Identifying Reliable Generalizations for Spelling Words: The Importance of Multilevel Analysis

Identifying Reliable Generalizations for Spelling Words: The Importance of MultilevelAnalysisAuthor(s): Mary AbbottSource: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 101, No. 2 (Nov., 2000), pp. 233-245Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002344Accessed: 21/10/2010 10:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

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].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheElementary School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002344?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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

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

Identifying Reliable Generalizations for

Spelling Words: The Importance of Multilevel Analysis

Mary Abbott University of Kansas

The Elementary School Journal Volume 101, Number 2 o 2000 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

0013-5984/2001/10102-0005$02.00

Abstract

Phonics generalizations are often viewed through simple letter-sound correspondence. In this investigation, I examined 45 generalizations written from a spelling perspective. 43 of the 45 met a 75% or greater reliability usage level with analysis at 3 levels of letter-sound correspondences: simple phoneme-grapheme (sound-letter) correspondence, positional effects (syllable or orthographic structures), and effects of syllable stress. Topics discussed in the article include a suggested rationale for results that differed from past usage studies; instructional implications of the analysis; the movement toward "word study" in place of traditional phonics methods; a review of generalization concepts within a student's developmental level; and the importance of teacher knowledge about the structure of English.

Generalizations are rules for reading and spelling English words that help support one's understanding of reliable letter-sound correspondences. They may be written from a reading or spelling perspective. For example, the generalization "In a closed syllable, 'letter a' after a 'w sound' says /o/" is written from a reading perspective, whereas "In a closed syllable (short vowel) the /o/ sound after w, spell with the letter a" is written from a spelling perspective. Generalizations may pertain to simple sound-letter correspondences, syllable or orthographic structures, unique letter order within a syllable, or elements of syllable stress. For decades, many of the basal reading/language arts programs have included some form of phonics generalizations for instructional use. From legislators to educators, the use, nonuse, and/or misuse of generalizations continues to be a topic of debate.

234 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

My analysis of spelling generalizations was motivated by four unrelated events in the 1960s and 1970s: the first was a series of articles concerning the use, reliability, and instructional importance of phonics generalizations that appeared in Reading Teacher

(Bailey, 1967; Clymer, 1963/1996; Emans, 1967). At about the same time, Hanna, Hanna, Hodges, and Rudorf (1966) used a database of over 17,000 words to analyze the structure of English at three levels of sound-letter relationships. Not long after this analysis was completed, teachers Aylett Cox and Sally Childs, along with pediatric neurologist Lucius Waites, developed Al- phabetic Phonics (Cox, 1971), a multisen-

sory instructional approach for dyslexic readers and spellers based on the work of Samuel Orton and Anna Gillingham (Or- ton, 1976). Finally, in the 1970s, Henderson (1985) initiated what are now referred to as the "Virginia studies," which led to a the-

ory of developmental spelling. To study phonics generalizations, Cly-

mer (1963) chose 45 generalizations from then-current reading basals. From a list of 2,600 primary-grade words, he tallied words that matched each generalization and calculated the percentage of the words that "followed the rules" 75% or more of the time. He found that only 18 of the 45 generalizations met the criterion. Clymer (1963) chose generalizations written from a reading perspective; however, generalizations written from a spelling perspective would have yielded similar results. Clymer concluded, "An inspection of the data leaves me somewhat confused as to the value of generalizations. Some time-honored customs in the teaching of reading may be in need of revision" (1963/1996, p. 186). A few years later, Bailey (1967) and Emans (1967) applied the same generalizations to textbook word usage and reached similar conclusions.

In contrast to Clymer's focus only on simple sound-letter correspondence in words, Hanna et al. (1966) used two additional levels of correspondences in the anal-

ysis of their word corpus: positional effects and effects of syllable stress. Simple sound- letter correspondences are what are com- monly thought of as phonics. For example, the sound /b/ corresponds with the letter b. Although this approach works relatively well for consonants, vowels have too many sound-letter combinations to be reliable at the simple sound-letter level. Understand-

ing of reliable vowel usage must include

positional and stress factors. Positional effects involve letter or multiletter order in a syllable and the type of syllable structure. These are often referred to as orthographic structures. For example, in the words no and not, the word no is classified as an open accented syllable with the long vowel name because it has no consonant after the vowel. The word not is classified as a closed syllable because the ending consonant t forces the vowel o to make a short vowel sound. The final level, syllable stress, can produce changes both in word meaning (con' -tract vs. con-tract') and confusion in common spellings such as the schwa sound in unaccented syllables (Cu' -ba, fam' -i-ly, re-li" -a-ble). These orthographic structures are key in any discussion of reliable generalizations because they determine the basic framework of English spellings.

