of this type are used with whole classes, groups or individuals, it is essential that teachers do everything they can to ensure that the spelling principles studied within the program are also applied by the students when they write and edit their general classroom work. Teachers should anticipate the difficulty many students have in generalising important information studied in one context to another. Every opportunity must be taken to discuss with students how various principles and rules can be used in different writing contexts. Frequent review of these principles will also be a feature of an effective program of instruction (Vaughn, Bos & Schumm, 1997).

Spelling lists It was remarked earlier that in some classrooms the use of spelling lists has become much less popular in recent years. Some teachers feel that the use of such lists may lead to a return to isolated word drills and rote memorisation, culminating in a weekly test. They believe that words studied in this way are soon forgotten. Not all teachers agree with this perspective, and some find value in using lists for specific purposes (for example, Beckham-Hungler & Williams, 2003; Hammond, 2004; Scott, 2000). The use of word lists can be defended on many counts. For example, the use of high-frequency word lists is fully justified. Snowball (1997b) points out that the one hundred most frequently used words make up about half the written English language. Learning to spell these words correctly and automatically is therefore a high priority for all students. Mastery of the most commonly occurring words is of particular importance for students with learning difficulties because these are indeed the words they use in their writing. If priority is given to learning this relatively small core of words the students will make fewer errors in their writing and will find the task less daunting. Mastering the list of high frequency words yields high returns for the student (Graham, Harris & Loynachan, 1996). Useful word-frequency lists can be found in Graham, Harris and Loynachan (1994) (The Spelling for Writing List), Roberts (2001) (‘The 400 36

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

most frequently used words’ in her book Spelling Recovery); and Leech, Rayson and Wilson, (2001) (Word frequencies in written and spoken English). (See also Appendix 2.) In order to carry out the word study described in several of the activities above (particularly word families) it is obvious that to have lists of words illustrating specific sound-to-spelling patterns, or depicting particular morphemic principles, is of great value. While there is some merit in learning the individual words in a particular list, the real value comes from learning how to learn words. For example, children should be helped, through explicit teaching, to decide whether a particular word in a list is most easily mastered by attending to the syllables and sounds (the phonemic or phonetic strategy), by remembering its visual appearance (the visual imagery strategy), by utilising information about the units of meaning that have been combined to produce the word (the morphemic strategy), by comparing the new word with one that is already known (the strategy of spelling by analogy), or by using some combination of these and other strategies. Some teachers appear not to realise that the main aim in engaging in word study activities with children is to help them acquire insights into a range of useful strategies for learning to spell or check any words they may need to use (Dahl et al., 2003; Fulk, 1997). For students in the middle school years, Thibodeau (2002) recommends the use of a list of ‘unforgivables’ – these are the very common and important words that are frequently misspelled in students’ written work (for example, any, their/there, they, because, receive, difference, separate, through). It is understood by the students that it is ‘unforgivable’ to hand in work displaying any of these errors; so all students must master this core spelling vocabulary. Teachers construct the list from common spelling errors identified across all school subjects. The list of ‘unforgivables’ is then posted on the classroom bulletin board and each student is given a copy for personal use when proofreading assignments. Bean (1998) recommends guiding students to build lists of words that will serve their own writing needs and which they can use as a point of reference when writing and proofreading. She indicates that such lists might cover words the students need to use regularly and lists of their own spelling ‘demons’. Vaughn, Bos and Schumm (1997) suggest that lists might comprise words students ask for in their writing, words frequently misspelled in their writing, and words related to new themes or topics. However, although practising items in such lists often produces short-term gains in accuracy, the improvements tend not to transfer to the students’ everyday writing using the same words (Beckham-Hungler & Williams, 2003). Teachers therefore need to ensure that students acquire the habit (and understand the value) of using the lists for checking of their own written work. Polloway and Patton (1997) remind teachers of the need to do everything possible to help students transfer knowledge and skills gained from lists to their

Teaching: general principles and approaches

37

everyday writing: Although learning words in isolation facilitates acquisition, maintenance and generalization are achieved only when students are encouraged to make regular use of the words they have learned (p. 290).

Computers and technology Undoubtedly, the arrival of the word processor in the classroom heralded a new opportunity for students with learning difficulties to enter the realm of writing and composing with renewed enjoyment and satisfaction. Students with learning difficulties can now gain confidence in creating, spell-checking, editing, erasing and publishing their own materials. Whiting and Chapman (2000) reported positively on the outcomes from a carefully sequenced touch-typing, spelling and reading program used with students aged 8 to 16 years. The researchers hypothesised that the sequential, repetitive process needed to learn touch-typing can be coupled with the learning of important orthographic patterns of English. The nature of the learning activity may help the students internalise correct spelling patterns. It is also suggested that computers can provide a cost effective alternative to the use of teachers or tutors in one-to-one remedial teaching situations, particularly in terms of increased opportunity for practice and the development of self-help and independence in spelling (Torgerson & Elbourne, 2002). Minton (2002) indicates that using computers can help students with learning difficulties because: • the medium itself is motivating; • the computer presentation holds the child’s attention; • programs can provide for practice and overlearning; • computer programs give immediate feedback; • the level of the work can be adjusted to student’s learning rate; • using a computer is an active way of learning, fully involving the student; • the computer can be a private way of study, avoiding the close scrutiny of peer group. Having reviewed the extant research on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in relation to spelling development, Torgerson and Elbourne (2002) concluded that, while the outcomes are positive there is no clearly marked superiority in using computer software over other efficient methods of teaching spelling; but for some students with learning or motivational problems an ICT intervention may be preferable if the learner regards it as more enjoyable and engaging than other modes of delivery. There is a need to ensure that students do not come to rely entirely on the use of the in-built spell-checker to produce accurate writing. They must still retain 38

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

personal responsibility for making an honest attempt at typing in the correct sequence of letters when spelling the word. A sound approach to use is to encourage the student to print the first draft of the piece of writing without using the spell check. The student and a partner (or the student and the teacher) can then read the printout and discuss the spelling, as well as the ideas in the story. The student can use a pencil to circle any words he or she thinks may be incorrect. The teacher will be able to observe which words the student can selfcorrect, which words cannot be corrected without assistance and even more importantly, which misspelt words are not detected by the student (Westwood, 2003). For students with severe spelling difficulties, the spell-checker on most word processors is not of much assistance. As Templeton (2003b) points out, one must be a fairly proficient speller to use a spell-checker effectively and independently. In order for most spell-checkers to generate a correct spelling they must be able to recognise the original misspelling entered by the typist (see reference to Fonetik Spelling, Jackson et al., 2003, in Chapter 5 of this book). Some students still operating at the pre-phonetic or early phonetic stage may type a letter-string so unusual that it is not recognised by the program. According to a study carried out by MacArthur et al. (1996) only approximately one quarter of errors are recognised by the computer. This is partly due to the problem identified above, but also relates to the computer’s inability to detect the incorrect use of a word which has the correct spelling (e.g. there in place of their; how instead of who). Another difficulty arises for the student who is also a poor reader. He or she may have great difficulty in deciding which is the correct word from a list of alternative spellings generated by the computer. Students also need to be able to read and understand the instructions associated with the spell-checker when these appear on the screen.

Teaching: general principles and approaches

39

This page intentionally left blank

5

Methods for intervention

A spelling program must be based on current research, and that research overwhelmingly rejects the notion that spelling is learned incidentally (Gentry, in Jongsma, 1990, p. 60).

In this chapter information will be provided to help teachers plan and implement specific strategies for improving the spelling of students with learning difficulties. Many of the basic approaches and activities described in the previous chapter are also appropriate for individual or group tuition, and can be adapted to meet students’ individual needs.

Prompt Spelling, Partner Spelling and Peer Tutoring Prompt Spelling was described by Watkins and Hunter-Carsch (1995). The approach involves secondary school students working in pairs, a good speller (prompter) with a less proficient speller (promptee) for about twenty minutes. The method could equally well be used by an adult working in a tutorial role with an individual student. The promptee selects three or four words he or she wants to learn from errors made in a recent piece of writing. The first error is copied into the first of four columns prepared on a worksheet. The prompter articulates the target word clearly, stressing component sounds and syllables if necessary. This is repeated twice. In the first column the promptee underlines any part of the word he or she thinks might be incorrect. The pair discuss this and if necessary, changes are made to the spelling. In the second column the promptee writes the correction. This is checked and discussed with the prompter. Together they look back at the original error and discuss which letters were incorrect. They now attempt to link the correct spelling with any other related words (for example, with similar letter cluster, or similar silent letter, or similar point of irregularity). The promptee then writes any related words in the third column. Time is spent in studying the corrected spelling and the words generated from it. The promptee then covers the first three columns, states the error to be avoided, then writes the word correctly in the fourth column. The prompter then checks this and gives feedback. The procedure is then repeated with the second target word. The corrections are reviewed and if necessary practised at frequent 41

intervals during the next few weeks. A very similar approach is evident in what has become known as Partner Spelling. In this peer tutoring approach students are paired with compatible partners and are first instructed by the teacher in how to help each other learn and remember the spelling of target words (Buschman 2003). McDonnell, Thorston, Allen and Mathot-Buckner (2004) have reported favourably on partner spelling for use with students with significant learning difficulties integrated in mainstream classes. They indicate that weekly spelling test results showed improvement for these students, and the time spent in the activity did not adversely affect the spelling progress of their peers. Keller (2002) described a version of Class-Wide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) adapted for spelling. She allocates 20 minutes per day for at least three days per week to this approach. Appropriate target words are selected by the teacher, usually based on a current theme, or on individual needs of the students. Each student works with a compatible partner for 10 minutes, they each take turns to act as tutor to help the other student master the words for the day. The first step is for each student to print his or her own target words on a flashcard. The ‘tutor’ then takes the tutee through the following sequence: 1. Tutor holds up flashcard and says, “Look at this word. Say the word.” 2. “Close your eyes. Picture the word in your mind.” 3. “Now, open your eyes and check the word.” 4. “Write the word on your paper.” 5. Tutor then checks the written response and corrects any errors. 6. If there is no error, move to the next target word. If an error has been made, go back and repeat steps 1 to 4 again until correct. 7. In a classroom situation the teacher can move around the room to monitor students’ performance and give feedback. The notion of using individual tutoring for spelling improvement in secondary school students is supported by Hewson (1990). She established a system where parent volunteers worked directly with poor spellers using the look-cover-writecheck strategy. The parents had first been trained in the strategy and also in the teaching and interpersonal skills required of a tutor (for example, giving praise; encouraging the student to ‘have a go’; not being too critical; using positive reinforcement). The outcomes from a five-week program were positive. Using students within the class, or volunteer parents, as a resource is obviously a very cost-effective way of providing additional support and practice for students. For this reason, peer tutoring has become quite widely used for both reading and writing activities in primary and secondary schools (D. Fuchs, L. Fuchs & Burish, 2000; Cameron, Depree, Walker & Moore, 2002). Useful suggestions for partner spelling, peer tutoring, and parents as tutors can be found in texts 42

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

and articles by Keith Topping (for example, Topping, 1995; Topping, Nixon, Sutherland & Yarrow, 2000).

Training visual imagery Among the specific strategies most commonly recommended is the use of visual imagery (van Hell, Bosman & Bartelings, 2003). This strategy needs to be taught to many children who appear not to be able to progress easily beyond the phonetic stage of spelling. The strategy is sometimes referred to as the ‘whole word’ method of learning to spell, implying that students will store the complete image of a particular word in memory. While this is a reasonable assumption to make if the word is short, the notion breaks down for longer words. The average ‘visual attention span’ of children in the primary grades does not allow for the processing and storage of other than very small words as ‘wholes’ (Harrison, Zollner & Magill, 1996). The visual images that do need to be stored are the commonly occurring letter-strings (orthographic units) that comprise the building blocks for spelling. Not all individuals appear to use visual imagery to the same degree when processing information. For example, some learners do not automatically create mental pictures as they read a novel. Some do not use visual imagery to ‘picture in the mind’s eye’ the context of a word-problem in mathematics. Others do not support the recall of number facts by ‘picturing’ them as a number sentence (for example, 3 + 7 = 10) as well as trying to recall them auditorily. In general, the ability to use visual imagery is helpful to learning across a wide range of curriculum content. Training in visual imagery has been used successfully over many years to help students store and retrieve a variety of types of information (Hutton & Lescohier 1983; Bell 1991). The application of visual imagery training to enhance spelling ability has been well documented (for example, Peters, 1985; Sears & Johnson, 1986; McLaughlin & Skinner, 1996). The ‘look-cover-write-check’ strategy used in schools for many years is based on improving the learner’s visual memory for small words and letter-strings. It is a strategy most appropriate for learning words that are not phonemically regular. The strategy is still effective for longer words, but it is likely that the learner actually performs two or more ‘visual fixations’ on the letter sequence, processing it not as a whole, but in convenient parts represented by specific letter clusters. One version of the approach involves presenting a word (for example, choir) on a card to the learner. The learner is told: • Use your eyes like a camera. Take a mental picture of this word ‘choir’. • Close your eyes and imagine you can still see the word.

Methods for intervention

43

• Trace the letters in the air with your eyes closed. • What colour are the letters in your mind? • OK. Now imagine the letters have changed colour. What colour are they now? • Open your eyes and write the word on your paper. • Now check your spelling with the word on the card. Peters and Cripps (1980) suggest getting the learners to pretend that they can see the word on the ‘inside of their eyelids’. Berninger et al. (1995) taught specific spelling strategies to students with spelling problems at the end of Grade 3 as part of a general intervention to improve their writing skills. In particular they taught a visual imagery strategy for spelling. The children were taught the following steps: • Look at the word. • Close your eyes and imagine you can see the word as you say it. • Name the letters from left to right. • Open your eyes and write the word. • Check against the model. • Repeat if necessary until the word can be recalled easily. They also taught strategies for analysing words into syllables. The benefits of the training were still evident at a follow-up six months later. Butyniec-Thomas and Woloshyn (1997) cite research studies that support the value of training children to create visual images of target words. In their study, Grade 3 children undertook 20 minutes of strategy-training daily for one week. The imagery training involved teaching the students to close their eyes and imagine they were typing the word or painting the word on a screen or chalkboard. The strategy was modelled, its value discussed, practice was given, and daily review provided. They compared three groups: one received explicit strategy training alone (words not in context); one received explicit strategy training using words from whole language contexts; and the third group engaged in whole language writing activities without strategy training. The ‘strategy training plus whole language’ group produced the superior spelling results. The least effective approach was the whole language with no explicit instruction. These researchers concluded that: The provision of relevant writing experiences improved the spelling performance of some students, but most of the students required the support of formal spelling instruction in order to become proficient spellers (p. 300).

In order to make maximum use of visual strategies for spelling it is essential that the students are encouraged to look at the target word with deliberate intent to hold the visual image (Redfern, 1993). Further advice: • Tell the learner to look carefully at the word and to think of other words 44

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

with a similar letter pattern. • Make sure that the learner writes the word from memory, not from rote copying. An approach termed ‘visual dictation’ was developed by van Hell, Bosman and Bartelings (2003) in Holland. Their approach combines a look-cover-write-check strategy together with immediate feedback and self-correction of any errors. The immediate self-correction is considered a very important aspect of becoming a better and more independent speller. Visual dictation has proved to be an effective approach for use with learning-disabled students.

