academic instruction || spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: implications...

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Spelling Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: Implications for Research andPracticeAuthor(s): David McNaughton, Charles A. Hughes and Karen ClarkSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 3, Academic Instruction (Summer, 1994),pp. 169-185Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511072 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 23:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:27:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511072?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SPELLING INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING

DISABILITIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

David McNaughton, Charles A. Hughes, and Karen Clark

Abstract. We reviewed 27 published studies on spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities (LD) and coded them for the following variables: (a) student characteristics, (b) instructional activities, (c) nature of materials to be learned, and (d) criterial tasks (Jenkins, 1979). Most of the studies investigated the impact of instructional activities on the production of targeted spelling items by elementary-grade students with LD. We interpret the results of this review as suggest- ing that the following activities may enhance learning for some students with LD: (a) limiting the number of new words introduced each day, (b) facilitating student- directed and peer-assisted instruction, (c) directing students to name letters aloud as they are practiced, (d) including instruction in morphemic analysis, (e) providing immediate error imitation and correction, (f) using motivating reinforcers, and (g) providing periodic retesting and review. Only limited information is available on interventions that promote generalization of spelling knowledge to untrained words, use of trained vocabulary in a variety of writing activities, and maintenance of vocabulary across time. We discuss current research issues and future research directions in spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities.

To participate fully in today's information- based society, students with learning disabilities (LD) need to develop effective writing skills. Al- though correct spelling may not be the most critical component in every writing activity, accurate spelling is an important aspect of formal written communication: "The ability to spell is still im- bued by an admiring public with connotations of studiousness, literacy, and intelligence" (Gerber & Hall, 1987, p. 34).

The efficacy of spelling instruction for students with LD has received only limited research attention (Gettinger, Bryant, & Fayne, 1982; Moore & Callias, 1987). For example, a review of 2,270 articles dealing with learning disabilities written between 1968 and 1983 revealed that 27% dealt with reading issues, but only 1% addressed spelling (Summers, 1986). Spelling has received less attention than reading although the

spelling difficulties of students with LD may be more severe than their reading disabilities (Ger- ber & Hall, 1987) and have proven to be more difficult to remediate (Gettinger et al., 1982). Further, difficulty in spelling has been identified as the most frequently reported learning problem of adults with LD (Hoffman et al., 1987).

DAVID McNAUGHTON, M.S., is a doctoral can- didate, Department of Special Education, Penn State.

CHARLES A. HUGHES, Ph.D., is Associate Pro- fessor, Department of Special Education, Penn State.

KJEN CLARK, Ph.D., is Assistant Profes- sor, Department of Special Education, Val- paraiso University.

Volume 17, Summer 1994 169



The reasons for these low levels of achievement are not well understood. A descriptive study of spelling instruction for students with LD (Christenson, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & McVicar, 1989) provided evidence that the time allotted for daily spelling instruction varies widely across instructional settings (i.e., 1-31 minutes); the mean allocated time of approximately 10 minutes per day, however, conforms to recommen- dations for non-LD students (Allred, 1987).

With respect to the content of instruction, Val- lecorsa, Zigmond, and Henderson (1985) reported that teachers working with students with mild academic handicaps predominantly used techniques supported by research conducted with non-LD students, and frequently also employed techniques not supported by the research literature.

In summary, most teacher activity conforms to recommended activities for non-LD students. It is unclear, however, if the low achievement observed in students with LD may best be addressed by additional instructional time, different instructional activities, or some combination of instructional factors as yet unknown.

Recently, researchers have evaluated a variety of spelling instruction techniques for students with LD, and provided instructional information for the special educators who work with these students. This article contains a narrative review of recently published empirical research on spelling intervention with students with LD; our interest in including both single-subject and group-design research precluded an integrative review. We also present a critical discussion of some of the significant research variables associ- ated with spelling intervention, as well as sugges- tions for future directions in spelling instruction practice and research.

PROCEDURES Selection Criteria

To be selected for this review, a study had to meet the following five criteria:

1. The paper had to be published in a journal between January 1978 and December 1991. The year 1978 was chosen as a starting point because the impact of PL 94-142, the Education of All Handi- capped Children Act, would be reflected in the literature at that time. (We also included two in-press research articles.)

2. Subjects must have been described as learning disabled, reading disabled, or as functioning at least two years below grade level in spelling without mention of an ac- companying deficit in intellectual ability.

3. The study had to include instructional procedures targeting spelling (or writing skills in general) as the focus of intervention.

4. The study had to measure spelling skills directly as a dependent variable.

5. The research design had to be experimental in nature and include a control measure allowing comparison of the treatment effect with a clearly described alternative treatment or no-treatment procedure.

Search Procedures We identified the studies included in this re-

view through several steps. First, we performed a computer search through Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) using the following descriptors: research, instruction, spelling, and learning disabilities. Second, we conducted a systematic search of academic intervention research from January 1978 through December 1991 using Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of Special Education, Learning Disability Quarterly, Learning Disability Research, Learning Disability Focus, and Learning Dis- ability Research and Practice. Third, we conducted an ancestral search using the reference lists in previously obtained articles.

The initial search yielded 40 studies on the effects of instruction on the spelling performance of students with LD. All studies were coded independently by two judges for adherence to the inclusion criteria. Agreement was scored as 96%; disagreements were resolved through discussion. Thirteen of these studies were not included in the present review for the following reasons: absence of an experimental design (23%, n=9); no spelling or writing instruction (8%, n=3); no description of control group activities (3%, n=l). Twenty-seven studies met all the initial criteria and, therefore, were included.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION We designed this review to address three basic

questions. First, what are the research variables that have been investigated in the literature within the specified time period? Second, what implications for practice can be drawn from cur- rently available research? Third, how can future

170 Learning Disability Quarterly



Table 1 Spelling Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities

Author(s) Design Subjects' Independent Variable(s) Time Results Variableb

Aleman, McLaughlin, & Bialozor (1990)

Beck, Matson, & Kazdin (1983)

Bendell, Tollefson, & Fine (1980)

Blau & Loveless (1982, Exp 1)

Bradley (1981, Exp 1)

Bradley (1981, Exp 2)

Alternating treatments (ABAB)

Multiple baseline across word lists

Mixed with pre-/ postmeasures

Within-subjects with repeated measures



5M, 2F (9 to 11)

2M (11 to 13)

50M (13-2 to 15-8)

10M (9 to 12)

9M, 1F ( = 9-8)

N=9 (R= 11)

(a) auditory/visual practice; (b) visual/motor practice

(a) self-instruction; (b) no treatment

(a) trace and copy; (b) free study

(a) tactile practice, left hand; (b) tactile practice, right hand

(a) naming letter while writing; (b) naming and assembling letters to form word; (c) no-treatment

Same as Bradley, Exp. 1 (1981), plus (d) writing word and saying word

100, 10 min, 20 wks

15, 20 min, 5-8 days

2, 15 min, 2 days

1, NR, 1 day

4, 10 min, 4 days (a) 9; (b) 22

4, NR, 4 days

(a) superior to (b)

