Abbott, M. (2001, October). Effects of traditional versus extended word-study spelling

instruction on students’ orthographic knowledge. Reading Online, 5(3). Available:http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF= abbott/index.htm.

Traditional spelling instruction usually consists of using an adopted basal

program. Word lists usually consist of 15-20 words. Activities are completed during the

week to practice the set of words and then a test is given on Friday to measure for

mastery. However, many teachers report that they see very little transfer in student

writing after studying each set of weekly words. Therefore, this study was conducted to

examine the effect extended word study would have on students’ orthographic knowledge

versus traditional spelling instruction. Abbott also wanted to know if extended word

study improved the transfer of orthographic knowledge. However, orthographic

knowledge doesn’t always equal spelling achievement.

Research has shown a direct correlation between spelling ability and the ability to

read and write. In short, the ability to be a good speller also makes a student good reader

and writer. Research has also shown that there has been little change in the way we teach

spelling over the years Abbott selected 8 within word spellers for each of the two groups.

. However, just because there have been few changes doesn’t mean that it is the most

effective way to teach children to spell. We know that the more times children encounter

a word the better they become at spelling it. Research has also shown that children

misspell low frequency words more often than high frequency words. Orthographic

knowledge has been proven to be a developmental process and much of Abbott’s

research was based on the findings of the “Virginia Studies” completed by Abouzeid

1992, Bear & Templeton 1998, Henderson 1985, Invernizzi, Abouzeid, & Gill 1994 (p.

2). They concluded that spelling knowledge progresses through distinct levels including

alphabetic to letter patterns, syllable patterns, and finally meaning elements as students

become skilled spellers, writers, and readers. The Virginia Studies also concluded that a

literacy component termed “word study” was an effective way to teach orthographic

knowledge. Word sorting is one aspect of the word study component that is the process

of looking at words for their common sounds or orthographic features.

Abbott used The Qualitative Spelling Inventory (Bear et al., 1996) as a pre-

assessment of the students’ abilities. Abbott then selected 8 within word spellers to

participate in the study for each of two groups. Abbott’s year long study was divided into

3 phases: Phase I August-October, Phase II November-January, Phase III February-April.

The instructional practices of two third grade teachers from a low to middle income

neighborhood in Kansas were evaluated. Teacher A used a traditional spelling

instruction approach. Teacher B used an extended word study approach.

Teacher A’s instruction consisted of using a basal reader. Her entire class

received a 15-20 word list from the basal each week. There was no differentiation based

on ability. She averaged teaching 45 minutes per day. During Phase I and Phase II the

teacher spent instructional time during the lessons discussing word meanings, dictionary

skills, grammar, and punctuation. Teacher A did not teach common word patterns on any

of the lists. Many of her mini lessons were based on teaching skills such as how to put

words in alphabetical order and what to do if you made a mistake. Little attention was

given to commonalities among the words or their occurrence within the English

language. During Phase III the researcher stepped in one day a week for six weeks and

taught the class mini lessons about commonalities and categorization of their words.

Skills were also taught about relating what they had learned into common usage patterns.

The classroom environment was structured and Abbott notes Teacher A’s classroom was

often quiet during “work time”.

Teacher B on the other hand focused her spelling instruction on extended word

study. Her instruction was guided based on the phonetic and orthographic similarities

among words. Much of her basis for teaching came from Words Their Way (Bear et al.,

1996). She followed the Words Their Way curriculum during a 45 minute block of time

each day. Teacher B divided her class into 3 groups: Letter name, within word, and early

syllable juncture. Each day she rotated the groups through 3 activities. At their seats

students would perform word sorts with their words. During computer time they worked

on math or language arts programs or typed their word sort lists. Finally, during small

group instruction Teacher B would lead students through a variety of word study

activities such as brainstorming a list of words that fit a particular sound, dividing words

into common spellings, or taking non graded quizzes to chart progress. Teacher B also

explicitly taught her students the best strategy for guessing at the spelling of an unknown

words based on the most common spelling patterns. Her classroom environment was

lively and there was a hum of on task student noise.

As mentioned earlier a pre test was administered to determine students’ abilities.

During the study 12 transfer tests were given to chart students’ progress. The first four

tests contained high frequency words. The last 8 tests consisted of low frequency words.

Results of the pre-test found very little difference between the traditional spelling

instruction group and the extended word study group. There was a significant difference

in the post-test scores though. The extended word study group outperformed the

traditional spelling instruction group in transferring its spelling knowledge to low

frequency words with similar orthographic structures. However, the difference was

significantly reduced during the third phase when the researcher went into Teacher A’s

classroom and taught mini lessons about commonalities among words and how they most

commonly occur in the English language. Yet, this means there is no control group to

compare them to because the entire class received the mini lessons. As mentioned earlier

orthographic knowledge and spelling achievement do not necessarily relate. As a result

Abbott found little difference between the two groups on spelling achievement but did

show changes in orthographic growth. She cited many limitations to the study including

population size, the use of low frequency words, and the need for an additional control

group as mentioned above. Regardless, Abbott concludes that students that were

instructed using an extended word study approach possessed a more sophisticated

orthographic spelling ability than their peers that were taught using a traditional spelling

approach. Teacher B’s students had a greater understanding of the English language and

could make generalizations about orthographic patterns.

In conclusion, the goal of any spelling instruction is to promote the transfer of

knowledge. Traditional spelling instruction emphasizes learning word specific

knowledge that often isn’t carried over into other literacy areas. We need to provide

students with instruction on their level and emphasize orthographic knowledge instead of

rote memorization of words. Extended word study does just this and enables students to

make better generalizations or “best guesses” at the English language and improve their

orthographic knowledge.

Blanton, L., Blanton, W., Morris, D., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1995). Teaching Low-Achieving Spellers at Their Instructional Level. The Elementary School Journal. 96, 163-177.

Though teaching children to read on their instructional level is commonly

practiced, teaching children to spell on their instructional level is not. Most classrooms

use an adopted text to teach spelling that only provides one list of words for the entire

class. It is a one size fits all method. However, Blanton, Morris, Nowacek, and Perney

(1995) hypothesize that children are not “one size fits all” and that they need spelling

instruction on their instructional level. The researchers found that in many classrooms

there is no attempt made to individualize spelling instruction. They feel that if children

struggle in spelling and are only provided an on grade level list of words then they will

memorize them long enough to complete a test on Friday but won’t retain the information

in long term memory.

There is little research to date to support the effectiveness of teaching spelling at a

child’s instructional level (p. 164). There is little information about whether students are

penalized or benefited from only being given grade level spelling words. Therefore,

Blanton, Morris, Nowacek, and Perney (1995) decided to conduct a research study to

determine the effects of ability grouping and teaching students on their instructional

spelling level. The researchers hypothesized that poor spellers will learn less than their

more able peers when all students in a class receive the same grade-level spelling

instruction (165).

Blanton, Morris, Nowacek, and Perney (1995) decided to conduct their study with

7 third grade classrooms in three rural counties of western North Carolina. The study

began by using curriculum based spelling test scores to identify low achieving spellers.

The test consisted of a list of second and third grade words. Each student was graded on

correct spelling of each word as well as the quality of the mistakes made. In turn, they

selected 48 low spellers to participate in the study. The 48 children were divided into an

intervention group and a comparison group. The intervention group was taught for most

of the year in a second-grade spelling book. The comparison group was taught for the

full year in a third-grade spelling book. For the first seven weeks of the study everyone

was taught from the third-grade spelling book. After week 7 one intervention group

began to receive instruction from a second-grade spelling book for 16 more weeks. At

week 31 they rejoined their classmates in the third-grade spelling book. Another

intervention group remained in the third-grade book until week 18 and then they were

taught from the second-grade book for 10 weeks. Finally, the comparison group worked

the entire year in the third-grade book. Teachers could no longer teach spelling whole

group like they had done in the past. They had to set aside time each day to work with

each group on their own level.