Fonetik Spelling In contrast to approaches that focus on visual processing of orthographic patterns, a program called Fonetik Spelling developed by Jackson (1994) encourages the use of a phonic approach. The Fonetik program is intended for upper primary or secondary students with severe spelling difficulties. The aim of the program is to help these students produce better phonic approximations of the words they want to use, so that they can enter the words into an electronic dictionary or spell-checker and receive feedback in the form of the correct spelling. The underlying principle of the approach is that when an irregular and difficult word is written phonetically it is at least understandable to a human reader or to an electronic dictionary or spell-checker. Spelling a word ‘as it sounds’ is therefore preferable to either not attempting the word at all or producing a bizarre spelling pattern that cannot be interpreted Jackson et al. (2003, p. 25) state: “The key to moving from an undecipherable to a decipherable attempt to spell depends on the ability of the students to spell each and every syllable of a word in phonetic ‘chunks’ and to ensure that vowel sounds are correctly represented.” In order to benefit from the program, the students are first given instruction and practice in breaking words into syllables. They are taught also that every syllable contains a vowel sound, and they are instructed in letter-sound relationships for the five short vowels (a, e, i, o, u). When a target word has been analysed into its phonetic components it is entered into a spell-checker or electronic dictionary (for example, the Franklin TMQ200 Electronic Dictionary). Since there is often more than one correct way to render a word phonetically it may be necessary sometimes to try a different vowel if the dictionary does not yield a correct response on first entry. The students are taught appropriate strategies for dealing with this issue. There is evidence to indicate that Fonetik Spelling is effective in improving the spelling skills of older students, and these gains become evident after only a few periods of instruction (Jackson, Konza, Ben-Evans & Roodenrys, 2003).

Repeated writing

Methods for intervention

45

It was once traditional practice to require students to write the corrected version of words ten times. In recent years this procedure has been used much less often because teachers feel that it does not result in effective learning (Templeton, 2003b). Redfern (1993) states categorically that copying out spelling corrections is of no value – but this view needs to be challenged. Under the following conditions repeated writing of a correct word can be helpful in facilitating its storage in long-term memory: • The writer must want to master the spelling of that word. • Full attention must be given to the writing task. • Writing of the target word should be repeated no more than three times (Schlagal, 2002). • Only a few words (no more than three) are treated this way in any one session. Peters (1974a) sees spelling skill partly as a ‘motor habit’. The frequent writing of a word with the letters in the correct sequence probably helps the learner establish a motor pattern for that word in kinaesthetic memory. In much the same way, touch typing on a keyboard helps to establish automatic motor responses linked to high frequency words. Van Hell, Bosman and Bartelings (2003) also believe that the action of writing the whole word strengthens general orthographic knowledge as well as aiding retention of that particular word in long-term kinaesthetic memory. Interestingly Redfern (1993), who says there is no value in repeated writing of words, also remarks elsewhere that teachers should not let uncorrected work go on indefinitely because ‘bad habits get into the hand’. Grainger (1997) suggests that if young children spend too long practising incorrect spelling patterns through the use of invented spelling without corrective feedback, this can create on-going problems for some individuals. They are storing incorrect visual images of the words as well as the incorrect motor responses.

Simultaneous Oral Spelling (SOS) This strategy was first developed by Gillingham and Stillman in 1960 and has been found useful in individual remedial tuition (Bryant & Bradley, 1985; Weeks, Brooks & Everatt, 2002). It is applicable across a wide age range, including secondary and tertiary education settings, as the use of the letter name rather than the sound does not embarrass the older learner. If a student appears to have difficulty in holding visual images in memory, saying the letter names may help. The steps in the SOS strategy are as follows:

46

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

• Select the word you wish to learn. • Look at it carefully. • Ask the instructor to pronounce the word clearly. • Pronounce the word yourself. • Say each syllable (in a polysyllabic word). • Name the letters in sequence, and then say the word for example, w-o-r-l-d = world. • Repeat the letter naming step again. • Write the word, naming each letter as it is written. • Check and say the word. • Write the word again from memory.

Old Way – New Way This corrective strategy devised by Lyndon (1989) is designed to help a student overcome a persistent spelling error. Moats (1995) has observed, when children write a word the wrong way repeatedly before trying to learn it correctly, the incorrect response is hard to remove and the correct habit difficult to establish. When an incorrect visual spelling pattern or motor response has been internalised and stored by a learner it is very difficult to replace it with the correct response due to the power of what is termed ‘proactive inhibition’ or ‘proactive interference’. What the learner already knows interferes with the re-learning process. Lyndon’s approach uses the student’s error as the starting point for intervention. A memory of the incorrect (old) way of spelling the word is used to activate later an awareness of the new (correct) way of spelling the word. The following steps and procedures are used in Old Way – New Way: • The student writes the word in the incorrect form. • The student and teacher agree to call this the ‘old way’. • Alongside the incorrect spelling the teacher writes the new (correct) form. • Teacher and student discuss the differences between the old and new forms, for example, thay and they. The student says “I used to spell it with an a, now I spell it with an e. They.” The a can be crossed out and the e underlined. • Student writes the word again the old way. • Student writes the word the new way and verbalises the difference. • Five such repetitions of old way and new way are completed, with a verbal statement of the difference (“I used to write it with an a, now I write it with an e. They”). • The word is now written six times in the new way using different size letters or different colour chalk or pen. • The word is revised after a week; and again after another week. Methods for intervention

47

Lyndon’s strategy has much in common with other approaches where error imitation is used as a teaching point. Error imitation, followed by modelling of correct spelling, has been used in several controlled studies (for example, Gerber, 1986; Gordon et al., 1993). The teacher reproduces the student’s error while the student watches. The teacher then writes the word correctly and together they discuss differences between the two words. The student then writes the word correctly several times from recall. Using this approach, students with learning disability improved significantly and were able to generalise spelling features from one list of words to another. Alber and Walshe (2004) discovered with Grade 5 students that having them self-correct each error immediately it occurred is more effective than completing a list of 10 words and returning to self-correct any errors in the list. Acquisition of new words was improved and retention of words over a one-week period was superior.

Directed Spelling Thinking Activity (DSTA) Graham, Harris and Loynachan (1996) advocate this activity for use with learning-disabled students. The actual principles behind it merit wider application to all students who are still acquiring knowledge about the spelling system. DSTA is basically a word-study procedure in which a group of students are helped to compare, contrast and categorise two or more words based on points of similarity or difference. The aim of the activity is to raise the students’ awareness of spelling patterns and grapho-phonic principles. For example, the students may explore words containing the long a sound, as in pail, male and pay. They discover that different letter clusters can represent the same sound. The students are then given lists of words (or they search for words themselves) to classify into a similar category. Follow-up activities might include looking for words containing a target sound, or a specific sequence of letters, within their reading material. Over a period of time a class-list of words that follow a particular rule, or are exceptions to that rule, is constructed and used regularly for revision.

Teaching proofreading for spelling errors The process of proofreading written text is not easy. Even some adults find it extremely difficult to detect errors that are present in their own work. The process requires the reader to move away from the powerful influence of the meaning of what is being read to allow careful attention to the actual letters and words on the page. Bean (1998) provides some useful advice to help children improve their skills 48

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

in proofreading. The key ingredient is the teacher’s demonstration of how to go about the process. Children need the teacher to model the following strategies, using the overhead projector, blackboard, or prepared sheets of text. • Use a slip of paper or a ruler to cover all but the line you are checking. • Experiment with starting at the bottom of the page and working upwards. • Read slowly, word by word. • Underline any word that needs to be checked. • Write two or more versions of a word and try to decide which one looks correct. • Sometimes exchange writing with a partner for proofreading purposes. • Teach some of the typical symbols used by editors to signal changes needed in the text. Wirtz et al. (1996) reported a small-scale study in which third grade students were taught how to correct their own spelling errors from a dictated list using proofreading marks (such as ‘wrong letter’, ‘letter missing’). The students then wrote the correct version of each word. They made better gains than students who simply copied the correction for each word several times and used the word in a sentence. These students also reported that they liked the method. According to Kervin (2002) proofreading can be a powerful strategy for developing children’s spelling ability. Proofreading requires the learner to engage actively in attending to details of words and in making critical judgements. Naturally, teachers must first instruct students in effective proofreading strategies through appropriate demonstrations and ‘think alouds’.

Matching intervention to stage of development Figure 2 provides the teacher with some assistance in selecting spelling interventions that take account of the stage of development reached by a particular student or group of students. The chart is intended only as an approximate guide and should not be interpreted too rigidly. The selection of any particular strategy or combination of strategies should be determined by a detailed assessment of the students’ needs (see Chapter 7). Take as an example a dyslexic child who has demonstrated great difficulty in hearing the component sound units within spoken words. This student, regardless of age, will benefit from activities to enhance phonemic awareness (for example, identifying sounds, blending sounds, segmenting words into separate phonemes, rhyming and alliteration). Until these skills are established it would be pointless Methods for intervention

49

Pre-phonemic Stage

Phonetic Stage

Transitional Stage

Independence Stage

Phonemic awareness training Visual imagery training strategies Morphemic strategies Self-monitoring strategies Repeated writing strategy Simultaneous Oral Spelling (SOS) Old Way – New Way Directed Spelling Thinking Activity (DSTA) Word Sorts, Word Families Prompt Spelling Proofreading strategies

Figure 2: Guide to selecting stage-appropriate interventions

to introduce morphemic or phonic encoding strategies. The phonological skill training must be delivered with a clear focus on the student’s particular needs, and must be designed to help bridge the gap between the sound units the student can be taught to identify and the ways in which these sounds may be mapped on to letters. This is of particular importance in the case of young children (Layton et al., 1998), but applies also in the case of older students with specific learning difficulties. Take as another example a child who has reached a temporary plateau at the phonetic stage of development. He or she will be tending to spell many irregular words as if they are phonemically regular, and often will not be aware that the letter sequence written down does not ‘look right’. For such a student the strategies listed as visual imagery training, repeated writing, and Simultaneous Oral Spelling (SOS) in Figure 2 will all be helpful in establishing an awareness of the visual appearance of a particular word. In a more general way, word study activities such as Word Sorts and Directed Spelling Thinking Activity, using developmentally appropriate vocabulary, will also be helping to establish in the child’s long-term memory the immediate recognition of commonly occurring letter clusters in irregular or ‘tricky’ words. All the above strategies help to take 50

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

the child smoothly into the transitional stage of spelling. One important point made clear in Figure 2 is that as the speller moves up through the developmental stages towards independence a wider range of teaching interventions become appropriate for use. Most of the strategies are of value in helping the child progress through the transitional stage to independence. The selection of particular strategies should reflect a detailed knowledge of the specific student’s needs (Brooks, 1995). To determine the developmental stage reach by a child, the teacher can use direct observation, discussion with the child about how he or she tackles the spelling of difficult words, and an analysis of the child’s errors made when writing. Ganske (1999; 2000) has also devised an instrument called the Developmental Spelling Analysis to help teachers and psychologists determine a student’s developmental level in spelling. In intensive remedial teaching contexts, it may also be beneficial to try to give emphasis to methods that capitalise on a student’s existing cognitive and perceptual strengths (for example, visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, or multisensory) rather than using a random selection of all available teaching strategies (Weeks, Brooks & Everatt, 2002). It should be noted however, that while a teacher’s knowledge of a child’s developmental status and learning characteristics can be valuable in the context of individual and small group teaching, there is evidence to suggest that teachers find it extremely difficult to differentiate and individualise spelling instruction in mixed-ability whole-class situations. In this context teachers tend to cope by employing whole-group teaching methods (Bos & Reitsma, 2003; Invernizzi & Hayes, 2004).

Methods for intervention

51

This page intentionally left blank

6

Assessing spelling

Teachers intuitively know that all students in a class are not at the same level of spelling expertise, just as all students are not at the same level of reading expertise. By examining students’ errors on a well-constructed spelling assessment, teachers can pinpoint students’ level of spelling knowledge through the identification of the types of words and patterns that are most appropriate for spelling study (Templeton, 2003b, p. 48).

Assessment in the area of spelling serves the same basic functions as assessment in other areas of the curriculum. These functions include: • indicating the stage of development a particular student has reached; • identifying any specific weaknesses and special instructional needs the student may have; • gaining information about what next to teach the student; • checking on the efficacy of the teaching program; • discovering if the student exhibits any special need that entitles him or her to special educational services. Detailed information concerning a student’s spelling skills and strategies is obtained from the following assessment procedures: • observation of the student while writing; • analysis of samples of written work; • reference to benchmark documents and profile guides; • testing; • discussions with the student. Almost all the information teachers need to obtain concerning a student’s existing knowledge, skills and strategies in spelling can be obtained by watching the student in action while writing, analysing work samples and talking with the student about his or her insights into the processes of spelling. However, there are occasions when more formal testing of students can provide some additional data to assist programming and reporting.

53

Observation Teachers should use observation in a systematic way. Some children will need more frequent attention from the teacher than others, but over a period of weeks the writing and spelling of all children should be observed. The observations need to be recorded by the teacher, and where appropriate translated into teaching objectives for individual students. Direct observation of students as they perform handwriting and spelling activities in their daily assignments provides invaluable diagnostic data (Miller, Rakes & Choate, 1997, p. 215).

Teachers can observe how the students approach the spelling task. For example: • Are they confident or hesitant? • Are they willing to take risks and attempt difficult words? • Do they check and monitor their own spelling? • Do they self-correct? • Can they swiftly and easily spell the most commonly needed words? • Do they help one another with spelling and proofreading? Information gleaned from observation of children at work needs to be supplemented with information from other sources such as work samples and test results (Lipson & Wixson, 2003).

