handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: a review

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Handwriting and Spelling Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: A ReviewAuthor(s): Steve GrahamSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring, 1999), pp. 78-98Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511268 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 22:41

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 188.72.126.118 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 22:41:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511268?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


HANDWRITING AND SPELLING INSTRUCTION

FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES:

A REVIEW

Steve Graham

Abstract. Students with learning disabilities typically have difficulties with handwriting and spelling, and such difficulties can interfere with the execution of other composing processes, constrain writing development, and mark a child as a poor writer. In order to minimize the negative impact of handwriting and spelling difficulties, I propose that explicit and systematic instruction as well as incidental or natural learning approaches are needed to maximize the development of these two basic writing tools. The application of these approaches with students with learning disabilities is examined, providing a comprehensive review of handwriting and spelling research and practice with these children.

STEVE GRAHAM, Ed.D., is Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Maryland.

Handwriting and spelling difficulties have bedeviled the work of many writers. One section of James Joyce's Ulysses was so illegible that it was mistaken for scrap paper and tossed in the fire by the husband of the third typist trying to decode it; Victor Hugo's papers were described as a battlefield in which killed words were stamped out and new recruits were pushed forward with little order; and F. Scott Fitzgerald could rarely write a page without committing a spelling error (Hendrickson, 1994). Although such illegibilities and misspellings were undoubtebly a nuisance, they appeared to have little if any effect on the writing of these celebrated authors given the output and quality of their work.

The effects of poor handwriting and spelling, however, are typically more pronounced for those just learning how to write. Difficulty mastering these transcription skills can result in at least three unwanted consequences. One, illegibilities and misspellings can influence percep- tions of how well a child writes. When teachers or other adults are asked to rate multiple versions of a paper dif- fering only in handwriting legibility or number of words misspelled, neatly written papers and those without spelling miscues are assigned higher marks for writing

quality than are papers of poorer penmanship or papers containing misspelled words (Chase, 1986; Marshall & Powers, 1969). Two, difficulties spelling words or writing the letters in them can interfere with the execution of other composing processes during the act of writing (Graham, 1990; Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Goleman, 1982). For those who have not yet mastered the mechanics of writing, having to consciously attend to the lower-level skills of getting language onto paper may tax a writer's processing memory (see Berninger this issue), interfering with higher-order skills such as planning and content generation. For example, having to switch attention during composing to mechanical demands, such as figuring out the spelling of a word, may lead the writer to forget ideas or plans already held in working memory. Three, difficulties with handwriting and spelling can constrain a child's development as a writer. Not only are spelling and handwriting skills predictive of individual differences in writing competence (Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, & Whitaker, 1997; Rankin, Brunning, Timme, & Katkanant, 1993), but instruction in these text production skills can lead to improvements in writing performance (Berninger,

Learning Disability Quarterly 78



Vaughn, Abbott, Abbott, Brooks, Reed, & Graham, 1998; Berninger, Vaughn, Abbott, Brooks, Abbott, Rogan, Reed, & Graham, 1997). As Berninger, Mizokawa, and Bragg (1991) noted, difficulties acquiring handwriting and spelling may lead children to avoid writing and develop a mind set that they cannot write, leading to arrested writing development. Furthermore, the act of spelling and handwriting may be so demanding for some young writers that they minimize their use of other writing processes, such as planning and revising, because these exert considerable processing demands as well (McCutchen, 1996).

A recent Peanuts cartoon aptly captured the role of text production skills in children's writing difficulties. As usual, Snoopy is sitting on top of his dog house, type- writer in paw, listening to Lucy critique his most recent production. She lets him know that his writing is terri- ble, and she is unsure which is worse-his writing, spelling or typing. His response is that they are all in this together.

Like this cartoon of Snoopy, difficulty with text production skills contributes to the writing problems experienced by students with learning disabilities (LD). The papers written by these children are often poorly organized, include relatively few ideas, and contain little elaboration (Graham, Harris, MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1991). Numerous mechanical difficulties are also evident, including an inordinate number of spelling miscues (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin, 1995) and slow and uneven handwriting (Graham & Weintraub, 1996). Eliminating such mechanical difficulties through the use of dictation, however, can lead to improved writing performance for students with LD, resulting in text that is longer (MacArthur & Graham, 1987) and qualitatively better (Graham, 1990; MacArthur & Graham, 1987).

An important goal in writing instruction for students with LD, therefore, is to help them master the mechanics of handwriting and spelling. This article examines the teaching of these skills to students with LD. I propose that effective handwriting and spelling instruction for these students includes the use of more traditional, systematic methods of instruction as well as incidental and less formal approaches.

NATURAL APPROACHES TO LEARNING Despite the importance of handwriting and spelling

for writing development, there is considerable disagree- ment about how these skills are best acquired (Graham, 1992; Graham & Harris, 1994a, 1997). On one side of the debate are proponents of the view that these skills can be "caught" by immersing children in a literacy-rich environment, where they have plenty of opportunities

to write and read for real purposes. According to this view, children catch most of the spelling and

handwriting skills they need to learn through writing and reading. Other skills are caught through the use of informal teaching techniques, such as teacher modeling of correct handwriting or spelling or displaying children's writing to increase the likelihood that they will attend to handwriting and spelling in social and practical situations. More formal methods of instruction, including mini-lessons and capitalizing on teachable moments, are also used to provide instruction in a particular skill when the child needs it for something she or he is working on. Proponents of the natural view argue that it is neither necessary nor desirable to teach text production skills systematically or sequentially (Edelsky, 1990).

Even though the concept of acquiring text production skills naturally is not new (see Krashen, 1989), there is very little evidence of the effectiveness of this approach with children with LD. In a comprehensive review of handwriting research, for example, Graham and Weintraub (1996) were unable to locate a single study that directly examined this issue with any group of children. Although a study by Alston (1985) compared schools using systematic and less systematic handwriting instruction, it was not possible to determine if the less systematic condition was consistent with the "handwriting is caught" approach, as this condition was not described.

Fortunately, questions concerning the efficacy of natural learning approaches have not been overlooked by spelling researchers. In a recent review, Graham (1999) identified a variety of studies that provided evidence of the merits of the "spelling is caught" approach. Children with learning disabilities were participants in several of these studies.

In an investigation by Gerber (1986), the misspellings of fourth- and fifth-grade students with LD more closely approximated conventional spellings during a seven- month period of no spelling instruction, whereas the standardized spelling score of a student with LD in a study by Zaragoza and Vaughn (1992) evidenced mod- est improvement following six months of process writing instruction (an approach compatible with the "spelling is caught" view). In contrast, McIntyre (1995) reported that the spelling of three students with LD did not improve following a year of process writing instruction. Taken together, the findings from these three qualitative studies indicate that some spelling knowledge can be caught by students with LD (i.e., Gerber, 1986; Zaragoza & Vaughn, 1992), but that this may not occur for all students (McIntyre, 1995) and that when it does, gains may be limited to providing better approximations

Volume 22, Spring 1999 79



for correct spellings (Gerber, 1986). Based on this evidence, relying on incidental or natural learning methods to teach spelling to students with LD would appear to be a risky proposition.

In two quasi-experimental studies (Kerchner &

Kistinger, 1984; MacArthur, Graham, Schwartz, & Schafer, 1995), the spelling performance of students with LD who participated in a year-long process writing program was similar to that of students with LD in control classrooms. Unfortunately, interpretation of the

findings from these two studies is clouded by a number of methodological issues. In the Kerchner and Kistinger (1984) study, spelling was not taught in one of the two control classrooms. In the MacArthur et al. (1995) investigation, it was not possible to tell if spelling was

taught to control classrooms, as such information was not collected. In both studies, students in the process writing classrooms composed on computers, while students in the control classes did not. Access to spell- checkers and other word processing software may have boosted the spelling performance of children receiving process writing instruction. In any case, the spelling performance of students with LD in the process writing classrooms was not particularly impressive, as children in the Kerchner and Kistinger (1984) study were still one standard deviation below the mean at the end of the school year and students in the MacArthur et al. (1995) investigation misspelled almost one out of five words in their writing at the end of the year. Like the

qualitative studies reviewed earlier, the findings from these two studies are not strong enough to justify an exclusive reliance on natural learning approaches to teaching spelling to students with LD.

For students who do not have a learning disability but find spelling or reading challenging, sole reliance on the "spelling is caught" approach is also not advisable. Poor spellers learn to spell correctly only a small proportion of the words they are not directly taught during a given school year (Curtis & Dolch, 1939; Morris, Blanton, Blanton, & Perney, 1995), and are less likely than good spellers to learn the correct spelling of a word by encountering it in their reading material (Gilbert, 1934a, 1934b, 1935; Ormrod, 1986). Moreover, practice reading individual words has small and variable effects on improving how well poor readers spell them (Lee & Pregler, 1982), and instruction aimed at improving these students' reading skills primarily leads to gains in spelling knowledge, not spelling accuracy (Greaney, Tunmer, & Chapman, 1997; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997; Plessas & Ladley, 1963). Finally, Gettinger (1993) found that writing coupled with invented spelling had a positive impact on the number of words spelled correctly in the journals of poor writers. The effects of incidental

learning were likely overestimated in this study, however, as students were given immediate feedback on every word misspelled in their journal writing. Such immediate and comprehensive feedback is not typically available in most classrooms.

To summarize, the evidence presented so far provides little support for the contention that teachers should rely just on natural learning approaches for handwriting or spelling with students with LD or other children who find spelling or reading challenging. This conclu- sion is bolstered by two other observations in the literature. One, the rhetoric about the advantages of "catch- ing" skills (Edelsky, 1990; Wilde, 1990) has failed to convince many of those on the front line of spelling and handwriting instruction, namely, the teachers themselves. For instance, in a number of studies where teachers or schools adhere to a whole language approach to literacy instruction (e.g., Fisher & Hiebert, 1990; Klesius, Griffith, Zielonka, 1991) or teachers adopt approaches in their classroom consistent with this approach (Pressley, Rankin, & Yokoi, in press; Pressley, Yokoi, Rankin, Wharton-McDonald, & Mistreeta, 1997), many teachers continue to provide formal spelling instruction. This was especially notice- able in a study by Berninger et al. (1998) where none of the teachers who thought that spelling could be caught relied strictly on this approach in their own classroom.

Two, there are a number of limitations to placing too much emphasis on the teaching of skills only when the need arises (this is typically the most formal instructional method included in natural learning approaches). This practice is often reactive rather than proactive (Graham, 1992). When teachers conduct on- the-spot teaching or institute mini-lessons based on their observations, they are often responding to either an established problem or a developing difficulty. Unfortunately, once a problems is well established, it may take an extended effort on the part of the teacher and the student to develop a more desirable practice. Developing difficulties, on the other hand, need to be identified and addressed quickly before they become an established problem. For example, if students in a second-grade class are making the transition to cursive script and experimenting with how to form particular cursive letters in their writing, the teacher needs to spot ineffective approaches to letter formation before they become habitualized. This places considerable demands on the teacher.