In addition to the beginning of the year spelling test, students were given weekly

spelling tests, a six-week review spelling test, an end of year spelling test, and a transfer

test in May.

To compare their results they researchers combined both intervention groups and

analyzed their scores to the comparison group’s scores. As a result of this study the

intervention group did outperform the comparison group on several of the end of year

posttest measures. They scored higher on the second grade posttest (Intervention=75%

vs. Comparison 64%). There was very little difference between the groups on the third

grade posttest (Intervention 47% vs. Comparison 50%) but there was a significant

difference on the third grade transfer test (Intervention 47% vs. Comparison 37%) even

though the intervention group had received less instruction in the third grade book. The

low spellers also showed more retention than the comparison group did. The researchers

found that the low spellers lacked the foundation needed to be successful in the third

grade spelling book and could not have retained the words that they were taught.

However, after instruction on their level they mastered the second grade list and did just

as well on the third grade list as their peers who had been taught on grade level all year.

The researchers found that students that bring sufficient spelling pattern

knowledge with them tend to master the spelling curriculum. However, students that do

not possess that foundation for spelling will not master the curriculum. They also found

that the longer the students were taught on their instructional level the more they gained.

Teaching students on their instructional level did require more work but the results speak

for themselves, it is a worthwhile effort! The longer instructors wait the larger the gap in

a student’s ability to spell so there is no time like the present to teach children right where

they are.

Bloodgood, J.W. A new approach to spelling instruction in language arts programs. The Elementary School Journal v. 92 (November 1991) p. 203-11

Integration of spelling has always been a challenge for many teachers. Knowing

what works and how to use it are very different things. Many teachers have the

knowledge to effectively teach spelling to their students but do not know how to get the

ball rolling in their classrooms. This article focuses on strategies that help teachers

integrate spelling into their curriculum. Such strategies are; word study, word play

activities, and word sorts. With the use of these strategies, teachers will be able to

“teach” spelling to their students and not just teaching a memorization tool.

The main focus or question of this article is how to make spelling meaningful and

lasting to students? In the article Dr. Bloodgood says “I experienced frustration as a

teacher because, although the ostensibly “Tried and True” approach to spelling lessons

clearly did not work, there were no viable alternatives” (Bloodgood 1991). The goal of

education is to make learning meaningful and lasting. Dr. Bloodgood's (1991) article

shows how educators can “marry” spelling with other language arts concepts. This

article discusses several strategies that enable teachers to challenge good spellers and

provide adequate support for the lower level spellers. The article is broken down into

three main sections; spelling assessment, word-study groups & learning centers, and

word-study activities.

Spelling Assessment would consist of administering a qualitative spelling

inventory. As the teacher checks for errors on the lists, the teacher gains the knowledge

of what a student knows about words. Another avenue for study is to administer Dr.

Robert Schlagal’s spelling assessment which consists of a spelling inventory consisting

of 20-25 words each from grade levels first through sixth. These select words consist of

word elements the student would encounter as they functioned at a given grade level. If

the teacher administers two or three levels of Schlagal’s inventory they will come up with

a clear view of where the student is frustrated and where their instructional level is at.

Research was conducted using three children with ages ranging from eight, nine,

and ten years old. All children were given the Schlagal spelling inventory and after

scoring their results the eight year old child was instructional at a first grade level and the

child’s frustrational level was on second grade words. The nine year old child’s

instructional level was at a fifth grade level and her frustrational level was sixth grade

words. After calculating the results for the ten year old child, the instructional level was

at fourth grade and frustrational level was fifth grade material. Memorizing words just to

pass a test is the result of students working with words above their instructional level.

This qualitative spelling inventory allows teachers to closely pinpoint their student’s

capacity for spelling and understanding.

Word-Study Groups and Learning Centers help teachers by grouping the students

according to instructional level. Research shows “Many student’s spelling ability,

closely matches their reading ability particularly in the early elementary levels”

(Bloodgood 1991). Teachers who have reading groups by level could possibly use these

groups with some minor “tweaking” as their spelling groups since reading and spelling

relate to each other. Once the groups are formed, teachers can compile groups of words

that will address that individual group’s area of weakness. By having the students

formed into groups, the teacher and students can work together learning the new spelling

strategy and skill using the group of accumulated words. This grouping will help

students work individually and with peers in their group while the teacher attends to

another group in the classroom.

Word Study Activities offer teachers another venue to promote spelling strategies

among their students. “Once the teacher identifies a student’s level of spelling

knowledge, activities can be planned to clarify a specific word feature and give practice

until the feature under investigation becomes automatic” (Bloodgood 1991). Word-study

means a wide variety of activities and games involving words. Some types of activities

are compare and contrasting using word cards. Students can compare and contrast

different vowel patterns and other patterns that become visible to the student. After

sorting the words a few times, students speed and accuracy gets stronger. Once students

master comparing and contrasting they can begin to sort the words into different

categories like beginning consonants, prefixes, and suffixes. All of these type activities

will help student to expand their sight vocabulary. Other games include; Word Card

Concentration is where students place their cards face down and pick two cards and see if

the patterns match taking turns with another student. Homophone Rummy where

students use their cards to make matches.

Bloodgood states “By engaging in activities of this type, students can learn how

the features of words work. Using this base, spelling becomes a meaningful activity

rather than a briefly memorized and soon forgotten list” (Bloodgood 1991). We as

teacher have to consider that reading, writing, and spelling can be integrated together.

“Instruction should be matched to a student’s word knowledge in all three areas. In this

way what the student reads will provide the vocabulary for what the student spells, which

in turn will support writing. (Bloodgood 1991).

Teachers need to be aware of all these issues if they want to effectively teach

spelling in the classroom. Knowing that reading, writing, and spelling all influence one

another, can help the teacher create effective and meaningful activities for students? The

ultimate goal is for students to remember and retain what they have learned. By

assessing the student’s level, grouping them according to that level, and providing

activities on their level, students can have developmentally appropriate material for them

to expand their knowledge.

Bloodgood, J.W., Pacifici, L. (2004). Bringing word study to intermediate

classrooms. International Reading Association, vol. 58, No. 3, 250-263.

Many upper elementary and middle school teachers are uncertain about the value

of word study and how to incorporate it into their classroom curriculum. Bloodgood and

Pacifici sought to understand how classroom teachers view and implement word study

and in turn develop word study activities in response to their research. Their two research

questions were: What factors affect the use of word study activities? How do teachers

implement word study?

They found that many teachers, especially teachers of older students, do not make

word study a part of their instruction. They perceive it as a fancy version of traditional

spelling instruction that uses manipulative activities and games which often appears to be

supplemental rather than essential learning. Many teachers incorporate spelling with the

editing portions of their writing process but fail to point out the regularity of spelling

patterns or the spelling-meaning relationships evident in words (Cramer, 2001 : Rief

1992). Many upper elementary and middle school teachers find little time for systematic

spelling instruction and fail to make important connections that help students see the

bigger word-knowledge picture and improve all written language areas (Templeton,

2002).

Research based on the work of Read ( 1971) and Henderson (1990) has led to the

identification of several word-knowledge development that reflect students understanding

of how sound, pattern, and meaning are represented in English spelling. Stages include,

Within Word Pattern spellers (students who misspell single syllable, long vowel words

and homophones), Syllable Juncture spellers (struggle when to double the final

consonant) and Derivational Constancy spellers (face challenges with words derived from

Greek and Latin roots). Analysis of spelling errors informs teachers of student’s word

knowledge level and appropriate instruction (Bear et al., 2000).

The research project was conducted with a limited voluntary sampling of teachers

and preservice teachers enrolled in U.S. university reading and language arts courses

across two semesters. In their initial research, they had thirty-five respondents, 18

undergraduates, and 17 graduates, complete surveys, journal reflections, or action

research projects as a part of their course work. They also conducted school visits to

three classrooms and did interviews with teachers.

Participants identified a number of positive aspects for implementing word study.

