Analysis of Spelling Data - A Case Study

SEMESTER 1 2010

EDUC8516 Literacy Education 2

Assignment 1

Analysis of Spelling Data – A Case Study Due: Wednesday August 11th 2010 Sharon McCleary

19113469

Unit Co-ordinator: Associate Professor Val Faulkner

Literacy Education 2 EDUC8516

Sharon McCleary

2

Analysis of Spelling Data – A Case Study

Introduction

This analysis focuses on assessment data generated from a cross-‐section of students

within Project Schools. The data is in the form of handwritten Spelling Inventory

responses to the Words Their Way Primary and Elementary Spelling Inventories (Bear

et al., 2008).

A detailed analysis of the spelling features used by each student identified a wide

range of orthographic knowledge and strategy use within the class. This presents a

challenge in planning for future instruction that differentiates between students and

systematically targets the critical features required for each student’s progression to

the next stage along the developmental continuum.

Background

Spelling is one important aspect of literacy development, which uses phonetic, visual

and morphemic strategies to generate conventionally accepted orthography. It is a

complex, multisensory process, fundamentally linked to oral language, reading and

writing.

English orthography has a complex history and uses a 26 letter alphabet to represent

44 phonemes in 144 combinations (DCSF, 2009). Oral language is translated into

written language using the alphabetic principle (letter-‐sound relationships), multiple-‐

letter patterns representing single sounds, and groups of letters representing meaning.

This constitutes the three layers of English orthography (Bear et al., 2008).

Research into the ways in which students acquire orthographic knowledge emanated

from a study conducted by Charles Read in 1971. Error analysis conducted by other

researchers (Beers, Henderson, Gentry, Ehri, Zutell) revealed a clear developmental

sequence involving using symbols to represent words, representing some sounds in

words, representing all sounds in words, becoming aware of orthographic patterns,


Sharon McCleary

3

applying syllable rules, applying derivational/meaning knowledge, eventually

resulting in generally accurate spellings (Young, 2007). These developmental spelling

stages are believed to result from the different strategies used at various stages of

cognitive development (Ellis, 1997).

Findings from developmental stage theory research indicate that there are identifiable

stages of orthographic awareness through which children pass as they progress their

writing, and that they proceed through these stages at varying rates (Beers & Beers,

1991). These stages provide the platforms for students to deduce the underlying

principles which form the English orthographic system. They also reflect the three

layers of English orthography, increasing in complexity as literacy growth and

orthographic awareness increase and words are examined in terms of alphabet,

pattern and meaning.

Investigation of each layer reveals recurrent patterns and generalisations which

provide a relatively high degree (over 80%) of predictability in the English spelling

system (DCFS, 2009).

Implications for Teaching

Defining spelling as developmental implies a “series of progressive and orderly

changes” (Krause et al., 2010, pg42) cumulative in nature and moving towards

increased complexity, reflecting brain development. Developmental processes can be

uneven, vary between individuals, and are affected by cognitive, physical, socio-‐

cultural, emotional and environmental factors. These factors need to be taken into

consideration when determining class spelling groups and programmes.

Learning to spell is a gradual process, involving trial and error, modelling, categorising,

hypothesis testing and practise (Bolton, 1985).

Teachers should be aware of the different stages of spelling development and the

characteristics of each stage. Knowledge of a student’s spelling stage allows

developmentally appropriate strategies to be introduced, enabling students to take

ownership, internalise the strategies which appeal most to their learning style and

independently use them to successfully progress their spelling.


Sharon McCleary

4

The stages can be used as diagnostic tools and guidelines when analysing writing and

deciding what to teach next. Analysis of spelling errors gives useful insight into the

strategies and processes students use, and indicates their approximate developmental

stage.

However it is important to recognise that students may not fit rigidly into these stages

and may appear to regress as they misapply generalisations and test hypothesis. In

this sense, teaching spelling can be likened to oral language learning, where children

gradually learn to talk by interaction within a speech environment; experimentation

and approximations are accepted and encouraged (Bolton, 1985) and contribute to

further learning. Students eventually learn the correct conventions if they are

immersed in a print rich environment, provided with appropriate modelling and

repeated, authentic attempts to use words in relevant writing experiences

(Cambourne, 1984).

In order to cultivate confident and competent spellers, the strategies, rules and

conventions which underpin the English orthographic system must be systematically

and explicitly taught (DCFS, 2009) using a variety of strategies. Teachers need to be

aware of the critical factors which enable students to progress through each stage in

order to focus their teaching and maintain forward momentum and positive literacy

growth.

Bear advocates word study using active exploration of words within a student’s stage

of literacy development to help categorise word patterns and build automaticity. In

this way knowledge about the how the spelling system works to represent sound,

pattern and meaning is developed and can be used effectively to generate strategies

for determining the spelling of unknown words.

Studies show that exposing 2nd and 5th grade students to spellings of new vocabulary

enhances their memory for pronunciation and meaning, with students having better

developed orthographic knowledge benefiting more than those with weaker

knowledge (Ehri & Rosenthal, 2007). Spellings clearly identify the different phonemes

in words, become bonded to pronunciations in memory and provide a stronger base

for learning meaning. Emphasising the grapho-‐phonemic aspects of words can be a

useful method of accelerating vocabulary learning.


Sharon McCleary

5

Ongoing, frequent spelling assessment is required, due to its developmental nature, in

order to ascertain which key features of a stage have been mastered, and programme

future instruction within the student’s Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky,

1962).