Another problem with teaching skills only when the need arises is that teachable moments may not occur for some important skills (the teacher is not present at that time) or may be overlooked. When teachers confer with children during writing conferences or observe




them work, for instance, issues of spelling and handwriting may not be uppermost in their mind. This was illustrated in a study by Fitzgerald and Stamm (1990) where issues of form were rarely addressed by teachers or students during writing conferences.

Although teachers should not expect that students with LD will "catch" all they need to learn about handwriting and spelling, natural learning methods are an important part of the instructional mix. This can be illustrated by considering the role of writing in the development of text production skills. Not only does frequent writing contribute to children's spelling progress (see studies reviewed above), it plays a central role in the development of handwriting fluency. The more children write, the more their handwriting skills become automatic and fluent (Graham, 1992). Writing also provides the appropriate context for children to apply and test the knowledge and skills that they are taught directly, whereas writing for real purposes and audiences accentuates the importance of correct spelling and legible handwriting in practical and social situations (Graham, Harris, & Loynachan, 1996). Perhaps most important, the reason for teaching text production skills in the first place is to enhance children's ability to communicate.

Lessons Learned Some proponents of natural learning approaches have

argued that direct instruction in text production skills is undesirable because it is ineffective and inherently unin- teresting. As Krashen (1989) indicated in his critique of spelling instruction, "The tragedy is that time devoted to spelling could have been used for activities we know are good for language development, activities that are more pleasant for both children and teachers" (p. 451). Although the claim that directly teaching spelling or handwriting is ineffective is inconsistent with a considerable body of research conducted with students with LD (Gordon, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1993; Graham & Weintraub, 1996; McNaughton, Hughes, & Clark, 1994) and their regularly achieving peers (Graham, 1983; Graham & Weintraub, 1996; Loomer, Fitzsimmons, & Strege, 1990), such critiques are useful because they induce introspection and critical analysis leading to a better understanding of both the advantages and limitations of more explicit methods of instruction.

Like critics of natural learning approaches, oppo- nents of direct teaching point out that children cannot possibly learn all they need to know about handwriting and spelling via explicit instruction. In a logical analysis of spelling curricula, for example, Wilde (1990) argued that such approaches deliver much less than promised. She indicated that spelling programs typically focus on the learning of about 720 words a year (20

words by 36 weeks). According to her estimates, the typical student can already spell about 65% of these words before they are introduced, learn another 12% incidentally, and leave knowing about 95% of the 720 words, for a total gain of 130 words over the course of about 45 hours of instruction (or one word learned for every 20 minutes of instruction). Although one might quibble with the various estimates made by Wilde, the number of weekly spelling words introduced in the traditional basal spelling series falls considerably short of the 10,000 or more words most adults use in their writing (Graham & Miller, 1979).

If children do not learn all they need to know about text production through formal instruction, it would seem to be especially important to focus instruction on the skills most needed. Critics argue that many of the text production skills taught to students with LD or their normally achieving classmates are only marginally useful. Susan Ohanian (1994), a whole language teacher, questioned the relevance of teaching "schwas" and the rules for syllabication (two common staples of basal spelling programs), as good spellers often do not under- stand or use these skills. She drolly noted that her experience of filling in for a "direct instruction" teacher con- vinced her she was tone deaf when it came to hearing vowel distinctions: "Oh, I could hear the difference between '0' and 'U' well enough, but I'm talking about the distinction between 'eh' and 'uh"' (p. 10). Similarly, other critics have questioned the value of teaching both manuscript and cursive script to students, since students are often encouraged to abandon manuscript writing once cursive has been acquired (Graham & Miller, 1980).

Critics have further complained that children do not always apply the text production skills that are taught, because there is little or no connection between instruction in these skills and the context in which they are to be used (Palinscar & Klenk, 1992). This was depicted in a recent Sally Forth cartoon. The Forths' daughter, Hillary, is upset with her Dad because he is not asking her to spell the words in the order in which they are listed. She tells him that she has memorized the words in the order they are listed-nobody told her anything about having to know them! Many parents who have helped their child study for a spelling test have experienced this or a similar scenario. It is also not uncommon to hear parents or teachers express concern that words spelled correctly on spelling tests are misspelled in subsequent writing assignments.

Another criticism of directly teaching handwriting and spelling skills is that such instruction can be tedious. Wilde (1990) suggested that the best way to gain an appreciation for the dullness of some commonly used spelling exercises is to imagine yourself in the student's




place, completing the following types of activities to

practice the spelling of a word: unscrambling it, writ-

ing it in an incomplete sentence, writing it in response to a definition, and writing it in response to a description (i.e., "has double letters"). She argues that such exercises are not only boring and pointless, but ineffi- cient as well.

These criticisms have important implications for direct teaching of handwriting and spelling instruction. One, instruction should be both pleasant and interest-

ing for students. Teachers can make spelling more

engaging, for example, by including student choice as

part of the selection and study of words, allowing peers to study and work together, helping students discover

patterns in the spelling of words, and using games to learn and practice spelling skills (Graham et al., 1996; Harris, Graham, Zutell, & Gentry, 1998). Two, it is

important to limit explicit instruction to knowledge, skills, and strategies most likely to yield a "high rate of return." This is especially important when working with children with LD, as they are typically less efficient learners than their normally achieving peers (Graham, 1985). Three, handwriting and spelling instruction should not occur in isolation, but must be intimately connected to children's writing and reading in order to support transfer. With spelling, for instance, words to be studied can be selected directly from children's writing and reading. Students can be asked to hunt for words in their writing and reading that fit spelling patterns emphasized in class. New spelling words can be added to a personalized spelling book that the child uses as a spelling aid during writing. Students can also be taught strategies, such as spelling by analogy, to help them fig- ure out the spelling of unknown words while writing. Four, handwriting and spelling should be both "caught" and "taught," as most children are unlikely to learn all they need to know when only one of these approaches is emphasized. This is supported by studies in spelling, for instance, where "caught" and "taught" approaches influenced different aspects of spelling performance (Clarke, 1988; Gettinger, 1993) and where a combination of the two approaches yielded higher gains in spelling performance than either alone (Butynec- Thomas & Woloshy, 1997).

Ignoring Mechanics When Writing A particularly controversial creation of natural learn-

ing approaches is the recommendation to ignore mechanics when writing. This involves not worrying about legibility or correct spelling until the final draft of the paper is written. This proposition is based on the belief that children will be able to write faster and produce more text if they are not concerned with problems of legibility and correct spelling, and that the appropriate

time to worry about these issues is when editing the final draft (Graham et al., 1997). Scardamalia and Bereiter (1986), however, caution that developing writers may not be able to switch off attention to mechanics at will, as their intentional control over these skills and the

writing process may not be sufficiently developed for this to occur effortlessly. Although there is little direct evidence of the validity of Scardamalia and Bereiter's concerns, several recent studies with children with LD

suggest that they can attenuate their attention to these skills. Weintraub and Graham (1998) found that fifth- grade students with LD were able to adjust the legibility and speed of their handwriting upon request, whereas De Le Paz, Swanson, and Graham (1998) reported that eighth-grade students with LD were able to ignore spelling miscues when revising their papers for content.

Invented spelling is the primary mechanism by which students are encouraged to ignore spelling when writing. This rather simple procedure of encouraging children to spell unknown words however they "sound" has been lionized as the most important new

concept in spelling (Wilde, 1990) and demonized because it flouts the conventions of correct spelling (Levy, 1995).

Despite the heated rhetoric surrounding the use of invented spellings, I located only two studies that eval- uated its application (Clarke, 1988; Gettinger, 1993). These two investigations provide support for the belief that writing benefits if students are not overly concerned with spelling when composing, as first graders increased how much they wrote in one study (Clarke, 1988) and second graders improved the quality of their journal writing in the second study (Gettinger, 1993). Although it is not possible to say if these same effects would occur with older students or children with LD, it was encouraging that these effects occurred for poor spellers in both studies.

Nevertheless, critics are concerned that children will not outgrow or will remain welded to invented spellings once their use is encouraged. One basic assumption underlying this supposition is that the use of invented spelling does not contribute to children's growth as spellers. The two studies cited above suggest that this is not the case, however, as first graders using invented spelling outperformed their traditional spelling peers on two tests involving spelling accuracy (Clarke, 1988), and second graders correctly spelled a greater percentage of self- selected words in their journal writing when using invented spelling versus a more traditional word study approach (Gettinger, 1993). Although these two studies support the use of invented spelling with young writers, other findings illuminate some of the potential limitations of this approach. First graders who used invented




spellings in the Clarke (1988) study, misspelled more words in their writing than their counterparts using traditional spelling. Furthermore, second graders in the Gettinger (1993) investigation were more likely to misspell teacher-selected words when they wrote them via invented spellings in their journals versus studying them directly.

A second assumption made by critics of invented spelling is that this strategy is eventually outgrown or abandoned. Instead, the process of spelling a word as it sounds appears to be the predecessor of the more sophisticated generate-and-test strategy commonly used by more mature spellers and described by Simon and Simon (1973). This strategy involves generating a possible spelling of an unknown word and checking to see if it looks right. The strategy is similar to invented spelling in that both involve generating a possible response, but differs in the use of a testing strategy to see if the spelling is correct. More competent spellers are able to undertake such a test because they can rec- ognize the correct spellings of more words than they can recall (Nisbet, 1939).

A third assumption is that invented spellings lead children to learn incorrect spellings that they must unlearn later (Brown, 1990). According to this view, the process of spelling words incorrectly or reading incorrectly spelled words in one's own or the writing of others leads children to remember these misspellings and this may interfere with the subsequent learning or use of correct spellings. For example, I consistently misspell "particularly" when typing, even though I now know its correct spelling, because I automatized an incorrect pattern of keyboard strokes ("particualrly") when creat- ing a spelling for this word years ago.