They recognized the benefits of word study for vocabulary development. Teachers also

were very aware of the way word study activities met the needs of diverse learners. They

enjoyed the hands-on, interactive, discovery learning aspects of the activities. They felt

the word study activities were informative and exciting. Students and teachers developed

an interest in word origins, spelling-meaning relationships and grammatical connections.

The hands on activities helped the participants go beyond memory and apply logic and

critical thinking to spelling as well as vocabulary.

Although most feedback was positive, teachers did voice concerns about

implementing word study in their classrooms. The pressure to get curriculum covered

and fit word study activities (with having to prepare materials for games) into their daily

schedule presented time constraints for some participants.

The research revealed that teachers need a gradual introduction to word study and

time to build their confidence, knowledge base, and implementation strategies. The

findings provided rational for the researchers to develop several short, integrated word

study units that intermediate grade teachers could implement. Since time and planning

were concerns of the teachers, these short, integrated word studies made it possible for

the teachers to fit it into their tight schedules. They use the word incidental for their word

study because they are not a part of an extended curriculum, but instead fit easily into

brief periods of the school day. Some of the incidental activities include Root of the Day,

Homophone Rummy, Homograph Concentration, and Uner, Unor, Unar. These brief

activities may pique curiosity and encourage students to learn more. These activities

improve spelling, vocabulary, and written grammar, without relying totally on memory

and drill.

Results from this study show the value and benefits of word studies in

intermediate classrooms. Word studies support students’ development as readers and

writers and facilitate vocabulary, grammar, and spelling growth. However, given the

time constraints, uncertain knowledge, and lack of materials, teachers in upper

elementary grades welcomed the incidental approach to word study more openly. Since

they can be done in brief time periods, the activities are more doable for teachers. Whole

classes can become “word nerds” without even realizing it.

Brown, J., Morris, D. (2005). Meeting the Needs of Low Spellers in a SecondGrade Classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21: 165-184. Taylor &

Francis Inc. ISSN:1057-3569.

After twelve years of teaching in her second grade classroom, Judy Brown

realized her spelling instruction needed improvement. Through graduate work, Ms.

Brown realized that learning to spell is a developmental process and that in general about

one third of her new second graders were deficient in word recognition and spelling

ability. She saw a need for differentiation of her spelling instruction in order to close the

gap between her higher performing spellers and her struggling spellers. The purpose of

the research was to see if the differentiation of spelling instruction would indeed close the

gap between the two groups of spellers in her second grade classroom.

Research supported the idea that spelling, far from being a simple visual memory

activity, is a complex, knowledge-based process that evolves slowly over time

(Henderson 1990, Templeton & Morris, 1999). In the first and second grade, average–

achieving children progress through at least three stages in learning to spell; semi-

phonetic, phonetic, and within-word pattern. With extended opportunities, many first

graders and most second graders move into the within word pattern spelling stage.

However, the weak spellers who did not master short vowel sound in the phonetic stage

are lost in the within-word stage. They were often times overwhelmed and unsure of

themselves as spellers. As the year advanced, the low spellers had a tendency to fall

further and further behind. This problem with the slow-developing spellers led Ms.Brown

to revamp her spelling instruction and begin to group her students for spelling instruction.

The subjects for the study were second graders in a small town in western North

Carolina. The school serves a mix of working class and middle class families. During the

first week of school, Ms. Brown administered the first and second grade lists of widely

used informal spelling inventory) Schlagal, 1992) to her entire class. She looked at not

only misspellings, but at the quality of their errors as well. She placed students in groups

according to the percentage of correctly spelled words.

For her spelling group she placed the students in their appropriate instructional

groups, obtained lists of first and second grade spelling words that were graded in

difficulty, and developed instructional activities that would engage the children in

learning their words.

She came up with grade level group of twelve students and below grade level

group that consisted of seven students. The grade level group’s words were taken from a

second grade spelling book, and the below grade level words were taken from Early

Steps (Morris, Tyner, and Perney, 2000). With the lower spellers, she focused on short

vowel word study. For her instructional activities she used the word sort approach

developed the University of Virginia. Column sorting games, word searches and old

fashioned memorization were used to help students over time internalize the spelling

patterns.

The low spelling group spent 15 weeks in the alternative list and then moved into

the second grade spelling book. They were only nine weeks behind the on level group at

the end of the study. A posttest was administered that contained first, second, and third

grade lists from Schlagal’s informal spelling inventory. The class as a whole did very

well. However, the low speller’s performance was phenomenal. These seven students

showed huge pretest to posttest gains on the first and second grade spelling lists and

performed well on the third grade list. With the appropriate level of instruction, the

achievement gap was closed significantly between the on grade level and the lower level

struggling spellers.

As educators, we must realize the need for differentiation of all subjects. Not

only do children need to be placed in appropriately leveled reading groups, but spelling

groups as well. In order for a student to continue progressing at their developmental

level, we as educators must meet them where they are. If we teach above their level, they

will undoubtly fall further and further behind and their frustration level will escalate.

Early intervention is the key to keep the spelling gap from widening.

Joseph, L., & Orlins, A. (2005). Multiple Uses of a Word Study Technique. Reading Improvement. 42, 73-77.

It is known that in any given classroom that students’ abilities range over several

grade levels as well as different stages. All children cannot be taught at the same level.

Each child needs to be assessed and taught at his or her instructional level. One way of

doing this is through a process called Word Study. Word study techniques are gaining

popularity among many instructors today. There are various techniques if implementing

word study into a literacy program but this study focused on the effectiveness of word

sorts. Word sorts are designed to help children examine, discriminate, and categorize

words according to spelling and sound patterns (p.73). There are multiple uses of word

sorts such as helping children automatically recognize words, help children become

aware of the phonemic structure of words, and gain meaning of words just to name a few.

One key component to word sorts is that the student must be able to read the words they

are being asked to sort.

The use of word sorts is supported by The Developmental Spelling Theory, which

states that children progress through different stages of spelling ability. There have been

few investigations though about the effectiveness of implementing word sorts into daily

instruction. Many studies including word sorts have been found useful but there has been

little research that narrowed in on the effectiveness of word sorts alone. In one study

however, word sorts were found to be more effective than traditional spelling instruction

for improving spelling performance on spelling tests (Dangle, 1989). Therefore, the

purpose of this study was to illustrate the multiple purposes of a word sorting technique.

The study focused on the improvement of word recognition and spelling performance

based on the implementation of word sorts (p.74).

This study took place in an urban school district in Central Ohio. Two students

were selected to participate in the study based on difficulty they were having in spelling.

Word sorts were implemented for Sara in hopes to improve her word recognition

performance. Word sorts were implemented for John in hopes of improving his spelling

performance.

Sara was a second grade student diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive

Disorder. She was receiving special education services and was selected for the study

based on her severe delays in reading as well as her need for intervention for word

recognition. Her teacher reported that she had the ability to recognize some two and

three letter words but said she had difficulty reading words that contained more than 3

letters. Sara was administered a 120 word screening measure that contained several four

letter words such as consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel, double consonant-vowel-

consonant, consonant-double vowel-consonant, and consonant-vowel-double consonant

patterned words. The words she read incorrectly or words that she didn’t know were

placed into 3 different sets of word lists (p. 74). Probes were administered during

baseline session. Each set contained 10 words and the words were printed on index

cards. Set 1 consisted of words: mold, bold, told, bank, rank, tank, rent, vent, and dent.

Set 2 consisted of words: wave, save, gave, cave, tore, pore, sore, mate, date, and hate.

Set 3 consisted of words: wade, made, fade, back, lack, rack, tack, spin, shin, and skin.

Sara was taught the first set of words using word sorts. At this point list 2 and 3 were not

taught using the word sort technique. Sara was asked to sort the words into 3 categories.

After she finished she would read the words in each category. She was encouraged to

self-correct words that she had mistakenly placed in the wrong column or words that she

had read incorrectly. At the end of each session Sara was tested for mastery of that set of

words. She read 90% of the words accurately during 2 instructional sessions. Once she

met mastery they moved on to the next set of words.