(a) superior to (b)

Ss with internal locus of control better in (b); Ss with external locus of control better in (a)

(a) significantly better than (b)

(a) significantly better than (b) or (c)

Posttest 1: (a), (b), and (d) significantly better than (c). Posttest 2: (a) significantly better than (b), (c), or (d)

Brown (1988)

Bryant, Drabin, & Gettinger (1981)

Dangel (1989)

Mixed with repeated measures

Between-subjects with pre-/postmeasures


14M (-= 13)

43 M, 21F (x - 10-2)

6M, 2F (x= 11-7)

(a) combination of practices; (b) traditional instruction

(a) 3 words Introduced per day; (b) 4 words introduced; (c) 5 words introduced per day

(a) traditional instruction; (b) sort-and-study; (c) trace- copy-cover-write plus (b)

12, 20-30 min, 6 wks

3, 30-40 min, 3 days (a) 14; (b) 15; (c) 13

24, NR 6 wks

(a) significantly better for unpredictable words; no significant difference for predictable words

Avg. total words learned equal for (a), (b), and (c). (a) significantly better than (b) or (c) on the 9 words common to all 3 groups

(c) superior to (a) or (b); (b) superior to (a)

Continued on page 172

0 c= i3

>11 Cl, (b a 8~ ig m

k-

1-4 "s4



Table 1 (continued) Spelling Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities

Author(s)

Darch & Simpson (1990)

Delquadri, Greenwood, Stretton, & Hall (1983)

Foster & Torgesen (1983)

Design Subjects'

Between-subjects with repeated measures

ABAB reversal with concurrent baselines


16M, 12F (x- 10.6)

N=6 Grade 3

24M (N = 10-2) 8 non-LD, 16 LD

Independent Variable(s)

(a) rule-based strategies; (b) visual imagery

(a) peer tutoring; (b) teacher-led instruction

(a) teacher-directed study; (b) free study

Time Variableb

25, 25-30, 6 weeks

135, 15 min, 27 wks

1, 45 min, 1 day

Results

(a) significantly better (a) significantly better than (b)

(a) superior to (b)

Significant differences for groups; no difference for treatments except (a) significantly, better than (b) on delayed recall for LD with normal STM

Frank, Wacker, Keith, & Sagen (1987)

Gettinger, Bryant, & Fayne (1982)

Multiple probe across subjects


1M, 3F (a) group instruction; (8-7 to 10-2) (b) individual instruction;

(c) no treatment

23M, 16F (a) combination of practices; (7-2 to 10-7) (b) conventional instruction

6-15, 15-30 min, 2-5 wks (a) 28; (b) 11

8, 30 min, 3 wks (a) 11; (b) 17

(a) and (b) superior to (c)

(a) significantly better than (b)

Graham & Freeman (1985)

Hasselbring (1984)

Kauffman, Hallahan, Haas, Brame, & Boren, Exp. 2 (1978)

Kerchner & Kistinger (1984)


Alterating treatments (ABAB)



32M, 8F (x= 10-8)

1M (11)

1M (12)

N =37 Grades 4-6

(a) teacher-directed study; (b) student-controlled study; (c) teacher-monitored study; (d) free study

(a) computer-assisted instruction; (b) teacher-directed study

(a) imitation of errors plus modeling of correct spelling; (b) modeling-only instruction

(a) process writing and word- processing; (b) control group

2, 30 min, 3 days

30, NR 6 wks

21, 30 min, 27 days (a) 8; (b) 9

NR, NR 7 months

(a), (b), and (c) superior to (d). No significant difference between (a), (b), and (c)

No difference between (a) and (b)

(a) superior to (b)

No significant difference between (a) and (b)

McDermott & Between-subjects with Watkins (1983) repeated measures

115M, 52F (a) computer-assisted instruction; Grades 1-6 (b) traditional instruction

co

h-.

N

tq

.

.

3 5'

rc

(Q

IZ

10

2 z

"I <-( te

NR, NR No significant difference 1 year between (a) and (b)



Murphy, Hem, Williams, & McLaughlin (1990)

Ollendick, Matson, Esveldt-Dawson, & Shapiro (1980, Study 1)

Ollendick, Matson, Esveldt-Dawson, & Shapiro (1980, Study 2)

Pratt-Struthers, Struthers, & Williams (1983)

Stevens & Schuster (1987)

Vaughn, Schumm, & Gordon (in press-a)

Vaughn, Schumm, & Gordon (in press-b)

Winterling (1990)




Multiple baseline across word lists

Multiple probes across word lists



Multiple probes across word lists

5M, 4F (8-8 to 12-3

1M, 1F (8-6 to 10)

IF (13)

4M, 5F (x= 11-3)

1M (11-10)

29M, 19F Grades 2-3 24 LD 24 non-LD

31M, 17F Grades 2-3 24 LD 24 non-LD

1M (7-7)

(a) copy-cover-compare; (b) traditional instruction

(a) positive practice plus positive reinforcement; (b) positive practice alone; (c) no treatment

(a) positive practice plus positive reinforcement; (b) free study and traditional correction; (c) free study and positive reinforcement

(a) Add-A-Word spelling program; (b) no treatment

(a) constant time delay; (b) unstudied probe vocabulary

(a) copying word with handwriting; (b) copying word with letter tiles; (c) copying word with computer

(a) copying word with handwriting; (b) tracing letters to copy word; (c) copying word with computer

(a) copying and constant time- delay oral reading practice; (b) no treatment

180, 20 min, 36 wks

17-24, 10 min, 4-5 wks (a) 20, 10; (b) 24, 12

15, 10 min, 3 wks (a) 6; (b) 25; (c) 10

50, 3-5 min, 50 days

19, 1 hr, 2 months; (a) 18

6, 30 minutes, (a) 222; (b) 260; (c) 363

12, 20 minutes, 11 days (a) 37; (b) 37; (c) 39

39, 20-30 min, NR

(a) superior to (b)

(a) superior to (b) or (c)

(a) superior to (b) or (c)

(a) superior to (b)

(a) superior to (b)

Non-LD performance significantly better than LD performance. For both groups, no significant difference between (a), (b), and (c)

Non-LD performance significantly better than LD performance. For both groups, no significant difference between (a), (b), and (c)

No difference between (a) and (b)

Information in parentheses identifies subjects' chronological age . bNumber of instruction and probe sessions, duration of session, length of intervention, minutes of instruction per word.

0 (j:

N cn

C,

4e ko \R

c ̂-



research activities be conducted so as to contribute to the knowledge base of special educators?

A summary of the research design, subjects, independent variables, time variables, and reported results for each of the 27 studies is presented in Table 1. Research Designs

Of the 27 studies, 12 employed single-subject designs; 15 employed group designs (4 within- subject designs; 5 between-subject designs; and 6 employed mixed designs).