Despite the obvious importance of this issue, few studies have examined the effects of misspellings with school-age children, and the findings from these investigations are mixed. In two studies reported by Ehri, Gibbs, and Underwood (1988), inventing a spelling for a pseudoword before practicing its correct spelling did not have a detrimental effect on how well it was spelled by children in grades 2 through 4. Similarly, Bradely and King (1992) found that asking fifth-grade students to identify whether a misspelling underlined in a sentence was correct or incorrect did not adversely affect their ability to spell the word correctly, although they did note that the spelling accuracy of a few students was significantly impaired as a consequence of attending to misspellings. In contrast, Drake and Ehri (1984) indicated that exposing children to the phonetic spelling of a word ("swich' bord") along with the correct version (switchboard) had a disruptive effect on learning the spelling of the word, as fourth-grade students tended to

recall incorrect letters seen in the misspelled phonetic version. Similarly, other investigators (Caisley, 1982; Jacoby, 1983) have found that exposure to misspelled words as part of a proofreading task adversely influenced children's subsequent spelling of words. Clearly, additional research is needed to resolve this issue, and it is especially important that future investigators employ procedures that are more ecologically valid, capturing better the processes that occur when invented spelling is used in the classroom.

TEACHING HANDWRITING Manuscript, Cursive, D'Nealian, or Italics?

One of the most fundamental issues in explicitly teaching handwriting to students with LD involves the script(s) students are to be taught. In the United States, children are typically taught both manuscript and cursive, as the former is usually introduced in kindergarten or grade 1 and the latter in grades 2 or 3. One relatively common variation on this theme is to teach slanted manuscript letters that more closely resemble their cursive counterparts (the D'Nealian alphabet) versus the more traditional manuscript alphabet characterized by round upright letters that resemble type (Graham, 1992). The purpose of this modified, slanted manuscript alphabet is to make the transition between manuscript and cursive writing easier and more efficient. Despite the generally agreed-upon practice of teaching both manuscript and cursive writing, some educators have challenged the desirability of teaching both, leading to recommendations that only manuscript be taught (Groff, 1964) or that cursive be emphasized from the start (Early, 1973). Still others have advocated the exclusive use of italics (Moilamen & Lehman, 1989).

The seemingly simple decision of what script(s) to teach has been complicated by unsubstantiated, frivolous, and inaccurate claims on the part of proponents of a particular style and a lack of evidence clearly favoring one script over another (Graham & Weintraub, 1996). Take, for instance, the use of slanted manuscript (D'Nealian). According to advocates, slanted manuscript is better than traditional manuscript because: (a) it makes the transition to cursive easier, (b) letters are formed using a single stroke, and (c) traditional manuscript may hinder beginning reading development (Thurber, 1983). The first claim is unsubstantiated as there is no convincing evidence that slanted manuscript makes the transition to cursive writing easier or, for that matter, results in better handwriting (Graham, 1993/1994). The second claim is frivolous as continu- ous stroke can and has been used with traditional manuscript. The third claim is inaccurate as the use of traditional manuscript in the early grades may actually




facilitate reading development (see the review by Graham & Miller, 1980).

Not only is there a lack of evidence favoring a specific style of manuscript, but commonly assumed distinctions between manuscript and cursive script are being questioned as well. Much of the available research, conducted 30 or more years ago, indicated that manuscript is more legible, but cursive is written faster, although manuscript is as fast as cursive when instructional

emphasis and practice are equivalent (Graham & Miller, 1980). A recent study by Graham, Berninger, and Weintraub (1998), however, failed to substantiate these assumed differences in a sample of 600 children in grades 4 through 9. There was no difference between the

legibility or handwriting speed of students who used

manuscript to write versus those who used cursive. Even more interestingly, children who used a combination of

manuscript and cursive (40% of the sample) had the fastest handwriting and, in some instances, the most

legible writing. Unfortunately, research examining the effectiveness

of different scripts with students with LD is nonexistent. Even so, I would like to proffer the following recommendation. Instruction should start with traditional manuscript letters for three reasons. One, most children come to kindergarten and first grade already knowing how to write some letters. These are typically traditional manuscript letters taught by parents or preschool teachers (Graham, 1992). Learning a special alphabet, such as D'Nealian, means that children will have to relearn many of the letters they can already write. Two, there is some evidence (although it is dated) that traditional manuscript is easier to learn than cursive writing (see Graham & Miller, 1980). Three, once traditional manuscript is mastered, it can be written as fast and possibly even more legibly than cursive (Graham et al., 1988; Graham & Miller, 1980). If cursive is introduced to students with LD, it should be taught after they have mastered manuscript (or in some instances as an alternative for students who are unable to master manuscript or refuse to use this script because it looks "babyish"). Furthermore, students should not be discouraged from continuing their use of manuscript even though cursive is taught as well.

Regardless of which script(s) a child is taught, it is important to realize that children will inevitably develop their own style. This may involve using slightly more curved lines, eliminating clockwise movements, combining letters from different scripts, and eliminating or modifying some connecting strokes (Graham et al., 1988; Graham & Weintraub, 1996). Such modifications appear to be aimed at increasing handwriting efficiency, as they are commonly associated with faster handwriting.

Thus, teachers who insist on a strict adherence to a particular model are likely to frustrate not only themselves but their students as well.

Letter Names A few years ago, a teacher told me that a young child

asked how to write "elemeno," thinking that 1, m, n, and o were all one letter (the child probably inferred this from the alphabet song where the cadence speeds up for these four letters). Because the name of a letter is likely to serve as a cue for retrieving the motor program for writing it (Berninger & Graham, 1998), students need to be able to quickly and easily name the letters of the alphabet, match each name to its appropriate letter, and write letters when named. Two examples of procedures designed to strengthen these links include (a) naming each letter as it is initially practiced and (b) the alphabet practice game where the student writes the letter that comes after a series of five designated letters (e.g., c, d, e, f, g) and then writes the letter that comes before them (see Brooks, Vaughn, and Berninger in Part II of this special issue). Letter Forms

The basic goals of handwriting instruction are to help students develop writing that is legible and that can be produced quickly with little conscious attention. A critical ingredient in achieving these goals is teaching students an efficient pattern for forming individual letters. Commonly used procedures for teaching a letter include: overtly modeling how to form the letter; comparing and contrasting features of the target letter with other letters that share common formational characteristics; using visual cues (e.g., numbered arrows) and sometimes even physical assistance in forming the letter; providing practice tracing, copying, and writing the letter from memory; supplying praise as well as corrective feedback on how the letter is formed; encouraging students to evaluate their efforts by identifying correctly formed letters and correcting poorly formed ones; and dramatizing student progress through the use of charts or graphs (Graham & Miller, 1980). In contrast, asking students with LD to overtly verbalize the steps for forming a letter while learning it does not appear to be a viable practice (Graham, 1983), possibly because this practice uses up limited working memory resources (Berninger & Graham, 1998).

Although not all of the above methods have been empirically validated with students with LD, several studies show that the handwriting of these students can be improved through an astute combination of such procedures (e.g., Berninger et al., 1997; Faulke, Burnett, Powers, & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1973). For example, Berninger et al. (1997) reported that examining a model of the letter marked with numbered arrows (indicating the




nature, order, and direction of component strokes) combined with reproducing the letter from memory produced the best handwriting performance in a study with first-grade students at risk for handwriting problems.

Some teachers are not sure how much time students should spend practicing individual letters. It is not a good idea to apply massed practice procedures, where students practice the same letter over and over again in a single setting. Instead, once a letter is introduced, students should spend a short time carefully practicing it under the teacher's direction and evaluate the quality of their efforts (e.g., circle your two best formed letters). The letter should then be reviewed and practiced in subse-

quent sessions as needed. A study by Berninger et al. (1997) provides a different example of how to actualize

spaced practice. Twice weekly, students spent 10 minutes writing each letter of the alphabet using a specific instructional procedure (see the above paragraph for an example) and then wrote a brief paper, providing an opportunity to apply the skills they were practicing in a meaningful context.

Difficult letters. In an interview, Harold Pinter, the famed playwright, once told a story about how he was introduced as a very good writer, and a six-year-old boy promptly asked him if he could do a w (Gusso, 1996). I suspect that w was a difficult letter for this young man and he judged the writing capability of others accord- ingly. In a study involving 300 children (Graham, Berninger, & Weintraub, 1999), my colleagues and I identified letters that were particularly difficult for children in grades 1 through 3. Six letters accounted for 48% of the omissions, miscues, and illegibilities students made when writing the lower-case letters of the alphabet. These letters were: q, j, z, u, n, and k. When only illegible responses were considered, the following five letters accounted for 54% of miscues: q, z, u, a, and j. Teachers should pay particular attention to these letters during instruction, as they may pose special problems for young writers.

Pencil Grip and Paper Position In a Peanuts cartoon, Lucy is sitting in class reading

a list of possible indicators for learning disabilities, including slow recall of facts, spelling miscues, and an unstable pencil grip, when Charlie Brown's pencil flies from his hand. Like this cartoon, it is not unusual for teachers to report that children with LD do not use the standard tripod pencil grip-namely, the pencil is held between the thumb and index finger, resting on the distal phalanx of the middle finger, about an inch from the point. Often overlooked is the finding that it is not uncommon for children to modify the traditional tripod grip or use a different grip altogether, as 50 to 75% of children make such modifications

(Graham & Weintraub, 1996). It also does not appear that variations in handwriting grip are related to how legible or fast most children write (e.g., Ziviani & Elkins, 1986).

These findings should not be taken to imply, however, that pencil grip is not important. A child who has a "two-fingered death-grip" on the tip of the pencil is likely to complain of fatigue or even discomfort when asked to write for a sustained period of time. To help ensure that children do not develop such a pencil grip, it is essential that students be encouraged and prompted to use a reasonably comfortable grip, such as the tripod method, as soon as they start school. Once a child firm- ly establishes a preferred grip, it is very difficult to get her or him to change it. Some teachers have reported that aids, such as a rubber band or tape placed on the pencil as a reminder of where the fingers go or specially designed writing pens that have a natural resting place for the fingers (available from Zaner-Bloser, Columbus, Ohio), are useful. Regardless of the type of grip initially taught and reinforced, it should be remembered that children will make some modifications or refinements in how they hold the writing instrument as they mature (Graham & Weintraub, 1996).

In addition to pencil grip, teachers need to attend to how children position their paper when writing. Paper position influences the degree and direction of slant in letters. When children are taught traditional manuscript letters, they are typically encouraged to place the page squarely in front of them with the left side at about the center of the body (Graham & Miller, 1980). When the transition to cursive is made, it is usually recommended that the paper be rotated about 45 degrees counterclockwise. It is critical to remember that left-handed writers should be encouraged to rotate their paper somewhat clockwise and hold their pencil slightly farther back than right-handers do (see Graham & Miller, 1980). Left-handers who position their papers like right-handers (rotated somewhat clockwise) are likely to develop an inverted grip, and this may influence both the speed and legibility of their writing.