This study found that Sara met mastery on all 3 sets of words by using the word

sort technique. She actually had an immediate increase in performance for each set of

words when word sorts were implemented. Remarkably she was also able to maintain

her word recognition ability even after the word sort activities stopped. Her maintenance

scores ranged from 90-100%.

John was the second subject in this study. He was a third grade student that had

severe difficulty with spelling. He was found to be well below average in his spelling

ability after he was administered the Diagnostic Achievement Battery-Third Edition.

Then a 40 word screener was administered to more specifically determine John’s

performance. Word sorts were hoped to improve his spelling performance. Three sets

of words consisting of 10 item spelling probes were administered to John. After a

baseline was established, the word sorting technique was introduced to John with the first

set of words. Again, the words that John missed during the probe were printed on index

cards. Set 1 consisted of words: carry, marry, pretty, silly, happy, scary, lazy, angry,

fancy, and weary. Set 2 consisted of words: coil, foil, boil, soil, broil, foul, loud, shout,

route, and cloud. Set 3 consisted of words: burn, turn, blur, fur, church, torn, storm, born,

core, and dorm. John was asked to sort the set of words into 2 categories based on the

similar spelling patterns. He like Sara was asked to make self-corrections and the

instructor assisted him when he was unable to self-correct. At the end of each session

John was given a spelling probe. He scored 90% on two consecutive probes. Then

probes were administered to gauge his retention of the words taught.

Results found John making gradual increases in the number of words he spelled

correctly. He made an immediate increase in words spelled correctly on sets 2 and 3.

The study found that only when word sorts were implemented that John’s spelling

improved. He was also able to maintain scores ranging from 90-100% of the words

taught during the word sort instruction.

Overall, Sara and John made improvements in their performance after word sorts

were implemented into their daily instruction. The study found word sorts effective when

teaching spelling as well as word recognition. Word sorts are an inexpensive way to

teach multiple literacy skills to children experiencing difficulty. There are so many

variations of the typical word sort that they lend themselves well to students at many

different levels. Word sorts can be differentiated based on a student’s need and academic

level. Word sorts can be as simple as picture sorts or can be extended into different

activities such as word hunts in which students look for words in text that have already

read that can be sorted based on similarities. Word sorts afford instructors the

opportunity to develop lessons that relate word study directly to the aspects of words that

a child is currently having difficulty with. Word sorts are one way we can meet children

where they are academically and developmentally and help them achieve academic

success.

Morris, D., Blanton L., Blanton W., Perney J. (1995). Spelling instruction and achievement in six classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 145-161.

The researchers of this study wanted to understand how teachers use spelling books

in the classroom and how the use of spelling books affects student achievement. Their

study was exploratory in nature and they focused on the analysis of traditional spelling

book instruction. They organized their research around three questions. What is

contained in a spelling book curriculum? How do teachers of spelling use instructional

time? How well do students spell at the beginning of the year and how much do they

learn and retain as the year advances?

Researchers have studied textbook use in reading, mathematics, social studies, and

geography, but they have overlooked one subject – spelling ( Morris, Blanton, Blanton,

Perney, 1995). Spelling has been de-emphasized as a formal topic of instruction, with a

growing number of scholars and teachers viewing spelling as a minor component of the

writing process- a language skill to be taught incidentally and informally as children learn

to write for meaning (Schlagal and Schlagal 1992). Researchers have not ignored the

psychological and linguistic study of spelling ability. Henderson & Beers, 1980; and

Read, 1971, 1975, have provided a new and powerful framework for understanding the

developmental nature of learning to spell. Ironically, educators have come to understand

more about cognitive/developmental strategies children use in learning to spell, they

agree less about the best way to teach spelling in the classroom ( Morris, Blanton,

Blanton, Perney, 1995).

In this year long study, the researchers examined spelling instruction and

achievement in six elementary classrooms, four third-grade and two sixth-grade classes.

The classrooms were spread among five schools in three rural school districts of western

North Carolina. Each of the six teachers who volunteered to participate in the study had

more than ten years of elementary school teaching experience. Average class size was

23, with students coming mostly from Caucasian, lower-middle socioeconomic status

families.

The researchers examined the spelling program and teaching materials. The

spelling book instruction was organized around the weekly spelling unit (36 units per

year), with students introduced to a set of words on Monday, engaged in word study

activity during the middle of the week, and administered a spelling test on Friday. They

examined each teacher’s spelling instruction for a full week three times during the school

year. Several measures of student performance were used across time. Beginning of the

year pretests were administered in September. End of the year posttests were given in

May. An additional posttest, the transfer list, was also administered in May as well.

Weekly spelling test were given as well as six week review tests.

Researchers concluded that spelling books provide teachers with a carefully

selected corpus of developmentally appropriate words, but did not consistently emphasize

research based strategies for learning the words. Spelling books included a weekly

activity routine for teaching the words. Some of the spelling book activities were

questionable in value, as were the activities choices of the teachers when they deviated

from the textbook. Teachers who use spelling books, spend from 16 to 23 minutes per

day on spelling and follow the activities closely. Regarding assessment, 6 week retention

tests provided teachers with a valid estimate of individual students’ end of the year

spelling achievement, however, weekly spelling test were not. Researchers also

discovered that students scoring below 30% on a beginning of year pretest are at great

risk of not mastering the grade level list. The students varied greatly in their mastery of

the grade level spelling patterns.

Results from this study indicated that using spelling textbooks can yield positive

results on student learning. They do provide developmentally appropriate material.

However, we can never forget the fact that no two children are alike. They all develop at

different rates. Just because students are in the same grade does not mean they are on the

exact same level. Spelling textbooks can be an important instructional resource in the

classroom, however, results from the study revealed the need to teach students at their

independent level. Students who were on the lower end did not show the growth of the

higher achieving students. Just as we differentiate instruction in reading, we must also do

so in spelling if we want to ensure success for every child.

Phillips-Birdsong, C., Williams, C. (2006). Word Study Instruction and Second Grade Children’s Independent Writing. Journal of Literacy Research. 38, 427-465.

Modern spelling instruction is moving toward the use of “word study”, which

actively engages students through the study of orthography and its principles. Basically

to be better spellers students need to understand how words work. They also need to

learn specific strategies to help them spell unfamiliar words.

Word study is grounded in the developmental spelling theory. Students don’t just

become good spellers by rote practice. They go through several developmental stages

along the way. Spellers go through five stages: Emergent, Letter name-alphabetic, within

word, syllable juncture, derivational constancy (Ganske, Henderson, Templeton & Bear).

However, there has been little work specifically about the effect of word study on

children’s’ writing. Therefore, their primary goal was to conduct research themselves

and examine the impact that word study had on students’ writing.

Phillips and Williams wanted to know what specific content should be taught to

each developmental group. They also wanted to know if the instruction the students

received would carry over into their journal writing. Finally, they were curious the

influence of social interaction on the use of word study as a mediational tool.

Initially the study was proposed to provide word study within small,

homogeneous guided reading groups. The instructor was going to use specific words

from the text for the word study component. However, early on the instructor found that

a child’s spelling ability and reading ability didn’t always correlate and this was

problematic when a child read on a different level than they could spell. She found

herself trying to juggle reading groups and rearrange students based on their ever-

changing needs. This was quite time consuming so they revised the study to focus on

words that were not part of the reading text. They were based solely on each child’s

spelling level and need.

Phillips and Williams administered the Elementary Spelling Inventory (Bear

2000) to develop a baseline among the students. Then they selected six students to

participate in the study. Two students were from the Letter Name-Alphabetic, two from

Within Word, and finally two from Syllable Juncture. Colleen was the instructor in the

study and she decided to teach three word study lessons each Friday. She taught one

lesson to each ability group. She used the framework provided in Bear et al. (2000b).