Hanna et al. (1966) collected over 17,000 words from children's word lists and texts, coded them, and entered the data into a computer. Each phoneme (sound) of each word was coded with one of 62 phoneme classifications to create a word formula. For example, the corpus word problem would be coded as P-R-03-B' + L-E3-M, and because it has seven sounds, it would appear in the results seven times. The raw data listed corpus words by phoneme within the catego- ries of syllable position and syllable stress. For example, problem would appear under sound for /p/ in the category initial, accented because the p is found at the beginning of the accented syllable. It could also appear under the sound for /r/ in the category medial, accented because the r is found in the middle of the accented syllable and

NOVEMBER 2000

SPELLING WORDS 235

under /b/ as final, accented because the b is found at the end of the accented syllable. Reporting results in this manner accentu- ated the high percentage clustering of certain sounds in certain positions. For example, when the short o sound, known as 03, is spelled with the letter o, it is found in the medial position of the syllable 88% of the time. The Hanna et al. (1966) study provided a wealth of information about En- glish and some insight into why the Clymer (1963/1996) and Hanna et al. (1966) studies exhibited different results.

Discrepancies between the two studies can be explained by examining four main ar- eas. The greatest discrepancy in results between the two studies arises from Clymer's use of only simple phoneme-grapheme correspondence for analysis compared to Hanna's use of three levels of analysis. An- other area is the precision of the generalizations. For example, Hanna et al. (1966) found that the five short vowels in a closed syllable (CVC, e.g., cat, sit) were consistent about 86% to 97% of the time. Clymer (1963) found the generalization, When a vowel is in the middle of a one-syllable word, the vowel is short, to have a 62% reliability usage. One of Clymer's exception words was fight. Although it has a vowel in the middle of the syllable, the vowel is long and is classified as a vowel team syllable structure. If the term "closed syllable" had been used, his percentage would have improved, re- flecting a more consistent and reliable short vowel sound usage pattern. A third area is the manner in which the language generalizations were derived. The Clymer (1963) article, which reported no theoretical or research backing for generalization usage, relied on the soundness of generalizations from textbook companies, whereas the Hanna et al. (1966) study allowed the computer to discover language generalizations systematically. A final discrepancy between the two studies could possibly be at- tributed to the differences in word corpus size. That is, Clymer's (1963) corpus used 2,600 words; Hanna et al.'s (1966) involved

17,000 words. Regardless of the corpus size, generalizations with no theoretical or research backing, generalizations that com- bine different syllable structures or syllable stress generalizations to form one rule, and generalizations that consider only simple phoneme-grapheme correspondence will produce poorer reliabilities.

Clymer's (1963/1996) historical contribution to orthographic generalization research was his demonstration that many of the generalizations chosen from basal readers have limited instructional value and reliability. The Hanna et al. (1966) study con- tributed evidence that the structure of English is reliable, but the massive amount of raw data from the 1,700-page study needed to be synthesized and transformed into instructionally usable form. The reme- dial reading and spelling curriculum known as Alphabetic Phonics (Cox, 1971) helped to bridge this gap. Through the program, students "discover" the "regular usage patterns" for English spellings that Cox (1971) described as being reliable approximately 85% of the time. In Situation Spelling, Cox (1971) used a series of formulas and text to describe regular and irregular usage patterns based on factors of syllable structure, syllable stress, adjacent sounds, and simple letter-sound correspondence. However, her usage patterns were not written in generalization form.