Handwriting Speed When asked to write connected text, the handwriting

speed of students with LD is likely to be slower than that of their regularly achieving counterparts, and they will probably not be as successful in responding to requests to write faster (Weintraub & Graham, 1998). It is generally believed that handwriting speed develops gradually as a consequence of writing connected text (Graham, 1992). Thus, the most common recommendation for increasing handwriting speed is to have children write frequently. Other methods for increasing




handwriting speed include self-competition on timed exercises and the use of reinforcement to increase motivation. Attempts to increase handwriting speed, however, must be balanced against possible decreases in legibility (Weintraub & Graham, 1998). It is sometimes

possible to make more dramatic gains in handwriting speed without a decrement in legibility, when a child's slow rate of production is due to some interfering fac- tor such as off-task behavior. For instance, Hallahan, Lloyd, Kosiewicz, Kauffman, and Graves (1979) were able to increase the handwriting fluency of students with attention difficulties by cueing them to monitor their on-task behavior.

A study by my colleagues and I (Graham, Berninger, Weintraub, & Shafer, 1998) provided normative data on handwriting speeds for children in grades 1 through 9. The norms were established by asking children to copy the paragraph from the copying subtest of the

Group Diagnostic Reading Aptitude and Achievements Tests (Monroe & Sherman, 1996) as quickly as possible without any mistakes. Students copied the paragraph for 1.5 minutes. Because handwriting speed was influenced by gender, data are reported separately for girls and boys. Girls' mean handwriting speed in letters per minute was: 21 (grade 1), 36 (grade 2), 50 (grade 3), 66 (grade 4), 75 (grade 5), 91 (grade 6), 109 (grade 7), 118 (grade 8), and 121 (grade 9). Boys' mean handwriting speed in letters per minute was: 17 (grade 1), 32 (grade 2), 45

(grade 3), 61 (grade 4), 71 (grade 5), 78 (grade 6), 91 (grade 7), 112 (grade 8), and 114 (grade 9). Neatness

Although not all students with LD have handwriting difficulties, their writing is typically less smooth, more variable, and less legible than the writing of their regularly achieving peers (Graham & Weintraub, 1996). As a result, it is important that students with LD develop the skills necessary to ensure that the papers they turn in for class assignments are acceptable in appearance. A study by Anderson-Inman, Pine, and Deutchman (1984) provides an example of one method for accom- plishing this goal. They taught special needs students nine skills for making their papers neater (e.g., good erasures). When this instruction was combined with a self-evaluation checklist to ensure that each skill was used during writing, the overall appearance of students' papers improved. Somewhat similarly, Blandsford and Lloyd (1987) found that the appearance of the journal writing of students with LD improved by encouraging them to evaluate their sitting position and the formation and spacing of letters as they wrote. Finally, Weintraub and Graham (1998) reported that simply asking students with LD to write as neatly as they can improved the overall legibility of their writing.

Motor Training Some students with LD who have handwriting diffi-

culties receive services from occupational therapists. These services are usually aimed at strengthening children's motor control and are based on the assumption that this will have a positive carryover effect to children's handwriting. Although there is some evidence that the training of fine-motor skills can have a positive impact on handwriting performance (e.g., Laszlo & Broderick, 1991), it is also possible that handwriting instruction may improve fine-motor skills (see Brooks, Vaughn, & Berninger, Part II of this special issue). Further research is needed, therefore, to determine if training in fine-motor skills is more beneficial than simply providing handwriting instruction. In addition, research is needed to isolate better the effects of such training, as a study by Rutberg (described in Berninger, Abbott, Reed, Greep, Hooven, Sylvester, Taylor, Clinton, & Abbott, 1997) found that motor training influenced letter formation accuracy, but not auto- maticity or fluency.

TEACHING SPELLING J. Donald Adams noted that good spellers need "the

eye of a hawk, the ear of a dog, and the memory of an elephant ..." (Lederer, 1987, p. 161). This hyperbolic analysis captures the complexity as well as some of the skills involved in spelling a word. First, memory is searched to see if the spelling of the word is stored there. If not, a spelling is generated by segmenting the word's pronunciation into phonemes and accessing corresponding graphemes. Once a spelling is generated, it may further be verified by checking to see if it looks right by comparing it to the form stored in memory or by decoding it (Ehri, 1989; Graham & Miller, 1979). In addition to the operations captured by Adams' observa- tion, the spelling of a word may further be solved by consulting an external aid such as a spell-checker, a dictionary, or a friend. This description of spelling a word highlights the most critical aspects of learning to spell -namely, storing the spellings of specific words in memory, developing the skills needed to generate and check plausible spellings, and using external resources to ensure correct spelling during writing.

Selecting Spelling Vocabulary In a personal reflection sent to Reader's Digest, a

father recalled how pleased he was that his five-year-old son asked him how to spell God after attending church. Imagine his surprise when his son next asked how to spell Zilla (Schueneman, 1994). This anecdote illus- trates one means for selecting spelling words that are to be studied. Students choose the words to be studied, typically selecting them from their writing, reading,




content subjects, and so forth. The advantage of this approach is that the selected words are likely to be of interest to the child or relevant to what is being studied in school. The disadvantage is that it makes managing the spelling program more difficult, as each child has a different list of spelling words. In using this approach with students with LD, teachers need to carefully monitor the process, encouraging children to modify their selections when they are unproductive. In a study by Mosley (1987), students with learning difficulties rarely selected words to learn that they frequently misspelled when writing.

A second approach to selecting spelling vocabulary is to teach words children commonly misspell when writing. Several lists of frequently misspelled words are available (see Farr, Hughes, Robbins, & Greene, 1990; Smith & Ingersoll, 1984). The primary advantage of this approach is that it narrows the range of words taught to the ones children most likely need to study. The value of such lists will vary, however, depending on the percentage of list words the child actually uses and misspells when writing. A modification that addresses this limitation is to have each child study words she or he misspells when writing (although this adjustment increases the burden of managing the spelling program, since each child has an individual spelling list).

A third approach is to teach the words children are most likely to use in their writing, as a relatively small number of words account for most of the words used when writing (Graham & Miller, 1979). My colleagues and I have developed two such lists, one consisting of 850 common words (Graham, Harris, & Loynachan, 1993) and the other 335 common words (Graham, Harris, & Loynachan, 1994). Longer lists are available from Farr, Keller, Lee, and Beverstock (1989) and Smith and Ingersoll (1984). The advantage of teaching frequently occurring words is that it narrows the range of words to be taught to those most likely to be used. As with lists of frequently misspelled words, the value of such lists depends on the percentage of list words each child actually uses and misspells.

A fourth approach is to identify words that fit different but related patterns (ee and ea for the long e sound), so that these patterns can be compared and contrasted as students learn these words. The primary advantage of this approach is that students not only learn the spelling of individual words, but are introduced to commonly occurring patterns that underlie English spelling. The value of this approach will vary depending upon the students' use and mastery of the selected words, the utility of the selected patterns, and the methods used to guide the process of comparing and contrasting patterns

(see Graham et al., 1996, for lists of frequently used writing words for common spelling patterns).

Obviously, the various approaches for selecting spelling words can be intermixed. For instance, students may add recently misspelled words as well as words of interest to a list composed of common writing words selected to illustrate different but related spelling patterns (see Harris, Graham, Zutell, & Gentry, 1998, for examples).

Teaching Spelling Vocabulary In the Sally Forth cartoon referred to earlier, Hillary

complained that she couldn't remember her spelling words unless they were presented in the order in which they were studied. In a cartoon published a few days earlier, she told her mother that it was only Wednesday and that new research shows that the best way to study is to cram right before the test. It will come as no surprise that Hillary's assertion is unfounded. A variety of validated methods for teaching spelling vocabulary do exist, however, and are described below.

Test-study-test. One technique that has been used successfully with both good and poor spellers is the test-study-test method (Graham, 1983; Graham & Miller, 1979). With this procedure, students are first given a pretest to pinpoint which words need to be learned. These words are then studied and the test is readministered to determine which words were mastered. Although the efficacy of the test-study-test procedure has not been specifically examined with students with LD, this format is likely to benefit these children when their spelling lists contain a mix of known and unknown spellings, as they gain information about which words need to be studied and which words are subsequently mastered. A pretest provides little, if any, advantage, though, when students are unable to spell all or most of the words on their spelling lists, and some children will surely resent taking such tests.

Corrected-test method. Another technique that has been used effectively with good and poor spellers is the corrected-test method, where students correct their errors immediately after taking a spelling test or whenever they make a miscue while studying a specific word (Graham, 1983). One corrected-test procedure that has been used successfully with students with LD involves having the child first write an exact imitation of the misspelling and then write the correct spelling of the word next to it (Kauffman, Hallahan, Haas, Brame, & Boren, 1978; Nulman & Gerber, 1984). A second corrected-test procedure found effective with poor spellers consists of correcting a misspelling using standard proofreading marks, followed by writing the correct spelling (Okyere, Herron, & Goddard, 1997).




Systematic study strategy. Teaching or directing students to use a strategy for systematically learning the spelling of words has also benefited a wide range of children (Loomer et al., 1990), including students with LD (Berninger et al., in press; Graham & Freeman, 1986). This practice is based on the assumption that students do not employ effective study procedures when left to their own devices. Although this appears to be the case for some students with LD (see Graham & Freeman, 1986), it should not be assumed that this

premise is valid for all. For instance, Bendell, Tollefson, and Fine (1980) found that students with LD who had an internal locus-of-control orientation learned the

spellings of more words when allowed to study in any manner they chose versus being required to use a teacher-directed study procedure.

A basic issue involved in providing instructional support to students who do not use an effective study strategy concerns who takes the lead in directing the

study process. This can include teaching children a systematic study strategy and then asking them to (a) use it independently; (b) apply it under the watchful eye of the teacher, who renders assistance as needed; or (c)

follow the directions of the teacher who prompts the use of each strategy step. If a study by my colleagues and I is representative (Graham & Freeman, 1986; Harris, Graham, & Freeman, 1988), these three approaches are equally effective in helping students with LD learn new spellings (at least over a short period of time). Nevertheless, an obvious disadvantage of the teacher-directed and teacher-monitored approaches is that they require the teacher's attention and time. One way of reducing these demands is to work with

groups instead of individual students when directing word study (see Frank, Wacker, Keith, & Sagen, 1987, for an example). Student-directed strategy use, in contrast, is less time-consuming for teachers once students have mastered the study procedure, but may produce several problems, including the child's failure to use the strategy when needed or corrupting it to the point that it is no longer effective (Graham & Harris, 1994b). This will need to be carefully monitored, and the teacher may need to hold periodic booster sessions on

why the strategy is effective and how to use it. A variety of instructional elements can be included in

a systematic strategy for learning the spelling of words.


g Table 11

l ffective Word Study Procedures

Kinesthetic Method (Graham & Freeman, 1986) Simultaneous Oral Spelling (Bradley, 1981) 1. Say the word. 1. Teacher reads the word.

