By Steven Pan, Timothy Rickard & Robert Bjork
Original article: LINK
Research suggests strong links between spelling, reading, and writing skills, indicating the ongoing importance of spelling despite changing attitudes and technological advancements. Misspelt words can hinder reading comprehension, while improvements in spelling are associated with better reading skills. However, recent criticism of studies examining the effects of spelling instruction on reading skills underscores the need for more research in this area.
Similarly, poor spelling can impede the writing process by taxing cognitive resources needed for composition. While some evidence suggests that spelling instruction may modestly improve writing skills, the overall impact is not yet well-established. Despite correlations between spelling and writing abilities, causation cannot be inferred solely from these findings.
Given the enduring importance of spelling skills, it’s worth considering whether spelling should still be taught in schools. Traditionally, elementary school teachers have dedicated significant class time to spelling instruction, with some spending almost 90 minutes per week on the subject. This emphasis on spelling might seem warranted given the complexity of the English language, which is known for its irregular spelling patterns and vast vocabulary.
Teaching spelling
Research suggests that explicit spelling instruction, where spelling is the focus of dedicated instructional time, is more effective than incidental methods. Studies have shown that while incidental learning from reading and writing activities occurs, it tends to be modest compared to the gains seen with explicit instruction. Recent reviews and meta-analyses support these findings, indicating that explicit instruction leads to greater improvements in spelling skills.
In practical educational settings, there have been instances where schools switched from explicit to incidental instruction, only to see declines in student spelling abilities and overall reading scores. For example, in California, a statewide shift to incidental instruction in the late 1980s and early 1990s coincided with a drop in reading scores and an increase in misspelled student work. This led to a public outcry and eventually a return to explicit spelling instruction, resulting in noticeable improvements in spelling scores over subsequent years.
Contemporary perspectives on effective spelling instruction include:
- Emphasis on regularities in English spelling: Modern research suggests that English spelling is more predictable than previously assumed. Instead of relying solely on rote memorisation, contemporary approaches prioritise teaching phonics, syllable patterns, morphemes, spelling patterns, and etymology to help students understand the regularities in spelling.
- Expanded definition of spelling skills: Spelling skills now encompasses a broader range of knowledge beyond simply the ability to spell correctly. For example, explicitly teaching proof-reading skills is now considered important [LINK].
- Focus on distributed and retrieval practice: Unlike traditional methods that often rely on a weekly spelling test, contemporary approaches emphasise distributed and retrieval practice (spreading study practice out throughout the week) to enhance retention these spelling.
Test-study-test
The elimination of spelling tests in many educational settings has been justified by claims that such tests are ineffective for learning, uninformative, and stressful for students. However, it’s important to distinguish between different types of tests and their purposes in spelling instruction. Three types of tests are particularly relevant:
- Pretests: These are administered before instruction begins and serve to assess students’ prior knowledge and identify areas of need. Pretests provide valuable information for teachers to tailor instruction to students’ individual needs throughout the week(s).
- Practice tests: These informal (often peer assigned) tests are undertaken during the learning process to reinforce spelling skills and promote retention. Practice tests help students consolidate their learning and identify areas that require further practice.
- Posttests: Administered only after instruction and study practice is complete, posttests assess students’ mastery of spelling skills and their ability to apply what they have learnt from their teacher throughout the week(s). For example, posttest can test children on the same spellings or assess children’s ability to apply their new knowledge of specific patterns to new words.
Each type of test serves a unique purpose in spelling instruction, from diagnosing students’ needs to reinforcing learning and assessing mastery. Therefore, instead of eliminating spelling tests altogether, educators should consider how different types of tests can be integrated into instruction to support student learning effectively.
For example, a “concentrated attack” on difficult words or patterns based on pretest results is considered highly beneficial, as it allows teachers to prioritise their instruction. Recent research has also uncovered “the pretesting effect”, demonstrating that learners show improved memory for information encountered on a pretest compared to information that’s simply introduced out of nowhere without pretesting. However, its application to spelling instruction has yet to be systematically explored in controlled experiments.
Research has consistently shown that engaging in retrieval practice through practice tests leads to significant pedagogical benefits, including improved memory, retention, and sometimes even better transfer of learning. Providing correct answer feedback shortly after a test further amplifies these benefits. Numerous spelling researchers have demonstrated that practice testing methods like peer-administered tests and the look-copy-cover-compare-correct method result in better memory for word spellings compared to alternative tasks. As a result, many contemporary spelling researchers advocate for the incorporation of practice testing as an effective strategy for learning spelling words.
Rainbow writing
A study conducted by Jones et al. (2016) sheds further light on the effectiveness of practice testing in spelling instruction. Through three experiments involving 6-8 year olds in US classrooms, the researchers compared the efficacy of practice testing with a method called rainbow writing, often considered a “fun” spelling activity where words are copied multiple times in different colors.
Across all experiments, practice testing consistently outperformed rainbow writing in terms of spelling ability on posttests administered 1 day and/or 5 weeks later. Remarkably, 1st grade students showed over 300% greater improvement from practice testing compared to rainbow writing. Moreover, students expressed a strong preference for practice testing over rainbow writing by a ratio of approximately three to one. These findings challenge the notion that testing merely reflects short-term memory, as benefits were observed even after extended time intervals. Additionally, they refute the idea that testing is inherently unenjoyable. One potential explanation for students’ preference for practice testing is the motivation derived from experiencing improvement across successive tests.
Tests and instruction
A study by Dymock and Nicholson (2017) suggests potential limitations of practice testing in spelling instruction. In their research involving 3rd grade students at a New Zealand elementary school, two groups were compared over a 10-week period. The “list” group engaged in activities like organising their list in alphabetical order, using their words in sentences, and using the look-copy-cover-compare-correct method (a form of practice testing), while the “strategy” group focused on learning spelling rules, breaking words into syllables, and sort words based on their vowel sounds.
Interestingly, both groups performed equally well on weekly posttests when asked to spell words they had already learned. However, the strategy group outperformed the list group when asked to spell new words that followed the spelling rules they had been taught. This finding suggests that while practice testing may support memorisation of specific words, it may not facilitate the transfer of spelling skills to new words, especially those that adhere to specific spelling rules.
Conclusion
There’s still much to learn about spelling development and instruction. Rigorous experimental studies are needed to evaluate instructional techniques, avoiding methodological limitations. Additionally, exploring the impact of technological innovations on spelling is essential. In conclusion, spelling remains a vital skill, and continued research is necessary to deepen our understanding and enhance instructional practices.