In the Alphabetic Phonics curriculum, introduction of usage patterns follows a developmental progression. Recent research in the area of developmental spelling has provided new insight into the role development plays in learning to spell. In the late 1960s, as Read (1971) began to catalog the invented spelling errors of kindergarten writers, a pattern of developmental similarities began to emerge. Henderson (1985) ex- tended the work of Read (1971), and over the next several decades, the "Virginia studies" led to a theory of developmental spelling (Bear, Invemrnizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 1996; Bear & Templeton, 1998; Henderson, 1985; Invemrnizzi, Abouzeid, &


Gill, 1994; Johnston, 1999; Schlagal, 1992). This theory explains how students' ortho-

graphic knowledge develops from alphabetic, to patterns of letters, to syllable patterns, to meaning elements as they become skilled readers and spellers. From this research a taxonomy was created that defines word knowledge acquisition from preschool through adulthood (Bear & Temple- ton, 1998; Templeton & Morris, 1999):

1. Prephonemic (prekindergarten to middle first grade): At this stage the child's writing exhibits no understanding of sound/letter relationships. Writing consists of scribbles. Toward the end of the prephonemic level the child begins to include symbols that resemble letters and/or numbers and then to string those symbols in a mock linear row.

2. Semiphonemic/Early Letter Name

(kindergarten to middle second grade): Children at this level exhibit a beginning understanding of sound/letter relation-

ships through use of some consonants in their writing. For example, in the sentence I LK TO P KBL (I like to play kickball), the child supplies beginning sounds as well as several ending sounds and the known word to in the writing. The child uses point of ar- ticulation (where the tongue hits the inside of the mouth) to determine the appropriate consonant sound. Common spellings for the word drive might include J, JV, JF, JRV, or JRF. Toward the end of the early letter name level, the child's writing consistently includes initial consonants and final consonants.

3. Letter Name (early first to early third grade): At this level writers begin to include vowels in their writings, for example, I LIK TO PLA KEKBOL. Both vowel and consonant sounds are represented in each word. These representations often follow a one-to- one correspondence in which the child provides one letter for each sound. LIK might represent the words like or lick, and LOP, LUP, LOMP for lump. Characteristics that indicate that a child is moving beyond the letter name level include (a) use of a single

vowel in each major syllable, (b) most CVC words spelled correctly, (c) inclusion of more blends and digraphs, and (d) words with preconsonant nasals spelled correctly (e.g., m before the p in lump).

4. Within Word (first to middle of fourth

grade): At this level children develop a

deeper understanding of differing ortho-

graphic patterns. As they begin to understand that patterns or groups of letters represent single sounds, they experiment with vowel team patterns in their writing. For ex-

ample, in the sentence WE TIDE THE GAEM (We tied the game), although the child exhibits an understanding of long vowel us-

age patterns, specific letter groupings for

particular spellings are still evolving. Typ- ical spellings at this level might include: CRALL, CRAUL for crawl; BOTE for bought; and SEET, SETE for seat. Writing behaviors that consistently incorporate the correct use of long vowel spellings (jade, boat, flew) and

complex single-syllable word spellings (noise, shout, far) signal advancement to the next level.

5. Syllable Juncture (third through eighth grade): At this level, children work toward extending their understandings of

orthographic patterns that include appropriate spelling convention usage of affixes and multisyllable words. Spellings at this level might include: HOPING for hopping, ATEND for attend, PLESURE for pleasure, and BARBAR for barber. Evidence that students are moving beyond the syllable juncture level includes the correct spellings for most two- and three-syllable words, common prefixes and suffixes (-ed, -ing), and lower-frequency vowel patterns (enjoy, mo- tor, dollar, sailor).

6. Derivational Constancy (fifth through twelfth grade): In this final stage students' understandings broaden to include meaning connections for root word spellings. For example, the syllable accent placement in the multisyllable words photograph and pho- tography results in a change in pronuncia- tion but not in base word spelling. Common spellings for the derivational constancy

NOVEMBER 2000

SPELLING WORDS 237

level might include: OPPISITION for oppo- sition, CRITASIZE for criticize, and BEN- AFIT for benefit. As students become more proficient at this level they begin to demonstrate expertise by correctly spelling words that share bases and roots and by showing greater shading in meaning through vocabulary choices in their writing.

Henderson's (1985) spelling levels provide educators with placement guidelines. They have the potential to assist teachers in determining appropriate curriculum content that is within students' spelling instructional level. However, successful imple- mentation of any instructional strategy requires an empirically based instructional model as well as teachers with sufficient knowledge and training to provide systematic student instruction. Although both preservice and experienced teachers may understand the pedagogical importance of spelling patterns, they may also lack phonological and orthographic knowledge and skills required to teach this information in a coherent manner (Moats, 1994; Scarbor- ough, Ehri, Olson, & Fowler, 1997; Scholes, 1993; Templeton & Morris, 1999). These findings raise the concern that teachers may not be ready to employ instructional tech- niques beyond rote-memory learning of spelling words. Increased understanding about the development of students' reading/spelling knowledge and concerns over teachers' knowledge of appropriate instructional phonics strategies seem to necessitate a fresh look at the reliability of orthographic generalizations. My study addressed the reliability of generalizations based on Cox's (1971) usage patterns and the placement of these generalizations into Henderson's (1985) developmental spelling levels.