11312. Write and say the word. 2. Child reads the word. X \ 3. Check the word and correct if needed. 3. Child writes the word saying the name of each letter.

F 4. Trace and say the word. 4. Child says word again. 5. Write the word from memory, check it, and correct if needed. 5. Teacher examines correctness of written response; child 6. Repeat steps 1-5. corrects if needed. Table 6. Repeat steps 1-5 two times. Copy-Cover-Compare (Murphy et al., 1990) 1. Examine the spelling of the word closely. Visual Imagery (Berninger et al., 1995) 2. Copy the word. 1. Look at word and say its name. 3. Cover the word and write from memory. 2. Close your eyes and imagine the word in your mind's eye. 4. Check the word and correct if needed. 3. Name letters with your inside voice. o l 5. If spelled correctly, go to next word. 4. Open eyes and write word. 6. If spelled incorrectly, repeat steps 1-4. 5. Check spelling and repeat steps 1-4 if the word is not spelled

correctly. C Connections Approach (Berninger et al., 1998)

1. Teacher says word, points to each letter, and names it. I 2. Child names word and letters. L 3. Child shown a copy of the word with the onset and rime

printed in different colors.( 4. Teacher says the sound and simultaneously points to the N

onset and rime in order. 5. Child looks at, points to, and says the sound of the onset and

rime in order.

g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N g O"k11 -WM%111101 IM ,1g

NM=_



Elements traditionally used with poor spellers include: careful pronunciation of the word before writing it (see Drake & Ehri, 1984), writing the word and checking its correctness (see Bradley, 1981), saying the letters while writing the word (see Hulme & Bradley, 1984), tracing the word (see Murphy & McLaughlin, 1990), and visual- izing the letters in the word with eyes closed (Berninger et al., 1995). Although not all of these procedures have been specifically validated with students with LD, each has served as a component or step in a study strategy used to teach spelling to these children (see Table 1).

In addition to more traditional instructional elements, other study components that have been used successfully with poor spellers include marking and studying the part of the word that was missed when writing it (Gettinger, 1985), hearing how an attempted spelling sounds so far via speech synthesis (Wise & Olson, 1992), and saying in sequence the sounds of the letter units (e.g., onset-rime) within the word (Berninger et al., 1998). Like some of the traditional elements described above (e.g., careful pronunciation), these practices have not been validated specifically with students with LD and, therefore, must be used with caution.

Although it is commonly assumed that the motoric element of writing the word is a critical aspect of an effective study strategy, the necessity of requiring students with LD to practice a new spelling by writing it by hand has been challenged in two studies, one with first graders (Vaughn, Schumm, & Gordon, 1992) and the other with third and fourth graders (Vaughn, Schumm, & Gordon, 1993). Vaughn and her colleagues found that students with LD were just as likely to learn new spellings when they practiced words by writing, typing, tracing, or moving letter tiles to spell them. Berninger, Abbott, Rogan, Reed, Abbott, Brooks, Vaughn, and Graham (1998), however, reported that the impact of the motoric element may be influenced by the difficulty of the words children are asked to study. For the poor spellers in this study, the pencil offered an advantage over typing when learning to spell words of high predictability containing single-letter units, whereas typing was superior to the pencil when learning words of mod- erate or low predictability containing multiletter spelling units. Presumably, writing letters required more attentional demands than typing letters for these second-grade children, and this interfered with learning to spell when words were more difficult or demanding. Additional research is needed to determine if this finding holds for older children who are poor spellers, as handwriting is likely to require less attentional resources as children mature.

Because some children with LD have handwriting difficulties or dislike to write, teachers may minimize or

even remove the motoric element from spelling practice, allowing students to study by spelling words aloud (see Aleman & McLaughlin, 1990). The obvious advantage of this tactic is that it eliminates possible interfer- ence due to handwriting difficulties (Berninger et al., 1998) and diminishes resistance due to motivational factors. The potential disadvantage is that students may be less likely to generalize new spellings to their writing, as oral practice is more distant from most current modes of writing (pencil and computer) than practice involving motoric responses.

Another means of minimizing or eliminating the motoric element from spelling practice is to study new spellings by using a recognition rather than a recall format. Thus, instead of writing or typing the word, the child may be asked to select the correct spelling of the word from an array containing several misspellings, receiving feedback on the accuracy of the selection. I do not recommend the use of this procedure with students with LD for two reasons. As noted earlier, exposing children to incorrect spellings may have an adverse effect on children's spelling (Caisley, 1982; Drake & Ehri, 1984; Jacoby, 1983) and, two, Thompson and Block (1990) found that poor spellers learned more new spellings when using a recall versus recognition format.

Distributed practice. Probably the most common way teachers take advantage of the well-established psychological principle that spaced practice is superior to massed practice is to have students study their spelling words on several occasions throughout the week. One variation of this practice that has been high- ly successful with students with LD is the add-a-word spelling program (see McLaughlin, Reiter, Mabee, & Byram, 1991). With this approach, spelling words are practiced each day, and a new word is added to the list and an old one removed once it can be spelled correctly two or three days in a row. Another variation that has been used successfully with students with LD is to have students practice a portion of the spelling list to mastery each day (see Gettinger, Bryant, & Fayne, 1982). An element common to both the add-a-word program and practicing a portion of the weekly words each day is daily testing. This component should not be neglected, as poor spellers in a study by Reith, Axelrod, Anderson, Hathaway, Wood, and Fitzgerald (1974) did not learn as many new spellings when daily testing was omitted from distributed practice.

Decreasing the number of words to be mastered. One problem faced by many children with spelling difficulties is that they have too many new and difficult words to learn each week. They are less likely than their better spelling counterparts to start off knowing the correct spellings of words on the weekly spelling list (Morris




et al., 1995). As a result, teachers may decide to limit the number of new words poor spellers are asked to learn each week. A study by Bryant, Drabin, and Gettinger (1981) provides some support for this practice, as they found that students with LD learned to spell more target words correctly when the number of items to be studied was limited. Although I made an earlier recommendation that weekly spelling lists for students with LD should be limited to 6 to 12 new words (Graham & Page- Voth, 1990), this should be viewed as a very rough guideline-one that should be adapted depending upon the capabilities and motivation of the child.

Cooperative practice. Learning the spelling of new words is viewed as a tedious task by many students (Brown, 1990). One possible means of increasing children's interest is to have them study together. A cooperative learning technique that has provided an effective study format for a wide range of students, including children with LD (Delquardi, Greenwood, Streeton, & Hall, 1983; Maheady, Harper, Mallette, & Winstanley, 1991), is classroomwide peer tutoring. This approach involves a game-like format where the class is divided randomly into two competing teams at the beginning of each week. Once the teams are selected, children are paired within each team to make up tutor pairs. Throughout the week, the pairs work together to learn the weekly spelling list, with each student taking a five- minute turn each day to act as the tutor. The basic study format involves the tutor dictating each spelling word while the tutee simultaneously writes and spells aloud the dictated word. If a word is spelled correctly, a basket or 2 points is awarded. If the word is spelled incorrectly, the tutor spells the word correctly aloud and the tutee must write it correctly three times before being awarded a foul shot or 1 point.

Bonus or referee points are awarded by the teacher for good tutoring behavior. The total points earned by each team are posted daily. At the end of the week, students are tested on their mastery of the words and awarded 3 points for each correctly spelled words. These points are added to the daily totals to determine the winning team, which receives a "Team of the Week" certificate. The certificate is signed by all team members and posted prominently in the classroom or the hall. (For examples of other cooperative spelling study games, see Harris et al., 1998).

Self-monitoring. Some students with LD have difficulty staying on task when studying spelling words. For these students, their study behaviors as well as their spelling performance can be enhanced by asking them to self-monitor attention or productivity (Harris, 1986; Harris, Graham, Reid, McElroy, & Hamby, 1994; Reid & Harris, 1993; Prater, Hogan, & Miller, 1982). Self-monitoring of

attention involves asking students to determine whether or not they are on task and to record the results when cued (typically through randomly taped tones delivered via a headphone). In contrast, self-monitoring of productivity involves recording the number of times they practiced (i.e., wrote) spelling words while studying. Although both approaches have been used successfully with students with LD, teachers are likely to pre- fer self-monitoring of productivity, as it requires no special apparatus.

Goal setting, reinforcement, and public posting of performance. Three methods that have not been validated with students with LD, but are nonetheless promising as they have been used with other special needs students who are poor spellers are goal setting, contingent reinforcement and public posting of student performance. In a study involving special needs students with behavioral and spelling difficulties, McLaughlin (1982) reported that participants learned more new spellings when they set a weekly goal for the number of words to be mastered, and their performance improved even more when they had to progres- sively set higher learning goals. With similar students, McLaughlin and his colleagues (McLaughlin, 1983; McLaughlin, Herb, & Davis, 1980) found that performance on spelling tests could be improved by rewarding each correctly spelled word with a token that could be used to purchase privileges. These effects occurred when reinforcement was contingent on the performance of the individual or the class as a whole. Finally, Struthers, Bartalamy, Bell, and McLaughlin (1983) found that publically posting test scores had a salutary effect on spelling performance of students with behavioral and spelling difficulties.

Technological assistance. An example of the impact of technology on learning the spelling of words was illustrated when a four-year-old responded to the question, Can you spell your name?, by answering: L - A - R - R - Y, Enter. In addition to such incidental learning, computers can also provide systematic support when studying the spelling of new words. For instance, MacArthur, Haynes, Malouf, Harris, and Owings (1990) found that a computer program that provided immediate corrective feedback during practice, required the correct spelling of a word before continuing, and recy- cled misspelled words for later review improved the weekly spelling test performance of children with LD.

Another possible application of computers to the learning of spelling vocabulary involves its use in assessment and program planning. Several studies by Gerber and his colleagues (English, Gerber, & Semmel, 1985; Varnhagen & Gerber, 1984), however, indicate that caution must be exercised when students with LD




are asked to take spelling tests via a computer, as they are likely to misspell some words they already know, possibly because the computer format requires additional cognitive resources to attend to operations such as key search, letter entry, screen monitoring, back- space correction, and so forth. Despite this possible limitation, Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, and Allinder (1991a, 1991b) found that the spelling achievement of students with mild disabilities, including children with LD, could be improved by administering computerized, curriculum-based spelling tests twice a week that provided teachers with information on students' progress as well as feedback on the accuracy of recently tested words and the most frequent types of errors. Accessing such information led teachers to make program adjust- ments for 90% of their students.

