Students’ linguistic transitions in spelling between Grades 3 and 6.

Author(s):

Tessa Daffern(presenting / submitting)Brian Hemmings

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

31. LEd – Network on Language and Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

31 SES 01, Reading and Spelling - Comparative Approaches

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-08

13:15-14:45

Room:

395. [Main]

Chair:

Piet Van Avermaet

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

This paper draws on selected data from the first phase of a mixed-methods study on spelling, involving students from mainstream public and Catholic primary schools in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Australia. Schools were stratified according to bands (low, middle and high) based on the Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage (ICSEA) (ACARA, 2013). Approval to conduct the study was granted by the university’s Human Research Ethics Committee, the ACT Education and Training Directorate and the ACT Catholic Education Office. Principals of 51 schools were then contacted to seek their expressions of interest and availability for participation. Of those school principals, 13 agreed for their schools to take part. The average ICSEA of the stratified sample of participating schools, at 1086, was extremely close to the ACT school ICSEA average (1087). Informed written consent was obtained from the participating school principals, teachers, students and their parents prior to conducting the study. Data from students in Grade 3 (n=323), Grade 4 (n=323), Grade 5 (n=281) and Grade 6 (n=271) were collected. First, students’ demographic information was obtained, including their date of birth, gender and grade level. Secondly, to measure students’ phonological, orthographic and morphological median performance levels, the Components of Spelling Test (CoST) was administered to all students during class time, towards the end of the 2013 school year. It needs to be noted that the CoST is a tool informed by TWFT and was specifically designed and tested (n=198) by the researcher prior to conducting the mixed methods study to ensure validity and reliability was adequately achieved. Administration of the CoST required students to write 70 words in a dictation task. The researcher then collected the students’ responses and linguistically analysed, scored and categorised each spelling error into one of three subscales (linguistic components): (i) Phonological Component; (ii) Orthographic Component; and (iii) Morphological Component. Across the three subscales, the CoST contains 101 individual items and 15 sub-skills. Descriptive profiles of median CoST scores across the various grade levels were determined. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that the three CoST measures were significantly related. Consequently, a factorial multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was also conducted to test for group differences between low-achieving and high-achieving spellers on the three dependent variables (namely, the phonological, orthographic and morphological subscales). The MANOVA model was also analysed for main effects of grade level and gender, including their interactions.

Expected Outcomes

Median levels across the phonological, orthographic and morphological component (subscale) scores from Grades 3 to 6 increased, suggesting that these linguistic components develop concurrently, albeit to varying degrees, rather than in separate stages. Interestingly, minimal phonological growth was noted between Grade 3 and Grade 5; however, considerable increase was evident between Grade 5 and Grade 6. There was substantial morphological advancement, particularly between Grade 5 and Grade 6, while the general orthographic rate steadily increased from Grade 3 to Grade 6. Results of a MANOVA of CoST scores showed significant increases with year level across the phonological, orthographic and morphological subscale scores. However, the effects for gender and its interaction with year level were non-significant. Fine-grained analysis of the phonological errors revealed that although students demonstrate capacity to accurately represent initial and final consonants, digraphs and short vowels in written words by the time they complete Grade 3, their capacity for accurate blending in the medial parts of polysyllabic words appears to steadily mature beyond Grade 3 and notably between Grade 5 and Grade 6. Of the five orthographic features, syllable juncture consonants may be the easiest, while unaccented final syllables and common long vowel patterns are likely to be the most challenging. Results from the morphological subscale indicate that homophones were the least developed score, and that inflected suffixes were more rapidly mastered than derivational suffixes across the various percentiles. Nurturing students’ transitions towards proficient spelling in the English language requires concurrent and explicit teaching in phonological, orthographic and morphological components of the language. Determining instructional priorities across all three components of spelling is a critical first step. This demands educators to be informed of the specific linguistic skills that their students bring to the classroom and acknowledge that individual variability will exist.

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.

Author Information

Tessa Daffern (presenting / submitting)

Charles Sturt University, Australia

Brian Hemmings

Charles Sturt University

Education

Wagga Wagga

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.