by Steve Graham & Tanya Santangelo
Original article: LINK
The research aimed to settle the debate about whether formal teaching of spelling is effective. The authors analysed 53 studies involving over 6,000 students from kindergarten to 12th grade. The results strongly support formal spelling instruction. It significantly improved spelling, phonological awareness, reading, and writing skills compared to no instruction or informal approaches. The benefits persisted over time and were consistent across different grade levels and literacy skills. So, teaching spelling directly and formally seems to be a solid strategy for improving overall literacy skills.
Spelling holds significant importance in both writing and reading. Misspelled words can hinder text comprehension and even affect how a writer’s message is perceived. Research shows that papers with spelling errors are often judged more harshly for the quality of their ideas. For developing writers, struggling with spelling can disrupt the writing process, as they may spend too much mental energy on spelling instead of generating ideas. This can lead to poorer writing quality and limited use of vocabulary. Moreover, difficulties with spelling can influence overall writing approaches, with students focusing more on what they already know and less on planning, revising, or considering the needs of the reader. For some children, persistent struggles with spelling may lead to avoidance of writing altogether and hinder their writing development.
On the flip side, scholars have argued that learning spelling can actually benefit reading development. By improving phonemic awareness, reinforcing understanding of the alphabetic principle, and aiding in the retention of sight words, spelling instruction can enhance word reading skills. Given the crucial role of spelling in literacy development, it’s important for children to become proficient in this skill. However, mastering spelling is challenging, especially in English, which has a complex orthography. English spelling isn’t always straightforward, as multiple letters can represent the same sound, and there are varying rules for spelling regular and irregular words. Learning to spell involves not only producing correct spellings but also applying rules to determine the spelling of unfamiliar words and visually inspecting words for accuracy.
The debate on how spelling skills are best acquired revolves around two main viewpoints: the “caught” approach and the “taught” approach.
1. Spelling is “Caught” Approach: Advocates of this approach argue that spelling proficiency is naturally acquired through reading and writing. They believe that students learn to spell incidentally as they engage in literacy activities. Teachers play a role by modeling correct spelling during writing tasks, providing ample opportunities for students to write and share their work, and seizing teachable moments to address spelling needs that arise throughout the day.
2. Spelling is “Taught” Approach: Proponents of this approach advocate for direct and systematic spelling instruction. They believe that spelling skills are best developed through explicit teaching methods. This includes teaching students specific words, providing strategies for spelling unfamiliar words, and engaging in structured word study activities to deepen their understanding of spelling patterns and rules.
Both approaches have empirical support. Research shows that students do learn new spellings through reading and writing, and that teaching literacy skills can enhance spelling ability, supporting the “caught” approach. Similarly, systematic reviews have demonstrated the effectiveness of direct spelling instruction in improving spelling performance, supporting the “taught” approach.
Results from the review
Results consistently show that formal spelling instruction significantly improved students’ spelling performance.
When comparing formal spelling instruction to no treatment or unrelated treatment, students who received direct and systematic spelling instruction showed more than half a standard deviation of improvement in their spelling skills. This improvement was observed across students from kindergarten to grade 10.
Moreover, increasing the amount of formal spelling instruction further enhanced students’ spelling skills. For students in grades 1–10, additional formal spelling instruction led to a gain of seven tenths of a standard deviation in spelling performance. To put this into perspective, an average student who received formal spelling instruction would move from the 50th percentile to the 71st percentile in spelling proficiency. With additional instruction, they would move to the 76th percentile.
These findings provide robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of formal spelling instruction in improving students’ spelling skills across different grade levels. They challenge the notion that spelling should be acquired incidentally and suggest that direct and systematic instruction yields significant benefits.
The evidence supporting the effectiveness of formal spelling instruction is bolstered by several key findings. Firstly, the gains made by students in spelling were not short-lived but were maintained over time. These gains, which were about half a standard deviation, remained stable for periods ranging from 1 week to 6 months. However, it’s essential to note that longer-term maintenance effects still require further investigation, especially since only a few studies have assessed this aspect, and they focused on students up to grade 3.