A relatively simple technological adaptation that can be used to boost students' scores on weekly spelling tests is to leave a recorded message for parents indicating the words to be studied as well as the correct spelling of each. This procedure has been successful in improving the spelling performance of students with and without LD (Bittle, 1975; Chapman & Heward, 1982).

Questionable techniques. Even though the application of positive practice has helped students with LD learn new spellings (Foxx & Jones, 1978; Singh, Farquhar, Hewett, 1991; Ollendick, Matson, Esveldt- Dawson, & Shapiro, 1980), it is important to realize that this procedure may have negative side effects. Positive practice in spelling typically involves having students write and say each letter of a word correctly five times whenever it is misspelled during practice. Having to repeatedly write words whenever they are missed may be viewed by some students as both tedious and punitive, adversely influencing their atti- tudes toward spelling. For example, 17% of the students in the study by Foxx and Jones (1978) reported that a positive practice program made them like spelling less.

Students with LD have also learned new spellings using the behavioral technique constant time delay (e.g., Stevens, Blackhurst, & Slaton, 1991; Stevens & Schuster, 1987). This procedure involves asking a child to spell a word while systematically increasing the length of time (e.g., 5 seconds) between the request to spell the word and presentation of the correct spelling. A critical issue involving the application of this procedure is its efficiency. In a study by Stevens and Schuster (1987), it took a student with LD approximately four- and-one-quarter hours to learn 15 new spellings. In addition, the procedure is difficult to implement in the classroom unless it is delivered via a computer program (see Stevens et al., 1991, for an example).

A behavioral technique that cannot be recommended for use with students with LD is interspersing known items with unknown items during word study. Singh et al. (1991) found that having students with LD alter- nately study known word spellings with unknown word spellings had no beneficial effects, whereas Cooke, Guzaukas, Pressley, and Kerr (1993) reported that students with behavioral and spelling difficulties learned one-half as many items when known word spellings were interspersed into the word study process.

Maintenance and generalization. A common fea- ture of systematic instruction is that students do not retain or generalize all that is taught. This is also the case in spelling, with poor spellers being especially vul- nerable to this predicament (Morris et al., 1995). Despite the importance of this problem, only a few remedies have been tested with poor spellers. Retention has been improved by briefly reviewing spelling words previously taught (Frank et al., 1987) and by incorpo- rating two additional elements into the study routine: tracing and writing dictated sentences containing the spelling words (Murphy & McLaughlin, 1990). Transfer to composing has been facilitated by writing words in self-generated sentences immediately following the completion of more traditional word study procedures (Diaz, McLaughlin, & Williams, 1990) and by studying words previously misspelled when writing (Pratt- Struthers, Struthers, & Williams, 1983). Since only two of these procedures, spelling review (Frank et al., 1987) and studying misspelled words from writing (Pratt- Struthers et al., 1983), were validated with students with LD, the other methods should be viewed as promising, but not proven.

Knowledge of the Spelling System During a lesson on consonants, a child correctly

identified the picture of a football as a word beginning with "f," but when asked what sound is heard at the beginning of football, he replied: Hut, hut, hut (Charlebois, 1996). Even though the teacher's question elicited an unexpected response, it highlights one skill critical to generating a plausible spelling for a word- knowing how to segment pronunciations into phonemes. Another essential element in determining the spelling of words not already stored in memory is knowledge of phoneme-grapheme relationships (Ehri, 1989). Although some knowledge of the spelling system is acquired incidentally (e.g., Greaney et al., 1997) and other knowledge is obtained as a consequence of spelling vocabulary instruction (Gerber, 1986), students with LD also benefit from explicit instruction in these two areas.

Phonological awareness. One of the most important insights into early spelling development during




the last two decades was the recognition that some children experience difficulty learning to spell because they do not possess an adequate understanding of how pronunciations are segmented into phonemes and how these phonemes are related to print (Blachman, 1991). This has led to the recommendation that activities

designed to promote phonological awareness, or the

ability to analyze and manipulate the sound structure of spoken words, be incorporated into the kindergarten and first-grade curriculum as a preventive measure before children have had the chance to experience spelling difficulties (Adams, 1990; Juel, 1988). This recommendation rests upon a considerable body of evidence that demonstrates that explicitly teaching phonological awareness skills to young children facili- tates spelling achievement (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Castle, Riach, & Nicholson, 1994; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; O'Connor, Notari-Syverson, & Vadasky, 1996). It is further possible that teaching phonological awareness to older students with LD can improve spelling performance, too, as Wise, Ring, Sessions, and Olson (1997) found that the spelling performance of second- to fifth-

grade children with reading problems improved following instruction in phonological awareness. Additional research employing a more rigorous design (i.e., a control group), however, is needed to replicate this finding.

A wide array of activities have been used by researchers to teach phonological awareness to young children, including activities for recognizing words that

rhyme; segmenting pronunciations into syllables; iden-

tifying the sound at the first, middle, or end of a pronunciation; adding, deleting, or substituting sounds within a word; segmenting pronunciations into phonemes; and blending phonemes into words (see Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beler, 1998; Troia, Roth, & Graham, 1998, for examples of activities for teaching phonological awareness). Unfortunately, only a few studies have attempted to isolate or identify the relative contributions of these activities or other factors to improvements in spelling achievement. If a study by Davidson and Jenkins (1994) is representative, learning how to segment pronunciations into phonemes has a stronger effect on spelling performance than learning to blend phonemes into words. In addition, phonological awareness instruction that makes explicit the connections between phonemes and letters is superior to instruction that just concentrates on the sound seg- ments in words (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988; Bradley & Bryant, 1985). Finally, teaching children how to feel how sounds are made as part of training appears to have little if any effect on overall spelling achievement (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997; Wise et al., 1997).

Instruction in phonics. Probably the most under- studied aspect of spelling instruction for students with LD involves instruction in phonics (i.e., teaching phoneme-grapheme associations, spelling patterns, spelling rules, and so forth). Several studies, however, suggest that such instruction contributes to these children's spelling development. Henry, Calfee, and LaSalle (1989) found that the spelling performance of students with LD in grades 2 through 5 improved as a result of

participation in a spelling program emphasizing the teaching of letter-sound correspondences, syllable patterns, root words, morpheme patterns, and strategies for spelling long unfamiliar words. Somewhat similarly, Darch and Simpson (1990) reported that fourth-grade students with LD made greater progress in spelling when taught morphographs, or meaning-based units, than when they learned new spellings using traditional word study procedures.

One commonly recommended approach for helping students learn about the relationship between phonemes and graphemes in spelling is word sorting (Graham et al., 1996). This involves asking children to group words into categories based on their underlying spelling pattern. For example, Zutell (1993) described a word sorting procedure where the teacher designs each weekly spelling list so that words correspond to two or three common spelling patterns. Students are then asked to sort these words into their respective categories and search for other words fitting these patterns. Although word sorting had a positive effect on the spelling achievement of regularly achieving students (Hall, Cunningham, & Cunningham, 1995; Weber & Henderson, 1989), it should be viewed as a promising practice for students with LD, as it has not been validated with this group of children.

Applying what is learned. Students with LD often have difficulty accessing and directing their cognitive resources in an efficient and effective manner (Graham, 1997; Harris, 1982). As a result, I recommend that these children be taught procedural routines, or strategies, that remind them to use their knowledge of spelling as well as structure how they use it. This includes strategies for generating plausible spellings for unknown words and detecting misspellings when they occur.

Two basic strategies for generating plausible spellings include the generate-and-test process and spelling by analogy. As noted earlier, the generate-and-test strategy involves applying available spelling knowledge to generate a plausible spelling and then checking to see if it looks right. A study by Wong (1986) provides an example of a generate-and-test strategy used successfully with students with LD. If students did not know how to correctly spell a word, they would first ask themselves how




many syllables were in the word. They would then generate a plausible spelling, checking to see if they had the correct number of syllables and underlining any part of their response they thought might be misspelled. If necessary, a second and even a third spelling was generated and checked.

Spelling by analogy involves helping students learn how to use knowledge of common rimes (e.g., ight) to spell unfamiliar words. In a study by Englert, Hiebert, and Stewart (1985), students with LD learned to use an analogy strategy based on the rule that parts of words that rhyme are often spelled the same. They first learned to spell "bank words" that contained a specific spelling pattern (e.g., ig) and then used their knowledge of these words (e.g., pig) to help them spell new words that rhymed (e.g., wig). In comparison to children in a control condition who received practice reading and spelling words, students who learned the analogy strategy were better able to spell high-frequency sight words as well as untrained transfer words.

Common strategies for detecting spelling miscues include reading the text aloud, reading it backward, setting it aside for a few days, and printing it in a different font so that it has a new appearance. Presently, only one variation of these methods has been tested with students with LD. Raskind and Higgins (1995) reported that college students with LD benefited from having their text read aloud by another person as they searched for spelling and other miscues. Because students with LD are not particularly adept at detecting and correcting spelling miscues in their writing (MacArthur, Graham, Haynes, & De La Paz, 1996), it is advisable to pair personal strategies such as reading aloud with other tools such as spelling checkers, peer feedback, and so forth (see below). Other Tools

A note from a parent read, "Dear School: Please eckuse John from being absent on Jan. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and also 33" (Lederer, 1987, p. 23). In addition to a calendar, the parent writing this excuse could have benefited from some spelling assistance. One of the most common forms of assistance is to seek help from someone else to either spell a word initially or to check its correctness once it is written. Although the value of such assistance rests upon the skill of the person providing it, even aid from another poor speller may help students with LD. For example, MacArthur and his colleagues (MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham, 1991; Stoddard & MacArthur, 1993) found that the percentage of words misspelled in papers written by students with LD can be reduced when these children edit each other's papers.

A second means of obtaining or checking a spelling is to consult a dictionary. Research on how to teach

dictionary skills or even on the overall value of this tool as a spelling aid is virtually nonexistent. A standard dictionary is of little value, for instance, if children are unwilling to take the time to locate unknown spellings or if they do not possess the skills needed to find specific words (e.g., determining the spelling of the first couple of letters of a word, finding the word in an alphabetical listing, and recognizing the word once the search is narrowed). One potentially promising variation on the standard dictionary for students with LD is a personal dictionary that contains an alphabetical listing of the correct spellings of words that were misspelled previously. This concept can be extended to include wall charts that list the correct spelling of words that children are presently misspelling or difficult words that they are likely to use in current writing assignments.

