action research assignment web publish

8/3/2019 Action Research Assignment Web Publish

1/35

1

Impact of Word Study Instruction on the Spelling Performance of a Poor Speller

Impact of Word Study Instruction on Spelling Performance of a Poor Speller

East Carolina University

Abstract


2/35

2


In the current study, the effectiveness of a word study intervention on the spelling

performance of a poor speller was investigated through the use of a pretest-treatment-

posttest single subject experimental design. One second grade girl, identified as being a

poor speller, participated in a four week spelling study. The participant received four

weeks of word study instruction for three times each week at twenty minutes per

session. During both the pretest phase and posttest phase the researcher administered

identical spelling inventories and collected writing samples using the same prompt.

Findings revealed that the intervention of word study increased the participants

percentage of words spelled correctly and percentage of orthographic features on post

assessments. Likewise, results showed positive gains in the participants application of

word knowledge to an independent writing sample.

Introduction

Students with spelling difficulties are often compromised in the following literacy

areas: reading fluency, reading comprehension, word recognition, word identification,

writing quality, and writing length. Inadequacies in literacy can contribute to the downfall

of students learning in almost every content area as they struggle to make sense of

instructional materials that continue to increase in difficulty. The integrated relationship

between spelling, reading, and writing is well grounded in literacy research,

underscoring the critical importance of effective instructional methods for teaching

spelling to all students (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2008). Particularly

troubling was the finding that many students continued to have spelling difficulties even

though their classroom teachers implemented instructional spelling approaches

supported by research (Graham et al., 2008). Just as Graham and Harris (2005)


3/35

3


reported that regular classroom teachers need effective, powerful, research-based

instructional approaches for teaching writing to learners of all levels, it is equally

important that classroom teachers have the same caliber of approaches for teaching

spelling.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of word study instruction

on the spelling performance of a poor speller, both in context and in isolation. In this

regard, an extensive review of current research in the area of spelling instruction was

conducted and the findings are addressed in the subsequent section of this paper. A

second grade student who had been identified by her regular classroom teacher as

experiencing spelling difficulties was provided individualized word study instruction for

three days a week at twenty minutes a session over the course of four weeks. The

supplemental instruction included the following activities: word sorts, word building,

games, and connections to authentic text. The students spelling performances on a

spelling inventory and independent writing sample were administered pre-treatment and

compared with the students spelling performances on a spelling inventory and

independent writing sample administered post-treatment.

It was my hypothesis that the present study would provide additional support and

insight for the implementation of word study instruction as an efficient and effective

approach for regular classroom teachers to utilize for improving the spelling

performance of students with spelling difficulties. In the following section of this paper, I

have presented a review of current research in the area of spelling instruction.

Literature Review of Spelling Instruction


4/35

4


A poor speller is a student who has difficulty spelling words that are at or below

the students grade level in an oral or written medium and in either isolation or within

literacy contexts. Poor spellers are represented throughout student populations

including those with above average intelligence, learning disabilities, reading difficulties,

writing difficulties, etc. The ability to spell is undeniably an important component of ones

overall literacy development. Bear et al. (2008) posited, There is converging evidence

that reading, writing, and spelling development are integrally related (p. 15).

Furthermore, an investigative study by Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa (2002) showed

support for links between spelling and writing and for the development of reading.

Spelling facilitates reading fluency and reading comprehension, as less effort has to be

exerted for decoding unknown words. Additionally, writing is less restricted when

students do not have to struggle with spelling words correctly. The purpose of this

literature review was to support the following three research questions in relation to

word study: (a) Will an intervention of word study result in an increase in the percentage

of words spelled correctly on a spelling inventory for a poor speller? (b) Will there be an

increase in the percentage of orthographic feature points on a spelling inventory? and

(c) Will the student transfer word knowledge to independent writing? First of all,

traditional versus natural learning approaches to spelling development will be

discussed. Secondly, research that supports a multifaceted approach to spelling

instruction will be reported. Lastly, Words Their Wayword study method will be

described (Bear et al., 2007).

In order to effectively address students spelling difficulties within the classroom,

teachers may need to make adjustments to their spelling instruction. Graham et al.


5/35

5


(2008) examined the instructional adaptations that primary-grade teachers made with

poor spellers and found that 42% of the one hundred and sixty-nine teachers surveyed,

made either few or no adaptations in spelling instruction for weak spellers in their

classroom.Surveys were mailed to two hundred and forty-eight teachers that were

randomly selected primary grade teachers across the nation to inquire about their

approaches to teaching spelling, in particular, focusing on what, if any, adaptations were

made for weak spellers. Approximately one hundred and sixty-nine teachers responded

to the two part questionnaire that included both forced-response items and open-ended

items.Of the teachers who reported making adaptations, most of the accommodations

they made were supported by research as being effective for struggling spellers. Both

important and concerting to note, were the 27% of poor spellers in the classrooms of

teachers who made spelling adaptations for students with spelling difficulties. Because

of the integrated relationship among spelling, reading, and writing, it is unfortunate that

there are students with spelling difficulties that are not being adequately addressed in

the classroom (Graham et al., 2008). With the advent of spell checkers one might think

that spelling instruction is no longer necessary, but it is important to note that spell

checkers may not identify spelling errors of words spelled correctly that were either

homophones or typos.

