Spelling

Approaches to Teaching and Assessment

Peter Westwood

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781134019137
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First Published in 2005. Provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the teaching and learning of spelling and helps students develop and improve their spelling skills. The assessment section in the second half of the text will enable teachers to determine and assess the individual's progress and instructional needs in spelling.

1	Spelling: current issues and perspectives

Spelling is a tool for writing. The purpose of learning to spell is so that writing may become easier, more fluent, more expressive, and more easily read and understood by others. (Gentry & Gillet 1993, p. 57)

In precisely the same way that the teaching of grammar in schools ‘incites an enormous amount of active and sharp debate’ (Candlin 1997, p. 5), so too the teaching of spelling is an issue that arouses strong emotions in both parents and teachers. Almost everyone has strong views about the importance (or lack of importance) of accurate spelling. The focus in the contemporary debate concerns the question of whether spelling skills are best learned naturally and incidentally through the process of engaging in authentic writing across the school curriculum, or whether specific time and effort should be devoted to the direct and explicit teaching of spelling skills and strategies (Clark & Uhry 1995). A perspective is emerging now that a well-balanced combination of these two approaches is required to ensure that all students have the opportunity to become proficient spellers (Butyniec-Thomas & Woloshyn 1997).

How important is spelling?

One viewpoint is represented by those educators who argue that when students write, the ideas they attempt to convey and the quality of the language they use are far more important considerations than any accuracy in spelling. It is sometimes suggested that to place too great an emphasis on accuracy in spelling may even inhibit children’s willingness to write. Under this condition most of their mental effort has to be directed toward the lower-level cognitive process of encoding each word correctly, rather than to the higher-order processes involved in generating new ideas and expressing these in an interesting written form (Huxford, McGonagle & Warren 1997). There is a great deal of common sense in this viewpoint, particularly in the context of the writing of very young children. One would not want to impede the creative aspects of their earliest attempts at writing by forcing them to concentrate from the start on correct spelling. Too much attention to accuracy can undermine a child’s motivation to engage in writing. For example, Lowe and Walters (1991) described a 12-year-old boy, Darren, who found it extremely difficult to begin any piece of writing because he was frightened of making a mistake. There may be many other reluctant writers like Darren in our classrooms. Their self-esteem and confidence in relation to their writing ability are often impaired due to early criticism of their work by parents, peers or teachers (Gentry & Gillet 1993; Leary & Johncock 1995).

An alternative viewpoint considers that learning to spell accurately is extremely important and that direct teaching from an early stage is necessary in order to help students master spelling principles. It is argued that an individual’s literacy level is often judged by others in terms of his or her ability to spell words correctly in everyday written communications, such as in letters, notes, reports and application forms. Parker (1991) has remarked:

In our society, being a proficient speller is important. Good spelling is regarded as the mark of a ‘well-educated’ person, and because of this it can affect a child’s future opportunities and choices in life. (p. 64)

Poor spelling can impede a student’s academic performance in a variety of ways. For example, inaccurate spelling reduces intelligibility of written work, and conveys to others the impression that the writer is either careless or less intelligent than other students (Stewart & Cegelka 1995). This is a serious problem for students who are, for example, genuinely dyslexic. Thomson (1995) reports that in many schools, colleges and universities the written work of intelligent students with dyslexia is frequently misjudged and undervalued due to the large number of spelling errors it contains.

If spelling is so important for communication purposes, how should it be taught in schools? How can teachers balance the conflicting demands of having to aim for steady improvement in children’s spelling skills while at the same time allowing the children the freedom to take risks and to experiment in their writing? What has research had to say about normal acquisition of spelling skills, and about specific difficulties in learning to spell? What should children be taught in order to become more proficient spellers? These issues will be addressed in the following pages.