The use of designs that expose all subjects to all instructional procedures (single-subject, within-subject, and mixed designs) helps control for the heterogeneity observed in the LD popu- lation. However, single-subject designs that have not been replicated must be interpreted with caution. Five of the single-subject studies were unreplicated, and two were replicated with only one other student. Research Variables

Jenkins (1979) suggested that the results of learning research studies be interpreted within the framework of a tetrahedral model that in- cludes information in four areas: (a) student characteristics, (b) instructional activities, (c) nature of materials to be learned, and (d) criterial tasks. Any hypothesis concerning the theoretical and instructional implications of a research finding should take into consideration the unique research variables in these four areas, as well as possible interactions between these factors.

We will review the selected articles using these four areas as an organizational framework and provide a brief discussion (as appropriate) of interaction effects that may influence the interpretation of results.

Student Characteristics A total of 498 students participated in these

studies, ranging in age from 7 years, 2 months to 15 years, 8 months. A majority of studies (85%, n-23) included students whose mean age was 12 years old or less. In 19 of the studies, students were described as demonstrating poor performance in spelling. The remaining 8 studies provided no background information on the students' spelling performance.

This lack of background information makes it difficult to interpret results. Students with LD may demonstrate unique patterns of academic

achievement and deficiency; thus, it is important to know if the students participating in the study had experienced difficulty in the academic area for which remediation is provided (Lessen, Dudzinski, Karsh, & Van Acker, 1989).

Subjects differed on a variety of characteristics. Yet, only a small number of the studies investigated the impact of student characteristics on learning achievement. For example, Bendell, Tollefson, and Fine (1980) examined the interaction between the personality variable of locus of control and the use of free study or a student- controlled study technique (tracing and copying a word while saying the letters aloud).

The two groups participated in both the free- study and the student-controlled study conditions. A significant interaction between the research variables was observed. Students with an internal locus of control (i.e., the students believed that they controlled school-related success and failure) performed significantly better in the free-study condition; students with an external locus of control (i.e., students who believed that factors external to themselves, such as teachers or parents, determined academic success and failure) achieved superior results with the student-controlled study technique.

Foster and Torgesen (1983) investigated the effectiveness of two study conditions with three groups of students: (a) students with LD with normal short-term memory, (b) non-LD students with normal short-term memory, and (c) students with LD with short-term memory deficit. The first study condition was a free-study condition, the second a directed-study condition in which the students copied each of four target vocabulary items three times.

LD students with short-term memory deficits underperformed the other students in all conditions; however, other results are difficult to interpret. For example, the authors reported that the directed-study condition had a significant effect only on the spelling performances of students with LD who did not have a short-term memory deficit (i.e., words studied in this condition by these students were better recalled than free- study words). It is unclear, however, if the teacher-controlled study group received more study time than the free-study control group. If students received a disproportionate amount of study time while participating in one of the experimental conditions, the intervention may be




confounded with time on task. The study of treatment interaction effects with

unique intraindividual characteristics may be a promising area for future study (Kershner, 1990). At present, however, it is unclear which subject aptitudes significantly affect the efficacy of instruction on an individual basis. One area may be the effect of a student's knowledge of vocabulary and spelling strategies on acquisition of new items. As Gerber (1985) noted, the acquisition of spelling skills by students with LD is not simply a matter of memorizing longer and longer sequences of letter strings, beginning and more proficient spellers use qualitatively different strategies (Read & Hodges, 1982).

These differences in performance seem to in- dicate that the instructional needs of students may change as they acquire new skills and em- ploy different strategies (Case & Bereiter, 1984). While early spellers may benefit from instructional activities that focus their attention on sound-symbol relationships, more mature spellers may require assistance in determining when using letter-sound relationships results in a correct spelling and when other strategies (e.g., memorizing a core vocabulary, considering morphological units, consulting a dictionary) should be utilized (Dixon, 1991). Summary: Student Characteristics

The limited research to date provides evidence that the personality variable locus of control may interact with study technique (Bendell et al., 1980), and that students with short-term memory deficits may experience difficulty in some spelling activities (Foster & Torgesen, 1983). Additional research is needed to identify which strategies are most appropriate for students at different levels of spelling proficiency.

Instructional Activities Students with LD often perform poorly on

learning and memory tasks because they do not spontaneously use efficient study strategies (Ger- ber, 1985). Students can be directed to use effective study strategies through implementation of a study strategy (externally directed instruction), or they can be taught to make independent use of strategies for studying spelling vocabulary (student-directed instruction).

In this review, we classified instructional strategies as "externally directed" when students were given explicit instructions on how to study their

vocabulary. That is, use of these study strategies was controlled or monitored by an external agent (e.g., teacher, peer, computer), who also made decisions about the need for additional study. In contrast, we classified studies as "student-directed" when students were taught a strategy for independent study, whereby they worked independently, monitored their own performance, and made decisions about their own success and need for additional study. Externally Directed Instruction

A variety of externally directed variables have been experimentally manipulated, including (a) the manner in which a model of the correct spelling was presented to the student (i.e., "copy-cover-compare," "time delay," and "error correction" procedures); (b) the production technique (e.g., handwriting, letter tiles, typing) used as the student practiced the spelling of the word; and (c) combined treatment packages in which a variety of independent variables were manipulated at one time.

Presentation of models. Research has examined the effect of providing models of the correct spelling prior to and following instruction to spell a word, the effect of feedback to the student following a response, and the efficacy and efficiency of different feedback delivery agents (i.e., a teacher, a peer, a computer system).

Frank, Wacker, Keith, and Sagen (1987) investigated a copy-cover-compare procedure in which the student copied the word, spelled it from memory, and then independently checked the correct spelling. The instructor monitored the situation and provided positive reinforcement. In a comparison of the effectiveness of group and individual implementation of the instructional sequence, the authors reported that group and individual training practices were equally effective in improving spelling performance.

However, a follow-up analysis by the present authors revealed that the mean student time required to learn a word (instructional time in minutes/number of words learned) differed for the two techniques. In the individual study condition, a mean of 11 minutes (range=10 to 11 minutes) of instruction per word was required; a mean time of 27 minutes (range=20-36 minutes) was required in the group instruction condition. This difference in student time required for acquisition may be important in interpreting the relative effi-




ciency of the two treatments. McDermott and Watkins (1983) compared the

use of a computer-managed "copy-cover-compare" procedure with conventional classroom instruction. After one full school year, scores on the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) (Jastak & Jastak, 1965) showed essentially equivalent gains for the two groups. As noted by the authors, however, the WRAT may not have been sensitive to the differences in achievement gains.

Stevens and Schuster (1987) used a "constant time-delay procedure" to teach spelling vocabulary to an 11-year-old student with LD. The instruction occurred in two phases. In the first, a word was introduced with the instruction "spell (word)," and a printed model to be copied by the student was immediately presented. In the second phase, a 5-second delay occurred between the instruction ("spell [word]") and the presentation of the printed word.

The student learned three sequentially presented word lists; however, with each additional list, the time required to learn a new word was greater than for the previous one (14 minutes, 17 minutes, and 20 minutes, respectively). We wonder whether the amount of time required to learn new words using these approaches would eventually be prohibitive due to the increase in time required.