Work samples There is general agreement among experts and practitioners that the most valuable source of information concerning students’ spelling ability can be obtained from samples of their unaided writing. By considering the errors a student has made it is possible to gain some insights into the overall stage of development the student has reached, the knowledge he or she is relying on most when spelling difficult words, and the strategies he or she is using to check and selfcorrect (Jenkins & Dix, 2004). It is also possible to observe the student’s accuracy or difficulty when spelling important high frequency words. Redfern (1993) suggests that the following aspects of spelling should be observed in students’ work: • the relative number of correct spellings; • the repertoire of common words correctly spelt; • the visual patterns already known; • evidence of self-correction; • any significant error patterns. Several writers have devised quite complex systems for analysing children’s spelling errors (for example, Peters, 1975; Howell, Fox & Morehead, 1993; Miller, Rakes & Choate, 1997). The categories typically include: 54

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

• letters omitted (for example, rember for remember); • letters added (for example, lotes for lots); • phonic (including homophones) (for example, sed for said; hear for here); • phonic but not conforming to rule (for example, cyid for side); • transposition of letters (for example, aminal for animal); • substitution of a consonant (for example, glass for class; trive for drive); • substitution of vowel (for example, waet for wait); • double/single letter errors (for example, litle for little; swiming for swimming); • unclassifiable errors. Four points concerning error analysis need to be noted here: • The careful analysis of spelling errors is only worth the time and effort if it leads to some specific form of teaching intervention based on the student’s results. It is certainly not a procedure that needs to be applied to any but the most chronic cases of spelling disability. • In practice it is very difficult to categorise certain spelling errors. A single error may appear to fall into several different categories, and an element of subjectivity enters the whole process, thus throwing the final conclusions into question. Inter-scorer agreement is not always high with spelling analyses. • If only a small sample of errors is available for analysis the reliability of any conclusions reached is suspect. Howell, Fox and Morehead (1993) suggest that at least 75 errors are needed to give a reasonably clear picture of a student’s existing knowledge and skills. • In addition to assessing errors it is always necessary (and often much more helpful) to assess the writer’s use of particular spelling strategies (Dahl et al., 2003). A highly detailed analysis of spelling errors is usually only required in situations where a student has a specific learning disability, and where individualised tutorial intervention is going to be provided (Jenkins & Dix, 2004). For general purposes, a less detailed study of work samples will be adequate to allow the teacher to judge the approximate stage of development reached by a student. Analysis of work samples will also allow specific gaps or weaknesses to be identified (for example, too little use made of visual checking strategies; certain high frequency words incorrect; a tendency to add the letter e to the end of words where it is not required). Howell, Fox and Morehead (1993) suggest that when assessing work samples teachers should be on the look out for spelling errors that may actually reflect incorrect, careless or regional speech patterns (for example, word-endings sometimes omitted). They recommend checking the student’s ability to say a misspelled word correctly. Gentry (1997) suggests noting whether misspelled words in the child’s writing match the difficulty level of the words Assessing spelling

55

being studied that week. If the words misspelled in the writing are much more basic than the words in the weekly list, the content of the list may have to be adjusted to a simpler level. The use of ‘portfolios’ as a means of collecting and storing students’ work samples has become very popular in recent years (Chandler, 2000; Bean, 1998; Fiderer, 1998). The samples collected should not always be a student’s ‘best’ work as such samples have frequently undergone editing with corrective feedback from the teacher, parent or peers. Some samples should reflect the written work the student can produce unaided. Portfolios might also include a student’s test sheets. Portfolios provide a useful focus for discussions between teachers and students. They can clearly illustrate the student’s progress over time, and can highlight aspects of written work still needing attention. Fiderer (1998) suggests that students themselves should also be encouraged to choose work samples to go into their own portfolios and be able to explain why they wish to include those samples. This process helps the students to begin engaging in self-assessment. Teachers’ assessment of work samples is often related to established ‘benchmarks’ and to ‘outcome statements and performance indicators’ in such documents as English: a curriculum profile for Australian schools (Curriculum Corporation, 1994), Literacy: professional elaboration (Curriculum Corporation, 1998) and the First Steps: Spelling Developmental Continuum (Education Department of Western Australia, 1994; 2004). These documents provide reasonably clear descriptions of specific knowledge, skills and strategies a student may demonstrate in his or her writing at different stages of development.

Use of benchmarks and profiles ‘Benchmarks’ usually indicate, in very general terms, what standard might be expected of most students at a particular age level. For example, a benchmark statement for spelling in Year 3 might be: Students spell accurately: 1. frequently used and readily recognised words (e.g. come, going, like, saw, went and but); 2. other one- and two-syllable words: a) most monosyllabic words with common spelling patterns, including those with: • consonant/consonant digraphs (e.g. sharp, thick) • vowel/consonant digraphs (e.g. star, crown) 56

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

• vowel/vowel digraphs (e.g. spoon, free) • two-letter consonant blends (e.g. green, play) b) some words of two syllables with common spelling patterns (e.g. sunny, playing) While students are expected to spell accurately the words described above, they also attempt to spell a wider range of words. Errors made with these words should be phonetically and/or visually plausible approximations to correct spelling (e.g. gess for guess, jungil for jungle, redy for ready) (adapted from Curriculum Corporation, 1998).

At Year 5 the spelling benchmark might be: Students spell accurately: 1. most one- and two-syllable words with common spelling patterns, including: • all digraphs (e.g. gr/owing, fou/nd) • some trigraphs (e.g. might) • two-letter and three-letter consonant blends (e.g. smooth, scratch) • long vowel sounds (e.g. date, time) 2. most of the frequently used and readily recognised words that have less common spelling patterns (e.g. there, because, who, friends, again) 3. some other words of more than one syllable (e.g. yesterday, afternoon, morning, money). While students are expected to spell accurately the words described above, they also attempt to spell a wider range of words. Errors made with these words should show students’ awareness of phonetic, visual and phonemic patterns (e.g. accross for across, comming for coming) and all sounds will be represented (e.g. finaly for finally) (Curriculum Corporation, 1998).

Outcome statements and performance indicators in the English Profiles are different from benchmarks in two respects: • They are not related to age levels, but refer to the specific types of performance a student of any age might display when he or she has reached, or is reaching, a particular stage of development. • The indicators for any specific learning outcome are usually more detailed than benchmark statements, and can therefore be of more practical value to the teacher when observing students engaged in writing or when assessing work samples. An example of a typical outcome statement from the English Profiles is: 3.12b (The student) consistently makes informed attempts at spelling. The indicators listed for this outcome are: • uses new words in writing though unsure of exact spelling; • uses visual strategies, such as knowledge of letter patterns and critical

Assessing spelling

57

features of words, to attempt to spell words; • draws on some spelling generalisations to spell unknown words (use some double letters correctly); • recognises most misspelt words in own writing and uses variety of resources for correction; • discusses strategies for spelling difficult words (try a number of ways of spelling a word before deciding which version looks or sounds correct).

The First Steps: Spelling Developmental Continuum (Education Department of Western Australia, 1994; 2004) provides some very useful checklists reflecting each of the stages from beginner to independence.

Indicators for spelling outcomes Towards Level 1 This set of indicators (adapted from Curriculum Corporation, 1994) was designed mainly to meet the needs of very young children or those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This latter group of students are of school age, but not yet able to display skills and strategies within Level 1. • Can grasp writing instrument (or can hit key on keyboard; or point to picture on communication board). • Can make marks on paper (or computer screen). • Can rote copy letters or numerals. • Can identify some common signs in the environment. • Can write first letter of own name. • Can write some letters in own first name. • Can imitate pretend writing when they see others writing. • Shows left to right direction when writing or copying. • Can identify some rhyming words when spoken.

Level 1 At this level the student demonstrates emerging awareness of how to use conventional written symbols for expressing ideas and information. • Can write own first name correctly. • Can sometimes use known or copied words in pretend writing. • Uses letter names and sounds to invent simple spellings. • Can copy letters and words from charts to aid writing. • Can break spoken words down into syllables or onset-rime units. • Can blend sounds aloud to form words. • Can write correctly a small but growing bank of sight words. 58

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

• Consistently writes from left to right and top to bottom of page.

Level 2 At this level the student uses some basic linguistic structures and features of written language so that writing can be interpreted by others. The student attempts to spell words by drawing mainly on knowledge of sound–symbol relationships and of common letter patterns. • Spells simple high frequency words correctly in own writing. • Spells mainly by matching sounds to known letters/letter clusters. • Shows increasing awareness of syllables in polysyllabic words. • Spells by analogy some simple consonant-vowel-consonant words. • Applies familiar letter pattern to unknown word (for example, un-, -ed, -ing). • Begins to self-correct own errors in common words. • Knows where and how to obtain help with specific words.

Level 3 At this level the student controls most basic features of written language and consistently makes informed attempts at spelling. • Spells many common words correctly in own writing. • Uses unfamiliar words even though unsure of exact spelling. • Begins to use visual strategies along with phonic strategies. • Recognises most misspelt words in own writing. • Can discuss strategies used for spelling and checking words.

Level 4 At this level the student uses writing as a medium to develop ideas, depict events and record information. The student adjusts writing to take account of aspects of context, purpose and audience, by controlling the linguistic structures and features typical of different genres. The student can also use a range of strategies for planning, writing and editing. In the domain of spelling the student uses a multi-strategy approach. • Displays increasingly efficient proofreading skills. • Recognises and self-corrects most spelling errors by using knowledge of visual features of words, and phonetic and morphemic principles.

Levels 5, 6 and 7 At these more advanced levels of development the student’s writing skills for different purposes and for different audiences are well developed. While writing,

Assessing spelling

59

the spelling of most words is achieved with a high degree of automaticity, although careless errors may still occur. The student has stored a rich supply of word images and letter-strings that can be used smoothly and easily when writing, allowing most cognitive effort to be directed to style and content. This word bank continues to grow as the student engages in more and more reading and writing activities. In terms of spelling the student: • proofreads efficiently with aids such as vocabulary lists, dictionary, spellchecker; • ensures that spelling conforms to standard English; • displays an increasingly rich vocabulary; • can describe and demonstrate a variety of strategies for learning and checking the spelling of words.

Testing It must always be remembered that testing is not teaching. It is only worth using any of the forms of testing referred to below if doing so will yield information that can be applied to the improvement of a teaching program for individual students (Westwood, 2001). Testing for its own sake is a pointless activity. Used alone, formal and informal testing will never provide a fully comprehensive picture of each student’s existing knowledge, skills and strategies. If used appropriately, however, spelling tests can add significantly to the information collected from other sources. It is sometimes argued that children’s spelling achievement in test situations is different from the ability they show when engaged in free writing (ClarkeKlein, 1994). Miller, Rakes and Choate (1997) suggest that spelling words correctly on spelling tests is often easier than spelling words correctly in daily written work. Under structured test conditions some students may concentrate on the task and apply spelling knowledge that they don’t necessarily call upon in their free writing. For this reason, appraisal of a child’s spelling skills should involve a combination of dictated tests, proofreading tests, and analysis of spelling in spontaneous writing. This point will be discussed more fully in a moment. Three main types of formal test can be of some value in adding information to that obtained from direct observation and work sample analysis. These forms of test are: • curriculum-based tests; • diagnostic tests; • standardised, norm-referenced tests.

Curriculum-based tests These tests are devised by the teacher and usually contain words that have been 60

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

the focus of study during the preceding week. They might be thematic words related to some general classroom topic, or they might be a group of words studied to establish understanding of certain phonic units or letter-strings. The purpose of the testing is to determine whether the students have retained the knowledge, or whether revision and re-teaching are necessary. These teacher-made tests can be regarded as ‘check ups’, and they form one important part of the formative (on-going) assessment of children’s learning.

Diagnostic tests Diagnostic tests are of particular value when attempting to identify the specific needs of students with learning difficulties. Some diagnostic information can be obtained from curriculum-based tests, from norm-referenced tests and from the students’ own written work. However, it is often helpful to have available lists of words that allow the teacher to assess in more detail a child’s grasp of particular spelling patterns, rules and conventions (see Appendix 4). These diagnostic tools may be teacher-made or may be published test materials. Examples of published diagnostic tests are Ganske (1999), Greenbaum (1987), Peters and Smith (1993), Vincent and Claydon (1982). Teachers would need to examine these diagnostic tests before deciding whether or not information obtained from them could contribute usefully to their own spelling program. When applying them, the teacher is trying to obtain answers to the following three questions: • What knowledge, skills and strategies does the student already apply when spelling? • Do any gaps, weaknesses or misunderstandings exist in the student’s current repertoire of skills and strategies? • What does this student, at this developmental level, need to be taught next in order to facilitate further progress? Examples of informal diagnostic tests are provided in Appendix 4; but as with curriculum-based tests, teachers are encouraged to devise their own tests along similar lines.

Standardised, norm-referenced tests Standardised spelling tests are those tests that have been applied in a standard way to a large representative sample of students in order to determine the average or typical performance of different age groups. This average performance is usually referred to as a ‘norm’. Most standardised tests provide tables of norms to permit the comparison of any individual student’s performance with that of average students of the same age. The students’ performance is usually expressed as a ‘spelling age’. For example, a student aged twelve years with difficulties in spelling might be performing at the level of a typical seven-yearold child, so his or her spelling age is given as approximately seven years. Assessing spelling

61

Standardised tests can be used to screen groups of students to obtain an immediate picture of the spread of ability in a particular class. The results can also be used to identify any students who are having specific difficulties and obviously require additional support. Some teachers use standardised tests at the beginning and end of each school year as one of their quantitative measures of progress made by students. Educational psychologists often use standardised spelling tests as part of their psycho-educational assessment of students with learning difficulties or disabilities. A limitation of almost all standardised tests of spelling is that they cannot adequately sample the full range of a student’s knowledge of word forms, rules and exceptions to rules. At best they provide a very rough indication of the level a student has reached. Most spelling tests do allow for an impressionistic judgement to be made as to whether the student is using predominantly a phonetic approach, and how well he or she deals with irregular words (Moseley, 1997). It is inadvisable to use the same standardised test too frequently within the school year because some children can become overly familiar with the content. In such cases, the results obtained may not be a true reflection of the children’s spelling ability. It should be noted also that standardised tests are not particularly sensitive to small increments of progress over reasonably brief periods of time. For this reason they are not always useful as outcome measures from short-term intervention programs. In the short-term students may have gained additional skills and knowledge, but the specific words contained in the test may not provide the opportunity to demonstrate these gains (Westwood, 1996). As a rule of thumb, it is wise to avoid re-testing children on standardised tests within six months. Two examples of standardised, norm referenced spelling tests, The South Australian Spelling Tests, Form A and Form B (2004) are presented in Appendix 3. The common test formats used for standardised assessment of spelling include: • dictated spelling lists; • dictated passages of text; • proofreading tests (in which the student must identify spelling errors); • proofreading and correction tests (in which the student must not only identify the errors but must also provide the correct spelling of the words); • multiple-choice tests (in which the student must select the correct spelling pattern from five or six alternative spellings). Studies have shown that students’ spelling achievements across all of these various test formats are highly correlated (Moseley, 1997; Westwood, 1999). Contrary the opinion of some language arts experts, performance on these tests 62

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

also tends to be fairly highly correlated with the children’s spelling accuracy when writing a story (Westwood, 1999). A student’s performance in all of the tasks appears to depend upon the same underlying ‘general spelling ability’ factor identified many years ago by Thurstone (1948). If the purpose of the standardised testing is to screen the overall spelling achievement levels within a class, then any one (or any combination of) the testing formats listed above will tend to rank the children in much the same way. If, however, the purpose of the testing is to obtain a detailed picture of an individual student’s existing spelling knowledge and strategies, information from a combination of proofreading, correcting, multiple-choice selecting, and free writing tasks will be required.

Discussion with the student Some teachers refer to this procedure as ‘conferencing’. Time is set aside to allow the teacher to sit with each student to discuss his or her written work. Much of the discussion may focus on the content and style of the writing, but the opportunity to explore the student’s spelling and self-correction strategies can also be explored. Some students will require more attention than others in this area. The teacher and student together can proofread some written work and the teacher can observe the student’s skills. The student can be asked such questions as: • What do you do if you are not quite sure how to spell a word? • What else could you do? • How would you sound out this word? • What do you do if you write a word and it doesn’t look right? • Show me how you might check this word in the dictionary. • Who do you think is a very good speller in this class? • What do you think helps them to be a good speller? Sometimes discussions with students can be based around the contents of their writing portfolios. The students can be encouraged to assess their own progress and to identify specific needs for instruction by reference to written work completed at different times and for different purposes. They may, for example, identify particular words that always seem to be giving them problems. These words can be transferred to a personal list of ‘spelling demons’ to be studied until thoroughly known. Teachers and psychologists requiring additional information on assessment and evaluation in spelling are referred to the Manual for testing and teaching English spelling by C. Jamieson and J. Jamieson (2003); Assessment and instruction of reading Assessing spelling

63

and writing: an interactive approach by Lipson and Wixson (2003); and Word journeys by Ganske (2000).

7

Resources for teachers

The resources in this section are listed in alphabetical order, based on the author’s surname. Nothing should be inferred concerning the relative value of any particular resource from its position within the list.