Traditional Versus Natural Learning Approaches

Two major theoretical orientations to teaching spelling include the traditional

method and the natural learning approach. Traditional approaches include systematic,

explicit, and direct instructional methods, whereas, natural learning approaches are

characterized as incidental learning and whole language. With a natural learning


6/35

6


approach, it is assumed that children will pick-up spelling as a by-product of being

immersed in a literacy rich environment. While the idea that students learn to spell

through a process similar to osmosis may be true for some students, current research

has indicated that students who are poor spellers do not easily learn how to spell words

as a result of increased writing or reading times (Graham, 2000). Over the years, there

has been much debate over which direction is most effective for facilitating students

spelling performances. To inform the query of whether or not traditional approaches to

spelling development should be replaced by natural learning approaches, Graham

evaluated over sixty studies that included students ranging from kindergarten through

college with different skill levels from learning disabled, reading disabled, poor speller,

to average student receiving either a natural and/or direct approach to spelling

instruction. For studies in which a natural learning approach was employed, spelling

outcomes for students with spelling difficulties were minimal. Based on the research

examined, Graham concluded that traditional methods of spelling instruction should not

be abandoned in favor of natural learning approaches, but rather, the data as a whole

support a model of spelling development that is multifaceted, involving both incidental

learning and more systematic instruction (p. 245). The research has been consistent in

favoring traditional spelling approaches over the sole use of incidental approaches for

poor spellers (Gettinger, 1993; Graham, 2000; Graham et al., 2002; & Wanzek et al.,

2006). Likewise, the preference for implementing traditional spelling practices has been

reflected in classrooms nationwide according to a study conducted by Graham et al.

(2008) that involved one hundred and sixty-nine primary grade teachers in which most

of the teachers surveyed reported utilizing a direct instructional approach to teaching


7/35

7


spelling with approximately only 2 % of the teachers reported not teaching spelling at

all.

Multifaceted Instructional Approach to Spelling

Research by Graham (1999, 2000) supported the current thought that there is

not a one size fits all strategy for teaching spelling. Accordingly, Graham et al. (2008)

found that almost all of the teachers taught spelling using a multifaceted approach

which often included the implementation of research-based spelling practices. The

majority of the teachers in the study used memorization and generalization spelling

approaches, with about 50% of the teachers employing developmental approaches

(Graham et al., 2008). Gettinger (1993) also reported improved outcomes in spelling

from using more than one approach.

Students With Below Average Language Skills

In one study that supported a multiple instructional orientation to spelling,

Gettinger (1993) conducted a sixteen week research study in which four second grade

boys alternately received direct spelling instruction and an invented spelling approach

for the purpose of investigating the impact of the two different approaches on the

students spelling accuracy and quality of writing samples. The four second grade

students were from the same classroom, two with above average language skills and

two with below average language skills. In conjunction with the direct spelling approach,

the students received guided spelling word practice. Also, during the invented spelling

method, the students participated in a creative writing center. Each week the students

were instructed and assessed on six targeted words. The impact of direct instruction

and invented spelling was compared by using a crossover design. A ten-minute timed


8/35

8


writing assignment in which all six words were to be used and a spelling test were

administered every Friday. Furthermore, students completed a rating for their enjoyment

level of the writing center activities. In addition to determining the number of correct

targeted and non-targeted words that were spelled correctly, independent raters used a

five point-rating scale to identify the qualitative nature of the writing samples in relation

to those of other second graders. This study provided support for incorporating both

invented spelling and direct instruction into a literacy program. When students received

direct spelling instruction and isolated word practice, their spelling performances were

better than when they were receiving the invented spelling approach. While the

students enjoyment rating scale demonstrated their preference for the invented spe lling

approach, an experimenter attributed this to students dislike ofhaving errors corrected.

The research showed advantages to both approaches for improving spelling and writing

samples. As previously noted, the students spelled better when instructed under the

direct approach. The invented spelling method received higher preference ratings from

students. Three of four students writing samples had higher ratings, and there were

more correct spellings of non-targeted words than found under the direct procedures.

Students with Reading Difficulties

Similar to other studies supporting a direct instructional approach to spelling,

Graham et al. (2002) found that poor spellers benefited from spelling instruction that

was explicit and systematic. Graham et al. examined the impact of supplemental

spelling instruction on the spelling, writing, and reading performances of fifty-four

second grade students with reading difficulties. This study investigated the relationship

between spelling and writing and between spelling and reading. Participants were


9/35

9


randomly placed into either a spelling or mathematics instruction group to receive

instruction that lasted for six months. Students were pretested on their spelling, writing,

and reading abilities through the following assessments: Wechsler Individual

Achievement Test(spelling subtest), Test of Written Spelling-3, Writing Fluency Subtest

of the WJ-R, Word Identificationand Word Attack Subtests of the Woodcock Reading

Mastery Test-Revised. Graduate students implemented both the spelling and

mathematics instruction three times a week for twenty minutes each session. Students

in the two groups were paired. Students in the spelling group outperformed the students

in the mathematics instruction group in the following three areas: spelling, writing, and

reading. Contrary to the researchers prediction, students writing of stories did not

improve in length or quality with increased spelling instruction.

