Published on November 5, 2007
Cross-Disciplinary Views of Spelling: Implications for Assessment and Intervention: Cross-Disciplinary Views of Spelling: Implications for Assessment and Intervention Cast of Characters: Marcia Invernizzi Thomas G. Jewell Professor of Reading at the University of Virginia [email protected] Kenn Apel Professor & Chair, CSD, Wichita State University [email protected] Julie Masterson Professor, CSD, SW Missouri State University [email protected] Cast of Characters Why Study (Assess, Treat) Spelling?: Why Study (Assess, Treat) Spelling? Spelling is challenging Spelling is sometimes viewed as tangential Spelling is highly correlated with reading; optimal work on spelling benefits reading (more about this in a minute…) Spelling itself codes important information SLPs know…: SLPs know… spoken language, which is the foundation for learning to read and write sound- and word level awareness, which are necessary for grasping the alphabetic principle higher-order semantic/syntactic skills, which are important for comprehension and formulation in spoken and written language literate discourse structures, which are important for comprehending and producing coherent spoken and written texts. Spelling Problems Persist: Spelling Problems Persist Preschoolers with phonological and language problems are “at risk” for spelling problems LD students typically misspell 10-15% words in text level writing With age, reading frequently improves, but spelling problems persist Poor Spellers: Poor Spellers Spelling errors of poor spellers are similar to those of younger “normal” spellers Errors are not qualitatively distinctive or phonetically less accurate However, “slower development” even with eventual “catch-up” is not implied Spelling & Reading: Spelling & Reading Children read spellings, spell spellings, and read the spellings of words they have spelled Highly correlated (.68-.86), although less for non-typically developing students Both are language skills Both tap into similar knowledge sources (PA, MA, MOI, etc.) Both follow similar developmental patterns Spelling and Reading: Spelling and Reading Both require some direct instruction for most children Teaching spelling improves reading skills (more in a minute) (Ellis & Cataldo, 1988; Ehri & Wilce, 1987) Spelling is the more “stringent” measure of the literacy-related skills. It requires attention to conventional form, not just a plausible spelling. Phoneme-Grapheme rules more ambiguous than Grapheme-Phoneme rules (Bain et al., 2001) /f/ -> “f” “ff” “gh” “ph” “f” -> /f/ Kelman & Apel (CDQ, 2004) : Kelman & Apel (CDQ, 2004) Case study of 11-year-old girl with spelling difficulties Pre-Treatment 59% correct on dictation task 74% correct in connected writing Determined nature of errors (phonological, orthographic, mental images) and tailored 9.5 hours treatment Post-Treatment 92% correct on dictation task 84% correct in connected writing Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, Graham, & Richards (JLD, 2002): Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, Graham, & Richards (JLD, 2002) Typically developing students in Grades 1-6 (n=600) Correlational Findings Word recognition influences spelling Spelling influences word recognition Concluded that instruction in either skill may transfer to the other The Role of Orthographic Knowledge in Spelling and Reading: Using, but Confusing: The Role of Orthographic Knowledge in Spelling and Reading: Using, but Confusing Orthographic Knowledge: Orthographic Knowledge Is acquired in an invariant progression in English and many other alphabetic languages Parallels reading and writing development Is at the heart of word recognition and fluent reading Acquisition of Spelling Features in Relation to Reading Levels: Acquisition of Spelling Features in Relation to Reading Levels Slide14: Emergent Pre-K to middle of 1st Emergent Beginning K to middle of 2nd Letter Name - Alphabetic Transitional Within Word Pattern Grade 1 to middle of 4th Syllables & Affixes Intermediate Grades 3 to 8 Advanced Grades 5 to 12 Derivational Relations Reading Stages Grade Range Spelling Stages Synchrony of Literacy Development Alphabet Pattern Meaning Orthographic Knowledge..: Orthographic Knowledge.. Correlates significantly with word identification and decoding (Ehri, 2000; Invernizzi, 2003). Accounts for 40% to 60% of the variance in oral reading measures (Zutell, 1992; Zutell & Rasinski, 1989). Predicts overall reading achievement in longitudinal studies (Ellis & Cataldo, 1992). Developmental Spelling Research: Developmental Spelling Research Informs the scope & sequence of phonological and orthographic skills to be taught Merges assessment and instruction General vs. Specific: General vs. Specific General Knowledge is required to decode, write, or understand a new word. blast recite recitation recital Specific Knowledge is necessary to spell specific words, to automatically recognize words, and to disambiguate similar words trane, train, or trayne? cellar? seller? Assessing General vs. Specific Orthographic Knowledge: Assessing General vs. Specific Orthographic Knowledge The “Power Score” The overall number correct on a spelling test or inventory. 