Evidence of extensive time costs in using a time-delay reading and spelling procedure can be observed in a study by Winterling (1990). Fo- cusing primarily on improved sight-word recognition, the investigator also examined the impact of constant time-delay copying and oral reading procedures on the spelling performance of a 7- year-old student with LD. Following 23 training sessions on 9 words, the student did not spell any of the targeted words correctly.

In using error-correction procedures, the instructor dictates a word which is then spelled by the student. If the student makes a spelling error, the instructor provides a model of the correct spelling, and the student practices the corrected spelling. Kauffman, Hallahan, Haas, Brame, and Boren (1978) investigated two variations of the error-correction technique: (a) the instructor modeled the correct spelling, and (b) the instructor imitated the student's error before modeling the correct spelling.

The inclusion of error imitation was found to

be superior to modeling alone. Further investigation of this technique (Ollendick, Matson, Es- veldt-Dawson, & Shapiro, 1980) provided evidence that the use of positive reinforcement (a "star" and verbal praise), in addition to practicing a word following a student error, increased the effectiveness of the procedure.

An innovative classroom adaptation of error- correction procedures was provided by Delquadri, Greenwood, Stretton, and Hall (1983), who used peers acting as instructors to help students with LD improve their spelling performance. Working in pairs, the students took turns acting as either the instructor (dictating words and correcting responses) or the student (producing responses). Students scored points for responses, and student team points were to- taled to determine a winner. The peer-tutoring game resulted in higher achievement than observed using traditional teacher-centered instruction. In addition, it increased the response opportunities for both the students with LD and the non-LD students.

Another possible advantage of error-correction techniques is easy implementation through instructional technology. In a follow-up to the error-imitation research reported by Kauffman et al. (1978), Hasselbring (1984) compared the relative efficacy of a teacher to that of a computer as the provider of the imitation-plus-modeling feedback. The average percentage of correct spellings on the posttest was similar for the two conditions.

Alternate modalities. Numerous clinical reports describe the use of alternate modalities, including finger spelling (Vernon, Coley, & DuBois, 1980) and writing in the air (Traynellis- Yurek, 1988), as practice techniques for spelling vocabulary. At present, however, few empirical studies support the effectiveness of these techniques with students with LD.

In a study by Blau and Loveless (1982), blind- folded students practiced saying the letter names as they assembled plastic letters to form the target words. The independent variable was the student's use of the left or right hand to practice vocabulary. The mean percentage of correct words on a measure taken 3 days after instruction was 61% for words studied with the left hand and 46% for words studied with the right hand. Since the study did not include a comparison with more traditional instructional proce-




dures, the relative efficacy of this technique is difficult to evaluate.

Aleman, McLaughlin, and Bialozor (1990) compared auditory-visual and visual-motor spelling practice. However, the experimental procedures included a serious threat to the internal validity of the reported findings. Specifically, the auditory-visual procedure offered three opportunities to practice each word, whereas the visual-motor procedure provided only two. As a result, the independent variable may have been the number of practice trials, not the modality of instruction.

Darch and Simpson (1990) investigated the comparative effectiveness of two instructional techniques: visual imagery and rule-based strategies. In the visual-imagery condition, students were instructed to apply a four-step visual-imagery model. After looking at the word, students were directed to (a) "see" the word in their mind, (b) imagine the word on a large outdoor screen, (c) imagine each letter pasted onto the screen, and (d) visualize themselves assembling the letters on the screen. In the rule-based strategies condition, students were provided with direct instruction in the use of morphemic and phonemic analysis and spelling rules. Students who received training in the use of spelling rules achieved significantly better results than the visual-imagery group on tests of the vocabulary studied, as well as on generalization to untrained vocabulary.

The effect of the use of handwriting on acquisition of spelling vocabulary was investigated in four studies (Bradley, 1981, exp. 1 and exp. 2; Vaughn, Schumm, & Gordon, in press-a, in press-b).

The first Bradley experiment (1981) con- trasted three student activities: (a) saying each letter while copying the word using handwriting, (b) selecting plastic letters and placing them in order while saying the letter names, and (c) a no- study condition.

The handwriting condition produced better results than the plastic letter condition, and both were better than the no-study condition. The results provide evidence that the physical act of writing may have a stronger impact on acquisition than alternate sensory experiences (i.e., assembling letters).

A second experiment was conducted to isolate the impact of saying the letters aloud as they were practiced. In addition to the three previous

conditions, this study included a fourth, in which the students wrote the word and said it when fin- ished, but did not name the individual letters as they wrote. With respect to acquisition, all experimental conditions were superior to the no- study condition. On maintenance testing, however, the condition in which students wrote letters and said letter names was superior both to the other two experimental conditions and to the no-study condition.

Vaughn et al. (in press-a, in press-b) investigated the effect of a variety of practice conditions on spelling acquisition. The first study (in press-a) examined the effect of practicing vocabulary using handwriting, sorting letter tiles, and typing on the computer. In the other (in press-b), a letter-tracing activity was substituted for the letter tile condition. In contrast to Bradley (1981), Vaughn et al. found that writing condition had no significant effect on performance.

The Vaughn et al. studies differed from the Bradley studies on at least four potentially important variables, including the fact that in the Bradley study, students spoke the letter aloud as they wrote and assembled plastic letters, but in the Vaughn et al. studies they worked silently. The students in the Vaughn et al. studies were younger than the students in the Bradley study, used vocabulary at a different instructional level, and participated in different instructional activities. Although both studies found evidence that alternate modality activities such as assembling plastic letters and tracing words hold no advantage over handwriting, it is unclear what interaction effects account for the actual advantage for handwriting observed in the Bradley studies.

Combinations of procedures. Gettinger et al. (1982) investigated the efficacy of a study package that consisted of reduced unit size (i.e., fewer new words per day), distributed practice and review, and training for transfer. This experimental instruction was compared with the traditional instructional methods used by the comparison-group teachers. Traditional instruction was characterized by a large number of words introduced at one time, absence of distributed and cu- mulative feedback, and use of instructional methods that included games and repetitive writing without corrective feedback. The experimental group achieved higher posttest accuracy scores than the control group. It also outscored the control group on testing that examined the




transfer of newly acquired spelling knowledge to an untrained set of transfer words.

Brown (1988) compared the use of her traditional instructional methods with a combination of research-supported procedures. Traditional instruction offered the following activities: (a) use of multisensory learning techniques, (b) practice within the context of worksheets and games, and (c) structural and phonemic analysis of words. The experimental group participated in a variety of instructional activities that included the following features: (a) immediate error imitation and practice, (b) computer practice, and (c) reduced unit size.

Posttest statistical comparisons revealed some advantage for the experimental group on words described as having an "unpredictable spelling." However, no significant differences were observed on the Test of Written Spelling (Larsen & Hammill, 1976) or on words described as having a predictable spelling. Student-Directed Instruction

A central concern with externally directed instruction is that it may preclude students from "learning how to learn," that is, learning to monitor their own efforts and adjust strategies as appropriate (Graham & Freeman, 1985). In student-directed instructional activities, therefore, students are taught to enhance their own knowledge by learning to use independent study strategies that involve setting goals and monitoring their own progress (Dangel, 1989). Clearly defined independent study strategies (e.g., a copy- cover-compare technique) as well as more loosely structured writing activities (a process approach to writing) have been examined.