Additional proponents of using a traditional spelling approach, Ehri, Satlow, and

Gaskins (2009) found that when comparing two direct spelling methods, the Key-Plus

Programwas more effective than the Basic Key Programfor teaching spelling to

struggling readers. According to the researchers, this may be attributed to the fact that

the Key Plus Programrequired student to segment words into phonemes, to compute

grapheme-phoneme relations within words, and to notice spelling patterns that recurred

in different words (182). The longitudinal study by Ehri et al. consisted of two groups of

students with reading difficulties that received instruction in either one of two systematic

phonics program, the Basic Key Programor the Key-Plus Programover four years. The

Basic Key Programused a keyword analogy approach to teach students how to decode

words. The Key-Plus Programadded a grapho-phoemic component that taught

students to analyze keywords into grapheme-phoneme constituents (p. 181).


10/35

10


Participants included one hundred and two predominantly Caucasian first, second, and

third graders who struggled with reading. Interestingly, by the end of the third year, the

difference between the spelling scores of key students and the key- plus students was

insignificant.

Students with Learning Disabilities

In further support for employing spelling practices from both a natural and direct

instructional orientation, Graham (1999) found that students with learning disabilities

benefited from both natural and direct instructional practices. Graham reviewed

research conducted about handwriting and spelling development in students with

learning disabilities and concluded, in order to minimize the negative impact of

handwriting and spelling difficulties explicit and systematic instruction as well as

incidental or natural learning approaches are needed to maximize the development of

these two basic writing tools (p. 78).

In support of implementing a direct instructional approach for teaching spelling,

the following study by Wanzek et al. (2006) examined nineteen spelling and reading

intervention studies conducted from 1995 through 2003 to determine their impact on the

spelling growth in students with learning disabilities. Their findings were consistent with

similar research about effective spelling interventions for students with learning

disabilities. Wanzek et al. identified the common characteristics of effective spelling

instruction for students with learning disabilities as follows: explicit instruction, multiple

practices, and immediate feedback when spelling words. Additional findings included

positive support for the use of time delay procedures, systematic study practices, and

students working with peers on study words. There were a limited number of studies


11/35

11


that examined the effect of reading interventions on spelling performance for students

with learning disabilities, thus the authors recommended that more information was

needed in this area. After the spelling interventions, all students experienced gains in

spelling in seventeen of the nineteen studies.

Students with Writing Difficulties

Similar to other research in regards to the effectiveness of explicit and systematic

instruction in teaching students with reading, writing, and/or learning difficulties, Graham

and Harris (2005) found that additional handwriting and additional spelling instruction

positively affected students quality of writing. The researchers examined studies about

the effectiveness of instructional practices for struggling writers in the primary grades

conducted by the Center on Accelerating Student Learningfrom 1999-2004. The

studies reviewed supported the researchers assumption that all children can learn.

Graham and Harris suggested that, due to the small number of teachers who make

instructional adaptations for struggling writers, teachers need to use powerful

instructional approaches found effective with all levels of writers.

Students with Mild Mental Retardation

Another study demonstrating the effectiveness of employing direct instructional

techniques for teaching spelling included the work of Joseph (2002). The effects of

implementing a combination of two word study methods on word recognition and

spelling performance of words with the CVC spelling pattern of three first grade students

with mild mental retardation were examined by Joseph. Findings from this study

supported research on the effectiveness of using direct spelling methods for increasing

spelling abilities and word recognition skills. Students were individually screened to


12/35

12


determine word identification and spelling abilities prior to instruction. Word box

instruction and word study instruction were implemented for forty minutes on a daily

basis. The results showed that all students experienced improved outcomes in their

spelling and word recognition skills with the use of both word box and word sort

methods. Joseph concluded that, the repeated exposures to words in multiple contexts

using a combination of word boxes and word sorts appeared to be effective for

facilitating and maintaining successful performance in identifying and spelling CVC

patterned words (p. 127).

Words Their WayWord Study

Words Their Wayword study is a research-based, developmental, hands-on

approach to learning about words within the context of meaningful literacy (Bear,

Invernezzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2008). During word study, students use critical

thinking to sort pictures and/or words into categories based on a words speech

sound(s), meaning, or spelling pattern. Students examine pictures/words to find

similarities, differences, and inconsistencies. An important aspect of word study that

typical spelling, phonics, and vocabulary methods lack is that it empowers students in

their learning of words because the knowledge is transferrable to additional words.

