Teaching Spelling in the Primary Grades: A National Survey of                Instructional Practices and Adaptations

Graham, Steve; Morphy, Paul; Harris, Karen R.; Fink-Chorzempa, Barbara; Saddler, Bruce; Moran, Susan; Mason, Linda

doi:10.3102/0002831208319722

Cited by 76 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Individual children with weak spelling skills should be identified and provided appropriate instruction to change their standing relative to age or grade peers in spelling and prevent failure in writing tasks, as this may lead to avoiding the difficult task of spelling and the associated composing. S. Graham et al (2008) surveyed a representative sample of teachers in the United States and found that only about a third had adopted a systematic spelling program. Future research should evaluate whether providing a systematic, explicit, evidence-based spelling program beginning in first grade optimizes the spelling achievement of struggling, average, and superior spellers from the beginning and all along their journey toward skilled writing and reading, so they not only become expert writers, readers, writing readers, and reading writers but also enjoy written language.…”

Section: New Knowledge About Spellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7.

Abbott

Berninger

Fayol

2010

Journal of Educational Psychology

366

282

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Longitudinal structural equation modeling was used to evaluate longitudinal relationships across adjacent grade levels 1 to 7 for levels of language in writing (Model 1, subword letter writing, word spelling, and text composing) or writing and reading (Model 2, subword letter writing and word spelling and reading; Model 3, word spelling and reading and text composing and comprehending). Significant longitudinal relationships were observed within and across levels of language: spelling to spelling and spelling to composing (Grades 1 to 7), Models 1 and 3, and composing to spelling (Grades 3 to 6, Model 1; Grades 4 to 6, Model 3); spelling to word reading and word reading to spelling (Grades 2 to 7), Models 2 and 3; spelling to word reading (Grade 1), Model 2, and word reading to spelling (Grade 1), Model 3; composition to comprehension (Grades 3 to 5), Model 3; comprehension to composition (Grades 2 to 6), Model 3; and comprehension to word reading (Grades 1 to 6), Model 3. Results are discussed in reference to the levels of language in translating ideas into written language and integrating writing and reading.Learning to write, that is, to produce legible letters and conventional spellings and create coherent written texts for many specific assignments across the curriculum, is a major task of early and middle childhood for children educated in schools. Children who do not master writing are at risk for grade retention and may not graduate because they cannot complete written assignments and take tests. Also, they may not pass high-stakes tests, which increasingly require writing (Jenkins, Johnson, & Hileman, 2004). However, there is relatively little research on the normal writing development process with which to inform educational policy, assessment, and instruction related to writing. Of the research that does exist on writing development, most of it provides (a) a snapshot of the writing process at a specific point in time or (b) a cross-sectional comparison of different children at different phases of writing development. Few longitudinal studies of writing exist, or, as Lerkkanen, Rasku-Puttonen, Aunola, and Nurmi (2004) pointed out, if the same children were tested repeatedly, the results have often been analyzed in cross-sectional fashion (e.g., . Moreover, comparatively little research has focused on writing alone. The research on writing that does exist is often focused on writing-reading relationships (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). As explained later in this section, research focused on writing alone is typically grounded in the cognitive processes of writing, such as planning, translating, and reviewing/revising, rather than on the levels of language involved in translating ideas into written products."Levels of language" is a well-established analytic tool in linguistics that is used to understand how complex, multidimensional language is structured in the mind and in the language constructions of language users (e.g., Berninger & Garvey, 1982). Linguists analyze and code different levels of langua...

show abstract

Section: New Knowledge About Spellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7.

Abbott

Berninger

Fayol

2010

Journal of Educational Psychology

366

282

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, teachers report using a variety of spelling activities (Graham et al 2008;McNeill and Kirk 2014) and many intervention studies report using multi-component spelling instruction (e.g., Berninger et al 2002;Graham et al 2002;Kirk and Gillon 2009). Aside from the instructional methods we investigated, other common methods include alphabetizing, writing-saying, finding the missing letter, unscrambling the letters, word searches, and dictionary work.…”

Section: Spelling Accuracy (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the Rainbow: Retrieval Practice Leads to Better Spelling than does Rainbow Writing

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, we compared the effectiveness of rainbow writing and retrieval practice, two common methods of spelling instruction. In experiment 1 (n=14), second graders completed 2 days of spelling practice, followed by spelling tests 1 day and 5 weeks later. A repeated measures analysis of variance demonstrated that spelling accuracy for words trained with retrieval practice was higher than for words trained with rainbow writing on both tests (η p 2 =.49). In experiments 2 (second graders, n=16) and 3 (first graders, n=12), students completed 2 days of spelling practice followed by a spelling test 1 day later. Results replicated experiment 1; spelling accuracy was higher for words trained with retrieval practice compared with rainbow writing (η p 2 =.42 and .64, respectively). Furthermore, students endorsed both liking and learning from retrieval practice at least as much as (and sometimes more than) rainbow writing. Results demonstrate that retrieval practice is a more useful (and as engaging) training method than is rainbow writing and extend the well-established testing effect to beginning spellers.Spelling is a crucial skill that students learn during the first several years of formal schooling. Despite teachers endorsing the importance of spelling instruction and reporting an average of 90 classroom minutes per week on it, they report that more than 25 % of students struggle with Educ Psychol Rev

show abstract

“…3 To clarify, it is not argued that reading and whole language activities have no impact on spelling acquisition. According to the research, such activities can contribute to spelling development, but on their own they are, for many children, insufficient to develop understanding of how the spelling system works (Graham et al, 2008;Hammond, 2004;Westwood, 2005Westwood, , 2008a. 4 As one reviewer pointed out, this represents a return to what was almost always the case prior to the 1970s.…”

Section: Endnotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neither rote visual memorisation or the incidental learning approach lead to the automaticity of recall needed for both reading and writing (Schlagal, 2002;Templeton, 1991;Templeton & Morris, 1999). 3 What is required for automaticity of recall is spelling instruction that is explicit and systematic, focusing on exploring patterns that can be detected in the sound, structure, and meaning features of words, and thus reinforcing and consolidating children's understanding of how the spelling system works (Graham et al, 2008;Hammond, 2004;Schlagal, 1992;Westwood, 2005Westwood, , 2008a.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of Commercial Spelling Programs for Upper Primary Level students

Mullock

2012

Australas. j. spec. educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acquisition of spelling skills in English presents, for a substantial number of children, a significant challenge. Spelling skills do not automatically transfer from reading skills, and while many teachers are aware of the need to develop a separate word study program to assist with spelling development, time and confidence factors often result in their turning to commercial spelling programs for assistance. But to what extent do such programs reflect what contemporary research tells us about how spelling skills are acquired? The current study uses criteria developed from Cramer and Cipielewski (1995) to analyse 9 Australian commercial spelling programs designed for use in primary Years 4 to 6. The programs are examined with special attention to the needs of weaker spellers. The study found that although the majority of the programs contained treatment of basic morphological aspects of spelling, only 2 of the programs presented material designed to develop understanding of the more complex sound-symbol relationships of the English spelling system. Treatment of more complex morphemic principles was weak in almost all programs, and there was only limited coverage of compound words, homonyms, contractions, and words that are easily confused.

show abstract

Teaching Spelling in the Primary Grades: A National Survey of Instructional Practices and Adaptations

Cited by 76 publications

References 32 publications

Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7.

Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7.

Beyond the Rainbow: Retrieval Practice Leads to Better Spelling than does Rainbow Writing

An Examination of Commercial Spelling Programs for Upper Primary Level students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About