Session Information
31 SES 01, Reading and Spelling - Comparative Approaches
Paper Session
Contribution
Spelling is one of the essential mechanics of the written language. It is the visible representation of “word-level language using written symbols in conventional sequences (orthography) that represent speech sounds (phonology) and word parts that signal meaning and grammar (morphology)” (Garcia, Abbott, & Berninger, 2010, p. 63). Learning to spell is critical to student’s literacy development (Graham & Santangelo, 2014). Research has shown that if secretarial skills (Mackenzie, Scull, & Munsie, 2013) such as spelling are efficient, greater capacity in working memory becomes available for other important writing processes such as vocabulary selection, planning and revising (Graham, Harris, & Chorzempa, 2002; Puranik & AlOtaiba, 2012).
Understanding the nature of students’ linguistic transitions informs pedagogy in spelling. Yet, research focused on the learning and teaching of spelling is minimal, particularly within an Australian context, and when compared to research in reading and writing (Garcia et al., 2010). This paper draws on data from 8 to 12 year old Australian students (N=1 198) designed to reveal the linguistic transitions they make as they gain increasing mastery of the conventional English spelling system.
Considerable disagreement regarding how students learn to spell and how spelling should be taught permeates the literature (Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Westwood, 2013). Current conceptualisations of how students become proficient spellers present two differing views. On one hand, stage theorists postulate that students pass through developmental spelling stages throughout schooling. For example, Gentry (2000, p. 324) defines development in five distinct and sequential stages, viz: “precommunicative”, “semiphonetic, “phonetic”, “transitional” and “correct” (or “conventional”). Alternatively, it has been argued that developmental theories provide a simplistic view and do not capture the many challenges students encounter as they transition towards proficiency in spelling (Berninger & Abbott, 2010; Devonshire & Fluck, 2010; Sharp, Sinatra, & Reynolds, 2008). Indeed, Lennox and Siegler (1994) suggest that students use all strategies that are available to them to spell and that these strategies develop continuously and in parallel. Other research has found that students begin to develop morphological awareness quite early in schooling, and that its overall development has a longer span than other kinds of linguistic awareness, such as phonological and orthographic awareness (Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, & Carlisle, 2010).
Triple Word Form Theory (TWFT) offers a non-linear perspective of learning to spell and has empirical support from inter-disciplinary studies (see for example, Bahr, Silliman, Berninger, & Dow, 2012; Richards, Berninger, & Fayol, 2009). It assumes thatphonological, orthographic, and morphological word forms are involved in learning to spell from the early years of learning to write, and that changes occur in the ways in which these linguistic word forms interact, largely as a result of instructional priorities and approaches (Garcia et al., 2010). The view that young students “draw on phonology, orthography, and morphology from the beginning of spelling development”, and gain increasing control over these skills (Garcia et al., 2010, p. 88) is different to the view held by stage theorists, who assume that spelling knowledge generally progresses from phonology to orthography to morphology. Indeed, substantial growth has been found to occur in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in the first three years of school, while significantly more rapid growth in morphological awareness has been observed from the fourth year of schooling (Berninger et al., 2010).
The theoretical framework underpinning the research discussed here draws on TWFT. Through this lens, students’ phonological, orthographic and morphological median performance levels are explored across Grades 3 to 6. The research also examined performance levels on the basis of gender and grade. In this paper, implications for theory, pedagogy and curriculum development are also addressed.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment, & Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2013). My School. Retrieved 21 May, 2013, from http://www.myschool.edu.au/ Bahr, R., Silliman, E., Berninger, V., & Dow, M. (2012). Linguistic pattern analysis of misspellings of typically developing writers in grades 1-9. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1587-1599. Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in Grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 635-651. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141-163. doi: 10.1007/s10936-009-9130-6 Devonshire, V., & Fluck, M. (2010). Spelling development: Fine-tuning strategy-use and capitalising on the connections between words. Learning and Instruction, 20, 361-371. Garcia, N., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (2010). Predicting poor, average, and superior spellers in grades 1 to 6 from phonological, orthographic, and morphological, spelling, or reading composites. Written Language & Literacy, 13(1), 61-98. Gentry, J. R. (2000). A retrospective on invented spelling and a look forward. The Reading Teacher, 54(3), 318-332. 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(4), 669-686. Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1703-1743. doi: 10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0 Lennox, C., & Siegler, L. S. (1994). The role of phonological and orthographic processes in learning to spell. In G. Brown & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, process and intervention (pp. 93-109). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Mackenzie, N. M., Scull, J., & Munsie, L. (2013). Analysing writing: The development of a tool for use in the early years of schooling. Issues In Educational Research, 23(3), 375-393. Puranik, C. S., & AlOtaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1523-1546. Richards, T., Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2009). fMRI activation differences between 11-year-old good and poor spellers’ access in working memory to temporary and long-term orthographic representations. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(4), 327-353. Sharp, A. C., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. E. (2008). The development of children's orthographic knowledge: A microgenetic perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 206-226. Westwood, P. (2013). Learning to spell: An update. Special Education Perspectives, 22(1), 15-28.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.