For each lesson she followed the same routine. First, she taught a specific orthographic

principle. Then she engaged students in various games and activities that allowed them

to apply what they had learned. Finally, the students were allowed to write in their

journal twice a week for 20 minutes on self-selected topics. During this journal time

Colleen was looking for evidence of application of what they had previously learned

during her word study lesson. She was also looking for their social interaction skills.

Colleen carried out this study for 20 weeks. She kept extensive notes on how the lessons

went and observations that she made on each child. In addition to her own word study

she was also required to teach the spelling and phonics program adopted by her district.

For the Letter Name-Alphabetic group Colleen focused on teaching short vowels

a, i, and u. She also taught blends s, r, and l. She also explicitly taught students skills for

using other resources when spelling unknown words such as the word wall, dictionary,

and environmental print. There were times when she added lessons for things such as

past tense inflected endings. These lessons were really for the next stage but the need

arose so she addressed it.

For the Within Word group Colleen mainly studied vowel patterns. She

compared the short and long vowel patterns and they looked closely at common as well

as less common patterns. Students also received lessons on consonant doubling when

adding –ed or words. Again, this is a lesson typically associated with the next group but

the need arose so she taught the lesson anyway. She also taught homophones and

homographs.

Colleen encountered the most trouble and frustration in the Syllable juncture

group. She started with plural and inflected endings and then moved into open and

closed syllables. Colleen concluded with teaching the morphological component of

orthography. She provided lessons on adding suffixes and Greek and Latin roots.

The researchers analyzed the data that Colleen collected both individually and

collaboratively. They felt that this would ensure accuracy. The first and most important

finding was that word study instruction did not integrate well with guided reading. That

is when the entire study was revised. Once the study was revised they found that

separating word study from guided reading allowed Colleen to provide instruction that

better met each student’s needs. Results differed for each of the three groups.

In the Letter Name-Alphabetic group there was little evidence of their use of word

study instruction during journal writing. Patricia was one student that Colleen followed.

Her journal was filled with numerous misspellings. Many of the misspellings were words

or patterns taught during the study. This child did latch onto the strategy of using her

spelling dictionary though. She used this strategy repeatedly when trying to spell

unknown words but Colleen noted that she never used the word wall. This child never

mastered any of the concepts taught through word study and showed no improvement on

her posttest. However, she was found to be dyslexic at the end of the year. The other

student, Wayne, also made growth on the posttest. Colleen noted that he was a reluctant

writer and wrote only a few sentences in his journal. This didn’t provide enough to

gather information from about his spelling. One thing that was apparent was the fact that

strategy instruction benefited both Patricia and Wayne but was not necessary in the

following two groups.

Sarah was a student from the Within Word group. She grew 11 points over the

course of the 20 week study. Again, there was little show of growth by looking at her

journal. Samuel was the other student in this group and he like Wayne didn’t like

keeping a journal. Therefore, he didn’t produce enough writing to even evaluate. He

made a 10 point growth on the posttest but was later diagnosed ADD.

Rebecca and Andrew were the participants in the Syllable juncture group. It was

nearly impossible to use their writing to assess their orthographic growth because most

everything was spelled correctly. Colleen found that Rebecca only grew 3 points by the

end of the study and even though it was on her instructional level Colleen deemed the

lessons too fast paced for Rebecca. Andrew on the other hand did better than Rebecca

but Colleen felt that he really needed more time to process what he had learned for the

carry over to be visible.

This study found that word study instruction alone isn’t enough. It doesn’t teach

students how to extend this knowledge into text that they encounter. The study found

that students need more explicit demonstration of ways that knowledge can be applied. It

also concludes that students need to participate in frequent shared and interactive writing

experiences with the teacher. The study also found the schedule Colleen had arranged

didn’t allow enough time each day for word study instruction and the students’ journals

didn’t provide enough information about whether or not the knowledge gained had been

applied to their writing. Finally, this study found that word study could be a mediational

tool when it build upon a student’s strengths. They found evidence that word study was

beneficial when using what they already knew and in turn increased their confidence in

using this knowledge.

Putnam, L. (1996). How to Become a Better Reading Teacher: Strategies for Assessment and Intervention. Des Moines, IA: Merrill.

Much research states that spelling is a key indicator of one’s ability to read and

write. This has recently become a well-known observation that much research supports.

We have learned that readers that have poor word knowledge also have more difficulty

identifying words quickly and fluently. However, spelling can’t just develop as a part of

reading and writing. We now know that spelling needs to be taught explicitly and words

need to be examined in their own right.

Chapter 29 in How to Become a Better Reading Teacher: Strategies for

Assessment and Intervention asks the question “How can we most effectively and

engagingly facilitate the struggling reader’s development of spelling knowledge”? They

wanted to find best practices that facilitated the development of spelling knowledge

regardless of the child’s level. It is common knowledge that struggling readers many

times also struggle with spelling but what isn’t commonly known is what to do to better

instruct them. Templeton proposes that the mind is not a camera and we aren’t carrying

around “pictures” of words in our minds. When children struggle with spelling they have

not been provided with instruction on their developmental level (p. 318).

After reviewing several student samples Templeton places six children in six

different spelling levels. Julie is Semiphonetic. In this stage children normally include

the first and last letter of a word. Ziangze is Early Alphabetic/Letter Name. Denise is

Later Alphabetic/Letter Name. At this point children begin to include vowels in their

invented spellings of words. Todd is Within Word. Within Word spellers typically spell

more conventionally. Evan is Syllable Juncture. in this stage children represent the

stressed syllables in polysyllabic words with conventional vowel pattern spellings.

Finally, Adrienne is Derivational Constancy. This stage possesses the most

sophistication about word knowledge.

In order to provide instruction that best meets each child’s needs we much first

establish his/her independent, instructional, and frustrational level in spelling. We have

known this for years in reading and it is just as important in orthographic knowledge as

well. A short diagnostic spelling inventory was used (Schlagal, 1992). Ideally the

spelling inventory should be given individually but can be administered in a small group.

The inventory is broken into lists of words ranging from Level 1-Level 6. Only two lists

should be given at a time to avoid frustration and tiring. You can discontinue the test

when the student misspells more than 60% of the words in that list. To determine each

level Schlagal provides the following guidelines (p. 322):

Independent Level: Over 90%-The student should be examining higher grade

level words.

Instructional Level: Between 40%-90%-The student should be examining words

at this grade level.

Frustration Level: Below 40%-Student should be examining words at a lower

grade level.

Instructional practices that best meet the developmental nature of spelling include

using a core list of words that share common patterns or features. Templeton

recommends the pre-test/posttest strategy in which students correct their own test. This

enables students to pay close attention to what they missed and also celebrate what they

already knew. Often times words students get correct are dropped off the list for the

week but Templeton proposes that all words must be kept on the list whether they are

correct or incorrect. He states that the more children work with words that share a similar

patter the more likely they are to learn that pattern and transfer that knowledge into other

writing activities.

Focused word study begins with what children already know and then progresses

into the unknown. Children must be able to easily identify a word before they can be

expected to spell it. Words need to be looked at from different angles: meaning, pattern,

sound. Word sorting is one way of achieving this. One variation of word sorting can

begin with as little as 10-12 words. You need at least 2 different patterns for the sort to

work efficiently. Children are asked to read a word and then place it under the

appropriate category. As they add words to each column they can read down each list.

As they master 2 categories you can add more categories to increase the difficulty. You

can also add a category for “everything else” that doesn’t fit the common patterns you are

working with. To observe a child’s thinking you can ask why they sorted a word they

way they did or even allow them to create the categories to sort by. Word hunts are an

extension activity of word sorts. After a word sort students take time to look for other

words that fit into the categories in which they have sorted previous words. They can

look through textbooks, on the word wall, in the dictionary, and environmental print.

Any word will work as long as it follows the pattern. Word games are another beneficial

component of word study. Games such as Junior Scrabble or Boggle involve students

creating words. You can also use the word cards from your word sorts to play games

such as Go Fish (Bloodgood, 1991).