Approaches to spelling instruction

Twenty-five years ago ‘spelling’ often appeared as a specific lesson on the timetable of many primary schools. Teachers used this time to provide the students with weekly spelling lists, often based on the new vocabulary that had emerged from the various topics and themes studied within the week, or sometimes based on specific ‘word families’ sharing common sequences of letters. The time was also used to check that the students knew the meanings of the words and could use them appropriately in sentences. A weekly test was often administered to ensure that the words had been memorised correctly by the children (Rowe & Lomas 1996). Frequent use was made of such resources as spelling lists, or of word lists published by the government education departments. In addition, children were usually required to correct the errors they made within essays and other forms of written work, and were expected to write each correction several times for additional practice.

This approach had a certain appeal to it. It was systematic. Children knew what was expected of them. Teachers felt that children’s spelling needs were being efficiently addressed. Regular test results showed which children were needing more assistance with spelling. Parents knew how spelling was being taught in school.

The major deficiencies in such an approach included the evidence that children might memorise words from lists but often not spell them correctly when they used them later in their writing (lack of generalisation and transfer of learning). There was also a major problem created by providing a common spelling list for all students in the class, when clearly there was wide variation in the children’s spelling ability and achievement levels. Some teachers responded to this difference in ability by presenting more than one list, each at a different level of difficulty but this was not common practice. The most serious limitation in the list approach was that teachers often expected children to memorise the words without having taught them any specific strategies to use when attempting to learn words. The expectation was that rote learning through repetition and practice would establish storage of specific word patterns in each child’s long-term memory. For some students such an approach was simply not successful.

Over a period of time, this formal approach to spelling instruction fell into disrepute, mainly for the reasons given above, but also because beliefs about children’s acquisition of literacy were changing rapidly. During the late 1970s and the 1980s significant shifts occurred in the general approach to literacy teaching in primary schools. There was a movement away from skills-based instruction to a more holistic and integrated approach to reading, writing and spelling.

In recent years, the development of children’s literacy skills has been facilitated in primary schools through what is termed the ‘whole language’ approach to listening, speaking, reading and writing (Cambourne 1988; Goodman 1986). In this approach, spelling is usually dealt with almost entirely within the context of the children’s daily writing, rather than as an area of skill deserving instructional time and effort in its own right. Teaching spelling as a separate subject is frowned upon, since it is felt that such an approach ‘decontextualises’ word study and does not link the importance of spelling with authentic attempts at communication. It is believed that studying words in isolation will not help the child to transfer and use this knowledge when writing.

In the whole language approach, the underlying belief is that children can be helped to acquire proficiency in spelling simply through engaging in a great deal of daily writing with regular constructive feedback from the teacher and from peers. Assistance in developing spelling skill is mainly directed toward each individual student, based on his or her immediate needs during a writing task. Little time (if any) is devoted to whole-class spelling or word-study lessons. The approach is deemed to be a ‘natural’ way for children to acquire the knowledge and skills needed for spelling, and is therefore seen as being preferable to any form of direct teaching based upon some pre-determined spelling list or programme.

In theory, the whole language approach to spelling appears to be an excellent way to individualise instruction; but in practice it is an extremely difficult approach to implement. In classrooms containing twenty-five or more students, it is virtually impossible to find the necessary time to devote to each individual student as he or she writes. Even if a few moments can be given to those individuals with the greatest need of assistance during a writing lesson, the depth of teaching that can occur is inevitably very superficial and may have no lasting benefit for the child. It can also be argued that dealing only with individual words as they occur at random in a child’s writing represents a fragmented approach to spelling instruction. An essential part of understanding how words are constructed involves recognising that many words share common and predictable letter sequences. Studying word families and discussing their similarities and differences has always been an important activity in this respect. It does not make sense to leave children to acquire this vital knowledge through incidental learning from individual words taught in isolation.