Spelling miscues can also be reduced by employing computerized aids such as spelling checkers. MacArthur et al. (1996), for example, reported that students with LD were able to find 63% of the spelling miscues in their writing and correct 37% of them when using a spelling checker. This was a considerable improvement over their unaided performance, where they located only 28% of their spelling miscues and corrected just 9%. Nevertheless, spelling checkers do not usually allow students to eliminate all of their spelling miscues, as some spelling miscues are not identified (i.e., the miscue is spelled as another real word), correct spellings are not provided for some words (e.g., unusual or bizarre misspelling), and the correct spelling is not always selected from the list of suggestions. The power of a spelling checker can be enhanced, however, by combining it with other methods for detecting errors, such as reading a hard copy of the text to locate spelling miscues initially missed when using a spelling checker (McNaughton, Hughes, & Ofeish, 1997).

A computerized aid that can further help students with LD detect spelling miscues is speech synthesis. In comparison to their unaided performance, Raskind and Higgins (1995) found that college students with LD located more spelling miscues when they used a speech synthesis system that simultaneously spoke and highlighted the words in their essay. MacArthur (1998) reported that the combination of speech synthesis and word prediction (a program that provides on-line spelling assistance) resulted in 90% spelling accuracy or better for nine- and ten-year-old children with LD (see also the article by MacArthur in Part II of this special issue).

CONCLUDING COMMENTS After reading a paper filled with misspellings, the

playwright George Kauffman confessed to the author, "I'm not very good at it myself, but the first rule about




spelling is that there is only one z in is" (Hendrickson, 1994, p. 220). This is just the type of situation that we want to avoid with students with LD, especially given the negative consequences of spelling and handwriting difficulties for writing development. In order to maximize handwriting and spelling development for students with LD, teachers need to explicitly teach these skills while simultaneously capitalizing on incidental and less formal methods of instruction, such as frequent reading and writing, taking advantage of teachable moments, teacher modeling of correct handwriting and spelling, and so forth. It is also important to realize that an overemphasis on either meaning, process, or form in writing instruction is not in the best interest of the child. Failure to develop competence in any of these areas is likely to hobble a child's writing progress.

REFERENCES Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about

print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adams, M., Foorman, B., Lundberg, I., & Beler, T. (1998).

Phonemic awareness and young children: A classroom curriculum. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

Aleman, C., & McLaughlin, T. (1990). Comparison of audito- ry/visual and visual/motor practice on the spelling accuracy of learning disabled children. Reading Improvement, 27, 261-268.

Alston, J. (1985). The handwriting of seven to nine year olds. British Journal of Special Education, 12, 68-72.

Anderson-Inman, L., Paine, S., & Deutchman, L. (1984). Neatness counts: Effects of direct instruction and self-monitoring on the transfer of neat-paper skills to nontraining settings. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 137-155.

Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.

Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training: Effect on reading readiness. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 208-225.

Blachman, B. (1991). Getting ready to read: Learning how print maps to speech. Timonium, MD: York Press.

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

Berninger, V., Abbott, S., Reed, E., Greep, K., Hooven, C., Sylvester, L., Taylor, J., Clinton, A., & Abbott, R. (1997). Directed reading and writing activities: Aiming intervention to working brain systems. In S. Dollinger & L. DiLalla (Eds.), Prevention and intervention issues across the life span (pp. 123-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Rogan, L., Reed, E., Abbott, S., Brooks, A., Vaughn, K., & Graham, S. (1998). Teaching spelling to children with specific learning disabilities: The mind's ear and eye beat the computer or pencil. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 106-122.

Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., & Nolan, S. (1995). Integrating low- and high-level skills in instructional protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 293-310.

Berninger, V., & Graham, S. (1998). Language by hand: A synthesis of a decade of research in handwriting. Handwriting Review, 12, 11-25.

Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991). Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57-79.

Berninger, V., Vaughn, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Rogan, L., Brooks, A., Reed, E., & Graham, S. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652-666.

Berninger, V., Vaughn, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A., Abbott, S., Rogan, L., Reed, E., & Graham, S. (1998). A multiple connections approach to early intervention for spelling problems: Integrating instructional, learner, and stimulus variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 587-605.

Bittle, R. (1975). Improving parent-teacher communication through recorded telephone messages. Journal of Educational Research, 69, 87-95.

Blandford, B., & Lloyd, J. (1987). Effects of a self-instructional procedure on handwriting. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 342-346.

Bradley, J., & King, P. (1992). Effects of proofreading on spelling: How reading misspelled and correctly spelled words affects spelling accuracy. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 413-432.

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

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Brown, A. (1990). A review of recent research on spelling. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 365-397.

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

Butyniec-Thomas, J., & Woloshyn, V. (1997). The effects of explicit-strategy and whole-language instruction on students' spelling ability. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 291-302.

Caisley, K. (1982). Evaluation of implementing proofreading into the school spelling program. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 221 880)

Castle, J., Riach, J., & Nicholson, T. (1994). Getting off to a better start in reading and spelling: The effects of phonemic awareness instruction within a whole language program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 350-359.

Chapman, J., & Heward, W. (1982). Improving parent-teacher communication through recorded telephone messages. Exceptional Children, 49, 79-82.

Charlebois, D. (1996). Tales out of school. Reader's Digest, p. 74. Chase, C. (1986). Essay test scoring: Interaction of relevant

variables. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 33-41. Clarke, L. 1988). Invented versus traditional spelling in first

graders' writing: Effects on learning to spell and read. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 281-309.

Cooke, N., Guzaukas, R., Pressley, J., & Kerr, K. (1993). Effects of using a ratio of new items to review items during drill and practice: Three experiments. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 213-234.

Curtis, H., & Dolch, E. (1939). Do spelling-books teach spelling? Elementary School Journal, 39, 584-592.

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

Davidson, M., &Jenkins, J. (1994). Effects of phonemic processes on word reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 148-157.

De La Paz, S., Swanson, P., & Graham, S. (1998). Contribution of executive control to the revising problems of students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 448-460.

Delquardi, J., Greenwood, C., Stretton, K., & Hall, 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.




Diaz, N., McLaughlin, T., & Williams, R. (1990). The effects of

practicing words in sentences on generalization of spelling to written work with mentally handicapped students. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 347-353.

Drake, D., & Ehri, L. (1984). Spelling acquisition: Effects of pro- nouncing words on memory for their spellings. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 297-320.

Early, G. (1973). The case for cursive writing. Academic Therapy, 9, 105-108.

Edelsky, C. (1990). Whose agenda is this anyway? A response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller. Educational Researcher, 19, 7-11.

Ehri, L. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 356-365.

Ehri, L., Gibbs, A., & Underwood, T. (1988). Influence of errors on learning the spellings of English words. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 236-253.

Englert, C., Hiebert, E., & Stewart, S. (1985). Spelling unfamiliar words by an analogy strategy. Journal of Special Education, 19, 291-306.

English, J., Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1985). Microcomputer- administered spelling tests: Effects on learning handicapped and normally achieving students. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 1, 26-41.

Farr, R., Hughes, C., Robbins, B., & Greene, B. (1990). What students' writing reveals about their spelling. Unpublished manuscript. Indiana University.

Farr, R., Kelleher, C., Lee, K., & Beverstock, C. (1989). An analysis of the spelling patterns of children in grades two through eight. Bloomington: Indiana University, Center for Reading and Language Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 321 274)

Fauke, J., Burnett, J., Poers, M., & Sulzer-Azeroff, R. (1973). Improvement of handwriting and letter recognition skills: A behavior modification procedure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6, 25-29.

Fisher, C., & Hiebert, E. (1990). Characteristics of tasks in two approaches to literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 91, 3-18.

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

Fitzgerald, J., & Stamm, C. (1990). Effects of group conferences on first graders' revisions in writing. Written Communication, 7, 96-135,

Foxx, R., & Jones, J. (1978). A remediation program for increasing the spelling achievement of elementary and junior high school students. Behavior Modification, 2, 211-230.

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., & Allinder, R. (1991a). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57, 443-452.

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., & Allinder, R. (1991b). Effects of expert system advice within curriculum-based measurement on teacher planning and student achievement. School Psychology Review, 20, 49-66.

Fulk, B., & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1995). Spelling interventions for students with disabilities: A review. Journal of Special Education, 28, 488-513.

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

Gettinger, M. (1993). Effects of invented spelling and direct instruction on spelling performance of second-grade boys. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 281-291.

Gettinger, M. (1985). Effects of teacher-directed versus student- directed instruction and cues versus no cues for improving spelling performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 167-171.

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

Gilbert, L. (1934a). Effect of reading on spelling in the secondary schools. California Quarterly of Secondary Education, 9, 269-275.

Gilbert, L. (1934b). Effect of reading on spelling in the ninth grade. School Review, 42, 197-204.

Gilbert, L. (1935). A study of the effect of reading on spelling. Journal of Educational Research, 28, 570-576.

Gordon, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, S. (1993). Spelling interventions: A review of literature and implications for instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8, 175-181.

Graham, S. (1999). Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223-234.

Graham, S. (1993/1994). Are slanted manuscript alphabets superior to the traditional alphabet? Childhood Education, 70, 91-95.

Graham, S. (1992). Issues in handwriting instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 25, 1-14.

Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781-791.

Graham, S. (1983a). The effects of self-instructional procedures on LD students' handwriting performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 231-234.

Graham, S. (1983b). Effective spelling instruction. Elementary School Journal, 83, 560-567.

Graham, S. (1985). Teaching basic academic skills to learning disabled students: A model of the teaching/learning process. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 528-534.

Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170-182.

Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Weintraub, N. (1999). What letters are difficult for young children? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Weintraub, N. (1998). The relationship between handwriting style and speed and legibility. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 290-297.

Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Shafer, W. (1998). The development of handwriting fluency and legibility in grades 1 through 9. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 42-52.

Graham, S., & Freeman, S. (1986). Strategy training and teacher vs. student-controlled study conditions: Effects on learning disabled students' spelling performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 15-22.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1997). Whole language and process writing: Does one approach fit all? In J. Lloyd, E. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 239- 258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1994a). Implications of construc- tivism for teaching writing to students with special needs. Journal of Special Education, 28, 275-289.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1994b). Cognitive strategy instruction: Issues and guidelines in conducting research. In S. Vaughn & C. Bos (Eds.), Research issues in learning disabilities: Theory, methodology, assessment, and ethics (pp. 47-64). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Graham, S., Harris, K., & Loynachan, C. (1996). The directed spelling thinking activity: Application with high frequency words. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 34-40.




Graham, S., Harris, K., & Loynachan, C. (1994). The Spelling for Writing list. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 210-214.

Graham, S., Harris, K., & Loynachan, C. (1993). The Basic Spelling Vocabulary list. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 363-368.

Graham, S., Harris, K., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of a program of research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89-114.

Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 13, 1-16.

Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1979). Spelling research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 12, 1-16.

Graham, S., & Voth, V. (1990). Spelling instruction: Making modifications for students with learning disabilities. Academic Therapy, 25, 447-457.

Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7-87.