Texts and materials Davies, A. and Ritchie, D. (2004). THRASS (Teaching Handwriting, Reading and Spelling Skills) Chester: THRASS UK Ltd. This program (also described as ‘whole-picture keywords phonics’) is designed to ensure that students in the age range seven to eleven years (and others with spelling and reading difficulties) acquire a thorough mastery of the way in which the 44 speech sounds (phonemes) in the English language are mapped in print by specific letters or letter clusters (graphemes). The students are helped to understand that in some cases the sound can be represented by a single letter, while in other cases it may require two letters (digraph) or three letters (trigraph). In the area of spelling, the program enables students to learn thoroughly the alternative ways that the same phoneme may be represented in print by different letter clusters. New materials are being added regularly to this wellrespected program. For up-to-date information contact website (UK) [email protected] or (Australia) [email protected] Education Department of Western Australia (1994; 2004). First Steps: Spelling Developmental Continuum and Spelling: Resource Book. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. The Developmental Continuum book helps to guide a teacher’s assessment of the stage of development reached by each child in the class. The actual sequence of acquisition has been divided into five stages. The Resource Book, as its title suggests, provides many and varied examples of ways in which spelling development can be facilitated in a total literacy program. Gentry, J.R. & Gillet, J. (1993). Teaching kids to spell. Portsmouth: Heinemann. This book presents a very comprehensive overview of the developmental stages of spelling acquisition, and links assessment and teaching strategies to the stage model. A diagnostic test of ten words can be used to obtain an approximate indication of a child’s developmental level from the nature of the errors made. This text is highly recommended. 65

Henry, M.K. (2003). Unlocking literacy: effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore: Brookes. Written for general and special educators working with students from preschool to middle school, and beyond. Practical suggestions, activities, word lists, and lesson plans incorporating multisensory language-based instruction. Jamieson, C. & Jamieson, J. (2003). Manual for testing and teaching English spelling: a comprehensive and structured system for the planning and delivery of spelling intervention. London: Whurr. This is a valuable guide for teachers and tutors, regardless of the age of the students concerned. Of particular value when seeking to assist dyslexic students and students learning English as a second language Leech, G., Rayson, P. & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English. Harlow: Longman-Pearson Educational. This book provides teachers and researchers with valuable information on the frequency with which particular words are used by writers and encountered by readers. Such information can be helpful when identifying priorities in the teaching and testing of spelling. Marten, C. & Graves, D.H. (2003). Word Crafting: teaching spelling, grades K-6. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. The authors urge teachers to use these tools to set up word-crafting contexts that connect the study of words to authentic reading and writing. Teachers can use advise from this source to craft a word study program that will be of benefit to all students. Moats, L.C. (1995). Spelling: development, disability and instruction. Baltimore: York Press. This text is highly recommended. It provides detailed information on the mental processes involved in spelling, and on the links between speech and print. Attention is given to the assessment of spelling ability and to the diagnosis of spelling disabilities. Instructional methods are clearly described. Useful word lists are provided in the appendix. A comprehensive list of references is provided. New Zealand Council for Educational Research (1998; 2003). Spell-Write: an aid to writing, spelling and word study. Wellington: NZCER. This material is suitable for school years 4 to 7, and for older students with learning problems. The program contains the most commonly used 3000+ words in children’s writing. The Manual, revised in 2003, provides information on the concept of spelling, classroom programs, and evaluating progress in spelling. O’Sullivan, O. & Thomas, A. (2000). Understanding spelling. London: The Centre for Literacy in Primary Education (CLPE). How do children learn to spell and what kinds of teaching support them most effectively? Understanding Spelling is based on a three-year longitudinal study of children’s spelling in different primary classrooms. The book poses a number 66

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

of questions: What different kinds of knowledge are involved in spelling? What are the links between learning to read and learning to spell? What kinds of systematic teaching and interventions make a difference to children's progress? The book contains clear guidelines on teaching spelling throughout the primary school years. Perfetti, C.A., Rieben, L. & Fayol, M. (1997). Learning to spell: research, theory and practice across languages. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. This text provides a very comprehensive treatment of the topic for interested researchers and academics. Phenix, J. (2001). The spelling teacher's handbook. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke. This text represents a very valuable resource for teachers. The issues discussed include: understanding spelling, organising a spelling classroom, planning spelling lessons, teaching spelling patterns, spelling activities, using spelling lists, getting spelling right, developing a spelling curriculum. Pinnell, G.S., Fountas, I.C. & Giacobbe, M.E. (1998). Word Matters: teaching phonics & spelling in the reading/writing classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Word Matters presents essential information on designing and implementing a high-quality, systematic literacy program to help children learn about letters, sounds, and words. A companion volume to Guided Reading, this text presents and promotes a concept called word solving, which means that children can take words apart in order to understand their meaning, and construct words from the elements of letters and letter clusters. Roberts, J. (2001). Spelling recovery. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. An extremely popular and teacher-friendly book presenting a range of highly effective teaching approaches in a clear and concise manner. In addition to addressing the strategic and problem-solving aspects of becoming a good speller, the writer also provides useful lists of high-frequency words, spelling demons, and spelling rules. Scharer, P.L. & Zutell, J. (2003). The development of spelling. In N. Hall, J. Larson & J. Marsh (Eds) Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 271–286). London: Sage. The writers provide a comprehensive overview of spelling development in children up to the age of eight years. Particular attention is devoted to ‘stage theories’ of acquisition, and how teaching methods can link with these stages. Matching instruction with assessment data is also addressed. Teachers and researchers will find the reference list valuable. Seaton, A. (2001). Understanding spelling. Singapore: Learners Publishing. Not to be confused with the book of the same title by O’Sullivan & Thomas (2000), this is a practical guide to spelling, suited to the needs of learners of English as a second language and for native speakers. The book is systematic in Resources for teachers

67

approach, and gives clear explanations of spelling rules and exceptions, and covers both British and American spelling conventions. It includes a list of words that tend to get confused, with an analysis of their distinctions in use and meaning, as well as a comprehensive list of words that cause spelling problems. Sipe, R.B., Putnam, D., Reed-Nordwall, K., Roseware, T. & Walsh, J. (2003). They still can’t spell? Understanding and supporting challenged spellers in middle and high school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. This book offers teachers ways to identify students’ problems within the context of writing and suggests appropriate strategies to correct them in regular English classrooms. The book is the result of a collaboration of a former secondary teacher, two middle and two high school teachers, and their students. Based on literacy histories, placement inventories, visual memory tests, and analyses of student writing, the book offers a detailed look at the literacy journeys of challenged spellers through student work, vignettes, and interviews. The writers describe four categories of challenged spellers and identify the pitfalls of ‘too little, too shallow, too fast’ practices. The writers’ aim is to expand basic spelling knowledge within the constraints of the mainstream English curriculum. Sweeney, J. & Doncaster, C. (2002). Focus on spelling. London: Collins Educational. Written to support the UK National Literacy Framework and Spelling Bank objectives for spelling, this course aims to deliver step-by-step guidance to spelling success. It teaches children aged 6–11 essential spelling rules by investigating how they work.

Other useful texts Bain, A.M., Bailet, L.L. & Moats, L.C. (2001). Written language disorders. Austin, TX: ProEd. Bear, R. et al. (2004). Words their way: word study for phonics, vocabulary and spelling. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Cunningham, P.M. et al. (2004). Reading and writing in elementary classrooms: research-based K-4 instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ganske, K. (2000). Word journeys: assessment-guided phonics, spelling and vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Gunning. T.G. (2001). Building words: a resource manual for teaching word analysis and spelling strategies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Invernizzi, M., Johnston, F. & Bear, D. (2004). Words their way: Word Sorts for within word pattern spellers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Merrill. Magnan, R. & Santovec, M. (2000). 1001 Commonly misspelled words: what your spell-checker won’t tell you. New York: McGraw Hill. 68

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Marland, K. (2002). High frequency words: strategies that build skills in spelling, vocabulary and word play. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke. Shemesh, R. & Waller, S. (2000). Teaching English spelling: a practical guide. New York: Cambridge University Press. Simon, E.A. (2002). Strategic spelling: every writer’s tool. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Online resources Practical suggestions (well illustrated) from Education Department in Tasmania: http://www.discover.tased.edu.au/english/implementing.htm More about Old Way – New Way: http://www.spellingzone.com/spellingzone/ spellingsystem.html Department for Education and skills (UK). (2004). Spelling bank: lists of words and activities. http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/midbins/literacy/ Spellingbank1.PDF Ray Griffiths (2004) provides an interesting overview of learning and teaching spelling within the curriculum. See the paper One hundred years of pain and confusion! at: http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/ spelling.html Spelling tests for grade placement (covering Grade 2 to Grade 6+) can be found at this site. Two graded word lists, with a clear indication of which phonic and orthographic components are being assessed in each word: http://www.pedagonet.com/other/spell1.html Tips on teaching spelling, provided by the Hamilton Public Library, Ontario, Canada (2004) can be found at the address below. The material contains a comprehensive list of spelling rules (probably more than anyone would need; but useful background information for teachers): http://www.hpl. hamilton.on.ca/local/literacy/spelling.shtml. At the following location you will find several studies of teaching methods used to improve spelling and reduce errors. The studies are reviewed in detail. http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/sped/projects/ose/information/ints/strats. html Teaching spelling: Vivian Cook (1999). This paper suggests that spelling has been unduly neglected in the teaching of English. The writer analyses a corpus of students’ spelling mistakes in terms of problems common to many students, such as the spelling of idiosyncratic single words and pronunciationbased problems, and problems with sound–letter correspondences for vowels, consonants, consonant doubling, / alternation, sound-based mistakes and transposition of letters. http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~vcook/ OBS20.htm Resources for teachers

69

This page intentionally left blank

Appendices

Appendix 1

Glossary

affix

A meaningful part of a word attached to the beginning (prefix) or end (suffix) of a base or root word.

analytic phonics

An approach in which known words are decoded into their component sounds in order to teach letter-sound correspondences.

consonant blend

A two- or three-letter cluster in which the separate sounds are still identifiable but that functions as a useful whole unit for word recognition and spelling: for example, st, br, pl, str.

digraph

Two letters occurring together but representing only one phoneme (speech sound): for example, sh, th, ch, wh, ng, ea.

diphthong

A vowel that has two distinct sounds with a ‘slide’ or shift in the middle, for example, oy in boy.

grapheme

A letter or cluster of letters representing one speech sound.

grapho-phonic knowlege Awareness of the correspondence between written or printed symbols and the phonemes they represent (see also phonics). homonyms

Words with the same spelling pattern but different meaning.

homophones

Words which sound the same but are spelt differently.

morpheme

The smallest unit of meaning in spoken and written language.

morphograph

The written equivalent of a morpheme.

onset

The initial sound in a syllable occurring before the vowel (p - ot).

orthographic units

Commonly-occurring groups of letters that represent within-word spelling patterns. Orthographic units are the basic building blocks for constructing words. Appendices

71

72

orthography

The writing and spelling system. Orthographic knowledge can be regarded as stored information about the regularities and exceptionalities of the spelling system. ‘Orthographic processing skill’ is the ability to use such information in a range of reading and spelling tasks (Holmes, 1996, p. 149).

phoneme

A speech sound.

phonemic awareness

The ability to detect differences and similarities among speech sounds, to segment words into separate sound units, and to identify and blend sequences of speech sounds (also phoneme blending).

phonics

The system that establishes connection between speech sounds and symbols (also phonic approach to reading).

phonogram

A written spelling pattern made up from a particular cluster of letters.

phonology

The body of knowledge dealing with the speech sound components of a language.

rime

The last part of a syllable; the vowel and all the letters that follow it.

synthetic phonics

An approach in which words are encoded by blending their separate component sounds. The reverse of analytic phonics.

trigraph

A unit of three letters representing only one speech sound (for example, -igh, -eau).

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Appendix 2 125 most commonly used words in children’s writing For a more comprehensive list see Graham, Harris & Loynachan, 1994. For a list arranged according to frequency in children’s writing see Croft, 1998. For the relative difficulty of the words see Spencer, 2002).

come

here

of

them

about

could

him

off

then

after

dad

his

on

there

all

day

home

one

they

am

did

house

only

this

an

do

I

or

time

and

dog

if

our

to

are

doing

in

out

took

as

down

into

outside

two

at

egg

is

over

up

away

first

it

play

very

baby

for

just

played

was

back

friend

like

playing

we

ball

from

liked

put

went

be

get

little

ran

were

because

girl

look

said

what

bed

go

made

saw

when

been

going

make

school

where

big

good

me

see

which

but

got

more

she

who

by

had

mum

so

will

called

has

my

some

with

came

have

no

that

would

can

he

not

the

you

children

her

now

their

your

Appendices

Source: adapted from Huxford, McGonagle & Warren, 1997; Snowball, 1997b).

a

73

Appendix 3 South Australian Spelling Test (SAST) (revised) The South Australian Spelling Test (SAST) is a standardised test of spelling achievement for students in the age range 6 years to 16 years. The test is available in two forms, A and B. Both forms were standardised together on a sample of over 10,000 South Australian children in November 2004. Forms A and B can be used interchangeably for assessment purposes, but care must be taken to ensure that the correct norm tables are consulted when interpreting the scores from each form. Table 1 and Table 2 are for Form A; Table 3 and Table 4 are for Form B. The SAST can be administered orally to an individual student, to a group, or to a whole class. A written response is required from the student and the results are scored as either correct or incorrect. A student’s raw score (total of items correct) can be evaluated against the range of scores typical for students of that particular age level (see Table 1 for Form A). The raw score can also be converted into an approximate spelling age for that student (see Table 2 for Form A). If SAST Form B has been used, Table 3 and Table 4 must be used for the same purpose. Detailed instructions for administration, scoring and interpretation are presented below. The main purpose of SAST is to provide a quick screening instrument, enabling teachers to determine the spread of spelling ability in their classes and to identify students who may require additional help. Used in this way SAST can provide a quantitative measure of a student’s current standing within the age group. The SAST should not be used too frequently because children can become overly familiar with the content. If used once a year, SAST can give an indication of the progress in spelling development made by students over a period of time. The SAST measurement can accompany the more descriptive or qualitative assessments based on students’ written work samples and the English Profiles. SAST can also be used before and after any spelling intervention program (of reasonable duration) to detect improvements. Teachers are reminded, however, that standardised tests are not particularly sensitive to very short-term gains from brief intervention programs (see Chapter 6). Close inspection of the errors a student makes in SAST can also yield some limited diagnostic information, although that it not its prime purpose. For example, it is possible to note the individual’s ability to spell phonetically, to use syllabification, to spell some irregular words, and to produce certain orthographic units correctly. Used together with other sources of information, performance on the test may help a teacher determine the developmental stage a child has reached in the acquisition of spelling skills. Teachers wishing for more detailed information are referred to Ganske’s (1999) Developmental Spelling Analysis.