Typical approaches to phonics, spelling, and vocabulary often rely on isolated

memorization, in which students are not utilizing their high order thinking, as they do in

the word study practice. Furthermore, unlike typical approaches to learning about

words, word study is designed to begin with what students already know and starting

instruction at this pointkey to differentiating instruction, which can easily be assessed

from an informal diagnostic spelling inventory. Bear and Barone (1989) conducted a


13/35

13


year-long study to illustrate how students spelling performance can be used to

appropriately group students for word study and directed reading in the primary grades.

Educators have a variety of appropriate word study activities from which to choose to

implement such as the following: different types of word/picture sorts (partner, sound,

silent, speed, blind, writing, etc.), games, and word/picture hunts that can be modified

for all levels of learners including those whose primary language is Spanish.

An important question concerning the word study approach to spelling instruction

is the extent to which word knowledge transfers to students independent writing. In an

effort to supplement the limited research regarding the application of word knowledge

taught through developmentally appropriate word study instruction to independent

writing, Williams and Hufnagel (2005) and Williams and Phillips-Birdsong (2006)

conducted studies that addressed the impact of word study instruction on independent

writing. In the earlier study, Williams and Hufnagel used a whole-group instructional

approach of word study instruction with twelve kindergarteners journal writing. The

researchers decision to use whole group instruction rather than developmental small

group instruction was based on the following reasons: the homogeneity of the students

(exclusive of their literacy knowledge), the limited kindergarten day of 2 hours, and

the fact that students were already grouped for reading instruction. Williams and

Hufnagel found that students ability to transfer word knowledge taught during word

study instruction, varied depending on the students level of spelling knowledge and

ability. The researchers concluded their findings warranted the need for small group

developmental instruction, which is underscored as a fundamental principle in the

Words Their Wayword study approach.


14/35

14


In a later study, Williams and Phillips-Birdsong (2006) examined the effect of

small-group developmental word study instruction on the independent writing of six

second graders. Researchers found it challenging to provide developmentally

appropriate word study instruction to guided reading groups because not all students

needed similar word study instruction. Students received word study instruction once a

week through the activities and games as outlined in Words Their Way: Word Studyfor

Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction. Twice a week, students were instructed

to write for twenty minutes in their journals on any topic that interested them. The

researchers were unable to follow the protocol of ten to fifteen minutes each day of

word study activities due to the limited instructional time that would be affected by

managing and transitioning three reading groups and three word study groups. Based

on their findings that illustrated the inconsistencies in students transfer of word study to

independent writing, the researchers concluded,

The assumption is that students will apply this conceptual knowledge as they

read and spell words. Word study instruction, in and of itself, however does not

explicitly teach children how to use this conceptual knowledge while composing

extended text, which is far more cognitively demanding than using the

orthographic principles to spell isolated sample words. If word study is to move

beyond spelling instruction and become a meditational tool for writing, then some

students will need explicit demonstrations of the ways in which authors apply

word study concepts as they are composing meaningful text. In addition to daily

word work and writing time, students need to participate in frequent shared and

interactive writing experiences in which their teacher makes explicit how they can


15/35

15


apply the spelling strategies and orthographic patterns of word study to the

writing process (Williams & Phillips-Birdsong, 2006, p. 457).

For both aforementioned studies, the authors reported the limitations of their

research, specifically, the first study failed to provide developmentally appropriate

instruction to all students when the researchers used a whole group approach rather

than small groups and the later study lacked frequency in the implementation of word

study instruction.

Conclusion

In summary, the research reviewed for this paper clearly supports the use of a

multifaceted approach when teaching spelling, utilizing both systematic and incidental

learning. Moreover, the research consistently emphasized the need for providing poor

spellers with a direct approach to spelling instruction that is both explicit and systematic

as a means for maximizing students progress in the area of spelling. After reviewing the

literature and findings above, the Words Their Wayword study method will be employed

in the current research study (Bear et al., 2008). In particular, this approach will be

appropriate for the identified student, in as much as, it provides a systematic, direct

teaching model.

Methodology

Participants

One 7-year old second grade student attending an elementary school located in

a suburban middle class neighborhood in southern New Jersey participated in this

study. The student was a Caucasian female and her primary language was English. The

student was identified by her regular classroom teacher as experiencing difficulty with


16/35

16


spelling. The student and her mother granted informed consent for participation in the

study (Appendices A and B, respectively)

As the researcher of this study, I was not teaching and was the principal

investigator. I conducted all of the research processes as follows: collected data,

analyzed data, developed and implemented instruction, and, administered and scored

all pre and post treatment assessments. I was a graduate student enrolled in the Master

of Arts in Reading Education Program at East Carolina University. At the time of the

study, I had completed more than four graduate courses in the area of literacy

education. My experience with the Words Their Way Word Study Programincluded two

semesters under the supervision and guidance of a university professor while working

with a student in a one-to-one setting and one semester working with a small group of

students (Bear et al., 2008). Prior to beginning this study I obtained IRB approval

(Appendix C).