Independent study activities. Beck, Mat- son, and Kazdin (1983) investigated a 17-step student-directed spelling instruction program (e.g., listen to word, write word, get answer sheet, check word). The sequence was taught to each student using a self-instructional manual in which a cartoon figure depicted the required steps. All students showed improvement over baseline scores during the intervention phase.

Murphy, Hern, Williams, and McLaughlin (1990) provided support for a student-directed copy-cover-compare procedure, which was found to be superior to practicing words in sen- tences and free study.

Pratt-Struthers, Struthers, and Williams (1983) investigated independent student use of the

"Add-A-Word" Spelling Program (McGuigan, 1975). This program combined two instructional strategies: a traditional copy-cover-compare procedure (in which students copied the target word, covered the word and wrote it from memory, and then compared their version with the target spelling) and a "practice to mastery" criterion in which the students periodically reviewed words spelled correctly on a previous occasion. If the word was misspelled on a follow-up test, it was returned to the list of words being studied by the student. Teachers involved in the program reported that the procedures were more efficient than traditional approaches, and that the correct spelling of the vocabulary generalized to creative writing activities.

Dangel (1989) and Graham and Freeman (1985) conducted direct comparisons of teacher- and student-directed instruction. Dangel (1989) compared three interventions: (a) teacher-directed traditional instruction (e.g., spelling book activities, word definitions, fill in the blank); (b) "sort-and-study," in which students planned which words needed more study attention; and (c) "sort-and-study" combined with a "trace- copy-cover-write" procedure in which students also recorded their progress.

The results indicated that both student-directed procedures were more effective than the teacher-directed procedure, and that the combination of sort-and-study with the trace-copy- cover-write procedure was more effective than the sort-and-study procedure alone.

Unfortunately, Dangel's (1989) research suf- fers from two possible confounds. First, the same list of words was used for each instructional method with each student, introducing a possible list effect. Second, the treatments were always introduced in the same order to all the students, which may have resulted in an order effect that limits interpretation of the results.

Graham and Freeman (1985) compared four instructional conditions. In three of them, students were taught to use a five-step "say-write- compare-trace-write" procedure. Students were randomly assigned to three groups that received different levels of teacher control: (a) directed study, in which an instructor provided verbal guidance throughout the strategy; (b) teacher- monitored study, in which the instructor provided assistance, upon request, in carrying out the strategy; and (c) student-controlled, in which




the students were told to carry out the strategy independently. The fourth condition, (d), was a free-study condition.

The authors reported that the three groups that received training in the five-step procedure outperformed the free-study group. However, group mean scores did not differ significantly.

Process approach to writing. Kerchner and Kistinger (1984) compared a process approach to writing and word-processing technology with a control condition. Writing instruction for the students with LD in the experimental condition included participation in the following activities: (a) prewriting conference (teacher and student discuss student's topic); (b) composing at the keyboard; (c) printing a draft; (d) editing conference (student, teacher, and peers read and edit draft); (e) editing at the keyboard; and (f) publication (presentation of the final copy to parents and peers). The control condition consisted of two instructional groups (combined for the purposes of statistical analysis) that received either traditional instruction or a process approach to writing without word processing.

Following intervention, the investigators found no statistical difference between experimental and control groups on the spelling subsection of the Test of Written Language (Hammill & Larsen, 1978). The results appear to be com- promised, however, by the two activities under- taken by the control group. Further, the results may be limited by the use of a dependent measure that was not sensitive to small but important differences in spelling performance (see discussion of criterial task). Summary: Instructional Techniques

Both externally directed and student-directed techniques can result in spelling vocabulary acquisition by students with LD. For example, externally directed copy-cover-compare techniques have been effective in situations where monitoring was provided by teachers (Frank et al., 1987) or computers (McDermott & Watkins, 1983).

Error-correction procedures, especially activities that incorporate imitation of the student's errors and opportunities to practice the correct spelling, also appear to offer promising spelling intervention. In cases where the instructor simply provides feedback on the accuracy of the student's response, both peers (Delquadri et al., 1983) and computer programs (Hasselbring,

1984) can serve as effective instructional agents. The precise reason for the effectiveness of error- imitation procedures is unknown. However, Kauffman et al. (1978) hypothesized that the procedure may help students focus on how their incorrect spelling differs from the correct response.

Although effective on a short-term basis, the constant time-delay procedure (Stevens & Schus- ter, 1987) should be examined within a long- term study to achieve a better understanding of its instructional efficiency. At present, there is little support for the use of alternate modalities (e.g., assembling plastic letters, letter tiles) while practicing spelling vocabulary. Additional research is necessary to determine more clearly the effect of speaking letters aloud during spelling instruction activities.

Available studies of student-directed learning offer evidence that these techniques can yield positive results while minimizing the supervisory time required of teachers in other approaches to spelling instruction. The use of copy-cover-compare combined with periodic retesting and review (Pratt-Struthers et al., 1983) appears especially promising. In direct comparisons of externally controlled and student-directed instructional activities, evidence indicates that with appropriate instruction and support in the use of independent study strategies, student-directed instruction can be at least as effective as externally controlled instruction (Graham & Freeman, 1985).

NATURE OF MATERIALS TO BE LEARNED Vocabulary Used

The most frequent source of instructional vocabulary in the research considered here was in- correctly spelled words. The use of the student's own misspellings as training and testing items has ecological validity; however, detailed information on the vocabulary used was often unavail- able. Because current research included evidence that some experimental procedures may affect words with predictable and unpredictable spelling differently (Brown, 1988; Kauffman et al., 1978), the type of word being studied and tested should be reported in the research findings. Unit Size

Bryant et al. (1981) investigated the effect of varying the number of instructional vocabulary




items (3, 4, or 5 new words per 35-minute instructional session) on students' spelling performance. Posttests conducted after three days of instruction revealed no significant difference between the total number of words learned by the three groups. However, the students who studied three new words a day mastered a higher mean percentage of the words studied (83%) than did the 4-a-day (58%) or 5-a-day (57%) groups.

The authors hypothesized that introducing more than three new words per instructional session may overload the capabilities of many students with LD. Because study time was held constant for the three groups, an alternative explanation may be that a certain base amount of time is necessary to study a word, and that re- ducing the time available for each word by increasing the number of words while holding study time constant may have a negative effect on performance for all words. Therefore, an experiment in which the number of words studied per day is held constant while instructional time varies is necessary to fully address this question. Summary: Spelling Materials

Most studies provide only limited information about the nature of the spelling materials to be learned. Although the number of words introduced in a fixed period of time is carefully monitored (Bryant et al., 1981), at present the research does not provide a clear sense of an optimal number of words.