Method To prepare for this study, I obtained Hanna et al.'s (1966) word corpus. I then chose 45 of the usage patterns proposed in Situation Spelling (Cox, 1971) and translated the information into orthographic generalizations written from a spelling perspective.

I identified and counted every word from the Hanna corpus that fit each generalization as following or not following the stated generalization. To ensure reliability, an as- sistant followed the same procedure for nine of the 45 generalizations. Interrater reliabilities were at 95% or above for each generalization. The following points were considered:

1. A percentage correct usage of words that "followed the rules" was calculated using Clymer's (1963) 75% criterion. Words that met the 75% or more correct usage mark were deemed high-reliability generalizations.

2. Most phonics rules refer to base word usage. For example, the generalization "In a V-e (vowel-consonant-silent e) syllable structure, the final e is silent and the vowel is usually long," refers to base words such as bribe and make. In English spellings, the spelling of the suffix never changes. The base word changes its spelling to accom- modate the suffix. If the suffix -ing is added to the base words bribe and make, the words become bribing and making. When we calculated the number of occurrences for a V- e syllable structure from the Hanna corpus, words such as bribing and making were counted as the base words (e.g., bribe and make). Each base word was counted only once.

3. An additional component in calculat- ing the percentage of reliability for each generalization involved unique generalizations subsumed under a broad generalization category. For example, the words make and have use the V-e (vowel-consonant-silent e) pattern. Subsumed under the V-e generalization with the long vowel and the silent e is the generalization "English words ending in the /v/ sound are spelled with -ve." Although the word have ends in a silent e, it is considered to be a closed syllable with a short vowel. Because words like have are counted as a separate group of the subsumed generalization, they were not counted as an exception to the broader V-e generalization.


4. Computation was based on English word usage. For example, with the generalization "When the final base word sound is long a, spell with ay," French endings et and ee were not counted as exceptions. In order for a foreign word to be excluded from the exception category, every word with that ending had to be listed with the same foreign origin in the dictionary.

5. We consulted Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1973) to resolve questions between the two raters over word pronunci- ations, origin, and syllable stress.

6. I placed each of the 45 generalizations into the appropriate developmental level based on the descriptions in Bear et al. (1996), Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling.

Results and Discussion Results of the analysis appear in Tables 1- 3. These tables indicate the generalizations categorized within the developmental levels of spelling: letter name stage, within word, and syllable juncture/derivational constancy. Each table represents a developmental level and the generalization chosen for that level. In each table the term "generalization" refers to the most common usage of the generalization. An example of "most common usage" is also provided. The term "predictability" used in the charts refers to the percentage of words that we found followed the generalization. These generalizations, along with their grapheme representations, were considered to be "most common" spellings. Also listed are the "exceptions." These are less common spelling pattern(s) and their usage percentage. A phoneme is indicated by two slashes (e.g., /v/ indicates the sound of v).

Results indicated that 43 of 45 generalizations based on Cox (1971) achieved 75% or greater usage reliability across three developmental levels (Bear & Templeton, 1998). Other reliability usage studies (Bai- ley, 1967; Clymer, 1963/1996; Emans, 1967) for phonics generalizations failed to find

such high reliabilities, primarily because of methodological differences in how the generalizations were chosen and analyzed. When spelling generalizations were written and analyzed within the context of the multiple levels of sound-letter correspondences, reliabilities were higher than previously reported. Because educational research is at least partly responsible for shaping instructional practice, researchers should not un- derestimate the effects that research method may have on classroom instruction. Adams (1990) asserted that the Clymer study "strongly influenced" (p. 257) educational views about the instructional importance of phonics generalizations. In his introduction to the Reading Teacher reprint of the Clymer article, Stahl (Clymer, 1996) also noted that this article is often cited as justification for pedagogic practices such as excluding the teaching of phonics from literacy instruction or limiting phonics instruction to find- ing "regularities in words" (p. 182).