Research Design

SINGLE SUBJECT PRE-TEST TREATMENT POST-TEST

S1 O1 X O2

A pretest-treatment-posttest single subject experimental design was used. Two

baselines were established during the pretest phase from both the percentage of words

spelled correctly and percentage of orthographic feature points based on results from

the Primary Spelling Inventory(Appendix D) prior to implementing the instructional

intervention (Bear et al., 2008). A writing sample was collected from the participant

using the following prompt: Describe what a fun day would be for you. A third baseline

was established after the treatment phase in order to include the percentage of words in


17/35

17


which the targeted orthographic features were correctly applied in the independent

writing sample. Targeted orthographic features were defined as the spelling features

focused on during the word study treatment phase, which were confirmed at the end of

the treatment phase. Thus, results from the pretest spelling inventories informed the

researcher in determining the appropriate spelling features to study. The treatment

phase included the implementation of word study instruction for four weeks. Posttest

phase data (Primary Spelling Inventory(Appendix D) and a writing sample that used the

original prompt) were collected after the treatment phase (Bear et al., 2008).

Measurements

The spelling inventory used in this study was included in the Words Their Way

Word Study Programas a reliable tool for testing a students spelling abilities and

identifying a students developmental spelling stage (Bear et al., 2008). The Primary

Spelling Inventory(Appendix D) is a test that requires writing words in isolation after

they are read aloud and used in a sentence (Bear et al., 2008). Because I was working

with a second grade student, the Primary Spelling Inventory(Appendix D) was the most

appropriate assessment tool, as noted in the text this inventory could be used in

kindergarten through third grade (Bear et al., 2008). Care was taken to not include the

words found in the Primary Spelling Inventory(Appendix D) in the word study

instructional lessons because this spelling inventory was the same one administered

during the last two weeks of the study (Bear et al., 2008). If the participant had directly

studied the words used in the Primary Spelling Inventory(Appendix D), the end

assessment would not be a reliable measure of whether the participant had learned the

correct spelling through the investigation of words with similar orthographic features or


18/35

18


whether the word had been learned as a sight word (Bear et al., 2008).

The Primary Spelling Inventory Feature Guide(Appendix E), also included as

part of the Words Their Way Word Study Program, was utilized to analyze the results of

the Primary Spelling Inventory(Appendix D) for the purpose of identifying the

participants developmental spelling stage and which orthographic features the

participant knew, did not know, and was using but confusing (Bear et al., 2008).

To assess the participants transfer of word knowledge of targeted orthographic

features, an independent writing sample was collected by using the prompt, Describe a

fun day would be for you.

Data Analysis

I compared the percentage of correctly spelled words from the pretest phase with

the percentage of correctly spelled words from the posttest phase. Also, I compared the

percentage of orthographic feature points from the pretest phase with the percentage of

orthographic feature points from the posttest phase. I used bar graphs to illustrate the

effect of the word study intervention on the spelling performance of the student. The

mean pretest percentage score was compared with the mean posttest percentage

score. I compared the percentage of words in which the targeted orthographic features

were correctly applied in the independent writing samples from the pretest phase with

the percentages from the posttest phase. I displayed the data in a bar graph to illustrate

the effect of the word study intervention on the participant s independent writing.

Possible Intervening Variables

Some minor threats to the validity of my research included the following: data

collector characteristics, location threat, data collector bias, implementation effect, and


19/35

19


attitudinal effect. The fact that I planned and implemented the word study instructional

lessons helped control for the threats of data collector bias, implementation effect, and

attitudinal effect. Due to the nature of a single subject study and the length of this study,

the following threats were low: subject characteristics, mortality, testing, and history

threats. Because I was not the classroom teacher and I was only in the classroom for

the purposes of administering the spelling inventories, collecting writing samples, and

implementing the word study instruction, the threats to internal validity of the study that I

had the least control of were the extraneous variables and number of changing

variables. Additionally, length of baseline was a threat due to the short duration of

collecting data for my baseline (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).

Procedures

To establish a baseline, I administered the Primary Spelling Inventory(Appendix

D)once a week for two weeks (Bear et al., 2008). When administering the Primary

Spelling Inventory(Appendix D) the participant was asked to write the sounds she

heard and was told that the list of words was not going to be graded (Bear et al., 2008).

I followed the specific instructions for administering the spelling inventory as described

in the resource book, Words Their Way Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and

Spelling Instruction(Bear et al., 2008). I did not want to frustrate the participant by

continuing to call aloud words to spell after she had missed several in a row; therefore, I

stopped the test after calling out 16 words rather than the entire 26 words. The spelling

performance of the participant, therefore, ultimately determined the number of words

that were included on the spelling inventory and for calculating percentages of correctly

spelled words. After administering the Primary Spelling Inventory(Appendix D), I


20/35

20


completed a Primary Spelling InventoryFeature Guide(Appendix E), which provided

me with an analysis of the orthographic features that the participant knew, did not know,

and was using inconsistently (Bear et al., 2008).

I manually calculated the mean percentage of words spelled correctly on the two

pretest spelling inventories. With the results from the Primary Spelling Inventories

(Appendix D), I analyzed the participants spelling using the Primary Spelling Inventory

Feature Guide(Appendix E) and utilized this information to determine which

orthographic features to focus on during the word study instruction (Bear et al., 2008).

