Kelly Kingsley

TEAC 991
Annotated Bibliography

Gentry, J. R. (1987). Spel...Is a Four-Letter Word. Portsmouth, New Hampshire:

Heinemann.

Summary: Gentry has written a parent/teacher guide to children’s learning of spelling. He

separates spelling myths with spelling realities. Gentry states that too much that is known about
how to teach spelling isn’t being put into practice (p. 7). Some of the realities of spelling noted
by Gentry are: (1) some smart kids have trouble with spelling, (2) too much focus on
“correctness” is bad for spelling: spelling requires complex thinking and copying is an exercise
requiring simple mechanical ability with little brain power, (3) copying words and focusing on
mechanics don’t ensure the development of correct spelling, (4) kids learn to spell by inventing
spelling: when kids invent spellings, they think about words and generate new knowledge, (5)
purposeful writing is a key to learning to spell: purposeful writing when combined with
inventive spelling are reciprocal ways to promote learning, and (6) spelling is a constructive
developmental process: spelling follows a similar pattern to learning to speak.
Gentry looks into answering questions teachers ask. The author comments that in his view, the
important questions center on an understanding of how children learn, and the important answers
place children, not methods, at the center of the spelling program (p.27). What method for
teaching spelling works best? Gentry suggests allowing children the freedom to take risks in
their own writing as the best technique. So in order to teach kids to spell, teachers need to get
kids to write. They need to break down the inhibitions and unpleasantness surrounding spelling
and allow kids the chance to be wrong (p. 27). What teaching strategies will help create an
effective program? There are five general guidelines for creating an effective spelling
curriculum: (1) Teach spelling as part of the whole curriculum. (2) Have children write
frequently and make the writing activity purposeful. (3) Encourage children to invent spellings
for words they may not have learned to spell. (4) De-emphasize correctness, memorization, and
writing mechanics. (5) Respond to children’s writing in ways that help them discover more
about spelling (p. 28). For our spelling lessons, what procedures can we use that are supported
by research? Gentry suggests six procedures that receive research support: (1) allot sixty to
seventy-five minutes per week to formal spelling instruction, (2) present the words to be studied
in a list or column form, (3) give the children a pre-test to determine which words in the lesson
are unknown, have then study the unknown words, and administer a post-test, (4) have the
children correct their own spelling tests under your direction, (5) teach a systematic technique for
studying unknown words, and (6) use spelling games to make spelling lessons more fun (p. 28-
29). What is the single best strategy for a formal spelling lesson? The author doesn’t believe
there is one; he comments that what works best for one child may not work well for another. He
does suggest having each child correct their own spelling errors immediately after taking a
spelling test. This is effective because it gets children to examine their spelling errors visually
(p. 29). Shouldn’t invented spelling be corrected? If errors aren’t corrected won’t misspellings
become habitual? Teachers shouldn’t correct spelling to the extent of making children afraid to
spell. As spellers mature, the emphasis on correctness should be increased. It \is best to only

1
hold students absolutely accountable for correct spelling in the context of final drafts ready for
publication (p.29). When should formal spelling instruction begin? For best results,
individualizes and use small groups for formal spelling instruction around second grade when the
majority of students are at the phonetic and transitional developmental levels. Allow writing
conferences to guide you in determining when kids are ready for formalized instruction (p. 31).
What spelling rules should be taught? There are only a few good spelling rules that need to be
taught: the rules for using periods in abbreviations, for using apostrophes to show possession,
for adding suffixes (changing y to i, dropping the final silent e, doubling the final consonant), the
rule that English words don’t end in v, and that q is followed by u in English language (p.31).
What is the best way to help children learn how to spell the words they miss on spelling tests?
The teacher should provide guidelines for effective word study techniques. Simply writing the
words in question a certain number of times is NOT a good procedure for learning misspelled
words.
Gentry suggests teachers give spelling advice to parents because they play an active role in
shaping their child’s attitude about spelling. The teacher needs to show parents that spelling is a
developmental process. Parents need to know that writing is important. When viewing their
child’s writing they should not be critical, they should comment on the content not the spelling.
Parents should be introduced to the concept of invented spelling. Teachers should persuade
parents to make time for writing at home. Finally, the teacher should encourage parents to have
fun with spelling by promoting interest and enthusiasm through spelling games.
Involving the parents is an important part of a spelling program. Spelling is a subject that
parents feel very competent in helping their child. They can take a few minutes each day and
study the words with their child and feel like they were successful. They didn’t have to read the
text book to know how to spell or help their child to spell. By teaching the parent the way the
students are learning the words at school, and showing them how to help their child at home,
adds another component to the spelling program.
Contributions: Gentry really answers some of the questions that I had been asking about
spelling instruction. I like that he has many years of research behind his answers and
suggestions. I would like to look at more texts written by Gentry and do some further
investigating of what he suggests for spelling instruction.