Criterial Tasks The effect of spelling instruction has tradition-

ally been monitored using tests (both commercial achievement tests and individually developed spelling tests) that evaluate the number of words spelled correctly before and after instruction. Appropriate qualities of the criterial task used with spelling achievement include (a) sensitivity to changes in pupil performance, (b) evaluation of progress on specific objective as well as more general goals, and (c) provision of valid inferences for instructional modification (Salvia & Hughes, 1990). Sensitivity to Change

In the studies we reviewed, three standardized achievement tests were used to evaluate progress: the Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak & Jastak, 1965); the Test of Written Spelling (Larsen & Hammill, 1976); and the

Test of Written Language (Hammill & Larsen, 1978).

The use of standardized achievement tools may be problematic. For example, researchers have commented that the item pool may be too small and that differences in item difficulty may be too great to detect incremental change in students with LD (McDermott & Watkins, 1983). Another source of difficulty may be the difference between the vocabulary used for instruction and the vocabulary included in the test. Although other aspects of the research design may have contributed to the lack of significant findings, none of the research reports that used standardized achievement tools detected statistically significant differences between treatment groups.

Foster and Torgesen (1983) employed a unique independent variable by using nonsense words that contained irregular spelling patterns found in real words. For example, the word "psyro" was constructed using a spelling pattern found in "psycho" (Foster & Torgesen, 1983). The use of this vocabulary in experimental procedures must be viewed with caution until concurrent validity with a real spelling vocabulary has been established.

One promising direction for monitoring spelling progress is the use of correct letter sequences (Deno, Mirkin, Lowry, & Kuehnle, 1980). The mean percentage of correct letter sequences is calculated by giving one point for every pair of letters written in the correct order (including blank spaces before and after the word), divided by the total number of letter sequences in the correctly spelled word. Correct letter sequences have been found to be a techni- cally adequate method of detecting incremental change in spelling performance and may prove helpful for detecting change where less sensitive instruments have proven inadequate. Evaluation of Progress on Specific Goals and General Objectives

Although most studies have examined student progress on the vocabulary for which instruction was provided, three additional criteria must be ap- plied when evaluating spelling instruction: (a) generalization of words studied to a variety of writing activities, (b) generalization of spelling knowledge to untrained vocabulary items, and (c) maintenance of newly acquired spelling vocabulary.

Generalization across writing activities. To date, only Pratt-Struthers et al. (1983) have




assessed generalization across tasks by investi- gating the effect of spelling instruction on spelling performance during creative writing activities. Because generalization across tasks is often a significant challenge for students with LD, additional research is necessary to identify techniques that promote functional use of instructional vocabulary.

Generalization to untrained vocabulary. Research activities have focused on training a limited number of vocabulary items on formal spelling dictation activities. Thus, generalization of new spelling knowledge to untrained vocabulary items is reported in only 4 of the 27 studies in this review. Although students with LD have demonstrated the ability to make some use of previously acquired knowledge in attempting to spell untrained words (Gerber, 1986; Nulman & Gerber, 1984), they often experience difficulty making integrated use of this information in an efficient manner. As Gerber and Hall (1987) noted, for these students "the ability to spell a limited corpus of words increases with little promise of eventual mastery of the underlying system" (p. 38).

Non-LD students acquire correct spellings at a rapid rate. In describing the results of nationwide testing of commonly used vocabulary, Greene (1954) reported that 215 words (including root words with different endings, e.g., expect, ex- pects, expectation) were spelled correctly by at least 80% of the class in grade 4; approximately 700 words were spelled correctly by at least 80% of the students in grade 5; and approximately 1,500 words were spelled correctly by at least 80% of the students in grade 6. To keep pace with their non-LD peers, students with LD need to learn approximately 500 words in grade 4 and an additional 800 words in grade 5.

The low levels of spelling achievement demonstrated by many students with LD appear to provide evidence that they experience difficulty in learning these words incidentally (e.g., through exposure to correct spellings while reading). Consequently, they may require explicit instruction to acquire the correct spelling of many of these items. To learn each of these words as isolated units is an overwhelming task. However, reliance solely on phonics is hampered by the danger of overgeneralizing a spelling rule (i.e., not knowing when a phonetic representation produces an incorrect spelling).

Recently, researchers have suggested instruction in morphemes (meaningful units such as prefixes, suffixes, and word bases) as a way to facilitate generalization from familiar to novel vocabulary (Dixon, 1991). Spelling instruction emphasizing morphemic analysis has demonstrated a positive effect both with non-LD students (Robinson & Hesse, 1981) and students with LD (Darch & Simpson, 1990). Therefore, it may be more productive to help students acquire strategies for recognizing patterns in words than try to memorize words as isolated items (Read & Hodges, 1982).

Maintenance. Long-term retention of spelling vocabulary following instruction has generally been ignored in the research literature. Yet, information concerning maintenance of newly learned information is critical to any as- sessment of the efficacy of an instructional procedure. As Gerber and Hall (1987) commented, the strategies that bring success on a short-term basis may lead to organization of new information in a "sub optimal, perhaps chaotic" manner so that information cannot be reliably accessed on a long-term basis.

Of the seven research reports that included this information (Beck et al., 1983; Blau & Loveless, 1982; Bradley, Exp. 1 & 2, 1981; Frank et al., 1987; Kauffman et al., 1978; Vaughn et al., in press-b), only three described procedures that result in at least 80% retention of learned vocabulary at least one week after instruction (Beck et al., 1983; Bradley, Exp. 1, 1981; Kauffman et al., 1978).

Bradley (Exp. 2, 1981) provided evidence of the importance of follow-up testing in evaluating the efficacy of instruction. Although the three experimental conditions investigated in that study were all superior to the no-treatment condition at the time of the first posttest, by the time of the third posttest (4 weeks later) only one of them (saying each letter aloud while copying the word) was significantly better than the no-treatment condition. Valid Inferences for Instructional Modification

Research by Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, and Allinder (1991) provides evidence that systematic analysis of student responses (e.g., spelling- error analysis) can assist teachers in identifying specific spelling skills for instruction and enhanc- ing learning for students with mild academic




handicaps. Identification of ways by which testing procedures can assist in instructional modification for students with LD appears to be a promising area for future research. Summary: Criterion Measures

To date, most research measures have provided information on the short-term retention of instructional vocabulary, tested within the context of spelling dictation activities. Additional attention is necessary to determine the instructional factors that support generalization of spelling knowledge to a variety of writing activities and untrained vocabulary, as well as result in long-term maintenance and continued acquisition of new correct spellings.

LIMITATIONS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES

Instructional Issues Teachers working with students with LD re-

quire specific information to be able to use research findings. As a result, the studies reviewed here were examined in terms of their description of instructional procedures, the time necessary to carry out the procedures, and the acceptability of treatment to both students and teachers.

Instructional procedures and materials. Two teachers with six and eight years of classroom experience with students with LD reviewed the procedures to determine if sufficient information was provided to allow implementation. Agreement was scored as 85%; disagreements were resolved through discussion. Of the 27 studies reviewed for this article, 23 provided sufficient information to allow classroom implementation.