85% on a 20-word test means 15 whole words correct. The “Feature Score” The presence or absence of specific orthographic features. trane Students given credit for the presence of features even if whole word is wrong. Words Their Way Inventories: Words Their Way Inventories Grade Level Inventories Spelling-by-Stage Inventories Feature Inventories Jake’s Spelling Inventory: Jake’s Spelling Inventory Spelling by Stage & Featural Inventories: Spelling by Stage & Featural Inventories Guttman Scale Analyses: Guttman Scale Analyses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 coefficients X X X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 of reproducibility X X X X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >.90; scalability X X X X X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 >.60 X X X X X X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X X X X X X X 0 0 0 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 0 PALS Spelling: PALS Spelling Focuses on developmental spelling features - Initial consonants Final consonants Digraphs Blends Short vowels Nasals CVCe Long vowels r- & l- controlled vowels Ambigous vowels Syllables juncture Affixes Synchrony: Synchrony Syn chro ny… Syn chron y… synonym synchronize synergy syndicate together Sym? …sound …meaning chronology chronicle chronic time Repertoire Perspective and Its Implications for Spelling Assessment and Intervention: Using by Fusing: Repertoire Perspective and Its Implications for Spelling Assessment and Intervention: Using by Fusing Foundational Skills for Spelling : Foundational Skills for Spelling Phonemic Awareness Segmenting, sequencing & discriminating sounds Orthographic Knowledge Sound-symbol correspondences, letter patterns, orthotactics, and spelling patterns/rules Morphological Awareness Morphemes, morphological modifications to base words, semantic relationships between mono-morphemic and multi-morphemic words Semantic Knowledge Vocabulary knowledge (spelling affects meaning and vice versa) Mental Orthographic Images Mental images of words and word parts Perspectives on Development: Perspectives on Development Stage Theory Children progress through a series of stages, beginning with little understanding of the conventions of written text, to the successive use of phonemic awareness, orthographic knowledge, and morphological knowledge Repertoire Theory Development is more of a continuous process that is influenced by multiple linguistic factors whose contribution to development vary in degree over time. Repertoire Perspective of Spelling Development: Repertoire Perspective of Spelling Development From the beginning of their experiences with print, children use multiple strategies and different types of linguistic knowledge when spelling A particular process or strategy may predominate at a given point in time, but not to the exclusion of others. Supports “uneven” or “inconsistent” spelling abilities across development Schlagal (1992)’s constancy and change: constancy in the persistence of difficulty of certain features occurs as children progress developmentally Examples Illustrating Repertoire Perspective: Examples Illustrating Repertoire Perspective Uneven use of letter names Early strategy for spelling; used longer for certain consonants Omission of graphemes for phonemes in words 2nd graders typically include all letters for sounds Older students will omit a letter for a sound in unfamiliar morphologically-complex words Examples Illustrating Repertoire Perspective: Examples Illustrating Repertoire Perspective Influence of orthographic knowledge on: Orthotactic knowledge for ‘ck’ (recognition of violations; infrequent use orthotatic violation) Use of doublets (final position within base words [f,l,s,z] vs inflectional modifications to base words [stoped/stopped] vs assimilated prefixes [allow, attract]) Examples Illustrating Repertoire Perspective: Examples Illustrating Repertoire Perspective Influence of inflectional morphology on: Flaps (dirty vs. city) Clusters (rained vs. brand) Documentation of multiple strategy use via talk alouds and observations Spelling Assessment Using Repertoire Perspective: Spelling Assessment Using Repertoire Perspective One’s theory of spelling development should dictate the analysis procedures applied to the data collected Masterson and Apel (2000) were the first to suggest a hypothesis driven spelling analysis approach consistent with repertoire perspective Proposed the Spelling Assessment Flowchart (SAF) as a visual representation of the hypothesis and problem-solving algorithms needed to determine the underlying language deficiencies in students’ spelling errors. Updated in Masterson, Apel, & Wasowicz (2003) Spelling Assessment Using Repertoire Perspective: Spelling Assessment Using Repertoire Perspective Repertoire perspective-oriented inventories (e.g., Spelling Evaluation of Language and Literacy – SPELL, Masterson et al, 2003) are designed