In a discussion of generalization bene- fits, Adams (1990, p. 211) stated, "Direct at- tention to or the prolonged consideration of the particular relations among letters ... can serve only to strengthen the associa- tions that bind them together." Her advice is especially relevant for special popula- tions who often need additional explicit instruction (Berninger et al., 1998; Ehri, 1992; Stanovich, 1986). For example, Berninger et al. (1998) found that explicit instruction was needed for students with disabilities to achieve mastery of concepts such as one-to- one sound-letter correspondences as well as of more complex connections such as multiletter-sound relationships (e.g., igh for the long i sound). Regardless of the student population, educators need to ensure that children obtain a basic understanding of reliable letter-sound correspondences.

Philosophical and pedagogical beliefs of both researchers and educators affect trends in instruction. Bruck, Termain, Caravolas, Genesee, and Cassar (1998) found that although third graders who were instructed using either whole language or phonics ap-

NOVEMBER 2000

SPELLING WORDS 239

TABLE 1. Generalizations with Letter Name Level Characteristics

Generalization Examples of Predictability Examples of Usage (Most Common Usage) Most Common (%) Exceptions (%)

1. In a closed syllable, hat, bet, sit, hot 93a,b vowel y for i-hypnotic spell the vowel with the letter that represents its short vowel sound (CVC).

2. For an accented closed off, hill, mass, discuss 91 gas, us, yes, chef, clef 9

syllable (short vowel) that ends in f, 1, or s, double the consonant.

3. In a closed syllable water, quadratic 86 twang, quack, wax 14

(short vowel), the /o/ sound after w, spell with a.

4. In closed syllable love, won 76 bun, hum 24

(short vowel), /u/ before n, m, v, or th, spell with an o.c

5. /ng/ before /k/, spell bank, sink 100 with an n.

6. Directly after short vowel, pack, sack 99 bloc 1 /k/ at the end of a 1-syllable word, spell with ck.

7. For /k/ in the initial pickle, act, cup, class, 97 ch, as in school, echo, 3 and medial positions, if the next letter is not i, e, or y, spell with c.

8. For /k/ in the initial skill, kept, Kyle 85 kangaroo, kale, okay 15 and medial positions, if the next letter is i, e, or y, spell with a k.

9. /k/ at the end of two picnic, traffic 94 kayak, antique 6 or more closed-syllable words, spell with the letter c.

aLetter name rule 1 for a CVC syllable is a composite reliability of the short vowels a, e, i, o, u. The reliability for each individual short vowel was 90% or better.

bEnding digraphs such as th, sh, ng, ch, ge were counted as one letter because they make only one sound

(e.g., wish and path would not be counted as an exception to the rule). cAlthough rule 4 is the same syllable structure as rule 1, words that followed rule 4 were not counted as an

exception to rule 1. I considered rule 4 to be a sufficiently unique generalization. Words such as sloth and on were counted as exceptions to rule 1.

proaches had similar knowledge about the basics of phoneme-grapheme correspondences and orthographic acceptability, the whole language students failed to spell ap- propriately for their age or grade level. These students also had inferior knowledge about the contexts in which various corre-

spondences were used. Bruck et al. (1998) noted that systematic study of spelling rela-

tionships could "right that balance" (p. 682). A growing group of researchers is now em-

phasizing the importance of systematic phonics instruction for beginning readers and spellers (Adams, 1990; Bear & Temple-

ton, 1998; Byrne, Fielding-Barnsley, Ashley, & Larsen, 1992; Greenburg, Ehri, & Perin, 1998; Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek, &

Perney, 1996; Perfetti, 1997). As children acquire phonological and

orthographic knowledge through reading and spelling practice, they sharpen their lexical skills, precision, and redundancy (Perfetti, 1997). Precision is the knowledge of which specific letter sequence is needed, and

redundancy is the overleaming or automa-

tizing of orthographic or syllable structures. Students demonstrate a more complex and

complete understanding of language con-

Q) \0 CO (= IC J r- -C(=104 1 4 mm N N

ocIcl

A 41

(n (

taa

Q)aC 1 OQ

4-1 M 0 0 ;-.4 Q

"o *~ ~ ? *o "

oOr Va

V a

0 C ( L 41 -

O~

4-0

u (

OO bi ( d "-.q

- d aQ) QJ

>~

Q)d Q) E r. Q)O~c ~ " 4 E Q) t 4-

x cz

I- Q) Q

.,.q u ch -4-5 I u 4-1

Q)