Graham, S., Harris, K., & Chorzempa, B. (2002). Contribution of Spelling Instruction to
the Spelling, Writing, and Reading of Poor Spellers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 669-686.

Summary: The authors looked at the effects of supplemental spelling instruction on spelling,
writing, and reading. They worked with second grade students experiencing difficulties learning
to spell. The students were given instruction designed to improve their spelling skills. A control
group was used, those students received math instruction. The students who received the
spelling instruction made greater improvements on norm-referenced spelling measures, a writing
fluency test, and a reading word-attack measure following the instruction. They also maintained

2
their advantage in spelling 6 months later, but not in their writing-fluency and reading word-
attack measures. The authors do believe there was a positive affect at maintenance on reading
word-recognition skills of children who scored lowest on the pretest that was given at the
beginning of the study.

Method: There were two groups of second graders involved in the study. One group was given
direct spelling instruction involving lessons designed specifically for word-building, word-study,
and phonics. The other group was instructed math following the Peer-Assisted Learning
Strategy (PALS) which paired high-achieving students with low-achieving students, each child
acting as a tutor to the other.

The students were studied over a 6 month period. In the spelling instruction group, many of the
students had difficulties with spelling, reading, and writing. The students received instruction in
spelling varying from 25 to 150 minutes a week.

During instruction students were given different measures tied directly to the three components
of spelling instruction. Students in the spelling condition learned most of the words they studied
and retained the correct spelling for most of the words they studied. The writing-fluency skills
of students in the spelling condition improved more than those of the children in the math control
condition. The word-attack skills of students in the spelling condition improved more than those
of the children in the math control condition.

Contributions: The author’s findings indicate a link between learning to spell and writing
development, and a link between learning to spell and reading development. They suggest that
explicit and systematic instruction of spelling is an important component of an effective spelling
program for weaker spellers. They also state that extra spelling instruction may be an important
ingredient in addressing the writing and reading problems experienced by some young children.

Heald-Taylor, B.G. (1998). Three Paradigms of Spelling Instruction in Grades 3 to 6.

The Reading Teacher, 51, 404-413.

Summary: The author takes a look at three main spelling perspectives that appear to parallel
particular spelling practices: (a) traditional, (b) transitional, and (c) student-oriented.
Traditional practices are based on traditional attitudes more so than on theory and research.
Instruction, drill, memorization, imitation, rote learning, and an emphasis on correctness are
focused on. Traditional practices are taught formally as a separate subject. Teachers are the
main givers of information, and there is a test at the end of the week.
Criticisms of traditional practices: Students who had received no formal instruction could spell
as well or better than those who had experienced formal instruction. It requires tedious practice
of low-level exercises that require very little thinking, take up too much instructional time, and