Spelling instruction cannot be rote memorization of lists of words. It has to be

meaningful and engaging. It like all other instruction has to be on each child’s

developmental level. When you bring all of this together the result is an effective

spelling program in which everyone benefits.

Schlagal, B. (2002, January 1). Classroom Spelling Instruction: History, Research and Practice. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(1), 44. (Document Reproduction Service No. EJ664228) Retrieved June 13, 2007, from ERIC database.

Currently in the vast world of education, there seems to be no real answer to the

question, how do we teach spelling? Many educators have their own theories or methods

and this article discusses some of the most common methods from the past as well as

some methods used today by educators. There seems to be no one method that is

superior over the other but the common thread that all the methods need to be composed

of is the level at which the child can spell. This article discusses three methods for

teaching spelling. Those methods are the incidental position, developmental word study

position, and the basal study approach.

The incidental position is based on the notion that a specific spelling curriculum is

unnecessary and even undesired. This method bases that spelling is best learned from

reading broad material and writing that is meaningful to the student. If the teacher has to

teach a lesson then it is done in the form of a mini-lesson. This method is all about

relevance to the speller. If the word is meaningful to them then they will become

effective at spelling the word through interactions with the word. These interactions

involve writing the word in a dictionary, using the word in composing a draft, and

general communication between peers using this word.

The developmental word study position insists that spelling should be taught in an

individual and systematic way so that the students’ spelling level is addressed. Different

developmental stages track the progress of each student. Teachers tailor the spelling

instruction to the students’ growth by monitoring their progression. Students can be

taught individually or in small groups how to sort words based on patterns and word

families. Students can use this orthography tool to learn how to sort the words and group

them according to their structure.

The basal study approach uses grades two through eight and a group of three thousand

words as its core. Frequent testing and study help the students remember the words and

internalize them. Developmentally appropriate word patterns and families are taught in

each grade level. This approach uses a systematic study of words to provide a foundation

for spelling and reading.

This article also reviews many practices of the past as well as contemporary

methods of teaching spelling. Some of the most important ideas and successful methods

of the past include,

Learning to spell from a list is more beneficial than learning from the context

Teachers should create list from words used frequently rather than from context

Study of the spelling words should be spread across the week in small amounts

Students need to be able to read the words they have to spell

Any pattern or words taught should be reviewed regularly

Using these strategies from past research would allow teachers to help students

understand spelling and ensure success in the classroom. Spelling books of the past were

used for whole class instruction where the teacher taught the same content and lesson to

every student.

New methods of teaching focus on the speller as an individual and create lessons

and strategies that are beneficial to that single speller or a group of students that have the

same struggles and weaknesses. Instructors test the students and pinpoint their

instruction level and frustration level in spelling. Contemporary research suggests that

students will be able to make gains if the words are at their instructional level. They will

be able to retain, remember and use the words effectively in spelling applications. If

student are taught words at the frustration level they will be less likely to remember and

retain the words. This article gives an example of an effective week long activities

teachers and instructors can do in the classroom to promote spelling success among the

students.

On Monday a pretest is given to the students so they will know how prepared they are

for the weeks words. Students assess their missed words and copy them no more than

two times. Word patterns are targeted using the missed words to alert the students what

needs to be addressed and reviewed.

Tuesday’s activities consist of giving the students a copy of the week’s words that have

been copied onto a sheet of paper. Students cut out the words and sort them on their

desks into correlating word families. Students can work with partners and sort the words

or play games like memory, and word bingo.

On Wednesday the students work with other students playing the games or studying

alone. Students can also participate in timed drills or word hunts with other students.

The Thursday activities consist of student giving each other practice tests using dry

erase boards. The student taking the test has to correctly spell the word and sort the word

into the proper word family.

Friday is test day and the students are given the spelling test.

In conclusion, the article suggests systematic spelling instruction should be the

best method for teaching spelling. Assessing the student’s ability, grouping students

based on ability, administering lessons and activities on student’s level, and practice with

peers proves to be an effective way of teaching spelling in the classroom. Too long have

teachers taught to the whole group and not to the individual speller. Society has to

understand that spelling is different for each person. No two people are alike. There are

good spellers and those who struggle at spelling. Teachers and instructors should base

their instruction on the student’s spelling level. In today’s classes there are twenty plus

students and no matter where you are in the world, there will be twenty plus ways of

spelling the same word. Just like a snowflake, no two spellers are ever the same.

Scott, C. (2000 May). Principles and Methods of Spelling Instruction: Applications for Poor Spellers. Topics in Language Disorders 20 (3), 66. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database.

In the elementary grades a child is taught roughly 3,800 words (Graham, Harris &

Loynachan, 1996). This may seem a bit much, but an adult writer knows how to spell

between 10,000 and 12,000 words. It is a classroom teacher’s job to make sure that

students have the understanding and knowledge to spell the words they need to know.

“Spelling frustrates not only the poor speller but also the teachers and the language

specialists who try to help them improve” (Scott 2000). Poor spelling also can affect the

teacher’s views of writing even though the structure and control are present. This article

shows an overview of three types of spelling instruction that are typically found in

elementary classrooms. Memorization of weekly word lists, word analysis / word sorting

and spelling that is integrated in authentic reading and writing are three areas discussed in

this article.

Teachers must ask themselves how much of spelling is actually “taught”.

Teachers give students new words every week to take home and study, and maybe once

or twice a week a small activity or worksheet involves those words or the word family

being studied. These types of activities will not help a student learn how to spell.

Teachers and students need to be active participators in spelling. The major types of

spelling instruction common in most classrooms are; the teaching of spelling by

memorizing weekly lists of words, word analysis and word sorting, and the indirect

teaching of spelling integrated within the context of authentic writing.

Memorization of Weekly Word Lists

In most classrooms, the teacher ask students to memorize 10-15 words and at the

end of the week a test is given to see if the students can properly spell the words. Most of

the words chosen in this list come from basal readers or spellers. Many publishers of the

basal texts will have a specific strategy that all the words have in common. Teachers can

also invent their own list of words consisting of high frequency words, words pulled from

thematic units within the classroom setting or common words used in children’s writing.

Research shows that “Motivation for learning is presumably increased when students are

likely to use the word in their own writing” (Scott 2000).

Many researchers have criticized the memorization of weekly spelling lists

especially when it’s the only major component of the spelling curriculum. A major

downfall of the weekly list is the lack of individualization. If teachers could

individualize the lists to fit each students needs and offer effective study techniques, the

memorization of words could be validated as a part of an effective spelling curriculum.

The major things to think about when using word lists in the classroom are:

Use only unknown words.

Use words that occur frequently in children’s writing.

Use self-selected words.

Practice fewer words more often over a longer period of time.

“Good spellers search for patterns and consistency in spelling” (Scott 2000). Allowing

the students to find these patterns and learn what they are leads into the next portion of

the article.

Word Analysis & Word Sorting

Focusing on patterns is the key in word sorting. In addition to memorizing

specific lists of words many children need to be involved in word sorting activities to

strengthen their knowledge. In word sorts, words are usually grouped together to reveal

certain phonemic patterns or rules of spelling. Once students know what category the

words belong in, they can start looking in other text for additional words that fit their

categories. By doing word sorts in the classroom, students will develop a word bank they

can use when creating text of their own.

The main elements in teaching word analysis and sorting are:

Use known and unknown word patterns.

Use words that have or do not have a target spelling pattern.

Use high frequency words

Spelling Integrated in Authentic Reading and Writing

This indirect approach starts with having students write with an authentic purpose.

After the student has completed his or her writing, the teacher either in writing circles or

individual writing conferences can point out words the child spells correctly first and then

comment on the words the student did not spell correctly and ask questions concerning

these words. This is a great “teachable” moment for teachers because by asking

questions about the words misspelled, this will give the teacher an understanding of what

the student knows. After conferencing with the class, the teacher may see areas that need

further deciphering.

Another way to encourage students is to have them proofread and self correct

spelling errors in their writing by using references like spell check, dictionaries, or

spelling software. Peer editing is a great way to strengthen the use of these reference

skills. If students know their peers are going to be looking over their writing, it may

encourage them proofread or self correct their writing.