Additionally, with the information from the Primary Spelling Inventory Feature Guides

(Appendix E), I manually calculated the mean percentage of orthographic feature points

(Bear et al., 2008). After I administered the second Primary Spelling Inventory

(Appendix D), I collected a writing sample from the participant by using the following

prompt: Describe what a fun day would be for you (Bear et al., 2008).

During the four weeks of treatment, I implemented word study instruction three

mornings a week for approximately twenty minutes each session. I met with the

participant in an empty classroom located across from the regular teachers classroom.

The first word study lesson was planned based on the results of the Primary Spelling

Inventory(Appendix D) which were analyzed by using the Primary Spelling Inventory

Feature Guide(Appendix E) (Bear et al., 2008).The Primary Spelling Inventory Feature

Guide(Appendix E) enabled me to identify the spelling stage of the participant and the

orthographic features the participant was using but confusing, which is where instruction

would be most beneficial (Bear et al., 2008). Based my analysis of the Primary Spelling

Inventory Feature Guide(Appendix E), the participant was in the Late Letter-Name


21/35

21


Alphabetic Stageand word study instruction should focus on short vowels. Instruction

began with short mixed-vowel word families because students in the Late Letter-Name

Alphabetic Stageshould be ready to study mixed-vowel word families (Bear et al.,

2008). When planning word study lessons, I referred to the recommended weekly

schedule in the Words Their Waytext on page 73 and Figure 3-12s lesson plan format

on page 65 (Bear et al., 2008). Preliminary plans were created for the first lesson and

subsequent word study lessons were developed based on the learning performance of

the participant from the previous lesson in order to differentiate instruction to best meet

her needs.

The word study intervention used a hands-on systematic approach that provided

opportunities for the participant to examine words at her instructional level and practice

what she had learned in multiple contexts. For the first lesson, I introduced picture sort

cards and asked the participant to name each one aloud. I modeled how to sort the

pictures by their middle short vowel sound. I started by establishing three headings with

the following picture cards: fan, sock, and drum. Picture sorts have been recommended

for students in the Letter-Name Alphabetic Stagefor developing their phonological

awareness (Bear et al., 2008). Together the participant and I sorted the pictures by

deciding on which column each picture belonged. When introducing new sorts, I

modeled how to sort and how to use critical thinking and problem solving throughout the

sorting process. I encouraged the participant to think about what she was doing by

asking her questions about her sorts. By way of example, I asked her, How did you

decide where to place this picture? Individual sessions followed a predictable pattern

that included the following components: me reading aloud appropriate text, different


22/35

22


types of sorts (picture, word, timed, blind, and writing), word hunts, word study games

and/or word building activities as described in the book, Words Their Way Word Study

for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction(Bear et al., 2008).

After each word study session, I wrote about the instructional time and my

thoughts regarding the session in an online researcher journal that served as a means

of data collection and communication with my supervising professor. I had daily

opportunities to ask questions, receive support, and request guidance from both my

supervising professor and my colleagues.

At the end of the treatment phase, I administered the Primary Spelling Inventory

(Appendix D), once a week for two weeks, the same number of times, using the same

inventory administered during the pretest phase (Bear et al., 2008). With the results, I

completed a Primary Spelling Feature Guide(Appendix E), identical to the guide used

during the pretest phase (Bear et al., 2008). I manually calculated the mean percentage

of words spelled correctly and the mean percentage of orthographic feature points from

the posttest spelling inventories and feature guides to compare with the mean

percentages from the pretest spelling inventories and feature guides (Bear et al., 2008).

Additionally, I collected a posttest independent writing sample using the original prompt.

I manually calculated the percentage of words in which the targeted orthographic

features were correctly applied in the independent writing sample.

Findings/Results


23/35

23


The findings from this study showed positive growth in spelling performance on

the participants posttest assessments. On February 25 and March 2, 2011, I

administered the Primary Spelling Inventory(Appendix D) as a pretest and again on

April 4 and 11, 2011 as a posttest. Additionally, I collected an independent writing

sample using the same prompt on February 25 and April 4, 2011 (pretest and posttest,

respectively). To analyze the results of the spelling inventories, I completed a Primary

Spelling Inventory Feature Guide(Appendix E) for each inventory. Next, I manually

calculated the percentage of words spelled correctly and percentage of feature points of

the two pretest spelling inventories and two posttest spelling inventories. With these

percentages, I manually calculated the mean percentage of words spelled correctly and

feature points of the pretest and posttest spelling inventories.

Figure 1 presents the data regarding the percentage of words spelled correctly

on the pretest and posttest Primary Spelling Inventory(Appendix D). In comparing the

results from the spelling inventory administered on February 25, 2011 (pretest) with the

ones administered on April 4 and 11, 2011 (posttests), the participant demonstrated an

increase in performance of 6.3 % to 12.5 %. In comparing the results from the spelling

inventory administered on March 2, 2011 (pretest) with the one administered on April 4,

2011 (posttest), there is a decrease of 6.2 % in the percentage of words spelled

correctly. There was no difference found between the percentage of words spelled

correctly on the spelling inventory administered on March 2, 2011 (pretest) and April 11,

2011 (posttest).