3
cause regression in children’s spelling ability because too much attention is paid to word parts,
grammar, and dictation skills. Not all children require formal instruction, 65% of the words are
known by the students before studying them. The scope and sequence fails to accommodate for
a wide range of student’s abilities and needs. The programs frequently don’t provide appropriate
instructional strategies for teachers.
Transitional practices focus on the integration of numerous spelling strategies and the
significance of reading in learning to spell. Words studied in spelling should come from student
reading material so phonetics, spelling rules, and semantic and visual functions are learned in a
context meaningful to the child. Students are given direct instruction in phonetics, spelling rules,
study procedures, and weekly testing takes place. Spelling is mainly learned in conjunction with
various types of word study, like word sorts and spelling games. Teachers integrate both direct
and interactive instruction. Direct teaching is used for introducing words, patterns, and spelling
rules. Interactive strategies are employed when students use word sorts and spelling games.
Students are involved in their own learning. Evaluation is both formal and informal. Formal
evaluation comes from weekly and unit tests. Informal evaluation comes from monitoring
spelling competence in word sorting.
Challenges: Word sorts and spelling games are conducted separately from contextual reading.
Instruction is conducted without regard for student’s developmental stages.
Student-oriented practice focuses on learning to spell as a developmental process, reading
provides a context for learning to spell, and spelling is a functional component of writing.
The teacher’s role changes dramatically from predominantly giving information to facilitating
learning based on developmental levels and individual student needs. Students are expected to
engage actively in their own learning as they figure out much of their spelling for themselves.
Spelling is evaluated over time as students integrate numerous spelling strategies into their
repertoire and spelling effort moves toward conventionality. Individual spelling profiles and
conference logs are used to monitor authentic progress.
Challenges: there is too little research evidence to claim that this practice is superior to other
paradigms.
Contributions: Since I am looking at ways to improve spelling instruction, this article is very
relevant. It exposes the three common practices of spelling instruction and compares them. It is
helpful to see how the job of the teacher changes in each practice and that as the practice
becomes more student centered, the teacher’s role becomes that of a facilitator and not a
dispenser of knowledge.

Henry, M. K. (1997). The Decoding/Spelling Curriculum: Integrated Decoding and

Spelling Instruction from Pre-School to Early Secondary School. Dsylexia, 3,
178-189.

Summary: Curriculum for integrating teaching of decoding and spelling instruction is useful for
students in pre-school all the way to early secondary school. The curriculum is based on

4
structure and patterns in words and primary word origins. The framework is based on both the
structure or pattern in words and the primary word origins found in English words. By teaching
the concepts inherent in the word origin and word structure model across the continuum from
pre-school to secondary school, students will have the strategies to decode and spell most words.
The framework organizes a large body of information for teachers and their students.
Method: The lessons are 30-45 minute sessions. The teacher starts with an opening session
where she describes the purpose and content of the lesson and procedures. During the middle
session small group discussions, opportunities to read, spell, and discuss patterns and concepts
takes place. The teacher facilitates and the students practice strategies and analyze. They also
learn spelling rules during this time. In the closing session the students summarize and reflect on
the lesson content, patterns and procedures. Follow up activities that reinforce the concepts and
strategies could take place immediately following the sessions or could be done as homework.
Contributions: It doesn’t matter if the teacher were using a basal speller or words from student
writing, the basic patterns and structures of words could be taught in the suggested lesson format.
I like that it is very student centered and that the teacher facilitates the learning instead of just
giving students the information. It points to a cross mapping of morphology and content and the
integration of spelling and vocabulary. I think the follow up activities are very important in
helping students reinforce what they learned.

Masterson, J., & Crede, L. (1999). Learning to Spell: Implications for Assessment and
Intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 243-254.
Summary: The authors provided background in regards to spelling development and factors
that influence spelling performance. The development of spelling skills isn’t random, but
evolves in stages, described as developmental. Masterson and Crede mention Henderson’s 5
stages of spelling development: (1) preliterate-scribbles, drawing and some letter, (2) letter-
name stage-children enjoy representing sounds with letters, (3) within-word patterns-
orthographic patterns are learned, (4) syllable juncture-use of doubling principle (5) derivational
constancy-roots and derivations used consistently.
Spelling factors that affect knowledge and use of spelling strategies are: (a) phonological
awareness-the ability to reflect on and manipulate phonemic segments of speech, (b) visual
storage-the internalization of mental images or templates of words, morphemes, and syllables in
meaning, (c) orthographic knowledge-is skills necessary to translate language from spoken to
written form, (d) morphological knowledge-is the understanding of the relationship between root
words and their derivations, (e) cognitive factors that affect spelling-are global measures of
intelligences that allow the child to lay down spelling rules, and problem-solving skills
associated with spelling success.
Gentry (1982), Ehri (1987), and Henderson (1997) challenged the view of most researchers, they
suggested young children employ their “budding knowledge” of orthographic rule and
morphology quite early. Instructional factors that may be insufficient to develop orthographic
problem solving behaviors are emphasis on rote memorization and de-emphasis on formal
instruction. Instruction should reflect an embedded approach to spelling, specific spelling

5
instruction should be based on student-directed reading and writing experiences (O’Flahavan and
Blassberg, 1992).
Contributions: I learned a lot about the stages of spelling development and the strategies used
to affect knowledge of spelling. This article was very helpful in explaining what each stage
involved and also what the strategies looked like. Most of the respected researchers in spelling
are supportive of student-directed approach to spelling with the strategies embedded into the
experiences.