Q) to SQ) Q) t 1?4 "C .,.q n (n Q) 4-0 4-1 =

Q) Q), .,..q Q)(d Q Q) 3 Q) Q)4-1 Q) r P ~ r "C?l I Qm(dd Z) Q) r ) lu OOl ) P U "o -W, to to rg4 .2 4 P-4 *j 4-1 4-1 4-0 "'q c

SQ) u Q) e o "Ca I Z 0 . E~ac to-t? o $5 rC E ~4 4f *J 4-0 ~ (

4-j ;z .,.q .,.q Q)oa k Q) Q) ;Z ;Z 4-05

Q) Q) ( d E f( rrl 3 Q I-n I ml kr J.'^ Q) Q)

240

00 S S 00 N

4 1

4-0~

~o Z-I l a' 0 a4-0

4-0 4-0 ;--4( ( ~ ~ ';

4-000(t

~F ~

k &- QJ ~ Q

ICa\ 0001 C0

"CI 0 0 Q ~

uo > 0d .I! -l

m

4-

4 0 0 Q)

;u Q) 0

o Q) 4-0dQ) Po r. * 4 4-J U

~ 0%,0 0) Q)~Q

Su u w v 4 t , .d Q) 4-0

cIa

O ClOr( l Cl Cl Cl clcl o

4-- %, ?s A

4-0 '2 1 4-0) 4-1

Q) Q) ;-.4 M 4-0 4-0 Q) Q) >k Q 4 4 4-0 kk O~~lc

c, i, a %2, Q)?r 0) ) 0 ?

C) 4- .( nbic 4-0 4-0 C) Q) c m O4-0 u~ u D y uu

th ) Q .b r E;.,4- 4-0 4-0 Q) Q)El

cj U?'Q (t M N 4-0 Q)~ c, 3 Q) Q)= Q) Q) v a Q) Q) Q) 0 d , r, -Mo,^a -N' 3E 0 'N- >a a

241


TABLE 3. Generalizations with Syllable Juncture Level Characteristics

Generalization Most Common Predictability Usage (Most Common Usage) Example (%) Exceptions (%)

1. In words with two or more syllables, baby, evil, idol, 94a hydrate, needle, daisy, open accented vowels a, e, i, o, and u unicorn euphony, peacock, are long. They say and spell their name.

2. In one-syllable and multisyllable words, open, cargo, introduce 91 pillow, show 6 the open vowel o says and spells its name toe, foe 1 in both accented and unaccented positions.b

3. In the middle of the last syllable athlete, cashmere, 86 limousine 17 for words of two or more syllables, spell stampede long e with e-e (e-consonant-e).

4. At the end of a word with two or more penny, buddy 96 movie 4

syllables, the long e sound is spelled with a vowel y.

5. For schwa /o/ in an unaccented syllable, family 86 vagabond, heresy 14 a single-letter syllable in the middle of a multisyllable word is often spelled with i.

6. When o is used for schwa /o/ in the station, explosion 81 zealot 19 middle of the last syllable, it is often spelled -tion or -sion.

7. For a base word that ends in the schwa banana, soda 100 /o/ sound, spell with an a.

8. When the letter e is used for the schwa referent, implement 86 absentee, ostentatious 14 /Q/ sound it is often in the last syllable of the word.

9. In a two-syllable word, for the final table, ruffle 73 tunnel, crystal 27

syllable, /ol/, spell with consonant + le.

NOTE.-The Hanna et al. (1966) study did not include base word, root word, and derivational affix analysis that are prominent concepts in the syllable juncture/derivation constancy stages.

aRule 1 for an open accented syllable is a composite reliability of the long vowels a, e, i, o, and u. Each individual open accented vowel reliability was 86% or better.

bU is the only long vowel that did not have high regularity for its ending sound. Ew as in few was used 53% of the time, ue as in blue 46%, and oe as in shoe 1% of the time.

cepts as they move through predictable de-

velopmental levels.

Although it is generally accepted that basic knowledge of specific sound-letter re-

lationships is an essential preskill for most children in learning to read and spell, instructional strategies that focus only on this area of phonics fall into the same trap as the

Clymer generalizations. Educators need to think of phonics instruction not as simple sound-letter correspondences limited to the

early primary years but as an ongoing "word study" (Bear et al., 1996) that continues throughout a child's education and includes instruction in syllable structure, syllable stress, and root word meaning. Several decades of multidisciplinary literacy research have illuminated important as-

pects of reading and spelling development.