Secondly, formal spelling instruction resulted in significantly more correct spelling in students’ writing. Across the studies that examined this aspect, there was nearly a full standard deviation gain in correct spelling in writing. To put this into perspective, an average student would move from the 50th percentile to the 83rd percentile in terms of correct spelling proficiency in their writing.
These findings carry significant implications, particularly concerning the quality of written compositions. Previous research has shown that spelling errors in a composition can negatively impact how the content is perceived by readers. When spelling errors are present, readers tend to judge the content more harshly. Therefore, improving spelling through formal instruction not only enhances students’ writing skills but also contributes to the overall quality and reception of their written work.
The concern among teachers that spelling skills learned through formal instruction may not transfer to students’ writing is a common one. Teachers often observe instances where students perform well on spelling tests but still misspell words in their written compositions. While the findings from this meta-analysis did not directly address the extent of mastery or transfer of spelling skills, they do align with the notion that enough is learned and generalised from formal instruction to improve correct spelling in students’ writing.
Moreover, the comparison between formal spelling instruction and informal “spelling is caught” approaches provide robust support for the effectiveness of systematic spelling teaching methods. While not every study on formal spelling instruction yielded positive results when compared to informal approaches, the majority did, resulting in a meaningful improvement in spelling proficiency. On average, students who received formal spelling instruction moved from the 50th percentile to the 67th percentile in terms of spelling ability.
These findings contradict the assertion by some that formal spelling instruction is less efficient than informal methods. While it could be argued that the studies reviewed may not have utilised the most effective combination of informal teaching strategies, the methods evaluated were representative of the “spelling is caught” approach.
Explicit and systematic spelling teaching resulted in a significant improvement in phonological awareness, with an average student moving from the 50th percentile to the 70th percentile as a result of such instruction. Additionally, formal spelling instruction led to gains in reading skills, including word reading and reading comprehension, with students’ reading performance improving from the 50th percentile to the 67th percentile. These findings align with previous research showing that spelling instruction enhances reading performance and support theoretical claims about the role of spelling in reading development.
Moderator analyses revealed that the impact of formal spelling instruction was generally consistent across different grades and types of students. However, there was a slight difference in the effectiveness of formal spelling instruction for older students compared to younger ones when compared to spelling is caught approaches.
One hypothesised advantage for formal spelling instruction that was not observed in this meta-analysis was its impact on writing performance. While formal spelling instruction did enhance correct spelling in writing, it did not have a significant impact on other measures of writing performance. The effect size for this aspect was positive but relatively small, indicating that formal spelling instruction may not substantially influence overall writing proficiency.
The findings from the six studies that included measures of writing outcomes did not align with initial expectation that improved spelling performance would lead to reduced interference between spelling and other aspects of writing, consequently freeing up cognitive resources for other writing processes. While students’ spelling improved considerably as a result of formal spelling instruction, the effects on their writing were relatively small.
However, it’s essential to interpret these findings cautiously due to the limited number of studies and the hypothesised importance of spelling to writing. Further research is necessary to explore this relationship in more depth.
One possible explanation for the lack of hypothesised effects is that writing and writing instruction were infrequent or absent for students in the studies reviewed. In such cases, spelling instruction may not have a significant impact on students’ writing outcomes. While some studies mentioned general writing instruction, it was not consistently implemented across all studies.
Implications for teachers
The findings of this meta-analysis strongly support the direct and systematic teaching of spelling to students. Such instruction was found to significantly improve students’ spelling, reading, and phonological awareness skills. While formal spelling instruction is typically emphasised in primary grades, this review suggests that it can also have a positive impact with older students. Therefore, we recommend that primary grade teachers continue to prioritise explicit spelling instruction, while teachers in upper elementary grades should consider increasing the emphasis on spelling instruction.
Additionally, formal spelling instruction serves as an effective tool for enhancing reading and phonological awareness skills. However, it’s important to note that these findings do not imply that spelling instruction should replace reading or phonological awareness instruction. Both approaches are valuable and can complement each other in promoting spelling competence. Students benefit from formal instruction in spelling, but they also gain important spelling knowledge through exposure to print, reading instruction, and writing activities. Thus, a balanced approach that integrates both formal instruction and exposure to print is essential for comprehensive literacy development.