Technical details SAST Form A is a modified version of the graded word list (1970) compiled in Britain by Dr Margaret Peters of Cambridge University. Most of the words she used were derived from Schonell’s earlier standardised spelling tests S1 and S2 (Schonell, 1958; 1960). The 74

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

SAST Form B is a new alternative test covering the same age range as Form A. The words in Form B were selected by Westwood and Bissaker for this specific purpose. The original Form A was standardised on children in England. Later, in 1978, Australian norms were obtained by testing a large representative sample of South Australian children. The Australian norms were checked and updated in 1993, and again in 2004. Tables 1 to 4 in this book provide norms based on the testing of 10,692 South Australian children in November 2004. • Reliability: The test-retest reliability of the South Australian Spelling Test is .96 at most year levels. The correlation between scores in Form A and Form B varies from .89 to .94 according to age level. The modal value of the correlation between the two forms is .91 across the age range 6 years to 16 years. • Standard error of measurement: The standard error of measurement is approximately ± 2 marks on raw score. • Normal range of performance: The normal range of scores for each age level is based on the spread of scores reflecting the performance of 50 per cent of the age group. This was calculated on ± .68 standard deviation. These scores have been rounded to the nearest whole number in Table 1 and Table 3. • Critically low score: The critically low score has been calculated on the basis that 10 per cent of the age group would fall 1.29 standard deviations below the mean. The scores have been rounded to the nearest whole number in Table 1 and Table 3. • Sequence and grading of test items: The sequence of the words in SAST Form A corresponds fairly closely to the order used in the original test developed in Britain (with some very minor changes). The sequence of words in SAST Form B is based on the item difficulty index for each word, calculated from the performance of a sample of 60 students in the age range 6 to 13+ years. In determining the final sequence of items, reference was also made to Spencer’s (2002) analysis of word difficulty and to the word-frequency indicators provided by Leech, Rayson and Wilson (2001). Spencer (2002) suggests that word difficulty depends not only on word length but also on how often the word is seen and used (frequency factor), and phoneticity (how regularly and predictably the graphemes represent the phonemes in the word). • Gender differences: Using the 2004 sample of students, gender differences in spelling performance were investigated at each year level using ‘t’ test. It was found that there was no statistically significant difference between the mean scores obtained by boys and by girls. Separate norms tables for male and female students are therefore not required.

Instructions for administration SAST Forms A and B 1. Students should be seated in a position where copying from others is not possible. 2. Each student requires a sheet of paper and pen or pencil. 3. Students should number each item before writing the response. 4. The method of administration is to say the number of the item. Then say the word clearly. Embed the word in a sentence. Then repeat the word, saying for example: (Form B) ‘Number 19: COST. How much will the ticket COST? Write COST.’ 5. If any of the sentences suggested here appear inappropriate for the age or ability level being tested the tester can change the sentence, provided that the sense of the word is retained. Appendices

75

6. Students should be encouraged to attempt as many items as possible; but with young children, or students with learning difficulties, do not prolong the test unnecessarily. 7. It is usual to stop testing after a student has failed a block of ten *consecutive items. (*Note: Not a total of ten errors anywhere in the test, but a block of ten words coming together. Definition: Consecutive = ‘following one another in uninterrupted succession’). 8. When marking do not give credit for any words beyond the tenth consecutive error. 9. When marking do not penalise for reversals of b and d. 10. No part-marks are to be given. A word is either correct or incorrect. 11. Ensure that the correct table of norms is consulted when determining students’ spelling ages and interpreting scores (Tables 1 and 2 for Form A, and Tables 3 and 4 for Form B).

Interpretation of scores The student’s raw score is obtained by counting the number of items correct on his or her test sheet. No credit should be given for correct responses occurring after a block of ten consecutive errors. Table 1 (for Form A) and Table 3 (for Form B) allow the teacher to compare a student’s raw score with the average score obtained by other students of the same age. It is also possible to determine whether the student is performing within the ‘normal’ range of scores for his or her age level, or whether the score is critically low. ‘Normal’ range indicates the spread of scores within which 50 per cent of the students of that age score. The critically low score represents the score below which only 10 per cent of the age group would be scoring. Students in the critically low group almost certainly need additional support from the teacher in order to develop more effective spelling strategies. Examples: • Student X: A girl aged 10 years 0 months scores 42 on the SAST Form A. This places her within the ‘normal range’ of performance for students of that age. See Table 1. Her score is slightly above the average for her age group (average score would be 37). • Student Y: Her friend, also age 10 years 0 months, scores only 24 on SAST Form A. This places her in the bottom 10 per cent of students of that age. It would be advisable to carry out further assessments with this student in order to determine where special assistance can best be directed. Referring to Table 2, the spelling age for each of the two students just described is approximately 11 years 2 months (Student X) and 7 years 1 month (Student Y). When using Table 2 and Table 4 it is important to apply the known Standard Error of Measurement of SAST (±2 points). Using Table 2, it would be more accurate and cautious to describe the spelling ages of the two students referred to above as follows: • Student X: 42 - 2 = 40 and 42 + 2 = 44. Spelling ages for scores of 40 and 44 are 10 years 8 months and 11 years 10 months respectively. The spelling age for Student X is therefore within the range 10 years 8 months to 11 years 10 months. • Student Y: 24 - 2 = 22 and 24 + 2 = 26. Reading from Table 2, the spelling age for Student Y is between 6 years 10 months and 7 years 4 months. 76

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

South Australian Spelling Test Form A

1.

ON

Please put your shoe ON. Write ON.

2.

HOT

The water in the bath is HOT. Write HOT.

3.

CUP

I drink from a CUP. Write CUP.

4.

VAN

The lady can drive the VAN. Write VAN.

5.

JAM

I like JAM on my bread. Write JAM.

6.

MUD

I got MUD on my shoes when it rained. Write MUD.

7.

SIT

Please SIT on this chair. Write SIT.

8.

BEG

I taught my dog to BEG for a biscuit. Write BEG.

9.

ME

This present is not for ME. Write ME.

10.

GO

I will GO to the shops after school. Write GO.

11.

DO

What will you DO next? Write DO.

12.

OF

I am not sure OF your name. Write OF.

13.

THE

Is this THE toy you want? Write THE.

14.

SO

You did that job SO quickly. Write SO.

15.

PLAN

I used a PLAN to make this model. Write PLAN.

16.

SHIP

A SHIP is on the sea. Write SHIP.

17.

CHOP

The butcher will CHOP the meat. Write CHOP.

18.

FROM

Our new teacher comes FROM Sydney. Write FROM.

19.

THIN

The THIN cat squeezed under the fence. Write THIN.

20.

LOST

I LOST my key. Write LOST.

21.

DART

I threw a DART at the dartboard. Write DART.

22.

SEEM

The shop did not SEEM to be open. Write SEEM.

23.

FOOD

We must take FOOD to the picnic. Write FOOD.

24.

FOR

Is this letter FOR me? Write FOR.

25.

ARE

Animals ARE in the field. Write ARE.

26.

WHO

WHO was that knocking at the door? Write WHO.

27.

HERE

Put the box over HERE. Write HERE.

28.

FIRE

We need dry sticks to start the FIRE. Write FIRE.

29.

DATE

What is the DATE today? Write DATE.

30.

LOUD

Your voice is too LOUD. Write LOUD.

31.

EYE

Please shut one EYE and look at this. Write EYE.

32.

FIGHT

I saw two dogs FIGHT in the park. Write FIGHT.

33.

FRIEND

She is my best FRIEND. Write FRIEND.

34.

DONE

What have you DONE with your book? Write DONE.

35.

ANY

Are there ANY cakes left? Write ANY.

Appendices

77

36.

GREAT

I was chased by a GREAT big dog. Write GREAT.

37.

SURE

I am not SURE how to spell this. Write SURE.

38.

WOMEN

Two WOMEN went for a swim. Write WOMEN.

39.

ANSWER

Please ANSWER my question. Write ANSWER.

40.

BEAUTIFUL

The flowers in the garden look BEAUTIFUL.

41.

ORCHESTRA

I play the piano in the ORCHESTRA.

42.

EQUALLY

They shared the money EQUALLY.

43.

APPRECIATE

Thank you. I APPRECIATE your help.

44.

FAMILIAR

His face seemed FAMILIAR. Had we met before?

45.

ENTHUSIASTIC

The student was an ENTHUSIASTIC player.

46.

SIGNATURE

She wrote her SIGNATURE on the paper.

47.

BREATHE

Fresh air is good to BREATHE.

48.

PERMANENT

Will that sign be taken away or is it PERMANENT?

49.

SUFFICIENT

We have SUFFICIENT food to last for the weekend.

50.

SURPLUS

We will sell the SURPLUS apples. We have too many.

51.

CUSTOMARY

It is CUSTOMARY to shake hands.

52.

ESPECIALLY

This gift is ESPECIALLY for you.

53.

MATERIALLY

This story is not MATERIALLY different from the one in your book.

54.

CEMETERY

The funeral took place at the CEMETERY.

55.

LEISURE

She spent her LEISURE time in the garden.

56.

FRATERNALLY

FRATERNALLY means the same as brotherly.

57.

SUCCESSFUL

The fund-raising was very SUCCESSFUL.

58.

DEFINITE

I agreed on a DEFINITE time to meet her.

59.

EXHIBITION

There is an art EXHIBITION at the gallery.

60.

APPARATUS

We use this APPARATUS in the science lab.

61.

MORTGAGE

I bought the house by taking a MORTGAGE.

62.

EQUIPPED

The campers were EQUIPPED with new tents.

63.

SUBTERRANEAN

SUBTERRANEAN means under the ground.

64.

POLITICIAN

Did you vote for that POLITICIAN?

65.

MISCELLANEOUS

Mixing different items together makes a MISCELLANEOUS set.

66.

EXAGGERATE

The fish wasn’t that big! Don’t EXAGGERATE.

67.

GUARANTEE

My washing machine has a two-year GUARANTEE.

68.

EMBARRASSING

I find it EMBARRASSING to give a speech.

69.

CONSCIENTIOUS

Students who work hard are said to be CONSCIENTIOUS.

70.

SEISMOGRAPH

A SEISMOGRAPH is an instrument to measure the strength of earthquakes.

78

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Students’ Age (yrs/mths)

Average Score

Normal Range

Critically Low Score

Students’ Age (yrs/mths)

Average Score

Normal Range

Critically Low Score

Students’ Age (yrs/mths)

Average Score

Normal Range

Critically Low Score

Table 1: Ages, average scores, normal ranges and critically low scores

6.0

13

7 – 19

2

9.5

35

30 – 40

24

12.10

47

41 – 53

36

6.1

14

8 – 20

3

9.6

36

31 – 41

25

12.11

48

42 – 54

37

6.2

15

9 – 21

4

9.7

36

31 – 41

25

13.0

48

42 – 54

37

6.3

16

10 – 22

5

9.8

36

31 – 41

25

13.1

48

42 – 54

37

6.4

17

11 – 23

6

9.9

36

31 – 41

25

13.2

48

42 – 54

37

6.5

18

12 – 24

7

9.10

36

31 – 42

25

13.3

49

43 – 55

38

6.6

19

13 – 25

8

9.11

37

31 – 43

26

13.4

49

43 – 55

38

6.7

20

14 – 26

9

10.0

37

31 – 43

26

13.5

49

43 – 55

38

6.8

21

15 – 27

10

10.1

37

31 – 43

26

13.6

49

43 – 55

38

6.9

21

15 – 28

10

10.2

38

32 – 44

27

13.7

49

43 – 55

38

6.10

22

16 – 28

11

10.3

38

32 – 44

27

13.8

49

43 – 55

38

6.11

23

17 – 29

12

10.4

39

33 – 45

28

13.9

50

44 – 56

39

7.0

23

17 – 29

12

10.5

39

33 – 45

28

13.10

50

44 – 56

39

7.1

24

18 – 30

13

10.6

39

33 – 45

28

13.11

50

44 – 56

39

7.2

25

20 – 30

14

10.7

40

34 – 46

29

14.0

50

44 – 56

39

7.3

26

21 – 31

15

10.8

40

34 – 46

29

14.1

50

44 – 56

39

7.4

26

21 – 31

15

10.9

40

34 – 46

29

14.2

50

44 – 56

39

7.5

27

21 – 33

16

10.10

41

35 – 47

30

14.3

51

44 – 58

40

7.6

27

21 – 33

16

10.11

41

35 – 47

30

14.4

51

44 – 58

40

7.7

27

22 – 33

16

11.0

41

35 – 47

30

14.5

51

44 – 58

40

7.8

28

22 – 34

17

11.1

42

36 – 48

31

14.6

51

44 – 58

40

7.9

28

22 – 34

17

11.2

42

36 – 48

31

14.7

51

44 – 58

40

7.10

28

22 – 34

17

11.3

42

36 – 48

31

14.8

51

44 – 58

40

7.11

29

24 – 34

18

11.4

43

37 – 49

32

14.9

52

45 – 59

41

8.0

29

24 – 34

18

11.5

43

37 – 49

32

14.10

52

45 – 59

41

8.1

30

24 – 36

19

11.6

43

37 – 49

32

14.11

52

45 – 59

41

8.2

30

24 – 36

19

11.7

43

37 – 49

32

15.0

52

45 – 59

41

8.3

30

24 – 36

19

11.8

43

37 – 49

32

15.1

52

45 – 59

41

8.4

31

26 – 36

20

11.9

44

38 – 50

33

15.2

52

45 – 59

41

8.5

31

26 – 36

20

11.10

44

38 – 50

33

15.3

52

45 – 59

41

8.6

32

27 – 37

21

11.11

44

38 – 50

33

15.4

52

45 – 59

41

8.7

32

27 – 37

21

12.0

44

38 – 50

33

15.5

52

45 – 59

41

8.8

32

27 – 37

21

12.1

45

39 – 51

34

15.6

53

46 – 60

42

8.9

33

27 – 39

22

12.2

45

39 – 51

34

15.7

53

46 – 60

42

8.10

33

27 – 39

22

12.3

45

39 – 51

34

15.8

53

46 – 60

42

8.11

33

27 – 39

22

12.4

45

39 – 51

34

15.9

53

46 – 60

42

9.0

33

28 – 39

22

12.5

46

40 – 52

35

15.10

53

46 – 60

42

9.1

34

28 – 40

23

12.6

46

40 – 52

35

15.11

53

46 – 60

42

9.2

34

28 – 40

23

12.7

46

40 – 52

35

16.0

54

48 – 61

43

9.3

34

28 – 40

23

12.8

47

41 – 53

36

9.4

35

30 – 40

24

12.9

47

41 – 53

36

Appendices

79

Table 2: Approximate spelling ages

Raw Score

Approx. Spelling Age (yrs/mths)

Raw Score

Approx. Spelling Age (yrs/mths)

12

Below 6.0

33

8.10

13

6.0

34

9.1

14

6.1

35

9.4

15

6.2

36

9.6

16

6.3

37

9.11

17

6.4

38

10.2

18

6.5

39

10.5

19

6.6

40

10.8

20

6.7

41

10.11

21

6.8

42

11.2

43

11.5

22

6.10 44

11.10

23

6.11

45

12.2

24

7.1

46

12.5

25

7.2

47

12.8

26

7.4

48

13.0

27

7.6

49

13.5

28

7.8

50

13.10

29

7.11

51

14.4

30

8.1

52

14.11

31

8.4

53

15.7

32

8.7

54

16+

Using Table 2 Apply the Standard Error of Measurement + 2 and – 2 points on raw score. Example: Child spells 22 words correctly. • Subtract 2 from 22 = 20. • Add 2 to 22 = 24. • Enter Table 2 at raw score 20 and at 24. • Child’s spelling age is thus within the range 6 years 7 months and 7 years 1 month.

80

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

South Australian Spelling Test Form B

1.

IN

Come IN to the classroom. Write IN.

2.

TOP

Touch the TOP of your head. Write TOP.

3.

CAN

CAN you help me, please? Write CAN.