Figure 1

% of Words Spelled Correctly on Pre and Post Spelling Inventory


24/35

24


Date Administered % of Words Spelled Correctly

February 25, 2011 (pretest) 31.2

March 2, 2011 (pretest) 43.7

April 4, 2011 (posttest) 37.5


Figure 2 displays the data regarding the percentage of feature points calculated

from the Primary Spelling Inventory Feature Guide(Appendix E). The participant

showed an increase of 10.5 % in feature points on the spelling inventory administered

on February 25, 2011 (pretest) when compared with the spelling inventories

administered during the posttest phase (April 4 & 11, 2011). There was no difference in

percentage of feature points between the spelling inventory administered on March 2,

2011 (pretest) and the posttest spelling inventories (April 4 & 11, 2011). It is important to

note that the identical scores on the spelling inventories for the dates of March 2, April 4

and 11, 2011 did not accurately reflect the participants gains in the orthographic

features that were emphasized during word study instruction. The participant only

received 4 out of 7 feature points for short vowels on March 2 nd, whereas on April 4th

and 11th, she scored 7 out of 7 feature points for short vowels. Thus, the data in Figure

2 does not detail the extent of the participants growth in the targeted features. It is

unclear as to why the participant was inconsistent in her spelling of particular words

across the three spelling inventories. This misleadingly affected the feature point scores

and the number of words spelled correctly in regard to demonstrating the participants

progress in using short vowels.


25/35

25


Figure 2

% of Feature Points Calculated on Pre and Post Spelling Inventory

Date Administered % of Feature Points

February 25, 2011 (pretest) 67.5

March 2, 2011 (pretest) 77.7



Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the mean % of words spelled correctly and mean % of

feature points of the pretest and posttest assessments. The participant made gains in

both the mean % of words spelled correctly and mean % of feature points. There was

an increase of 3.2 % for words spelled correctly and an increase of 5.1 % for feature

points.

Figure 3


26/35

26


Figure 4

37.4

40.6

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Pretest Posttest

Mean % of Words Spelled Correctly on

Spelling Inventories

% Correctly Spelled Words

72.6

77.7

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

Pretest Posttest

Mean % of Feature Points on Spelling

Inventories

% of Feature Points


27/35

27


In analyzing the pretest and posttest independent writing samples, I manually

counted the number of words in the participants writing samples that included the short

vowels (targeted orthographic features). From the words that I counted, I recorded any

misspelled words. In order to avoid misinterpretation of the participants

handwriting/spelling, I asked her to read aloud her writing sample while I followed along.

This was enacted after the pretest writing sample and again after the posttest writing

sample. Because the four week treatment phase of word study instruction focused on

short vowels, I was solely interested in determining the percentage of words that the

participant wrote in which she used short vowels correctly. In this regard, I counted the

word castle, which was misspelled as casselby the participant in the posttest writing

sample, as correct.Although the word castle was misspelled, the participants use of the

short awas correct. In the pretest writing sample, the participant misspelled the word

monkeyas makey, which was not counted as correct. The purpose of this

measurement was to evaluate whether or not the participant was applying the features

emphasized during word study to her independent writing rather than how many words

she had spelled correctly. Figure 5 presents the participants percentage of words in

which the targeted orthographic features were applied correctly in the pretest and

posttest independent writing samples. The results demonstrated an increase of 14.3 %

in the participants accurate application of targeted features in an independent writing

sample.


28/35

28


Figure 5

Discussion/Conclusions

This study was conducted to investigate the impact of a word study intervention

on the spelling performance of a poor speller. It was my hypothesis that an intervention

of word study would increase the percentage of words spelled correctly and the

percentage of feature points on posttest spelling inventories. Furthermore, I was

interested in the participants ability to transfer word knowledge to her independent

writing. Results from this study revealed that the participant made positive gains in her

spelling performance. Specifically, when the study began, the participant was in the

Late Letter Alphabetic Name Spelling Stageand by the end of the treatment phase had

moved into the Early Within Word Stage, as evidenced by the results from the posttest

spelling inventories (Bear et al., 2008). Although the results could not be measured by

standard statistical tests due to the small number of data scores, I found it significant

85.7

100

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

Pretest Posttest

% of Words With Targeted Features Applied

Correctly in Independent Writing Sample

% of Words


29/35

29


that the participant started the study with a limited use of the short vowels and ended

the study demonstrating proficiency in all of the short vowels. Findings from this study

are comparable to the findings of previous research investigating the effectiveness of

word study instruction on the spelling performance of poor spellers (Graham & Harris,

2005; Joseph, 2002). Research reviewed consistently emphasized the need for poor

spellers to be taught to spell in an approach that is both systematic and explicit

(Graham et al, 2002). Therefore, I chose to implement Words Their Wayword study

which embodies this approach (Bear et al., 2008).