Greaney, K., Tunmer, W., & Chapman, J. (1997). Effects of rime-based orthographic analogy training on word recognition skills of children with reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 645-651.

Groff, P. (1964). Who are better writers - The left-handed or the right-handed? Elementary School Journal, 65, 92-96.

Gussow, M. (1996). Reader's Digest, p. 60. Hall, D., Cunningham, P., & Cunningham, J. (1995). Multilevel

spelling instruction in third grade classrooms. In K. Hinchman, D. Leu, & C. Kinzer. (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice (pp. 384-389). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Hallahan, D., Lloyd, J., Kosiewicz, M., Kauffman, J., & Graves, A. (1979). Self-monitoring of attention as a treatment for a learning disabled boy's off-task behavior. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 27-36.

Harris, K. (1986). Self-monitoring of attentional behavior vs. self-monitoring of productivity: Effects on task behavior and academic response rate among learning disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 417-423.

Harris, K. (1982). Cognitive behavior modification: Application with exceptional students. Focus on Exceptional Children, 15, 1-16.

Harris, K., Graham, S., & Freeman, S. (1988). The effects of strategy training and study conditions on metamemory among LD students. Exceptional Children, 54, 332-338.

Harris, K., Graham, S., Gentry, R., Zutell, R. (1998). Spell it- Write. Columbus, OH: Zaner Bloser.

Harris, K., Graham, Reid, R., McElroy, K., & Hamby, R. (1994). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: Replication and cross-task comparison studies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 121-139.

Hendrickson, R. (1994). The literary life and other curiosities. San Diego, CA: Harcourt & Brace.

Henry, M., Calfee, R., & LaSalle, R. (1989). A structural approach to decoding and spelling. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction (pp. 155-163). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Hulme, C., & Bradley, L. (1984). An experimental study of multi-sensory teaching with normal and retarded readers. In R. Malathesa & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Dyslexia: A global issue (pp. 431- 443). The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Jacoby, L. (1983). Effects of recent prior experience on spelling. Paper presented at the 24th meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Diego, CA.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

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

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

Klesius, J., Griffith, P., & Zielonka, P. (1991). A whole language and traditional instruction comparison: Overall effectiveness and development of the alphabetic principle. Reading Research and Instruction, 30, 47-61.

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.

Laszlo, J., & Broderick, P. (1991). Drawing and handwriting difficulties: Reasons for and remediation of dysfunction. In J. Wann, A. Wing, & N. Sovik (Eds.), Development of graphic skills: Research, perspectives and educational implications (pp. 259-280). London: Academic Press.

Lederer, R. (1987). Anguished English. New York: Laurel. Lee, V., & Pegler, A. (1982). Effects on spelling of training children

to read. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 311-322. Levy, B. (1995). Is 'inventive spelling' the best way? Washington

Post, pp. E 16. Loomer, B., Fitzsimmons, R., & Strege, M. (1990). Spelling research

and practice: Teacher's edition. Iowa City, IA: Useful Learning. Lovett, M., & Steinbach, K. (1997). The effectiveness of remedi-

al programs for reading disabled children of different ages: Does the benefit decrease for older children? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 189-210.

Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, 0. (1988). Effects of an exten- sive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263-250.

MacArthur, C. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 151-166.

MacArthur, C., Haynes, J., Malouf, D., Harris, K., & Owings, M. (1990). Computer-assisted instruction with learning disabled students: Achievement, engagement, and other factors that influence achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 311-328.

MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing with three methods: Handwriting, dictation, and word processing. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22-42.

MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Haynes, J., & De La Paz, S. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. Journal of Special Education, 30, 35-57.

MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & Schafer, W. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278-291.

MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 201-210.

Maheady, L., Harper, G., Mallette, B., & Winstanley, N. (1991). Training and implementing requirements associated with the use of a classwide peer tutoring system. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 177-198.

Marshall, J., & Powers, J. (1969). Writing neatness, composition errors, and essay grades. Journal ofEducational Measurement, 6, 97-101.

McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299-325.

McIntyre, E. (1995). Teaching and learning writing skills in a low-SES, urban primary classroom. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 213-242.




McLaughlin, T. (1983). A comparison of individual and group contingencies on spelling performance with special education students. Child Family & Therapy, 4, 1-10.

McLaughlin, T. (1982). Effects of self-determined and high performance standards on spelling performance. A multi-element baseline analysis. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 4, 55-61.

McLaughlin, T., Herb, C., & Davis, C. (1980). The effects of individual and group contingencies on spelling performance for a special education class. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 4, 263-269.

McLaughlin, T., Reiter, S., Mabee, S., & Byram, B. (1991). An analysis and replication of the add-a-word spelling program with mildly handicapped middle school students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 413-426.

McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Clark, K. (1994). Spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: Implications for research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 169- 186.

McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Ofiesh, N. (1997). Proofreading for students with learning disabilities: Integrating computer and strategy use. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 16-28.

Moilanen, C., & Lehman, C. (1989). The effects of italic handwriting on legibility: The methods and findings of a three-year study. Visible Language, 23, 327-352.

Monroe, M., & Sherman, E. (1966). Group Diagnostic Reading Aptitude and Achievement Tests. Brandenton, FL: Nevins.

Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W., & Perney, J. (1995). Spelling instruction and achievement in six classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 96, 145-162.

Mosley, D. (1987). Spelling. British Journal of Special Education, 14, 59-62.

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

Murphy, J., & McLaughlin, T. (1990). The effects of tactile and kinaesthetic learning in improving spelling performance of a special education student. Reading Improvement, 27, 207-211.

Nisbet, S. (1939). Non-dictated spelling tests. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 9, 29-44.

Nulman, J., & Gerber, M. (1984). Improving spelling performance by imitating a child's errors. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 328-333.

O'Connor, R., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. (1996). Ladders to literacy: The effects of teacher-led phonological activities for kindergarten children with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 117-130.

Ohanian, S. (1994). "Call me teacher." In C. Smith (Moderator), Whole language: The debate (pp. 1-15). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication.

Okyere, B., Heron, T., & Goddard, Y. (1997). Effects of self-correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of the written spelling of elementary school children. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 51-69.

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

Ormrod, J. (1986). Learning to spell: Three studies at the university level. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 160-173.

Palinscar, A., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 211-225.

Plessas, G., & Ladley, D. (1963). Spelling ability and poor reading. Elementary School Journal, 63, 404-408.

Prater, M., Hogan, S., & Miller, S. (1992). Using self-monitoring to improve on-task behavior and academic skills of an adolescent with mild handicaps across special and regular education settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 43-55.

Pratt-Struthers, J., Struthers, T., & Williams, R. (1983). The effects of the add-a-word spelling program on spelling accuracy during cre- ative writing. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 277-283.

Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Rankin, J., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Study of Reading, 1, 148-159.

Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (in press). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal.

Rankin, J., Bruning, R., & Timme, V. (1994). The development of beliefs about spelling and their relationship to spelling performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 213-232.

Raskind, M., & Higgins, E. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141-158.

Reid, R., & Harris, K. (1993). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: Effects on attention and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 60, 29-40.

Rieth, HJ., Axelrod, S., Anderson, R., Hathaway, F., Wood, K., & Fitzgerald, C. (1974). Influence of distributed practice and daily testing on weekly spelling tests. Journal of Educational Research, 68, 73-77.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778-803). New York: MacMillan.

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goleman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 173-210). New York: Academic Press.

Schueneman, W. (1994). Kid questions. Reader's Digest, p. 118. Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1973). Alternative uses of phonemic

information in spelling, Review of Educational Research, 43, 115- 137.

Singh. N., Farquhar, S., & Hewett, A. (1991). Enhancing the spelling performance of learning disabled students: Task variation does not increase the efficacy of directed rehearsal. Behavior Modification, 15, 271-282.

Smith, C., & Ingersoll, G. Written vocabulary of elementary school pupils, ages 6-14 (Monographs in Teaching and Learning No. 6). Bloomington: Indiana University.

Stevens, K., Blackhurst, E., & Slaton, D. (1991). Teaching memorized spelling with a microcomputer: Time delay and computer- assisted instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 153- 160.

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

Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 76-103.

Struthers, J., Bartalamay, H., Bell, S., & McLaughlin, T. (1983). A comparative analysis of spelling techniques across different programs within special education classes. Paper presented at the Association for Behavior Analysis Convention, Milwaukee, WI.

Thompson, M., & Block, K. (1990). Practice format, length of training, and spelling test performance of fifth and sixth graders. Elementary School Journal, 91, 77-86.

Thurber, D. (1983). D'Nealian manuscript-An aid to reading development. Arlington, VA: ERIC Document Reproduction Service (CS 007 057).




Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rahotte, C. (1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 217-234.

Troia, G., Roth, F., & Graham, S. (1998). An educators's guide to phonological awareness: Assessment measures and intervention activities for children. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1-12.

Varnhagen, S., & Gerber, M. (1984). Use of microcomputers for spelling assessment: Reasons to be cautious. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 266-270.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., & Gordon, J. (1993). Which motoric condition is most effective for teaching spelling to students with and without learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 191-198.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., & Gordon, J. (1992). Early spelling acquisition: Does writing really beat the computer? Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 223-228.

Wilde, S. (1990a). Spelling textbooks: A critical review. Linguistics and Education, 2, 259-280.

Weber, W., & Henderson, E. (1989). A computer-based program of word study: Effects on reading and spelling. Reading Psychology, 10, 157-171.

Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (1998). Writing legibly and quickly: A study of children's ability to adjust their handwriting to meet common classroom demands. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 146-152.

Wise, B., & Olson, R. (1992). How poor readers and spellers use interactive speech in a computerized spelling program. Reading and Writing: An Interdiciplinary Journal, 4, 145-163.

Wise, B., Ring, J., Sessions, L., & Olson, R. (1997). Phonological awareness with and without articulation: A preliminary study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 211-225.

Wong, B.Y.L. (1986). A cognitive approach to teaching spelling. Exceptional Children, 53, 169-173.

Zaragoza, N., & Vaughn, S. (1992). The effects of process writing instruction on three second-grade students with different achievement profiles. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 184-193.

Ziviani, J., & Elkins, J. (1986). Effects of pencil grip on handwriting speed and legibility. Educational Review, 38, 247-257.

Zutell, J. (1993). Directed spelling thinking activity: A developmental, conceptual approach to advance spelling word knowledge. In Conference papers: Literacy for the new millenium. First International Conference and 19th Conference of the Australian Reading Association, Melbourne, Australia.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Steve Graham, University of Maryland, Dept. of Special Education, College Park, MD 20742.

Visit CLD's web site

coe .winthrop. edu/cld


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ I



handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: a review

Documents