4.

PET

This dog is my PET. Write PET.

5.

BUS

I take the number 79 BUS to school. Write BUS.

6.

DIG

I can DIG a hole in the sand. Write DIG.

7.

FED

We FED the animals at the zoo. Write FED.

8.

MEN

The MEN are painting the house. Write MEN.

9.

BE

You can BE the next leader. Write BE.

10.

TO

I must send this letter TO my friend. Write TO.

11.

BY

Please come home BY five o’clock. Write BY.

12.

NO

NO, you may not stay out late. Write NO.

13.

WAS

I WAS home early today. Write WAS.

14.

SON

This mother gave her SON a present. Write SON.

15.

FLAG

The FLAG was blowing in the wind. Write FLAG.

16.

TRIP

Don’t TRIP over the books on the floor. Write TRIP.

17.

STOP

The car must STOP at the red light. Write STOP.

18.

SKIN

Our bodies are covered by SKIN. Write SKIN.

19.

COST

How much will the ticket COST? Write COST.

20.

THANK

THANK you. That was a good answer. Write THANK.

21.

NEED

I NEED more time to finish this work. Write NEED.

22.

HOOK

My fishing line has new HOOK. Write HOOK.

23.

PART

I will walk with you PART of the way home. Write PART.

24.

FOUR

We will catch the bus at FOUR o’clock. Write FOUR.

25.

OUR

This will be OUR last chance to win. Write OUR.

26.

THEY

THEY are not going to beat us. Write THEY.

27.

HEAR.

Can you HEAR the noise of the traffic? Write HEAR.

28.

FARE

How much is the bus FARE to your home? Write FARE.

29.

GATE

Please close the GATE when you go out. Write GATE.

30.

CLOUD

There is a dark CLOUD in the sky. Write CLOUD.

31.

AIR

Let us go outside and get some fresh AIR. Write AIR.

32.

TIGHT

I can’t put on this belt; it is too TIGHT. Write TIGHT.

33.

CRIED

The film was so sad, I almost CRIED. Write CRIED.

34.

NONE

NONE of you are likely to fail any tests. Write NONE.

35.

ASK

We must ASK permission to do this. Write ASK.

Appendices

81

36.

TREAT

The party was arranged as a special TREAT. Write TREAT.

37.

SURF

There is no SURF today; the sea is calm. Write SURF.

38.

WORLD

Here is a map of the WORLD. Write WORLD.

39.

DANCER

My sister is a good ballet DANCER. DANCER.

40.

UNUSUAL

Your shoes are an UNUSUAL colour. UNUSUAL.

41.

QUALITY

The photocopier needs high QUALITY paper. QUALITY.

42.

FURNITURE

I don’t like modern style FURNITURE. FURNITURE.

43.

RELIABLE

You can trust her, she is very RELIABLE. RELIABLE.

44.

FASHION

The model wore a dress of the latest FASHION. FASHION.

45.

LAUGHTER

The sound of LAUGHTER makes me happy. LAUGHTER.

46.

THOUGHTFUL

It was THOUGHTFUL of you to help. THOUGHTFUL.

47.

ENCOURAGE

Good marks will ENCOURAGE you. ENCOURAGE.

48.

EFFICIENT

The cleaner is hardworking and EFFICIENT.

49.

PURPOSE

What is the PURPOSE of the visit?

50.

CURIOUS

I was CURIOUS to know the reason.

51.

ACCEPTABLE

Your gift is very ACCEPTABLE.

52.

EQUIPMENT

The builders moved their EQUIPMENT.

53.

CHOIR

I was chosen to sing in the school CHOIR.

54.

CHEMICALLY

The two substances were analysed CHEMICALLY.

55.

NEIGHBOUR

I often smile and speak to my NEIGHBOUR.

56.

NOCTURNAL

A NOCTURNAL animal comes out at night.

57.

ASSESSMENT

We use examinations as one form of ASSESSMENT.

58.

ADOLESCENCE

ADOLESCENCE is the period between age 13 to adulthood.

59.

CASUALTY

The driver of the wrecked car was the only CASUALTY.

60.

CATALOGUE

You can check the price and details in the CATALOGUE.

61.

BOULDER

A large BOULDER and some smaller rocks blocked their path.

62.

EXEMPLARY

She gave an EXEMPLARY performance in the debate.

63.

MAGNIFICENT

The queen looked MAGNIFICENT in her robes.

64.

SUBSTITUTE

The team decided to use the SUBSTITUTE player.

65.

MAINTENANCE

A motorcycle needs regular MAINTENANCE.

66.

DISGUISE

He did not want to be recognised so he put on a DISGUISE.

67.

PROPRIETOR

The owner of a business is called the PROPRIETOR.

68.

VACCINATION

To prevent catching this disease you need a VACCINATION.

69.

EXCRUCIATING

The injury to her knee caused EXCRUCIATING pain.

70.

KALEIDOSCOPE

A KALEIDOSCOPE is an instrument or toy that makes patterns of light with coloured glass.

82

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Students’ Age (yrs/mths)

Average Score

Normal Range

Critically Low Score

Students’ Age (yrs/mths)

Average Score

Normal Range

Critically Low Score

Students’ Age (yrs/mths)

Average Score

Normal Range

Critically Low Score

Table 3: Ages, average scores, normal ranges and critically low scores

6.0

12

7 – 17

2

9.5

37

30 – 44

23

12.10

52

45 – 59

40

6.1

13

8 – 18

3

9.6

38

31 – 45

24

12.11

52

45 – 59

40

6.2

14

9 – 19

4

9.7

38

31 – 45

24

13.0

52

45 – 59

40

6.3

15

10 – 20

5

9.8

38

31 – 45

24

13.1

52

45 – 59

40

6.4

16

10 – 22

6

9.9

39

31 – 47

24

13.2

53

46 – 60

40

6.5

16

10 – 22

6

9.10

39

31 – 47

24

13.3

53

46 – 60

40

6.6

17

11 – 23

6

9.11

39

31 – 47

24

13.4

53

46 – 60

41

6.7

18

12 – 24

7

10.0

40

32 – 48

25

13.5

53

46 – 60

41

6.8

18

12 – 24

7

10.1

40

32 – 48

25

13.6

53

46 – 60

41

6.9

19

13 – 25

8

10.2

40

32 – 48

25

13.7

54

47 – 61

42

6.10

20

14 – 26

8

10.3

41

33 – 49

26

13.8

54

47 – 61

42

6.11

20

14 – 26

8

10.4

41

33 – 49

26

13.9

54

47 – 61

42

7.0

21

15 – 27

9

10.5

42

34 – 50

27

13.10

54

47 – 61

42

7.1

22

16 – 28

10

10.6

42

34 – 50

27

13.11

54

47 – 61

42

7.2

23

17 – 29

11

10.7

42

34 – 50

27

14.0

54

47 – 61

42

7.3

23

17 – 29

11

10.8

43

35 – 51

28

14.1

54

47 – 61

42

7.4

24

17 – 31

11

10.9

43

35 – 51

28

14.2

54

47 – 61

42

7.5

25

18 – 32

12

10.10

44

36 – 52

29

14.3

54

47 – 61

42

7.6

26

19 – 33

13

10.11

44

36 – 52

29

14.4

54

47 – 61

42

7.7

26

19 – 33

13

11.0

45

37 – 53

30

14.5

55

48 – 62

43

7.8

27

20 – 34

14

11.1

45

37 – 53

30

14.6

55

48 – 62

43

7.9

27

20 – 34

14

11.2

46

38 – 54

31

14.7

55

48 – 62

43

7.10

28

21 – 35

15

11.3

46

38 – 54

31

14.8

55

48 – 62

43

7.11

28

21 – 35

15

11.4

47

40 – 54

33

14.9

55

48 – 62

43

8.0

28

21 – 35

15

11.5

47

40 – 54

33

14.10

55

48 – 62

43

8.1

29

22 – 36

16

11.6

47

40 – 54

33

14.11

55

48 – 62

43

8.2

30

23 – 37

17

11.7

48

41 – 55

34

15.0

56

49 – 63

44

8.3

30

23 – 37

17

11.8

48

41 – 55

34

15.1

56

49 – 63

44

8.4

31

24 – 38

18

11.9

48

41 – 55

34

15.2

56

49 – 63

44

8.5

31

24 – 38

18

11.10

48

41 – 55

35

15.3

56

49 – 63

45

8.6

32

25 – 39

19

11.11

49

42 – 56

36

15.4

56

49 – 63

45

8.7

32

25 – 39

19

12.0

49

42 – 56

36

15.5

56

49 – 63

45

8.8

33

26 – 40

20

12.1

49

42 – 56

36

15.6

57

50 – 64

46

8.9

33

26 – 40

20

12.2

49

42 – 56

36

15.7

57

50 – 64

46

8.10

34

27 – 41

20

12.3

50

43 – 57

36

15.8

57

50 – 64

46

8.11

34

27 – 41

20

12.4

50

43 – 57

37

15.9

57

50 – 64

46

9.0

34

27 – 41

20

12.5

50

43 – 57

37

15.10

57

50 – 64

46

9.1

35

28 – 42

21

12.6

51

44 – 58

38

15.11

57

50 – 64

46

9.2

35

28 – 42

21

12.7

51

44 – 58

38

16.0

58

53 – 64

48

9.3

36

29 – 43

21

12.8

51

44 – 58

38

9.4

36

29 – 43

22

12.9

51

44 – 58

38

Appendices

83

Table 4.Approximate spelling ages

Raw Score

Approx. Spelling Age (yrs/mths)

Raw Score

Approx. Spelling Age (yrs/mths)

12

6.0

35

9.1

13

6.1

36

9.3

14

6.2

37

9.5

15

6.3

38

9.6

16

6.4

39

9.9

17

6.6

40

10.0

18

6.7

41

10.3

19

6.9

42

10.5

20

6.10

43

10.8

21

7.0

44

10.10

22

7.1

45

11.0

46

11.2

23

7.2

47

11.4

24

7.4

48

11.7

25

7.5

49

11.11

26

7.6

50

12.3

27

7.8

51

12.6

28

7.10

52

12.10

29

8.1

53

13.2

30

8.2

54

13.8

31

8.4

55

14.5

32

8.6

56

15.2

33

8.8

57

15.9

58

16.0

Using Table 4 Apply the Standard Error of Measurement + 2 and – 2 points on raw score. Example: Child spells 28 words correctly. • Subtract 2 from 28 = 26. • Add 2 to 28 = 30. • Enter Table 2 at raw score 26 and at 30. • Child’s spelling age is thus within the range 7 years 6 months to 8 years 2 months.

84

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Appendix 4

Diagnostic tests

Diagnostic test A: some predictable spelling patterns The words in the list below may be used for a quick assessment of a student’s ability to spell dictated words that are reasonably regular in terms of letter- (or letter cluster)to-sound correspondences. The test also provides an opportunity to examine the student’s grasp of a selection of consonant blends and digraphs used in the initial and final position. The final two words in each column require knowledge of syllable units. Any student who performs poorly on the first thirty words should be checked for basic phonological awareness and phonic knowledge (see Diagnostic test D).

at

if

on

up

wet

bag

rod

fin

bus

men

chop

plot

ship

trap

step

flag

swim

glad

drop

slug

must

risk

silk

send

lamp

fact

help

sift

luck

song

scrap

string

split

think

shack

winter

person

driving

action

beside

freedom

latest

project

chapter

remember

Diagnostic test B: some less predictable words With this test it is important to observe how the student goes about the task of attempting to spell these words. Are the errors mainly phonetic? the

ask

are

any

does

said

sure

was

they

come

tough

work

master

half

lawn

laugh

wander

glove

women

where

Appendices

85

Diagnostic test C: core list of hard-to-spell words These words (or some of them) can be given as a test. Students who cannot spell any of these words should write the correct spelling on a personal reference card, and use this card when proofreading.

of

all

it’s

off

saw

too

two

was

came

come

hour

into

kept

knew

know

said

then

they

want

went

were

when

again

could

heard

might

right

still

that’s

their

there

tried

until

where

always

bought

caught

friend

houses

inside

myself

opened

people

played

police

school

turned

another

decided

outside

running

started

stopped

thought

through

because

suddenly

sometimes

Diagnostic test D: test of basic phonic knowledge In the case of very young children, or older students with learning problems, it is often useful to check that they know the most common letter-to-sound correspondences. Any gaps detected in their basic phonic knowledge can then be identified easily and remedied. Present each of the following letters (capital and lower case) on separate cards and ask the child to say the letter name and letter sound. The activity can be played as a game.

86

B

H

F

K

P

W

A

O

J

U

C

Y

M

Q

Z

L

N

S

T

R

I

G

E

V

D

X

f

k

w

p

z

a

g

h

b

j

u

c

y

q

l

i

m

d

n

s

t

r

v

e

o

x

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Source.Moseley, 1997. Reproduced with the author’s permission.

an

If students know the most common sounds associated with single letters, card material or a checklist can be used to determine their ability to recognise and blend two sounds and to recognise common digraphs, trigraphs, and consonant blends.

ab

ad

ag

am

an

ap

at

ed

eg

en

et

ib

id

ig

in

ip

it

ob

od

og

op

ot

ub

ug

um

un

up

ut

ch

sh

th

ph

wh

ck

wr

bl

br

cl

cr

dr

fl

gl

gr

st

sp

sw

pl

pr

tr

sm

sl

fr

sn

sk

sc

tw

str

scr

spr

thr

spl

shr

squ

If a student has clearly developed beyond the basic phonic stages represented above, he or she can be checked for recognition of common letter strings such as those listed below. As well as being able to say the sound unit represented by the letter group, the student can be asked to think of some words containing that unit and to write the words.

amp

ump

and

end

ast

est

ist

ust

ank

ink

all

ill

ull

ang

ant

ent

int

unt

old

alk

ilk

elt

ilt

atch

itch

unch

uch

act

ift

ong

orm

orn

ulk

umb

oss

ar

ay

ea

ey

ure

er

ow

dge

tch

eer

igh

Appendices

87

This page intentionally left blank

References Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Alber, S. & Walshe, S. (2004). When to self-correct spelling words. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 1, 51–66. Andrews, S. & Scarratt, D. (1996). What comes after phonological awareness? Using lexical experts to investigate orthographic processes in reading. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 3, 141–148. Ball, E.W. & Blachman, B.A. (1991). Does phonemic awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 49–66. Bean, W. (1998). Spelling across the grades. In J. Coombs (Ed.) Getting started: ideas for the literacy teacher. Newton, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association. Beckham-Hungler, D. & Williams, C. (2003). Teaching words that students misspell: spelling instruction and young children’s writing. Language Arts, 80, 4, 299–309. Bell, N. (1991). Visualizing and verbalizing. Paso Robles, CA: Academy of Reading Publications. Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L. & Nolen, S.B. (1995). Integrating low and high-level skills in instructional protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 4, 293–309. Berninger, V.W., Vaughn, K., Abbott, R.D., Brooks, A., Abbott, S. & Rogan, L. (1998). Early intervention for spelling problems: teaching functional spelling units of varying size with a multiple connections framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 587–605. Bhattacharya, A. & Ehri, L. (2004). Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4, 331–348. Birsh, J.R. (1999). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore: Brookes. Bissaker, K. (1999). Familiar and unfamiliar words: their influence on spellers’ selection of encoding strategies. In P. Westwood & W. Scott (Eds) Learning disabilities: advocacy and action (pp. 69–82). Melbourne: Australian Resource Educators Association (AREA). Bissex, G. (1980). Gnys at wrk. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Bos, M. & Reitsma, P. (2003). Experienced teachers’ expectations about the potential effectiveness of spelling exercises. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 104–127. Bouffler, C. (1997). They don’t teach spelling any more—or do they? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 20, 2, 140–147. Bradley, L. (1983). The organisation of visual, phonological, and motor strategies in learning to read and spell. In U. Kirk (Ed.) Neuropsychology of language, reading and spelling. New York: Academic Press. Brann, B. (1997). Analysis of spelling attempts: the Brann Analysis Grid for Spelling. In D. Greaves & P. Jeffery (Eds) Learning difficulties, disabilities and resource teaching (pp.129–137). Melbourne: The Australian Resource Educators’ Association. References