to determine what linguistic component(s) underlie the spelling errors exhibited in students’ writing at all points in development Elicit and analyze spellings Conduct any necessary supplemental language probes Assessment is prescriptive in nature Prescriptive Assessment: Prescriptive Assessment Step 1: Within base words, Identify structures that are misspelled more than 40% of the time for further analysis Identify a pattern, or consistent trend, in the misspellings that are occurring across target words Prescriptive Assessment: Base Words: Prescriptive Assessment: Base Words If a sound/phoneme is not represented with any letter/grapheme = PA If the incorrect letter or letter sequence occurs or a spelling pattern is not observed (within-word doubling, long vowels) = OK If a word is spelled phonetically correct, and no orthographic pattern or morphological rule governs the spelling = MOI Prescriptive Assessment: Inflected or Derived Words: Prescriptive Assessment: Inflected or Derived Words Step 2: For inflected or derived words, Identify pattern of errors and determine whether spelling errors are occurring on the base part of the word (if so, go back to step 1) Identify patterns and/or speller’s understanding of the relationship between base words and their inflected and/or derived forms Prescriptive Assessment: Inflected or Derived Words: Prescriptive Assessment: Inflected or Derived Words If an affix is missing, spelled incorrectly, or its addition to the base word is not appropriately modified – MA If a derived word form does not appear to utilize knowledge of the base word or another derived form in its spelling = MA If a word is spelled phonetically correct, and no orthographic pattern or morphological rule governs the spelling = MOI Prescriptive Assessment: Follow-up: Prescriptive Assessment: Follow-up Confirm PA or MA errors analyses Phonemic segmentation task based on spelling errors Morphological relations task based on spelling errors Spelling Instruction (Intervention) Using Repertoire Perspective: Spelling Instruction (Intervention) Using Repertoire Perspective Initial studies of instruction based on repertoire perspective (targeting multiple linguistic factors) have shown specific and timely advances in spelling abilities Instruction emphasizes phonological, orthographic, and morphological knowledge/awareness and/or mental orthographic images Instruction can follow the prescriptive or modified developmental approaches InstructionPrescriptive vs. Modified Developmental Approach: What are the Differences?: Instruction Prescriptive vs. Modified Developmental Approach: What are the Differences? Prescriptive Begin with prescriptive assessment Individualized instruction for each student Teach only what the student needs to learn Provide explicit and systematic instruction Allow time for intensive instruction and practice Modified Developmental No prescriptive assessment Curriculum follows a general developmental sequence AND a hierarchy of instruction based on understanding spelling as a complex language skill Curriculum covers “units” for each of the linguistic knowledge bases Students receive some instruction for known patterns Not as intensive instruction and practice Instruction/Intervention Based on Repertoire Perspective: Instruction/Intervention Based on Repertoire Perspective Direct and focused attention to spelling strategies Attention to all linguistic properties of words Explicit instruction and multiple opportunities to learn about, or study, words via the different linguistic knowledge bases Practice in both out-of-context (words removed from text) and in-context (words in text) situations Sample Activity: Sample Activity Increasing phonemic awareness to improve spelling: Sound Strings: move a bead per sound place bead string on paper write minimum of one sound per bead Slide48: © SPELL Links to Reading and Writing (2004) Sample Activity: Sample Activity Increasing orthographic knowledge to improve spelling: Word sorts Separate a group of words into two or more columns that represent a contrast between two or more rules Determine the spelling pattern, stating the rule in one’s own words Slide50: © SPELL Links to Reading and Writing (2004) Sample Activity: Sample Activity Increasing morphological awareness to improve spelling Brainstorm all words related to a base word (act: action, activity, actor, acting). Use family member analogy (members either look and/or sound somewhat like others in a family) Understand and use the same concept as a strategy for recognizing meaningful relationships among base and derived or inflected forms of a word Slide52: © SPELL Links to Reading and Writing (2004) Summary: Summary An individual’s spellings offer hard evidence of the knowledge sources that are used in spelling An individual’s spellings also may offer credible insight into the types of knowledge the individual is using in reading Spelling is a “window into the literacy mind” of an individual References: References Apel, K. (2004). Word study and the speech-language pathologist. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 11(3), 13-17. Apel, K., & Masterson, J.J (2001). Theory-guided spelling assessment and intervention: A case study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 182-194. Apel, K., Masterson, J.J., & Hart, P. (2004). Integration of language components in spelling: Instruction that maximizes students’ learning. In Silliman, E.R. & Wilkinson, L.C. (Eds.), Language and Literacy Learning in Schools. (pp. 292-315). New York: Guilford Press. Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Niessen, N.L. (2004). Spelling assessment frameworks. In A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel, (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders. (pp. 644-660). New York: Guilford Press. Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2004). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill/Prentice Hall References: References Bourassa, D.C., & Treiman, R. (2001). Spelling development and disability: The importance of linguistic factors. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 172-181. Brooks, A., Vaughan, K., & Berninger, V. (1999). Tutorial interventions for writing disabilities: Comparison of transcription and text generation processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 183-190. 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. Ehri, L. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of the same coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 19-36 Hughes, M. & Searle, D. (1997). The violent E and other tricky sounds: Learning to spell from kindergarten through grade 6. York, Maine: Stenhouse Publ. References: References Invernizzi, M., & Hayes, L. (2004). Developmental-spelling research: A systematic imperative. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 2, 216-228. Invernizzi, M., Meier, J., & Juel, C. (2004). PALS 1-3: Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening. (4th ed.) Charlottesville, VA: University Printing. Kelman, M. & Apel, K. (2004). The effects of a multiple linguistic, prescriptive approach to spelling instruction: A case study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25, 2, 56-66. Lyster, S.H. (2002). The effects of morphological versus phonological awareness training in kindergarten on reading development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 261-294. Masterson, J.J., & Apel, K. (2000). Spelling assessment: Charting a path to optimal intervention. Topics in Language Disorders, 20 (3), 50-65. References: References Masterson, J.J., Apel, K. & Wasowicz, J. (2002) SPELL: Spelling Performance Evaluation for Language & Literacy. Evanston, IL: Learning By Design, Inc. Reece, C., & Treiman, R. (2001). Children’s spelling of syllabic /r/ and letter-name vowels: Broadening the study of spelling development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 139-165. Rittle-Johnson, B. & Siegler, R.S. (1999). Learning to spell: Variability, choice, and change in children’s strategy use. Child Development, 70, 332-348. Sawyer, D.J., Wade, S., & Kim, J.K. (1999). Spelling errors as a window on variations in phonological deficits among students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 137-159. Schlagel, R. (1992). Patterns of orthographic development into the intermediate grades. In Templeton, S. & Bear, D. (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial Fetschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp. 31-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. References: References Sulzby, E. (1996). Roles of oral and written language as children approach literacy. In C. Pontecorvo, M. Orsolini, B. Burge, & L.B. Resnick (Eds.), Children’s early text construction (pp. 25-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Treiman, R. & Bourassa, D.C. (2000). The development of spelling skill. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 3, 1-18. Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1996). Effects of morphology on children’s spelling of final consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 141-170. Treiman, R., Cassar, M., & Zukowski, A. (1994). What types of linguistic information do children use in spelling? The case of flaps. Child Development, 65, 1310-1329. Wasowicz, J.J., Apel, K., Masterson, J.J., & Whitney, A. (2004) SPELL-Links to Reading and Writing. Evanston, IL: Learning By Design, Inc. References: References Wasowicz, J.J., Apel, K. & Masterson, J. J. (2003). Spelling Assessment: Applying Research in School-Based Practice. Perspectives on School-Based Issues Newsletter, 4(1), 3-7. Zutell, J. (1992). An integrated view of word knowledge: Correlational studies of the relationships among spelling, reading, and conceptual development. In S. Templeton % D.R. Bear (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundation of literacy: A memorial festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp. 213-230). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. (1989). Reading and spelling connections in third and fifth grade students. Reading Psychology, 10, 137-155.