Skip to main content

Experienced teachers’ expectations about the potential effectiveness of spelling exercises

Abstract

In order to investigate what issues might be important for experimental training research, a group of experienced remedial teachers was asked to evaluate the potential effectiveness of various spelling exercises. After addressing some general questions about spelling exercises for Dutch poor spellers, they made rankings of several sets of exercises on the basis of the expected effectiveness. The teachers had to give their responses based on their own experiences and with a specific child with poor spelling in mind. The results show that the teachers emphasize the importance of providing rules in spelling exercises, but also agree that poor spellers often have serious difficulties in applying these rules in spelling. Furthermore, the rankings show that exercises with a combination of rule-based strategies and showing the whole orthographic pattern of the word are considered to be most effective. Learning to memorize the word without showing the spelling of the word was considered to be the least effective. Surprisingly, individual characteristics of the children did not seem to have any influence on the ranking of the exercises. It is concluded that exploiting the experience and knowledge of teachers may be good, but is only the first step for further research on the effectiveness of exercises for poor spellers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abbot, M. (2000). Identifying reliable generalizations for spelling words: The importance of multilevel analysis. Elementary School Journal, 101, 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, K. E. (1985). The development of spelling ability and linguistic strategies. The Reading Teacher, 39, 140–147.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Rogan, L., Reed, E., Abbott, S., Brooks, A., Vaughn, K., & Graham, S. (1998). Teaching spelling to children with specific learning disabilities: The mind’s ear and eye beat the computer or pencil. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 106–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., Hawkins, J. M., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bos, M., & Geelhoed, J. (2001). Spellingmethoden nader bekeken [Closer look at spelling methods]. Amsterdam: PI Research.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bos, M., & Reitsma, P. (in press). Inquiry into expert knowledge about effective spelling exercises. In R. M. Joshi, B. Kaczmarek, & C. K. Leong (Eds.). Literacy Acquisition: Role of Phonology, Morphology and Orthography. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

  7. Bos, M., & Reitsma, P. (in preparation). Effects of computerized spelling exercises on poor spellers. PI Research - VU Amsterdam.

  8. Bosman, A. M. T., & De Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Differential effectiveness of reading and non-reading tasks in learning to spell. In: F. Satow & B. Gatherer (Eds.). Literacy without Frontiers (pp. 279–289). Widness, Cheshire: United Kingdom Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Butyniec-Thomas, J., & Woloshyn, V. E. (1997). The effects of explicit-strategy and whole-language instruction on students’ spelling ability. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 293–302.

    Google Scholar 

  10. de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2003). Developmental changes in the manifestation of a phonological deficit in dyslexic children learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ehri, L. C. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 356–365.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ehri, L. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.). Learning to Spell Research: Theory, and practice across languages (pp. 237–269). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Foorman, B. R., & Francis, D. J. (1994). Exploring connections among reading, spelling, and phonemic segmentation during first grade. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Foorman, B. R., Novy, D. M., Francis, D. J., & Liberman, D. (1991). How letter-sound instruction mediates progress in first-grade reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 456–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnston, F. R. (2001). Exploring classroom teachers’ spelling practices and beliefs. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 143–156.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kernaghan, K., & Woloshyn, V. E. (1995). Providing grade one students with multiple spelling strategies: Comparisons between strategy instruction, strategy instruction with metacognitive information, and traditional language arts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Landerl, K., & Wimmer, H. (2000). Deficits in phoneme segmentation are not the core problem of dyslexia: Evidence from German and English children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lennox, C., & Siegel, L. S. (1996). The development of phonological rules and visual strategies in average and poor spellers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 60–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. E. (2002). Reading teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  22. O’Conner, R. E., & Padeliadu, S. (2000). Blending versus whole word approaches in first grade remedial reading. Reading and Writing, 13, 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Perkins, V. L. (1988). Feedback effects on oral reading errors of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 244–248.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reitsma, P. (1990a). Development of orthographic knowledge. In P. Reitsma & L. Verhoeven (Eds.). Acquisition of reading in Dutch (pp. 43–64). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Reitsma, P. (1990b). Acquisition of written Dutch: An introduction. In P. Reitsma & L. Verhoeven (Eds.). Acquisition of reading in Dutch (pp. 1–13). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Searleman, A., & Herrmann, D. (1994). Memory from a broader perspective. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Steffler, D. J., Varnhagen, C. K., Friesen, C. K., & Treiman, R. (1998). There’s more to children’s spelling than the errors they make. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 492–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 102–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Uhry, J. K., & Shepherd, M. J. (1993). Segmentation/spelling instruction as part of a first-grade reading program: Effects on several measures of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. van Daal, V. H. P. (1993). Computer-based reading and spelling practice for children and for young dyslexics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wesseling, R., & Reitsma, P. (2000). The transient role of explicit phonological recoding for reading acquisition. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 313–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wesseling, R., & Reitsma, P. (2001). Preschool phonological representations and development of reading skills. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 203–229.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mieke Bos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bos, M., Reitsma, P. Experienced teachers’ expectations about the potential effectiveness of spelling exercises. Ann. of Dyslexia 53, 104–127 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-003-0006-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dyslexia
  • Analogy Strategy
  • Correct Spelling
  • Rule Strategy
  • Poor Speller