Key elements for this practice are:

Schedule enough authentic reading and writing.

Capitalize on teachable moments for individualized spelling goals.

Use high interest text (Email/ Internet)

Scott states, “Eventual outcomes of spelling instruction will depend on several

factors. One critical factor is the student’s strengths and weakness in other language

domains. Few poor spellers are only poor spellers” (Scott 2000). What this statement

means is that if a student is struggling in spelling then the student is probably suffering in

reading and writing as well. In education, reading, writing, and spelling all work together

to form a cohesive language arts experience. To lack in one are will ultimately affect the

others. Teachers need to be aware of their student’s needs and struggles in spelling. By

using word lists that are individualized to each student, word sorts that focus the learner

in on a specific grouping, and authentic text to read, research and keep the learner

motivated, any classroom teacher will have an effective spelling curriculum they can be

proud of.

Sipe, R., & National Association of Elementary School Principals, A. (1994, February 1). Strategies for Poor Spellers. Here’s How. (Document Reproduction Service No. ED365962) retrieved June 12, 2007, from ERIC database.

At the beginning of this article, the author refers to spelling as a piece of spinach

in a person’s teeth. The spinach doesn’t physically affect your smile, but it makes it less

appealing to others. In the classroom setting, spelling can be the teacher’s piece of

spinach. The article discusses how spelling has become one of the great concerns among

parents. There are several different strategies the article gives to help spelling in the

classroom. Every teacher has a child that can write well, read well, but spell horribly.

The article shows some ways we as educators can help those students increase their

spelling knowledge and boost their confidence in spelling.

The question the article asks is how can educators use strategies to promote better

spellers in their classrooms?

Methods Used:

One strategy the article talks about to use with poor spellers is let them use

dictionaries, and teach them how to look up words. Many teachers do not realize

that the younger children do not know how to use a dictionary.

For use in the early grades, an emphasis on phonics and the art of sounding out

words is a great strategy to use. Teaching students to sound out words and listen for

the individual sound is a great and effective strategy in the lower grades. This

strategy is not as effective when the words become more advanced with silent

letters and advanced blend combinations.

Another method of teaching successful spelling is to study word families. Honor,

honorable, honorary, honoring, and honored are all examples from the same word

family. Teaching students the root word for this family can show the student they

can spell many other words in that family. This strategy will help students with

beginnings, and endings of words.

Other methods would be to use mnemonic devices. Students can create rhymes,

jingles, or phrases to learn spelling rules or how to spell difficult words.

The article talks about how spelling is a writing skill. It is not as important in the

rough drafts of writing as it is in the final stages. Research suggests that teachers should

not emphasize spelling in the early stages of writing because it could cause students to

become anxious and doubt their writing abilities. Spelling is also a developmental

process because preschoolers begin to experiment with language in print the same way

they learn to talk, by connecting sounds and letters. Eventually by the end of grade one,

most children are ready to begin using strategies that will lead them to correct spelling.

As the research continued, questions arose about spelling instruction. The questions

range from; why doesn’t the teacher correct spelling? How do you teach spelling? Do

you need spelling books? How do you grade?

Answers to Commonly asked Questions

Why doesn’t the teacher correct spelling? The article states that children learn to read

and write the same way, and teachers try to encourage children to have confidence in

their writing. Students should concentrate on the message they are trying to say rather

than the spelling. After children are confident writers, then it is time to learn the spelling

mechanics.

How do you teach spelling? This answer can be different depending on the school

environment. Some teachers use the traditional spelling methods, such as lists,

memorization, and repeated writings, while others integrate spelling with other

instruction. This is dependant on the guidelines between the grades and the school

systems.

Do you need spelling books? As more and more schools move toward integrating the

language arts, the need for a separate book for spelling, handwriting, and grammar will

decrease. Most schools still have a few copies of spelling books if teachers want to use

them. Most of today’s spelling is integrated in the basal text and language arts

curriculum.

How do you grade? This is a big debate among educators whether to use letter grades or

a point system. For those educators who integrate instruction, it is difficult to isolate

grades for each area of the language arts. A recent trend is to replace the letter grades

with behavioral listings, such as “Takes risks when spelling,” with the teacher checking

off “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “rarely.” This form of grading has shown positive

outcomes in the school districts that have implemented it.

Spelling instruction is still a big debate among educators. What is the right way

to teach spelling? What methods prove to be the most effective? One of the biggest

obstacles is the fact that every school systems, grade level, and teacher’s method of

spelling instruction is so different. What works for one school doesn’t always work for

the other. Until there is some cohesiveness among the school systems, the debate of how

to teach effective spelling strategies will continue.

Snowball, D. (2001, January 1). Spelling Strategies That Work. Instructor, 110(8), (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ627305) Retrieved June 12, 2007, from ERIC database.

Many educators have different strategies and styles when it comes to teaching

spelling to their students. Some use a phonics based instruction method while others use

a basal integrated strategy. When it comes to teaching spelling there seems to be more

diversity among the teachers than the diversity in the classroom. This article gives

educators examples of effective spelling methods and how to implement them in the

classroom setting.

One of the main ideas in this article is to develop the student’s sense of purpose

for spelling. To become good spellers, a child needs to have authentic reasons for

learning how to spell. Questions should be asked to help students come up with their

reasons for being good spellers. Many times the children’s reason to study spelling is to

simply pass the weeks spelling test. Educators must take the focus off the test and put it

onto the mechanics and structure of spelling. Students should not have to worry about

passing a test as long as they have successfully learned the skills for spelling. To aid in

developing a students sense of purpose teachers should encourage peer review. Have the

students share their writing and work with other students in the classroom. Their peers

may ask questions about the writing which will encourage students to closely examine

their own writing. Teachers can help develop a students’ sense of purpose by offering

clear feedback. When examining a students writing, teachers need to comment on what

they notice about the students spelling. Asking questions like what they think they are

doing well on? and, what they need to work on? will help the students self-analyze their

writing and spelling. Teachers can also look for commons struggles among their

students and offer mini-lessons to help them gain the knowledge they lack.

Proofreading is another strategy teachers can instruct their students on to help

them develop a sense of purpose. If the student carefully reviews their own work, they

can pinpoint words and grammatical skills they need to focus on. This article is broken

down into two main strategies; Learning Useful Words and Learning Sounds, Spelling

Patterns and Meanings.

Learning useful words is important when teaching spelling because these are the

words that students come into frequent contact with. The article says to have students

help in the selection of a group of words that the whole class uses often but spells

incorrectly. Once the words have been chosen, the teacher can write the words on a chart

or overhead and have the student look for patterns in the words or similarities between

them. The next step in this strategy is to list more and more words and group them

according to their structure or pattern. Once a large group of words have been formed,

the instructor can post the words onto a “word wall” or chart for students to use and

reference.

This continuing activity of gathering words and compiling them in a chart or word

wall will give the students a visual reference in their writing and also the students will

have a sense of ownership because they helped the teacher choose the words.

The second strategy in this article is Learning Sounds, Spelling Patterns, and

Meaning through the use of a 10 minute mini-lesson. This mini-lesson can be use for

sounds, patterns, and meanings. To start the mini-lesson the teacher selects a focus or

area of weakness common among the students. The teacher and students find examples

in text or around the classroom or words they know fit the pattern being studied and list

them on a chart or reference. Then the students find more examples and write them on

blank index cards. Once the students have compiled the words onto cards, the teacher

and the students group the words into different categories like sound, structure,

prefix/suffix etc. Once the words have been sorted the teacher and students discuss their

findings by formulating questions or finding similarities between the words. After the

discussions have ended the last part of the mini-lesson is to apply the knowledge they

have learned. This will allow the teacher to focus on the student’s needs either

individually, in small groups, or even whole class.

The big idea to take away from this article is that spelling is only part of the

bigger picture. Reading and writing are the most important focuses for a teacher.