McMurray, S. (2006). Learning to Spell: Raising Standards in Spelling and Independent

Writing. Support for Learning, 21, 100-107.
Summary: The Complete Spelling Programme (McMurry and Fleming, 1998) takes in account
the many dimensions in learning and the many ability groups within the range of children within
the mainstream classroom. Consideration was given to learning needs of the children, the
planning, management and monitoring needs of teachers, and also the implications for parents in
terms of homework. The Programme supports the process of learning to spell within the
classroom in three specific ways: (1) it establishes learning strategies to engage children in
lexical and assembled processing effectively, (2) it provides appropriate developmental sequence
in rhyme and frequency words that facilitate interaction between knowledge bases and demands
of working memory, (3) it enhances understanding of meaning and usage of spelling words, their
retrieval and transfer to writing.
The Programme is designed for use in the primary school. It incorporates a whole class teaching
approach. Spellings are planned and structured into daily word groups. High frequency words
are presented daily in semantic and syntactic groupings. The demands on the working memory
are minimized by presenting patterns and sequences daily. Curriculum word banks are included
to ensure that more able children are taught spellings relevant to the topics they are covering in
class, enabling students to write independently across the curriculum.
Method: There were 2 independent variables (1) experimental school (intervention) and control
school (no intervention), (2) high or low social disadvantage. There were 81 children ages 5-6
years old who were followed for 3 years in 4 different schools.
The quantitative measures were baseline assessment to establish the quantifiable outcomes for
children in both schools. The qualitative measures were used to illuminate the process involved
in the program in the experimental schools.
The end of the study: Pupils taught in the Programme made significant improvement in spelling
and independent writing. The authors argued that spelling needs to be seen as an integral tool in
raising standards in literacy and that it should not be taught in isolation from other literacy skills.
Contributions: I am going to further research The Complete Spelling Programme; it really does
seem to fit what I was looking to do with the spelling program in my classroom. Spelling is not
taught separately, but is relevant to topics throughout the curriculum in the programme. This is
something I want to pursue for my practice.

6
 Noell, G., Connell, J., & Duhon, G. (2006). Spontaneous Response Generalization
During Whole Word Instruction: Reading to Spell and Spelling to Read.
Springer Science and Business Media, Inc., 15, 121-130.
Summary: The study demonstrated moderately high but incomplete levels of generalization
from reading to spelling and spelling to reading following a whole word instructional approach.
Learning to read a word didn’t immediately and completely transfer to spelling the word and
spelling didn’t completely transfer to reading. Generalization from spelling to reading occurred
despite the fact that all spelling instruction was completed orally. Individual differences are
likely to arise in which target task leads to the greatest generalized gains.
Method: The study looked at three first grade students who were in general education whose
writing and reading skills were less developed than that of their peers. The students received no
instructional services outside of their general education classroom. The variables were the
percentage of works read and spelled correctly. Oral spelling was use to match response
modality to reading. There was a multi-element design, the order of presentation was random,
and there were 4 sessions (2 acquisition sessions and 2 generalization sessions), 1 session per
day.
Words were drawn from the students’ spelling books, and were printed on 3” x 5” index cards.
If the child knew the word on the card it was separated from the words the child did not know.
Acquisition sessions: The student was prompted to read the card by saying the word. The
reading words were read to student and the student was asked to spell them. The student was
prompted if they didn’t know how to spell the word, and praised if they did.
General sessions: The student was prompted to read the card by saying the word. The reading
words were read to student and the student was asked to spell them. The student was provided
with no prompts, feedback, or programmed contingencies.
Control session: The word list was not instructed to the student.
Contribution: Although this study did not find a substantial generalization of reading to
spelling and spelling to reading, there is enough relevance to continue looking at this area of
research. Since the time of study was relatively short, I think given more sessions and increasing
time of instruction may have increased the findings of the study.

O’Sullivan, O. (2000). Understanding Spelling. Reading, April, 9-16.