Time variables. The amount of time necessary to provide effective instruction is a key concern of educators. Table 1 provides information on the number of instruction and probe sessions, the length of each session, the total time for intervention, and the number of minutes of instruction per word learned. Of the 27 studies, 10 implemented the experimental activities for less than 2 weeks. Therefore, additional research may be necessary to evaluate the effect of these procedures over time (Gerber & Hall, 1987).

One additional statistic of interest is the amount of time necessary to learn a new word (instructional time in minutes divided by number of words learned). Because of the heterogeneity

of the subjects in these studies, it would be inap- propriate to use "minutes of instruction per word" as a comparative metric across studies. Some broad groupings may be of interest, however. Of the 23 experimental and traditional conditions (examined in 10 studies) for which this metric can be calculated, more than 20 minutes of instruction and practice was required for a word to be learned in 9 conditions, between 10 and 20 minutes was required in 10 conditions, and fewer than 10 minutes was required in only 4 conditions.

The findings from Greene's (1954) study im- ply that students in grade 5 need to acquire the correct spelling of approximately four new words per school day; although this figure in- cludes words formed by adding different endings to known words (e.g., magic, magician), this can be a challenging task for students with LD (Carlisle, 1987). Given the Christenson et al. (1989) finding that students with LD receive an average of 10 minutes of spelling instruction per day, there is a clear need to identify spelling instruction techniques that are not only effective but also efficient.

Treatment acceptability. Acceptability of educational interventions to both students and teachers is critical for successful implementation. Of the 27 studies included in this review, 11 provided information on the students' affective responses; 4 included information on the teachers' impressions.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH To enhance our understanding of effective

spelling instruction for students with LD, we suggest the following directions for future investigation. Student Characteristics

Future research reports would be enhanced by a comprehensive description of subjects, including information on present spelling performance as well as past spelling instruction. Identification of appropriate strategies for students at different levels of spelling achievement appears to be an important area for future research. In addition, information on the acceptability of the intervention to both students and teachers should be reported. Instructional Activities

Through their participation in regular education and resource classrooms, students with learning disabilities are involved in a wide range




of spelling instruction activities representing a variety of theoretical approaches (e.g., direct instruction, whole language, textbook-based spelling instruction). The majority of the research to date has compared the experimental condition with either a no-treatment, free-study, or poorly described traditional instruction condition. To permit direct comparisons of the efficacy of instructional techniques, both experimental and control conditions need to be composed of clearly defined instructional procedures. Spelling Materials

It is unclear which vocabulary variables (e.g., regular or irregular spelling) affect the learning of a spelling vocabulary item. As some evidence suggests that some instructional techniques may interact with certain characteristics of the vocabulary, detailed information on the vocabulary used within a study should be provided. Criterial Task

Effective spelling instruction should target the following learner outcomes: (a) produce accurate spelling for a core vocabulary of commonly used words across writing activities and time; (b) demonstrate use of procedures for spelling unknown words using phonics, word knowledge, and spelling rules, as appropriate; (c) use effective strategies for studying new words; and (d) detect and correct spelling errors using other resources (e.g., print dictionaries) as necessary (adapted from Graham, 1987).

Most studies have focused on the student's acquisition of the correct spelling for a small number of targeted vocabulary items. Although some may hope that students with LD will acquire these skills incidentally as they learn the spelling of additional vocabulary items, past studies provide evidence that this rarely occurs (Deshler, Ferrell, & Kass, 1978; Gerber & Hall, 1987; Vaughn et al., in press-b). Assisting students with LD in making use of other resources such as dictionaries and spelling checkers to detect and correct errors appears to be a promising area for future research. Limited research is available on the use of computer-based spelling checkers (Dalton, Winbury, & Morocco, 1990). However, additional research is necessary to identify spelling resources that assist students with LD in accessing a wide range of spelling vocabulary.

CONCLUSIONS During the past 12 years, researchers have be-

gun to investigate the efficacy of specific instructional procedures for teaching spelling skills to students with LD. Extreme care must be taken when interpreting the results of these investiga- tions, as many of them are taken from research with a small number of subjects, including unreplicated single-subject studies.

In designing special education instruction, it is perhaps axiomatic that different students respond differently to the same instruction (Deno, 1990). Based upon the research included in this review, however, teachers may wish to evaluate the use of the following strategies with their students: (a) limiting the number of new vocabulary items introduced each day (Bryant et al., 1981); (b) providing opportunities for self-directed and peer-assisted instruction (Beck et al., 1983; Delquadri et al., 1983); (c) directing students to name letters aloud as they are practiced (Bradley, 1981); (d) including instruction in morphemic analysis (Darch & Simpson, 1990); (e) providing immediate error imitation and correction (Delquadri et al., 1983; Kauffman et al., 1978; Ollendick et al., Exp. 1 and 2, 1980); (f) using motivating reinforcers (Ollendick et al., 1980); and (g) implementing periodic retesting and review (Pratt-Struthers et al., 1983).

In this review we focused exclusively on studies where all participants were described as having a learning disability. However, in our literature search we also identified potentially useful instructional strategies based on research that featured combined groups of students described as mildly academically handicapped (students having a learning disability, mild mental retarda- tion, or a behavior disorder). Practitioners may wish to consider successful interventions identified in this research literature (Fuchs et al., 1991; Graham & Miller, 1979), although not yet validated in studies containing only students with LD.

The research has documented the ability of students with LD to benefit, at least on a short-term basis, from specific spelling instruction procedures. However, many of the studies do not provide information about the maintenance or generalized use of the vocabulary, students' ability to generalize spelling knowledge to the spelling of previously unstudied vocabulary, or students' ability to make independent use of the study strategy. The challenge for future researchers, therefore, is to identify more clearly for educators the




significant instructional variables that contribute to long-term spelling success.

REFERENCES Aleman, C., McLaughlin, T. F., & Bialozor, R. C.

(1990). Comparison of auditory/visual and visual/motor practice on the spelling accuracy of learning disabled children. Reading Improvement, 27, 261-268.

Allred, R. A. (1987). Spelling trends, content, and methods. Washington, DC: National Education As- sociation.

Beck, S., Matson, J. L., & Kazdin, A. E. (1983). An instructional package to enhance spelling performance in emotionally disturbed children. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 4(2/3), 69-77.

Bendell, D., Tollefson, N., & Fine, M. (1980). Interac- tion of locus-of-control orientation and the performance of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 32-35.

Blau, H. B., & Loveless, E. J. (1982). Specific hemi- spheric-routing-TAK/v to teach spelling to dyslexics: VAK and VAKT challenged. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 461-466.

Bradley, L. (1981). The organization of motor patterns for spelling: An effective remedial strategy for back- ward readers. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 23, 83-91.

Brown, M. (1988). An investigation of a spelling intervention with learing disabled elementary school students. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 12(1), 1-18.

Bryant, N. D., Drabin, I. R., & Gettinger, M. (1981). Effects of varying unit size on spelling achievement in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 200-203.

Carlisle, J. F. (1987). The use of morphological knowledge in spelling derived forms by learning disabled and normal students. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 90- 108.

Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviorism to cognitive behaviorism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design. In- structional Science, 13, 141-158.

