Learning the spelling of strange words in Dutch benefits from regularized reading.

Abstract

In 2 experiments, the authors tested the effect of 2 types of reading on the spelling memory of strange or sound-spelling inconsistent words in Dutch students with and without learning disabilities: standard reading and regularized reading. Standard reading refers to reading the word the way it has to be read. Regularized reading refers to reading a sound-spelling inconsistent word as if it is sound-spelling consistent. In Experiment 1, both groups showed a short-term effect. Shortly after training, all students who participated in the regularized-reading condition showed better spelling performance than students who took part in a standard-reading condition. One week after training, spelling knowledge of students without learning disabilities appeared to be more stable than that of students with learning disabilities. In Experiment 2, only students with learning disabilities participated. The results reveal that more training substantially enhanced spelling performance in the long term, and repetition of the regularized word was even more effective. A recurrent network account served as the guiding principle to explain the results.

An evaluation of spelling pronunciations as a means of improving spelling of orthographic markers

“…However, contrary to our expectations training children to use spelling pronunciations as cues for their spelling attempts did not turn out to be more efficient than the control condition, neither for poor nor for age-adequate spellers. This finding is in contrast to earlier findings indicating that spelling pronunciations are an efficient means to help children to work out how exactly the letters of a word spelling map onto the sounds of the according pronunciation (Bosman et al, 2006;Drake & Ehri, 1984;Hilte & Reitsma, 2006;Landerl et al, 2007).…”

“…Hilte, Bos, and Reitsma (2005) e also found that loan words with large deviations from transparent spelling profited more from spelling pronunciations than Dutch words that had only small deviations from transparent spelling. Thus, the earlier studies, in English (Drake & Ehri, 1984), in Dutch (Bosman et al, 2006;Hilte et al, 2005;Hilte & Reitsma, 2006) and one in our own lab (Landerl et al, 2007) suggest that spelling pronunciations are an efficient means to help childre n to store word spellings in orthographic memor y. The training words of the studies in German and Dutch were irregular spelled loan words.…”

Spelling feedback in an ICT-learning environment: Issues of proficiency, training efficiency, and transfer

“…Implicit learning in the domain of spelling is presented by Steffler (2001) and Kemp and Bryant (2003) in English, and Pacton, Perruchet, Fayol, and Cleeremans (2001) in French. Bosman, van Hell, and Verhoeven (2006) showed that young Dutch students with and without learning difficulties were capable of generalizing spelling knowledge they had acquired to materials not studied.…”

Spelling pronunciation and visual preview both facilitate learning to spell irregular words

“…Findings of several studies on the effect of spelling pronunciation on skilled and less skilled spellers are somewhat confusing. In one study, spellingmatch spellers (average spellers) benefited more than students with learning disabilities (Bosman, van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2005). In contrast, another study showed that less skilled spellers benefited more than skilled spellers (Drake & Ehri, 1984).…”