There were many factors that could affect the validity of these results. The very

nature of a single-subject experimental research design limits the ability to generalize

the results. Ideally, there should have been more participants and a sophisticated

criterion for their selection. As stated earlier, the participant in this study was selected

based on her regular classroom teachers rating of a poor speller. An additional

limitation of this study was the short duration of the treatment phase. Although, the

findings demonstrate the effectiveness of word study instruction on the spelling

performance of a poor speller within a four week time framethe participant received

intense, one-to-one instruction three times a week at twenty minutes each session,

which may not be feasible for most regular classroom teachers. Despite the

aforementioned limitations of this study, I believe that the results of this research extend

the work of earlier researchers who have demonstrated the effectiveness of word study

instruction for improving the spelling performance of students with spelling difficulties.

Furthermore, this study offers additional evidence supporting previous research that


30/35

30


spelling performance of poor spellers is improved by direct instruction that is both

explicit and systematic.

The findings of this study have significant implications for educators who need

powerful, efficient, and effective approaches for addressing the needs of students who

struggle with spelling in the classroom. Research conducted by Graham et al. (2008)

identified that a major challenge for classroom teachers was in providing effective

spelling instruction for poor spellers within the classroom setting. I think teachers should

consider Words Their Wayword study as an effective and efficient approach for

increasing the spelling performance of, not only students with spelling difficulties, but all

students (Bear et al., 2008). This method provides teachers with a variety of word study

activities that can be easily adapted to different learners needs and efficiently delivered

in small groups within a whole classroom context.

Future researchers should investigate the following questions: What is the

impact of small-group word study instruction on the spelling performance of all types of

learners within an entire classroom throughout the school year or longer? Whats the

most effective way to teach students how to apply their word knowledge to reading and

writing outside of word study lessons? What impact would word study have on

students overall literacy learning if implemented school-wide beginning at the

kindergarten level through 5th grade or beyond?

In conclusion, the findings of this study build on earlier research in the

area of spelling instruction and clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of an intervention

of word study on the spelling performance of a poor speller.


31/35

31


Reflection

As a result of completing this action research project, I have grown as a

teacher researcher and teacher leader. Action research in the area of spelling

directly impacts my field of literacy education and has confirmed by belief in

the integrated relationship among spelling, reading, and writing. I learned the

value in reading peer-reviewed journals as a means of informing and supporting

classroom based research. Knowledge and understanding gained through

participation in the process of action research has empowered me to be more

confident in the instructional decisions I will make as a teacher. Furthermore,

participation in this action research project provided on-going

support and feedback from my colleagues and professor. Significantly, this

feedback led to further discussion, reflection and synthesis of my beliefs and

understanding of best literacy practices.

When I begin teaching, Words Their Wayword study will be an important

component of my literacy program (Bear et al, 2008). Importantly, this spelling approach

will enable me to address the needs of those students who are the most behind

in their word knowledge.


32/35

32


Appendix D- Primary Spelling Inventory


33/35

33


Appendix E- Primary Spelling Inventory Feature Guide


34/35

34


References

Bear, D. R., & Barone, D. (1989). Using childrens spellings to group for word study and

directed reading in the primary classroom. Reading Psychology, 10(3), 275-292.

Bear, D. R., Invernezzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008). Words their way:

Word studyfor phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Columbus, OH:

Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Berninger, V. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24(2), 69-80.

Ehri, L., Satlow, E., & Gaskins, I. (2009). Grapho-Phonemic enrichment strengthens

keyword analogy instruction for struggling young readers. Reading and

Writing Quarterly, 25, 162-191. doi:1080//0573560802683549

Gettinger, M. (1993). Effects of invented spelling and direct instruction on spelling

performance of second-grade boys. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 26(3),

281-291.

Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning

disabilities: A review. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22(2), 78-98.

Graham, S. (2000). Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction?

Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 235-247. doi:10.1037//0022

Graham, S. & Harris, K. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling

writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the center on accelerating

student learning. The Journal of SpecialEducation, 39(1), 19-33.

Graham, S., Harris, K., & Chorzempa, B. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to

the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational


35/35

35


Psychology, 94(4), 669-686. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.669

Graham, S., Morphy, P., Harris, K., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Saddler, B., & Moran, S.

(2008). Teaching Spelling in the Primary Grades: A national survey of

instructional practices and adaptations. American Educational ResearchJournal,

45(3), 796-825. doi:10.3102/002831208319722

Joseph, L. (2002). Facilitating word recognition and spelling using word boxes and word

sort phonic procedures. School PsychologyReview, 31(1), 122-129.

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E., Edmonds, M., & Kim, A. (2006). A

synthesis of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on the spelling

outcomes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

39(6), 528-543. doi:10.1177/00222194060390060501

Williams, C. & Hufnagel, K. (2005). The impact of word study instruction on kindergarten

childrens journal writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(3), 233-270.

Williams, C. & Phillips-Birdsong, C. (2006). Word study instruction and second-grade

childrens independent writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(4), 427-465.

action research assignment web publish

Documents