However, bridging the gap between research and sustainable classroom practice presents a different set of challenges.

Changing teacher practice can be a

lengthy and difficult process, even when teachers desire to change (Abbott, Walton, Tapia, & Greenwood, 1999). As my study showed, research by Bear et al. (1996), Cox (1971), and Hanna et al. (1966) required translation into teacher-friendly ortho-

graphic generalizations and assignment to

developmental spelling levels. This would be an impossible task for teachers who did not possess the needed content knowledge. Moats (1994), Scarborough et al. (1997), Scholes (1993), and Templeton and Morris (1999) found that preservice and experienced teachers exhibited a lack of knowl-

edge about the orthographic system. Yet the

NOVEMBER 2000

SPELLING WORDS 243

use of generalizations for reading and/or spelling instruction requires that teachers know the phonological and orthographic structures of English. It also requires a com- mitment from school districts and university personnel to provide appropriate training, which would promote the ongoing use of word study as a viable alternative to traditional phonics, spelling, and vocabulary instruction. This process will require exemplary teachers.

In a recent study of teachers who exhibited characteristics of exemplary literacy instruction, Morrow, Tracey, Woo, and Press- ley (1999) found that instruction included a wide range of word study activities within meaningful, engaging contexts. Word study is an example of the kind of instruction ef- fective teachers use. This activity provides a vehicle for consistent explicit instruction of the multilayered constructs in English by emphasizing student discovery at the students' developmental levels. Use of the discovery method, as is found in the Alpha- betic Phonics program, allows students to determine new language concepts that are built on their existing knowledge base. For example, a student is presented with a list of words that have a common structure or component. As the student and teacher discuss the similarities and differences of the words, a student-generated generalization eventually emerges. Flexibility based on student development is the key for introduction, application, and reinforcement of generalizations through word study.

For students who require minimum instruction in learning to read and spell well, mechanically learning spelling pattern rules, which they have already internalized and can generalize easily to unknown words, is a waste of instructional time. That is, there is no need to be reminded of the generalization that teaches when to spell the /k/ sound with letter c or with letter k (cat vs. kiss) if the student has already intuitively figured out and internalized that information. However, for the students who have been unable to intuitively glean

the structure rules of English from their en- counters with words, introduction to and more structured work with reliable usage generalizations could help build the framework from which internalization and generalization might begin.

Morrow et al. (1999) also reported that exemplary teachers took the initiative to broaden their theoretical knowledge base and sharpen pedagogy by obtaining ad- vanced degrees, attending conferences, and reading professional journals. Finally, exemplary teachers were open to modifying instructional practice. They were willing to include "varied experiences that were de- velopmentally appropriate and also included an emphasis on skills ... [that] was explicit, direct, and systematic" (p. 474). Be- fore teachers will be able to successfully implement word study and the use of generalizations, they must (a) reorganize their understanding of the components of good literacy instruction to include a solid knowledge of how English is structured, (b) learn the characteristics of student developmental levels, and (c) use an instructional method that promotes learning within the meaningful context of discovery.

The generalizations for this study were written in detail to ensure adult reader understanding of the concept. In practice, I often modify the generalization to fit the student's developmental and cognitive level. For example, the generalization "after a vowel digraph, r-controlled or consonant, /k/ at the end of a one-syllable word, spell with a k" may provide too much compare- and-contrast information for one lesson. A teacher might begin by introducing a list of words including milk, mask, and bank and have students discover that in each case a consonant is present directly before the k. Once students have consistently begun to recognize this concept, a list of words including book, peek, and leak would be intro- duced in the same way with the additional component of comparing the new discovery to past discoveries. Introduction and review of concepts within the students' develop-


mental level provide the environment for the growth that is needed to move toward the next developmental level.

Conclusion In 1963, Clymer suggested that the unreli- ability of generalizations required a revision of "time-honored customs" (p. 255). Almost 40 years later, a review of current reading research and the results of this

study indicate that a return to some of those "time-honored customs" within the new context of word study may be in order. The current study offers reliable information to

improve theoretical understanding about the regularities of English and offers teachers a tool for the improvement of instruction. Teacher use of this tool could range from providing supplemental information about orthography for average and gifted students to providing detailed, explicit instruction to students who struggle to learn the spelling system. In either case, however, a change in teacher knowledge and in instruction is required. Teacher knowledge of reliable generalizations indicates teacher expertise in understanding the mechanical workings of written language. More impor- tantly, specific knowledge of generalizations equips teachers to better provide the depth of word study students need to discover and internalize the complex structure of written English.

