Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 343–354 | Cite as

Improving the spelling performance of students with disabilities

  • Janice A. Grskovic
  • Phillip J. Belfiore
Regular Papers

Abstract

The present study examined the effects of an error correction strategy on the spelling accuracy of students with emotional and/or learning disabilities. The strategy, which asked students to spell a word, view a correct model, and then correct their errors, was compared to a traditional strategy that asked students to write words three times each while viewing a correct model. Results showed that students learned more words in the error correction condition than in the traditional condition. The error correction treatment was shown to be an effective strategy that reduced the number of repetitive spelling practice trials, and was preferred by students.

Key words

error correction learning disabilities spelling 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barbetta, P. M., Heward, W. L., & Bradley, D. M. C. (1993). Relative effects of whole-word and phonetic-prompt error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of sight words by students with developmental disabilities.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 99–110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, A. S. (1990). A review of recent research on spelling.Educational Psychology Review, 2, 365–397.Google Scholar
  3. D. C. Heath and Company (1990). New York: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Stretton, K., & Hall, R. V. (1983). The peer tutoring spelling game: A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spelling performance.Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 225–239.Google Scholar
  5. Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., Lowry, L., & Kuehnle, K. (1980).Relationships among simple measures of spelling and performance on standardized achievement tests. Research Report No. 21. University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
  6. Drevno, G. E., Kimball, J. W., Possi, M. K., Heward, W. L., Gardner, III, R., & Barbetta, P. M. (1994). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of science vocabulary by elementary students: A systematic replication.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 179–180.Google Scholar
  7. Gettinger, M. (1993). Effects of error correction on third graders' spelling.Journal of Educational Research, 87, 39–45.Google Scholar
  8. Goldstein, S. (1995).Understanding and managing children's classroom behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Graham, S., & Freeman, S. (1986). Strategy training and teacher-vs. student-controlled study conditions: Effects on LD student's spelling performance.Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 9, 15–22.Google Scholar
  10. Graham, S., & Voth, V. P. (1990). Spelling instruction: Making modifications for students with learning disabilities,Academic Therapy, 25, 447–457.Google Scholar
  11. James, M. (1986). Self-selected spelling.Academic Therapy, 21, 557–563.Google Scholar
  12. Jenkins, J. R., & Larson, K. (1979). Evaluating error-correction procedures for oral reading.The Journal of Special Education, 13, 145–156.Google Scholar
  13. Kearney, C. A., & Drabman, R. S. (1993). The write-say method for improving spelling accuracy in children with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 52–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Merrill Spelling (1990). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  15. Nulman, J. A. H., & Gerber, M. M. (1984). Improving spelling performance by imitating a child's errors.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 328–333.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ollendick, T. H., Matson, J. L., Esveldt-Dawson, K., & Shapiro, E. S. (1980). Increasing spelling achievement: An analysis of treatment procedures utilizing an alternating treatments design.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 645–654.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogers, T. A., & Iwata, B. A. (1991). An analysis of error-correction procedures during discrimination training.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 775–781.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rose, T. L., McEntire, E., & Dowdy, C. (1982). Effects of two error-correction procedures on oral reading.Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 182–192.Google Scholar
  19. Rosenberg, M. S. (1986). Error-correction during oral reading: A comparison of three techniques.Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 182–192.Google Scholar
  20. Shapiro, E. S. (1989).Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Singh, N. N., Farquhar, S., & Hewett, A. E. (1991). Enhancing the spelling performance of learning disabled students: Task variation does not increase the efficacy of directed rehearsal.Behavior Modification, 15, 271–282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Skinner, C. H., Shapiro, E. S., Turco, T. L., Cole, C. L., & Brown, D. K. (1992). A comparison of self- and peer-delivered immediate corrective feedback on multiplication performance.Journal of School Psychology, 30, 101–116.Google Scholar
  23. Stewart, C. A., & Singh, N. N. (1986). Overcorrection of spelling deficits in moderately mentally retarded children.Behavior Modification, 10, 355–365.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Winterling, V., Dunlap, G., & O'Neill, R. E. (1987). The influence of task variation on the aberrant behaviors of autistic students.Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 105–119.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janice A. Grskovic
    • 1
  • Phillip J. Belfiore
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational StudiesPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette
  2. 2.Division of EducationMercyhurst CollegeErie

Personalised recommendations