Increasing concern is being expressed about the suitability of whole language ‘immersion’ methods for children with learning difficulties. Graham and Harris (1994) have remarked that attempting to learn to spell primarily through incidental learning is a highly questionable approach for students with special educational needs. They state:

We believe that these whole language methods of learning to spell are not powerful enough for students who are at risk or who have learning problems … (and) … in our opinion, advocates of incidental learning in spelling are overly optimistic. (p. 283)

This view is supported by Mather and Roberts (1995) who suggest that students with spelling difficulties do not learn effectively through holistic approaches to literacy. They do not develop an understanding of spelling generalisations simply through random experience with words. Similarly, Fulk and Stormont-Spurgin (1995) have expressed grave doubts that students with learning disabilities will ‘spontaneously’ acquire spelling skills merely from exposure to literature-based programs and an encouragement to invent the spelling of any word they wish to write.

Have we lost our way?

Under the influence of the whole language approach many teachers have become much less certain about how best to approach the teaching of spelling in their classrooms (Barone 1992). They feel that they should be doing more to foster spelling ability in their children, but they remain confused about the best way of achieving this end. As Peters and Smith (1993) have remarked:

Whilst teachers recognise the importance of the freedom to compose without the constraints of ‘getting it right’ at the first attempt, they continue to be anxious about meeting the pressures for good spelling which come from outside the classroom. (p. vii)

A leading advocate for whole language, Mem Fox (1997) has queried:

Why have some teachers stopped teaching things like spelling? I think they heard statements such as: “You don’t do spelling lists in whole language”, so they stopped teaching spelling altogether. It was the wrong message. We must teach spelling. We need the power of being able to spell correctly. (p. 124)

In response to their own concerns, some teachers have resorted again to the use of weekly spelling lists and tests. Others make use of published spelling programmes and word-building games, exercises or puzzles. Unfortunately, many of the teachers using these approaches are not sure how to embed them effectively within the context of a total literacy programme. The lists, programmes and games are often used in isolation, almost as ends in themselves, without reference to context. In this situation the criticism that the content of the programme does not generalise to children’s everyday writing is valid.

Some teachers also appear not to realise that the main aim in engaging in word study activities with children is to help them to acquire useful strategies (plans of action) for learning to spell or check any words they may need to use (Fulk 1997; Wong 1986). While there is some merit in learning the individual words in a particular list, the real value comes from learning how to learn words. For example, children should be helped, through explicit teaching, to decide whether a particular word in a list is most easily mastered by attending to the syllables and sounds within it (the phonemic or phonetic strategy), by remembering its visual appearance (the visual imagery strategy), by utilising information about the units of meaning that have been combined to produce the word (the morphemic strategy), by comparing the new word with one that is already known (the strategy of spelling by analogy), or by using some combination of these and other strategies.

Strategies for spelling and checking words will be discussed fully in later chapters. The point to be made here is that often teachers are unaware of the need to adopt a strategic approach to spelling, but rather focus the children’s attention merely on rote memorisation of the words in a list. Read and Hodges (1982) have rightly observed that:

learning to spell is not simply a matter of memorizing words but in large measure a consequence of developing cognitive strategies for dealing with English orthography [emphasis added], (p. 1762)

Spelling is a thinking process, not a rote learning task. The development of spelling ability involves a process of learning to apply different strategies appropriately.

2	How do children acquire spelling skills?

According to most experts in this field (eg. Bissex 1980; Gentry 1981; Gentry & Gillet 1993; Moats 1995; Zutell 1998), learning to spell is a developmental process. Studies have indicated that spelling ability develops through a series of stages, each stage reflecting the children’s current knowledge about speech sounds (phonemes), the relationship of these sounds to letters and letter-strings (grapho-phonic knowledge), and the units of meaning within words (morphemes). The stages also reflect the extent to which children have acquired specific strategies for visualising, writing and checking words.

Developmental stages in spelling acquisition

The key features of the developmental stages are presented below. It must be noted that, although age levels for typical acquisition have been suggested for ea...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• 1. Spelling: current issues and perspectives
• 2. How do children acquire spelling skills?
• 3. Individual differences among spellers
• 4. Teaching approaches
• 5. Assessing spelling
• 6. Useful resources
• Appendices
• References
• Index