Educators need to move past the old no- tions of thinking of phonics generalizations in the context of only sound-letter relationships and rote memory through skill and drill. Incorporation of the 43 generalizations that met a 75% reliability criterion offers an important contribution in helping students understand the most common usages for spelling. Teacher access to reliable information about generalizations and to instructional programs that engage students in meaningful discovery about the depend- able structure of English may well be one of the keys for meeting the needs of a diverse student population.

Note

I would like to acknowledge Charles Green- wood, Barbara Luetke-Stahlman, Diane Nielsen, and the two anonymous reviewers for their help with this article.

References

Abbott, M., Walton, C., Tapia, Y., & Greenwood, C. R. (1999). Research to practice: A "blue- print" for closing the gap in local schools. Exceptional Children, 65(3), 339-352.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bailey, M. H. (1967). The utility of phonic generalizations in grades one through six. Read- ing Teacher, 20, 413-418.

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (1996). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling. Up- per Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Bear, D., & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in developmental spelling: Foundations for learning and teaching phonics, spelling, and vocabulary. Reading Teacher, 52, 222-243.

Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Rogan, L., Reed, E., Abbott, S., Brooks, A., Vaughan, K., & Gra- ham, 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.

Bruck, M., Treiman, R., Caravolas, M., Genesse, F., & Cassar, M. (1998). Spelling skills of children in whole language and phonics class- rooms. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(4), 669- 684.

Byrne, B., Fielding-Bamsley, R., Ashley, L., & Larsen, K. (1992). Assessing the child's and the environment's contribution to reading acquisition: What we know and what we don't know. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisitions (pp. 265- 285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Clymer, T. (1963). The utility of phonics generalizations in primary grades. Reading Teacher, 16, 252-258.

Clymer, T. (1963/1996). The utility of phonics generalizations in primary grades. Reading Teacher, 50, 182-187.

Cox, A. R. (1971). Situation spelling: Formulas and equations for spelling the sounds of spoken En- glish. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

NOVEMBER 2000

SPELLING WORDS 245

Ehri, L. C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its rela- tionship to recoding. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Emans, R. (1967). The usefulness of phonic generalizations above the primary grades. Read- ing Teacher, 20, 419-425.

Greenburg, D., Ehri, L., & Perin, D. (1998). Are word reading processes the same or different in adult literacy students and 2nd-5th graders matched for reading level? Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 89(2), 262-275.

Hanna, P. R., Hanna, J. S., Hodges, R. E., & Ru- dorf, E. H. (1966). Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

Henderson, E. (1985). Teaching spelling. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.

Invemizzi, M., Abouzeid, M., & Gill, J. T. (1994). Using students' invented spellings as a guide for spelling instruction that emphasizes word study. Elementary School Journal, 95(2), 155-166.

Johnston, F. R. (1999). The timing and teaching of word families. Reading Teacher, 53, 64-75.

Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.

Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W. E., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1996). Teaching low-achiev- ing spellers at their "instructional level." El- ementary School Journal, 96, 163-177.

Morrow, L. M., Tracey, D. H., Woo, D. G., &

Pressley, M. (1999). Characteristics of exemplary first-grade literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 52(5), 462-467.

Orton, J. (1976). A guide to teaching phonics. Cam- bridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Perfetti, C. (1997). Psycholinguistics of spelling and reading. In C. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 21-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Read, C. (1971). Preschool children's knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 4, 1-34.

Scarborough, H. S., Ehri, L. C., Olson, R. K., & Fowler, A. E. (1997). The fate of phonemic awareness beyond the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 115- 142.

Schlagal, R. C. (1992). Patterns of orthographic development into the intermediate grades. In S. Templeton & D. S. Bear (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy (pp. 31-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Scholes, R. J. (1993). In search of phonemic con- scienceness. In R. J. Scholes (Ed.), Literacy and language analysis (pp. 45-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.

Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading Research Quarterly, 54, 102-112.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. (1973). Springfield, MA: G & C Merriam Co.

Documents

Identifying Reliable Generalizations for Spelling Words: The Importance of Multilevel Analysis