Spelling is one part of this process. By focusing on individual needs of the students,

teachers can isolate the problems that effect spelling and successfully correct them which

will help the ultimate goal of becoming better readers and writers. Teachers have to stop

focusing on all there is to teach and focus on what the students are struggling with. If we

can effectively teach the little things then the bigger areas of learning will be that much

easier to teach.

Taylor-Heald, G. (1996).Three paradigms of spelling instruction in grades 3 to 6.The Reading Teacher, 51(5), 404-413.

Spelling instruction remains one of the most debated aspects of the language arts.

It is these debates and arguments that prompted the writing of this article. Hearld-Taylor

thoroughly examined the research literature and identified three main spelling

perspectives that originate from diverse philosophical and research

foundations(traditional, transitional and student oriented). In this article the researcher

examined the obvious differences and similarities in order to gain a deeper understanding

about spelling instruction used in grades 3-6.

The traditional spelling strategies are based more on traditional attitudes and

practices rather than on theory or research. These practices are supported by theories of

empiricists who advocate formal direct instruction, drill memorization, imitation, rote

learning, and emphasis on correctness. Spelling instruction of this model is generally

taught formally as a separate subject with word lists from commercially graded spelling

texts that emphasize instruction in phonetics and spelling rules in preparation for weekly

test. In the traditional paradigm, teachers are mainly givers of information. They

determine what is taught, while students are considered “empty vessels” (Heald-Taylor,

1996). Several aspects of this model have been challenged over the years. The singular

emphasis on phonics is a huge issue since about only 46% of English words can be

spelled phonetically. Other criticisms include, the great deal of tedious practice

involving low-level exercises that require little thinking, and the scope and sequence of

skills in spelling books often fail to accommodate the wide range of student abilities.

The transitional model is distinguished by two main features, the integration of numerous

spelling strategies(phonics, graphic/visual, syntactic/word patterns, semantic, meaning)

and the significance of reading in learning to spell. Theories of integration emerged

because phonetics alone could not explain the spelling of about half of the English words,

especially the irregular spellings. Because reading and spelling are so closely linked,

Templeton(1992a) emphasized that words studied in spelling should come from student

reading material so that phonetics, spelling rules, and semantic and visual functions are

learned in a context meaningful to the child. Transitional practices are like traditional in

that they both include direct instruction in phonics, spelling rules, study procedures, and

weekly spelling test. However in this paradigm, spelling is mainly learned in conjunction

with various types of word study such as word sorts and word games. Children are tested

on words at the beginning of the week and are required to study on those they had

difficulty with. Teachers in this model integrate both direct and interactive instruction.

Students are more involved with their own learning. One of the main concerns of this

paradigm is the role of reading, writing, and spelling. Many researchers advocate the

reading of literature as a way to support spelling development, however many of the

practices of this model (word sorts, spelling games) are done separately.

The student oriented perspective builds on the theory and research of previous

paradigms that phonetic visual and semantic functions are continually valued, and that

spelling and reading development are mutually supportive. There are three main

differences in this paradigm; learning to spell is seen as a developmental process, reading

provides a context for learning to spell and spelling is a functional component of writing.

Theories supporting this category state that much language learning is a self-determined

process as students read and write in a discovery oriented systematic program of word

study. The instruction of this category takes into account the needs and developmental

stages of students and is linked to contexts of reading and writing. In this paradigm, the

teacher’s role changes dramatically from predominantly giving information to facilitating

learning based on developmental levels and individual student needs. Students are

expected to engage actively in their own learning at they figure out much of their spelling

for themselves through word sorts, word games, word study. One main challenge for this

category is the lack of research to support its effectiveness.

Teachers at all grade levels use the strategies mentioned above. It may be that

they have an integration of all paradigms or stick strictly to one model. This research

gives teachers the opportunity to examine spelling instruction in their own classroom and

make decisions on what they feel would be most effective. Unfortunately, more research

is needed to determine what might be the best model for students. As in many areas of

education there is no one answer to spelling instruction. I believe as we get new students

each year, out instruction will have to be adjusted according to their needs.

Templeton, S., Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1), 102-112.

Spelling is an ongoing area of concern among both the language arts community

and the lay public. A lot of the concern has to do with the perception that students are

misspelling many more words in their writing than they used to. This observation,

however is difficult to document. Many teachers express concern that they do not have a

strong foundation either in how to teach spelling or in the nature of the spelling system

(Gill & Scharer, 1996; Henry, 1988; Moats, 1995).

Although there have been some efforts to address the need for a broader

knowledge base with respect to spelling instruction, often times they do not reflect the

importance of pulling words out of the immediate context of reading and writing in order

to examine and explore them for common patterns. The research community has come to

a general consensus that the process of writing words and the process of reading words

draw upon the same underlying base of word knowledge (Ehri, 1993; Gill, 1992; Perfetti,

1992; Templeton & Bear, 1992). The more students understand about the structure of

words- their spelling or orthography- the more fluent and efficient their reading will be

(Perfetti, 1992). Thus orthography is the engine that drives efficient reading as well as

efficient writing.

In an effort to broaden the current professional dialogue regarding spelling

instruction, the researchers addressed teachers most frequently asked questions about

spelling. The questions come from teachers in all contexts, preschool through university.

Generations of students and teachers alike ask the question “Why don’t we just spell

words the way they sound?” English spelling did start out as a primarily alphabetic or

phonemic writing system, representing sounds in fairly straightforward left to right match

up. It still has a strong alphabetic foundation, however as a succession of languages

brought an influx of new vocabulary into English over the centuries-Germanic,

Scandinavian, French, Latin, Greek, and Spanish-the way these words were spelled in the

original language was usually brought in as well. This had an inevitable effect of moving

spelling away from its straightforwardly alphabetic, letter-sound foundation (Templeton;

Morris, 1999). In English spelling, however, there are patterns. These patterns provide a

level of consistency that operates within and between syllables, providing consistent

information about how sounds are spelled. Awareness of these patterns helps students in

both reading and spelling.

Learning about the spelling of words is conceptual learning and proceeds from a

more concrete to a more abstract level of understanding and analysis. Spelling begins in

the extended period of emergent literacy where children learn about the forms and

functions of print. In English, consonants emerge first because they are easily heard.

Vowels emerge somewhat later. The pattern layer is more conceptually advanced

because learners come to understand that spelling do not always work in a strict left to

right fashion, but groups or patterns of letters work together to represent sound.

Inventive spelling is valuable because children are attempting to represent their speech

with letters, they are applying phonics in a truly authentic context. Exploration of

conventional spelling can begin when children have attained full phonemic awareness

(for most children, the middle of first grade).

Spelling instructional levels will vary among students in a classroom. When

selecting and organizing words for students, they should be developmentally appropriate.

They should reflect spelling features that students use but confuse when they write

(Invernizzi et al, 1994). Teaching students above their instructional level is not

productive because the underlying word knowledge and conception of how the system

works does not support memory for such words. If students are taught at their

appropriate instructional level, they will make more progress than if they attempt words

and patterns that are at their frustration level (Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek, &

Perney, 1995). Students’ levels can be determined by administering a spelling inventory.

Words taught should be organized according to spelling patterns.

When teaching spelling, strategies that can help students support their spelling are

derived from the type of thinking that occurs during word study activities. One of the

most powerful strategies for determining the spelling of a word it to try to think of a word

that is similar in terms of sound or meaning. This strategy should be modeled for students

because many will not discover it own their own. Students should be shown how to look

at their misspellings in context of the whole word. When a spelling error occurs the

message is sent that the whole word is wrong. Word knowledge is not an all or nothing

affair. We need to focus on the part of the word the student got correct and then move to

what needs to be fixed. Students need to spend time examining words and patterns in

order to lock in the spelling pattern.

This article addresses many concerns educators have regarding spelling

instruction. Understanding and the nature of the spelling system better equips educators

in their instruction. However, in order to effectively plan spelling instruction, educators

must first know where their students are developmentally and proceed from there.