Summary: Reading and spelling are related, but it is likely that phonemic understanding is
gained more readily through spelling than it is in the context of reading. The project examined
how children develop as spellers and the nature of the links between children’s development in
spelling, writing, and reading.
Factors of spelling: (1) many different kinds of knowledge influence development in spelling,
(2) children approached spelling in different ways, (3) writing played a key role in promoting
spelling development, (4) the teacher’s role was crucial.

7
Characteristics of Effective Teachers of Spelling: (1) the teachers enthusiasm and excitement
about words is crucial, (2) spelling skills are taught through a combination of the writing process
and explicit teaching approaches, (3) the teacher helped children develop a variety of spelling
strategies, (4) there was a greater focus on syntactic and semantic features of words, (5)
responses and interventions in writing reflected the teacher’s ability to further support the child’s
progress, (6) the analysis of the child’s spelling gave the teacher insight into the spelling process
that helped them to identify the child’s strengths and weaknesses the teacher could support and
provide help, (7) the teacher collected a wide range of spelling resources, (8) the teacher
involved the children in contributing and discussing resources.
The Method: There were 31 case study children who were tracked over 3 years, starting at
different points from reception to year 4. Conferences were held with each child twice per term.
Several pieces of writing were collected and analyzed. At the end of the first year, the study was
narrowed to 12 students, to follow their progress in greater depth, while continuing to collect
data from the rest of the children. The framework was developed and tested out with teachers
through the project.
The research established that the successful spellers drew on a variety of strategies from early on.
Students benefited from being helped to use not only phonetic strategies, but also to recognize
the visual, structural, and semantic aspects of the spelling system. In all the case studies, the
individual teachers played a significant role when they identified the needs of individual children
and were able to translate these needs into class, group, and individual approaches.
Contribution: Once again the teacher’s role in instruction is very important. Helping the child
become more reflective and analytical about their own spelling seems to play a large role in
spelling instruction. I found the list of characteristics of effective teachers to be quite
informative and one I will refer to when looking at my own spelling instruction characteristics.

Scott, C. (2000). Principles and Methods of Spelling Instruction: Applications for Poor
Spellers. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 66-82.

Summary: Scott reviews three methods of teaching spelling, memorization, word analysis and
word sorting, and spelling integrated in authentic reading and writing.
Memorization of weekly word lists: There are usually 15-20 words on the list weekly. These
lists usually begin in second or third grade and last through sixth grade. The students receive the
list at the beginning of the week and have a test at the end of the week. The lists usually come
from the reading or spelling, are teacher created, use high-frequency words, thematic unit words,
or most commonly used words in children’s writing. There is little or no direction to daily
practice sessions. This method is not a major factor in the development of good spellers. When
lists are individualized and content-relevant and when effective study techniques are used,
memorizing word lists can be part of an effective curriculum. Poor spellers need more time and

8
more concentrated amounts of study to learn to spell words, they need at least 40 opportunities
with the word and their lists should have 80% old information and 20% new information.
Word analysis and word sorting: The words are sorted and grouped together to teacher the
learner certain phoneme and grapheme patterns, spelling rules, principles and regularities,
morpheme, or word levels. This method helps the child form generalizations about spelling
patterns and can use this knowledge when formulating spelling of unknown words. It helps to
bridge the gap of words that are “taught” and words that are “caught”. It is helpful to contrast
known and unknown words for poor spellers. This reinforces the idea that there is an underlying
system in spelling.
Spelling integrated in authentic reading and writing: The child begins with task of producing a
text for an authentic purpose. The teacher conferences and circulates as children are writing,
pointing out words spelled correctly, searching for underlying principles in what isn’t spelled
correctly and discusses these with the child. The key is to capitalize on a teachable moment for
spelling. The child should have an opportunity to apply principle in another text-level writing
experience. Students are taught to proof-read and self correct spelling errors. Peer editing is also
used to strengthen skills used in spelling. Poor spellers need more opportunities to write. They
need to find ways to bridge the gap between explicit word-level spelling work and on-line
reading and writing. There must be some text-level spelling activities in each instructional
session. Spelling instruction for a child would be integrated within a plan that addresses the
child’s profile of language abilities.
Contribution: Spelling instruction should draw on all three types of spelling activities as well
as emphasizing strategic self-regulation of spelling. All three activities have value in spelling
acquisition and when used together, they help students instructionally.