89

Brooks, P. (1995). The effectiveness of various teaching strategies in the teaching of spelling to a student with severe specific difficulties. Educational and Child Psychology, 12, 1, 8–88. Brown, K.J., Sinatra, G.M. & Wagstaff, J.M. (1996). Exploring the potential of analogy instruction to support students’ spelling. Elementary School Journal, 97, 1, 81–100. Bryant, P. (2002). Children’s thoughts about reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 2, 199–217. Bryant, P. & Bradley, L. (1980). Why children sometimes write words which they do not read. In U. Frith (Ed.) Cognitive processes in spelling. New York: Academic Press. Bryant, P. & Bradley, L. (1985). Children’s reading problems. Oxford: Blackwell. Buschman, L. (2003). Buddies aren’t just for reading: they’re for spelling too. The Reading Teacher, 56, 8, 747–752. Butyniec-Thomas, J. & Woloshyn, V.E. (1997). The effects of explicit strategy and wholelanguage instruction on students’ spelling ability. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 4, 293–302. Cameron, M., Depree, H., Walker, J. & Moore, D. (2002). Paired writing: helping beginners get started. SET 1: research information for teachers. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Castiglioni-Spalten, M. & Ehri, L. (2003). Phonemic awareness instruction: contribution of articulatory segmentation to novice beginners’ reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 1, 25–52. Chan, L.K.S. & Dally, K. (2000). Review of literature. In W. Louden, L.K.S. Chan, J. Elkins, D. Geaves, H. House, M. Milton, and others. Mapping the territory: primary students with learning difficulties in literacy and numeracy (v. 2, pp. 161–331). Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Chandler, K. (2000). What I wish I’d known about teaching spelling. English Journal: High School Edition, 89, 6, 87–95. Clark, J.M. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 3, 149–210. Clarke-Klein, S.M. (1994). Expressive phonological deficiencies: impact on spelling development. Topics in Language Disorders, 14, 2, 40–55. CLPE (Centre for Language in Primary Education) (2004). Understanding spelling. Online source http://www.clpe.co.uk/researchandprojects/research_04.html Coltheart, V. & Leahy, J. (1996). Procedures used by beginning and skilled readers to read unfamiliar letter strings. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 3, 124–129. Cripps, C. (1990). Teaching joined writing to children on school entry as an agent for catching spelling. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 22, 3, 13–15. Croft, C. (1998). Spell-Write: an aid to writing, spelling and word study. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Cunningham, P.M. (1998). The multisyllabic word dilemma: helping students build meaning, spell and read ‘big’ words. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 2, 189–218. Curriculum Corporation (1994). English: a curriculum profile for Australian schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. 90

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Curriculum Corporation (1998). Literacy: professional elaboration. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Dahl, K. and Associates (2003). Connecting developmental word study with classroom writing: children’s descriptions of spelling strategies. The Reading Teacher, 57, 4, 310–319. Darch, C., Soobang, K., Johnson, S. & James, H. (2000). The strategic spelling skills of students with learning disabilities: The results of two studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 1, 15–27. Davies, A. & Ritchie, D. (2004). Teaching Handwriting, Reading and Spelling Skills (THRASS). Chester: THRASS (UK) Ltd. Department for Education and Children’s Services (South Australia) (1997). Spelling: from beginnings to independence. Adelaide: Government Printer. Dixon, R.C. (1991). The application of sameness analysis to spelling. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 5, 285–291. Dixon, R. & Engelmann, S. (1976). Spelling through Morphographs. Sydney: SRA/McGrawHill. Dixon, R. & Engelmann, S. (1990). Spelling Mastery. Sydney: SRA/McGraw-Hill. Dougherty, S. & Clayton, M. (1998) The effect on spelling ability of exposure to the printed word. Research in Education, 59, 80–94. Education Department of Western Australia (1994; 2004). First Steps: Spelling Developmental Continuum and Spelling: Resource Book. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Ehri, L. (1989). Development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 356–370. Elbro, C. & Arnbak, E. (1996). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209–240. Ellis. A.W. (1984). Reading, writing and dyslexia: a cognitive analysis. London: Erlbaum. Fiderer, A. (1998). Assessing literacy levels in your classroom. Classroom, 98, 2, 18–19. Fox, M. (1997). Towards a personal theory of whole language: a teacher-researcherwriter reflects. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 20, 2, 122–130. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. & Burish, P. (2000). Peer-assisted learning strategies: an evidencebased practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 2, 85–91. Fulk, B.M. (1996). The effects of combined strategy and attribution training on LD adolescents’ spelling performance. Exceptionality, 6, 1, 13–27. Fulk, B.M. (1997). Think while you spell: a cognitive motivational approach to spelling instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29, 4, 70–71. Fulk, B.M. & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1995). Spelling interventions for students with disabilities: a review. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 4, 488–513. Gagne, E., Yekovich, C. & Yekovich, F. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd edn). New York: Harper Collins. Ganske, K. (1999). The developmental spelling analysis: a measure of orthographic knowledge. Educational Assessment, 6, 41–70. References

91

Ganske, K. (2000). Word journeys: assessment-guided phonics, spelling and vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Gaskins, I., Ehri, L., Cress, C., O’Hara, C. & Donnelly, K. (1997a). Analyzing words and making discoveries about the alphabetic system: activities for beginning readers. Language Arts, 74, 3, 172–184. Gaskins, I., Ehri, L., Cress, C., O’Hara, C. & Donnelly, K. (1997b). Procedures for word learning: making discoveries about words. The Reading Teacher, 50, 4, 312–327. Gentry, J.R. (1997). Spelling strategies. Instructor, 107, 4, 56–57. Gentry, J.R. (2001). Five myths about spelling. Instructor, 111, 3, 31–33. Gentry, J.R. & Gillet, J.W. (1993). Teaching kids to spell. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gerber, M.M. (1986). Generalization of spelling strategies by learning disabled students as a result of contingent imitation-modelling and mastery criteria. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 530–537. Gillingham, A. & Stillman, B. (1960). Remedial teaching for children with specific disability in reading, spelling and penmanship. Cambridge, Mass: Educators Publishing Service. Goodman, K.S. (1986). What’s whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann. Gordon, J., Vaughn, S. & Schumm, J. (1993). Spelling interventions: a review of literature and implications for instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 8, 3, 175–181. Goswami, U. (1992). Annotation: phonological factors in spelling development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 6, 967–975. Graham, S. (2000). Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 2, 235–247. Graham, S. & Freeman, S. (1985). Strategy training and teacher vs student-controlled study conditions: effects on LD students’ spelling performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 267–274. Graham, S. & Harris, K.R. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching writing to students with special needs. Journal of Special Education, 28, 3, 275–289. Graham, S, Harris, K. & Chorzempa, B.F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 4, 669–686. Graham, S, Harris, K. & Chorzempa, B.F. (2003). Bridging research and practice: extra spelling instruction promoting better spelling, writing and reading performance right from the start. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 6, 66–68. Graham, S., Harris, K. & Loynachan, C. (1994). The spelling for writing list. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 4, 210–214. Graham, S., Harris, K. & Loynachan, C. (1996). The Directed Spelling Thinking Activity: application with high-frequency words. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 11, 1, 34–40. Grainger, J. (1997). Children’s behaviour, attention and reading problems. Melbourne: ACER Press. Greenbaum, C.R. (1987). Spellmaster: an assessment and teaching system. Austin: ProEd. 92

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Gunning, T.G. (1995). Word building: a strategic approach to the teaching of phonics. The Reading Teacher, 48, 6, 484–488. Gunning, T.G. (2004). Creating literacy instruction for all students in grades 4 to 8. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hammond, L. (2004). Getting the right balance: effective classroom spelling instruction. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 3, 11–18. Harrison, B., Zollner, J. & Magill, B. (1996). The hole in whole language. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 27, 5, 6–18. Helman, L. (2004). Building on the sound system of Spanish: insights from the alphabetic spellings of English-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 57, 5, 452–460. Hewson, J. (1990). Paired spelling. Support for Learning, 5, 3, 136–140. Hoffman, J.V., Baumann, J. & Afflerbach, P. (2000). Balancing principles for teaching elementary reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hoffman, P.R. (1990). Spelling, phonology, and the speech-language pathologist: a whole language perspective. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 238–243. Holmes, V.M. (1996). Skilled reading and orthographic processing. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 3, 149–154. Howell, K., Fox, S. & Morehead, M. (1993). Curriculum-based evaluation (2nd edn). Pacific Grove: Brooks-Cole. Hutton, D. & Lescohier, J.A. (1983). Seeing to learn: using mental imagery in the classroom. In M.L. Fleming & D.W. Hutton (Eds) Mental imagery and learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Huxford, L., McGonagle, R. & Warren, S. (1997). Which words? Words which 4- to 6-year-old children use in their writing. Reading, 31, 3, 16–21. Invernizzi, M., Abouzeid, M. & Gill, J.T. (1994). Using students’ invented spellings as a guide for spelling instruction that emphasizes word study. Elementary School Journal, 95, 2, 155–167. Invernizzi, M. & Hayes, L. (2004). Developmental-spelling research: a systemic imperative. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 2, 216–228. Jackson, C.C. (1994). The Fonetik Spelling Program. Wellington: New Zealand Special Education Service. Jackson, C.C., Konza, D.M., Ben-Evans, J. & Roodenrys, S. (2003). Spelling accuracy for secondary students with spelling difficulties: using phonetic codes and technology. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 1, 23–29. Jamieson, C. and Jamieson, J. (2003). Manual for testing and teaching English spelling: a comprehensive and structured system for the planning and delivery of spelling intervention. London: Whurr. Jenkins, H.J. & Dix, S.B. (2004). The role of action research in learning support: a case study. Special Education Perspectives, 13, 2, 47–68. Johnson, R.S. & Watson, J.E. (2003). Accelerating reading and spelling with synthetic phonics: a five-year follow-up. Interchange 57. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department.

References

93

Johnston, F.R. (1999). The timing and teaching of word families. The Reading Teacher, 53, 1, 64–76. Jongsma, K.S. (1990). Reading-spelling links. The Reading Teacher, 43, 8, 608–609. Jorm, A. (1983). The psychology of reading and spelling disability. London: Routledge. Joseph, L.M. (2002). Facilitating word recognition and spelling using word boxes and word sort phonic procedures. School Psychology Review, 31, 1, 122–129. Joseph, L.M. & McCachran, M. (2003). Comparison of a word study phonics technique between students with moderate to mild mental retardation and learning disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 2, 192–199. Keller, C. (2002). A new twist on spelling instruction for elementary school teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 1, 3–8. Kervin, L.K. (2002). Proofreading as a strategy for spelling development. Reading Online, 5, 10. Kessler, B. & Treiman, R. (2003). Is English spelling chaotic? Misconceptions concerning its irregularity. Reading Psychology, 24, 3–4. 267–289. Kirkbride, S. & Wright, B.C. (2002). The role of analogy use in improving early spelling performance. Educational and Child Psychology, 19, 4, 91–102. Layton, L., Deeny, K., Upton, G. & Tall, G. (1998). A pre-school training programme for children with poor phonological awareness: effects on reading and spelling. Journal of Research in Reading, 21, 1, 36–52. Leary, G. & Johncock, W. (1995). Using computers in the classroom to develop spelling skills. In R. Oliver & M. Wild (Eds) Learning without limits. Proceedings of the Australian Computers in Education Conference. Claremont, WA: Educational Computing Association. Leech, G., Rayson, P. & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English. Harlow: Longman-Pearson Educational. Lipson, M. & Wixson, K. (2003). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing: an interactive approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lowe, K. & Walters, J. (1991). The unsuccessful reader: negotiating new perceptions. In E. Furniss & P. Green (Eds) The literacy agenda: issues for the nineties. Melbourne; Eleanor Curtin Publishing. Lyndon, H. (1989). I did it my way: an introduction to Old Way – New Way. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 13, 32–37. Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M. & Barnes, M.C. (2003). Learning disabilities. In E.J. Mash & R.A. Barkley (Eds) Child Psychopathology (2nd edn) (pp. 520–586). New York: Guilford. MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., Haynes, J.B. & DeLaPaz, S. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: performance comparisons and impact on spelling. Journal of Special Education, 30, 1, 35–57. McCoy, K. (1995). Teaching special learners in the general education classroom (2nd edn). Denver: Love. McDonnell, J., Thorston, N., Allen, C. & Mathot-Buckner, C. (2004). The effects of partner learning during spelling for students with severe disabilities and their peers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 2, 107–121. 94

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

McLaughlin, T.F. & Skinner, C.H. (1996). Improving academic performance through self-management: cover, copy and compare. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 2, 113–118. McNaughton, D., Hughes, C. & Clark, K. (1994). Spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: implications for research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 3, 169–185. Maki, H.L., Vauras, M. & Vainio, S. (2002). Reflective spelling strategies for elementary school students with severe writing difficulties: a case study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 189–207. Marten, C. & Graves, D.H. (2003) Word Crafting: teaching spelling, Grades K-6. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Mather, N. & Roberts, R. (1995). Informal assessment and instruction in written language. New York: Wiley. Meeks, L. (2003). Spelling does matter! Special Education Perspectives, 12, 1, 47–60. Miller, L.J., Rakes, T.A. & Choate, J.S. (1997). Handwriting and spelling: tools for communication. In J.S. Choate (Ed.) Successful inclusive teaching (2nd edn). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Minton, P. (2002). Using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to help dyslexics, and others, learn to spell. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 3, 26–31. Moats, L.C. (1995). Spelling: development, disability and instruction. Baltimore: York Press. Morris, D., Bloodgood, J. & Perney, J. (2003). Kindergarten predictors of first and second grade reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 104, 2, 93–110. Moseley, D. (1997). Assessment of spelling and related aspects of written expression. In J.R. Beech & C. Singleton (Eds) The psychological assessment of reading. London: Routledge. Nichols, R. (1985). Helping your child spell. Earley: University of Reading. Nunes, T. & Bryant, P. (2004). Morphological awareness improves spelling and vocabulary. Literacy Today, 38, 18–19. O’Sullivan, O. (2000). Understanding spelling. Reading, 34, 1, 9–16. O’Sullivan, O. & Thomas, A. (2000). Understanding spelling. London: The Centre for Literacy in Primary Education (CLPE). Padget, S.Y., Knight, D.F. & Sawyer, D.J. (1996). Tennessee meets the challenge of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 51–72. Pappano, L. (2004). Spelling making a comeback in school. The Boston Globe 25/1/04.www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/mcas/articles/2004/01/25/spelling_ making_a_comeback_in_school Parker, R. (1991). Spelling at home. In V. Nicoll & L. Wilkie (Eds) Literacy at home and school. Rozell, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association. Peters, M.L. (1970). Success in spelling. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Education. Peters, M.L. (1974a). The significance of spelling miscues. In B. Wade & K. Wedell (Eds) Spelling: task and learner. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press. References