Christenson, S. L., Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & McVicar, R. (1989). Written language instruction for students with mild handicaps: Is there enough quan- tity to ensure quality? Learning Disability Quar- terly, 12, 219-229.

Dalton, B., Winbury, N. E., & Morocco, C. C. (1990). "If you could just push a button": Two fourth grade boys with learning disabilities learn to use a computer spelling checker. Journal of Special Educa- tion Technology, 10, 177-191.

Dangel, H. L. (1989). The use of student directed spelling strategies. Academic Therapy, 25(1), 43-51.

Darch, C., & Simpson, R. G. (1990). Effectiveness of visual imagery versus rule-based strategies in teaching spelling to learning disabled students. Research in Rural Education, 7(1), 61-70.

Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Stretton, K., & Hall, R. V. (1983). The peer tutoring spelling game: A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spelling performance. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 225-239.

Deno, S. L. (1990). Individual differences and individual difference: The essential difference in special education. Journal of Special Education, 24, 160- 173.

Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., Lowry, L., & Kuehnle, K. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of spelling and performance on standardized achievement tests (Research Report No. 21). Min- neapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Re- search on Learning Disabilities.

Deshler, D. D., Ferrell, W. R., & Kass, C. E. (1978). Error monitoring of schoolwork by learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(7), 10-23.

Dixon, R. C. (1991). The application of sameness analysis to spelling. Journal of Learning Disabili- ties, 24, 285-291.

Foster, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1983). The effects of directed study on the spelling performance of two sub- groups of learning disabled students. Learning Dis- ability Quarterly, 6, 252-257.

Frank, A. R., Wacker, D. P., Keith, T. Z., & Sagen, T. K. (1987). Effectiveness of a spelling study package for learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 110-118.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Allinder, R. M. (1991). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57, 443-542.

Gerber, M. M. (1985). Spelling as concept-governed problem solving: Learning disabled and normally achieving students. In B. Hutson (Ed.), Advances in reading/language research (Vol.3, pp. 39-75). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gerber, M. M. (1986). Generalization of spelling strategies by learning disabled students as a result of con- tingent imitation, modeling, and mastery criteria. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 530-537.

Gerber, M. M., & Hall, R. J. (1987). Information processing approaches to studying spelling deficiencies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 34-42.

Gettinger, M., Bryant, N. D., & Fayne, H. R. (1982). Designing spelling instruction for LD children: An emphasis on unit size, distributed practice and training for transfer. Journal of Special Education, 16, 439-448.

Graham, S. (1987). Spelling disabilities. In C. Reynolds & L. Mann (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (Vol. 3, pp. 1490-1491). New York: John Wi- ley & Sons.

Graham, S., & Freeman, S. (1985). Strategy training and teacher- vs. student-controlled study conditions: Effects on LD students' spelling performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 267-274.

Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1979). Spelling research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional




Children, 12(2), 1-16. Greene, H. A. (1954). The New Iowa Spelling Scale.

Iowa City: University of Iowa. Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1978). Test of Written

Language (rev. ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Hasselbring, T. S. (1984). Using a microcomputer for

imitating student errors to improve spelling performance. Computers, Reading and Language Art, 1 (4), 12-14.

Hoffman, F. J., Sheldon, K. L., Minskoff, E. H., Snut- ter, S. W., Seidle, E. F., Baker, D. P., Bailey, M. B., & Echols, L. D. C. (1987). Needs of learning disabled adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 43-52.

Jastak, J. E., & Jastak, S. R. (1965). Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, DE: Guidance As- sociates.

Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels and processing in human memory (pp. 429-446). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Haas, K., Brame, T., & Boren, R. (1978). Imitating children's errors to improve their spelling performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 33-38.

Kershner, J. R. (1990). Self-concept and IQ as predic- tors of remedial success in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 368- 374.

Kerchner, L. B., & Kistinger, B. J. (1984). Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers, and LD students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 329-335.

Larsen, S., & Hammill, D. (1976). Test of Written Spelling. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Lessen, E., Dudzinski, M., Karsh, K., & Van Acker, R. (1989). A survey of ten years of academic intervention research with learning disabled students: Impli- cations for research and practice. Learning Disabil- ity Focus, 4, 106-122.

McDermott, P. A., & Watkins, M. W. (1983). Comput- erized versus conventional instruction for learning disabled pupils. The Journal of Special Education, 17, 81-88.

McGuigan, C. A. (1975). The add-a-word spelling program (Working Paper No. 53). Seattle: Univer- sity of Washington.

Moore, V., & Callias, M. (1987). A systematic approach to teaching reading and spelling to a nine- year-old boy with severely impaired literacy skills. Educational Psychology, 7, 103-115.

Murphy, J. F., Hern, C. L., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1990). The effects of the copy, cover, compare approach in increasing spelling accuracy in learning disabled students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 378-386.

Nulman, J. H., & Gerber, M. M. (1984). Improving

spelling performance by imitating a child's errors. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 328-334.

Ollendick, T. H., Matson, J. L., Esveldt-Dawson, K., & Shapiro, E. S. (1980). Increasing spelling achievement: An analysis of treatment procedures utilizing an alternating treatments design. Journal of Ap- plied Behavior Analysis, 13, 645-654.

Pratt-Struthers, J., Struthers, T. B., & Williams, R. L. (1983). The effects of the Add-A-Word spelling program on spelling accuracy during creative writing. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 277-283.

Read, C., & Hodges, R. E. (1982). Spelling. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 1758-1767). New York: Free Press.

Robinson, J. W., & Hesse, K. D. (1981). A morphemi- cally based spelling program's effect on spelling skills and spelling performance of seventh grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 75(1), 56-62.

Salvia, J., & Hughes, C. (1990). Curriculum-based as- sessment: Testing what is taught. New York: Macmillan.

Stevens, K. B., & Schuster, J. W. (1987). Effects of a constant time delay procedure on the written spelling performance of a learning disabled student. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 9-16.

Summers, E. G. (1986). The information flood in learning disabilities: A bibliometric analysis of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 49-60.

Traynellis-Yurek, E. (1988). Providing an oral fluent model for spelling and reading success. Reading Im- provement, 25, 105-109.

Vallecorsa, A. L., Zigmond, N., & Henderson, L. M. (1985). Spelling instruction in special education classrooms: A survey of practices. Exceptional Chil- dren, 52, 19-24.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Gordon, J. (in press-a). Early spelling acquisition: Does writing beat the computer? Learning Disability Quarterly.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Gordon, J. (in press-b). Which motoric condition is most effective for teaching spelling to students with and without learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities.

Veron, M., Coley, J. D., & DuBois, J. H. (1980). Us- ing sign language to remediate severe reading prob- lems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 46-51.

Winterling, V. (1990). The effects of constant time delay, practice in writing or spelling, and reinforcement on sight word recognition in a small group. Journal of Special Education, 24, 101-116.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Charles A. Hughes, The Pennsylvania State Univer- sity, Department of Educational and School Psychol- ogy and Special Education, 227 CEDAR Building, University Park, PA 16802-3109.




academic instruction || spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: implications...

Documents