95

Peters, M.L. (1974b). Teacher variables in spelling. In B. Wade & K. Wedell (Eds) Spelling: task and learner. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press. Peters, M.L. (1975). Diagnostic and remedial spelling manual. London: Macmillan. Peters, M.L (1985). Spelling: caught or taught? A new look. London: Routledge. Peters, M.L. & Cripps, C. (1980). Catchwords: ideas for teaching spelling (2nd edn). Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Peters, M.L. & Smith, B. (1993). Spelling in context. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Polloway, E.A. & Patton. J.R. (1997). Strategies for teaching learners with special needs (6th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Poskiparta, E., Niemi, P., Lepola, J. Ahtola, A, & Liane, P. (2003). Motivationalemotional vulnerability and difficulties in learning to read and spell. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 2, 187–206. Poulter, M. (2002). Focus on spelling. Literacy Today, 32, 10–11. Pumfrey, P. & Reason, R. (1991). Specific learning difficulties: dyslexia. London: Routledge. Ralston, M. & Robinson, G. (1997). Spelling strategies and metacognitive awareness in skilled and unskilled spellers. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2, 4, 12–23. Read, C. & Hodges, R.E. (1982). Spelling. In H.E. Mitzel, J.H. Best & W. Rabinowitz (Eds) Encyclopedia of educational research (5th edn). London: Collier Macmillan. Reason, R. & Boote, R. (1994). Helping children with reading and spelling. London: Routledge. Redfern, A. (1993). Practical ways to teach spelling. Reading: University of Reading. Roberts, J. (2001). Spelling recovery: the pathway to spelling success. Melbourne, Australian Council for Educational Research. Rowe, G. & Lomas, B. (1996). Systematic spelling: a classroom action plan. Burwood: Dellasta. Salend, S. (1994). Effective mainstreaming (2nd edn). New York: Macmillan. Schlagal, B. (2002). Classroom spelling instruction: history, research and practice. Reading Research and Instruction, 42, 1, 44–58. Schonell, F.J. (1958). The essentials of teaching and testing spelling. London: Macmillan. Schonell, F.J & Schonell, F.E. (1960). Diagnostic and attainment testing (4th edn). Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. Scott, C.M. (2000). Principles and methods of spelling instruction: applications for poor spellers. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 3, 66–82. Sears, H.C. & Johnson, D.M. (1986). The effects of visual imagery on spelling performance. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 4, 230–233. Silva, C. & Alves-Martins, M.A. (2003). Relations between children’s invented spelling and the development of phonological awareness. Educational Psychology, 23, 1, 4–16. Snowball, D. (1997a). Spelling strategies. Classroom, 17, 2, 20–21. Snowball, D. (1997b). Spelling: learning high frequency words. Classroom, 17, 3, 18–19. Snowball, D. (1997c). Fun spelling games for serious skill building. Instructor, 106, 7, 28–29. 96

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Spencer, K. (2002). English spelling and its contribution to illiteracy: word difficulty for common English words. Reading, Literacy and Language, 36, 1, 16–25. Sprenger-Charolles, L., Siegel, L., Bechennec, D. & Serniclaes, W. (2003). Development of phonological and orthographic processing in reading aloud, in silent reading, and in spelling: a four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 84, 3, 194–217. Stewart, S.R. & Cegelka, P.T. (1995). Teaching reading and spelling. In P.T. Cegelka & W.H. Berdine (Eds) Effective instruction for students with learning difficulties. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Tangel, D.M. & Blachman, B.A. (1995). Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on the invented spelling of first-grade children: a one-year follow-up. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 27, 2, 153–185. Templeton, S. (1992). New trends in an historic perspective: old story, new resolution – sound and meaning in spelling. Language Arts, 69, 6, 454–463. Templeton, S. (2003a) The spelling–meaning connection. Voices from the Middle, 10, 3, 56–57. Templeton, S. (2003b). Spelling: best ideas = best practice. Voices from the Middle, 10, 4, 48–49. Templeton, S. (2004). Spelling and the middle school English language learner. Voices from the Middle, 11, 4, 48–49. Templeton, S. & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 1, 102–112. Thibodeau, G. (2002). Spellbound: commitment to correctness. Voices from the Middle, 9, 3, 19–22. Thomson, M. (1995). Evaluating teaching programs for children with specific learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 27, 1, 20–27. Thurstone, L.L. (1948). Psychological implications of factor analysis. American Psychologist, 3, 402–408. Topping, K. (1995). Paired reading, spelling and writing. London: Cassell. Topping, K., Nixon, J., Sutherland, J. & Yarrow, F. (2000). Paired writing: a framework for effective collaboration. Reading, 34, 2, 79–88. Torgeson, C.J. & Elbourne, D. (2002). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) on the teaching of spelling. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 2, 129–143. Treiman, R., Kessler, B. & Bourassa, D. (2001). Children’s own names influence their spelling. Applied Linguistics, 22, 4, 555–570. van Hell, J.G., Bosman, A.M. & Bartelings, M.C. (2003). Visual dictation improves the spelling performance of three groups of Dutch students with spelling disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 4, 239–256. Varnhagen, C.K., Varnhagen, S. & Das, J.P. (1992). Analysis of cognitive processing and spelling errors of average and reading-disabled children. Reading Psychology, 13, 3, 217–239. Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S. & Schumm, J.S. (1997). Teaching mainstreamed, diverse, and atrisk students in the general education classroom. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. References

97

Vincent, D. & Claydon, J. (1982). Diagnostic spelling test (Australian ed., 1996). Coldstream, Victoria: Professional Resources Services. Waring, S., Prior, M., Sanson, A. & Smart, D. (1996). Predictors of recovery from reading disability. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 3, 160–166. Watkins, G. & Hunter-Carsch, M. (1995). Prompt spelling: a practical approach to paired spelling. Support for Learning, 10, 3, 133–137. Weaver, C. (1994). Understanding whole language: from principles to practice (2nd edn). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Weeks, S., Brooks, P. & Everatt, J. (2002). Differences in learning to spell: relationships between cognitive profiles and learning responses to teaching methods. Educational and Child Psychology, 19, 4, 47–62. Westwood, P.S. (1973). Predicting expressive and receptive language performance from measures of psycholinguistic ability. Unpublished Masters’ degree thesis, University of Manchester. Westwood, P.S. (1994). Issues in spelling instruction. Special Education Perspectives, 3, 1, 31–44. Westwood, P.S. (1996). Literacy intervention in a primary school. Special Education Perspectives, 5, 2, 45–52. Westwood, P.S. (1999) The correlation between results from different types of spelling test and children’s spelling ability while writing. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 1, 31–36. Westwood, P.S. (2001). Assessment must lead to action. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6, 2, 3–10. Westwood, P.S. (2003). Commonsense methods for children with special needs (4th edn). London: Routledge-Falmer. Whiting, P.R. & Chapman, E. (2000). Evaluation of a computer-based program to teach reading and spelling to students with learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 4, 11–17. Wirtz, C.L., Gardner, R., Weber, K. & Bullara, D. (1996). Using self-correction to improve the spelling performance of low-achieving third graders. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 1, 48–58. Yetter, B.D. (2001). Weave spelling through the day. Teaching Pre-K–8. 32, 3, 50–51. Zutell, J. (1998). Word Sorting: a developmental spelling approach to word study for delayed readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 2, 219–238.

98

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

Index Main entries are in bold alliteration 49 analogy as a spelling strategy 9, 22, 29, 32, 33, 37, 59 analytic phonics 13, 71 articulation 13 assessment in spelling 53–63, 66, 74–84 attitudes 1–2, 26, 27–28 importance of in spelling 2, 12, 27 auditory skills and processes 9, 12, 23, 25, 29, 49, 57 automaticity 10, 13, 14–15, 16, 21, 59 benchmarks for spelling 53, 56–57 CASL spelling program 36 Class-Wide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) 42 computers 38–39 limitations of 39 role in spelling 26 conferencing 63 curriculum-based assessment 60–61 developmental stages in spelling 7–11, 12, 24, 25, 31–32, 35, 49–51, 65, 67, 74 diagnosis in spelling 11, 12, 51, 53 diagnostic testing 60, 61, 65, 85–87 dictation 11 direct teaching 2, 5–6, 25, 27, 32 (see also explicit teaching) Directed Spelling Thinking Activity (DSTA) 30, 48, 50 dual coding system 16 dyslexia 3, 21, 23, 24, 49, 66 English language 19, 38 irregularities in spelling 12, 15, 31, 33 as a second language 13, 66, 67 English Profiles 53, 57–60, 74 error analysis 53, 54–55, 65, 69 as a diagnostic procedure 51, 54–55, 65, 85 difficulties associated with 55

error correction 41, 45, 47–48, 49, 62 error imitation 26, 47–48 explicit teaching 1, 6, 7, 11, 17–18, 21, 23, 30, 37, 44 (see also direct teaching) First Steps 65 Fonetik Spelling 39, 45 frequency of words used in writing 36, 66, 73 generalisation and transfer in learning 48 difficulties with 4, 19, 24, 34, 37 the need to facilitate 24, 36, 37 glossary 71–72 grapho-phonic knowledge 7, 8, 13, 19, 21, 24–25, 28, 48, 49, 65, 71, 86 (see also phonic knowledge) handwriting 15 hard-to-spell words 86 high-frequency words 14, 19, 25, 27, 31, 36, 46, 54, 59, 67, 69 holistic approach 1, 4 (see also natural learning approach, whole language approach) incidental learning 5, 8, 19, 41 independent stage in spelling 10–11, 14, 50 instruction in spelling 3–6, 23, 27–37, 41–50 (see also methods of teaching) intervention methods 18, 23, 24, 41–50, 55 invented spelling 7, 8, 12, 58 investigative approach 30–31 irregularities in English spelling 8, 33 kinaesthetic memory 14, 16, 46 learning difficulties 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 19, 21, 23–24, 25–26, 28, 36, 61, 62, 76, 86 learning disability 15, 21, 23, 45, 48, 55(see also dyslexia) letter strings 9, 14, 16, 19, 30, 32, 34, 43, 60, 61, 87 importance of knowledge of 14, 16, 23, 30 (see also orthographic units)

lists 3, 4, 6, 27, 36–37, 66 long-term memory 4, 14, 15, 26, 46, 50 look-cover-write-check strategy 42, 43–44 meaning as a cue to spelling 15, 18, 22, 67 ( morphemic knowledge, Spelling through Morphographs) memorisation 3, 4, 16 memory 14, 16, 25, 44, 46, 50 methods of teaching 1, 2, 3–6, 27–37, 41–50, 69 mini lessons 6, 35 mnemonics 15, 22 modelling by teacher 28, 32, 44, 48 morphemic knowledge 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 24, 28, 32, 37, 59 ( meaning as a cue to spelling, ) motor memory 14, 46 multisensory methods 25, 51, 66 multisyllabic words 47, 59 natural learning approach 1, 3, 4, 19 ( whole language) norm-referenced tests 61 (see also standardised tests) objectives for teaching 54 observation as assessment method 12, 29, 51, 53, 54 Old Way – New Way strategy 47–48 online resources 69 onset-rime 29, 31, 58 orthographic units 10, 14, 32, 33, 43, 71, 74, 87 (see also letter strings) overlearning 23, 38 parents as tutors 42 Partner Spelling 42 peer tutoring 26, 42 phonemic awareness 7, 11, 12, 24, 31, 49 phonetic stage of development 8–9, 13, 24, 39, 43, 50 phonic knowledge 11, 13, 17, 23, 45, 86–87 (see also grapho-phonic knowledge)

see also

see also

Spelling through Morphographs

see also

Index

99

‘phonocentric’ spellers 9 phonological awareness 7, 12, 23, 85 portfolios 56, 63 (see also work samples) practice 4, 27, 38, 41, 42, 46 pre-phonemic stage 7–8, 11, 24, 39 prefixes 32, 33, 34 proactive inhibition 47 Prompt Spelling method 41 proofreading 10, 22, 37, 48–49, 54, 59, 60, 62, 63 reading–spelling connection 3, 10, 17–19 repeated writing strategy 45–46, 50 research in spelling 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 25, 29, 38, 41, 44 resources for spelling instruction 65–69 rote learning 4, 16, 36 second language learners 13, 66 (see also English as a second language) self-assessment 56, 59, 63 self-correction 6, 10, 22, 29, 39, 45, 48, 54, 59, 63 self-monitoring 6, 22, 26, 54 Simultaneous Oral Spelling (SOS) 46–47, 50 South Australian Spelling Test (SAST) 8, 74–84 speech and spelling 13, 55, 66, 69 spell-checkers 13, 22, 29, 38–39, 45, 60 spelling benchmarks 56–57 by analogy 9, 22, 29, 32, 33, 37, 59 community attitudes toward 1, 2

100

‘demons’ 37, 63, 67 developmental stages 7–11, 24 diagnostic assessment 11, 61, 85–87 differing views on 1–2 errors 9, 13, 22, 24, 37 lists 3, 4, 33, 36–37, 66 outcomes and indicators 57–59 reading–spelling connection 3, 10, 17–18 research in spelling 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 25, 29, 38, 41, 44 rules 10, 11, 15, 32, 35, 48, 61, 62, 69 stages of development (see also developmental stages in spelling) 7–11 teaching approaches 1, 2, 3–6, 27–37, 41–50, 69 (see also methods of teaching) testing 3, 60–63, 74–84, 85–87 as a thinking process 15, 27, 30, 34, 48 time allocation for 5, 35–36 spelling lists 3, 4, 33, 36–37, 66 36 Spelling through Morphographs 32, 36 standardised tests 60, 61–62, 74–84 strategies for spelling 10, 16, 21, 22, 29 assessment of 54, 55 importance of 4, 7, 10, 16, 25, 30 teaching of 4, 7, 16, 27, 28–29, 30, 44, 46–47, 50 suffixes 11, 24, 32, 33, 34

Spelling Mastery

Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment

synthetic phonics 13, 72 Teaching Handwriting, Reading and Spelling Skills (THRASS) 32, 65 testing 3, 27, 53, 60–62, 69, 74–84, 85–87 ‘thinking aloud’ as a teaching strategy 28, 49 time allocation for spelling 5, 35–36 transitional stage of development 9–10, 14, 32, 33, 50 tutorial help 41–42, 55 typing 16, 25, 38, 44, 46 visual attention span (VAS) 43 visual dictation method 45 visual imagery 7, 9, 12, 14, 22, 24–25, 29, 37 training of 43–44, 50 visual perception 10, 14, 29, 51 whole language approach 1, 4–5, 19, 23, 33, 35, 44 whole-word method 43 word analysis 6, 12, 28, 31–32, 44, 67 word families 3, 5, 23, 30, 33–34 word frequency lists 36, 66 word lists 3, 4, 33, 36–37, 66 word processors 38–39 Word Sorts 30, 34–35, 50, 68 word study 4, 19, 21, 31–33, 48 activities for 30, 31–33, 34–35, 48, 50 importance of 18, 21, 27, 30 work samples for assessment 11, 53, 54–55, 57 writing 2, 4, 7, 10, 14–15, 23, 35, 54, 55, 59, 60, 63