The major purpose of spelling is to facilitate fluent writing which accurately conveys

the author’s intended meaning (Fryar, 1997). However, research on word study

(Williams, 2006) identified that the conceptual knowledge of orthography acquired is

not automatically applied in journal writing. Although there were limiting factors in

this study (not covered in this case study), it raised a valid implication: some students

require explicit teaching/demonstrations to apply word study knowledge when

composing extended text.

In addition, word study should be extended to written sorts, given that several

empirical studies have supported the notion that movements made when writing

sequences of letters provide additional associative links between spelling and sound

(Shahar-‐Yames & Share, 2008).

Spelling has a reciprocal relationship with reading: it enables faster decoding of visual

patterns in the text and confident spellers are able to devote more cognitive capacity

to higher level thinking and meaning making, while reading provides examples of

correct spelling in context and introduces additional vocabulary for word study.

It is therefore essential that spelling be taught and assessed as an integral part of

authentic writing, and that the links between spelling, reading and writing are made

explicit.


Sharon McCleary

6

Analysis of Assessment Data:

The assessment data consists of spelling inventory responses for ten Year 3/4

students, included in Appendix A. The Primary Spelling Inventory was used for Year 3

students and the Elementary Spelling Inventory for Year 4 students (Bear et al., 2008).

The corresponding spelling stages will be used for the purposes of this case study.

Analysis of the responses for each student using the relevant Words Their Way

Spelling Inventory Feature Guide (Bear et al., 2008) is included in Appendix B. The

Feature Guide clearly identifies the spelling features each student has mastered, those

which they use but confuse and those which are absent.

The Developmental Stage for each student is allocated according to the points total for

each spelling feature. Two or more errors for a particular feature indicate the student

is in the stage listed directly above the spelling feature. The scoring summary

indicates the number of words spelled correctly (Power Score).

The feature points for each student have been transferred to the Class Composite for

each inventory, included in Appendix C. The number of students in the class

demonstrating difficulty with specific spelling features is summarised at the base of

each column. The students are listed in descending order, with students displaying

similar spelling characteristics identified by clusters of highlighted cells. In this way,

students can be grouped according to similar developmental characteristics, for ease

of instruction.

Two different inventories have been used in this class, resulting in two Class

Composites. Therefore the Spelling-‐by-‐Stage Classroom Organisation Chart (Bear et

al., 2008), included in Appendix D, has been generated to show each student’s

placement within the spelling stage graduations. The Power Score is also included and

is useful for cross-‐checking students’ developmental stages as outlined by Table 2.2

(Bear et al., 2008, pg 34), included in Appendix D.

In addition to the Features Analysis, a class composite error list was compiled to

facilitate identification of patterns of errors within the class (Appendix E).


Sharon McCleary

7

Findings:

The data provided a diagnostic assessment specifically aimed at determining which

spelling features students know. It is a representative sample of the students’ work

and would ordinarily be used in conjunction with reading and writing assessments,

which have not been provided in this case.

Analysis of the assessment data indicates three developmental stages exist within the

class (Appendix D). Although feature points indicate students are in a particular stage,

on closer analysis of their work, spelling features from earlier stages are often in need

of consolidation.

The instructional level relevant to the majority of the class is Within Word Pattern-‐

Middle (WWP-‐M), focusing on long vowels and other vowel patterns.

Several students, particularly younger and ESL students are still within the Letter

Name-‐Alphabetic stage and require additional assistance to progress to the next stage.

Student Case Summaries:

Letter Name Alphabetic Stage Group:

The Letter Name-‐Alphabetic (LNA) group includes Alice, Craig, Hannah and Suhina.

Although Suhina’s feature points indicate she is WWP-‐Middle, she displays several

characteristics from the LNA-‐Late, such as substitution of short vowels for ambiguous

vowels e.g. DREAM (DREM) and omission of preconsonantal nasals, and is likely to

benefit from revision of short vowels.

In Alice’s case, she is a Year 3 ESL student who demonstrates mastery of spelling

characteristics from the Emergent Stage, such as beginning and end consonants, but

appears to have difficulty with short vowels and blends. She attempts to spell short

vowels using the letter name closest in articulation to that short vowel (ie DIG (DEG)

the short i sound is closer in place of articulation to the letter name for e than the letter

name for i). Confusion in the use of affricate blends such as tr, is also apparent TRIES

(CHRAS). These characteristics place her between the LNA-‐Middle and Late stages.


Sharon McCleary

8

Consideration should be given to ESL students, who typically use phonemic analysis of

words to construct spellings but often omit or confuse vowel sounds which are not

present in their native language. Similarly, since oral and written language skills are

developing concurrently, exposure to words may be limited. Pronunciation also

affects spelling, and may be a factor in causing errors (Bolton, 1985).

Hannah is another Year 3 ESL student displaying omission of silent letters e.g. FRIGHT

(FRAT) and substitution of short vowels for ambiguous vowels. She misuses “er” at the

end of several words i.e. THORN (THONER), which may be an error related to

pronunciation or the transference of orthographic knowledge from her primary

language (Bear, 2008).

Craig is an aboriginal student who requires focus on short vowels, digraphs and

blends.

Within Word Pattern-Middle Group:

The Within Word Pattern-‐Middle group includes Byron, Lexis, Min-‐Ji and Anna.

Byron is a Year 3 student who displays confident use of spelling features in the LNA

stage. A feature score of 5/7 for Long Vowels indicates he is in the Within Word

Pattern (WWP)–Middle stage.

However, careful analysis of Byron’s responses indicates that he uses but confuses the

silent letters in long vowel patterns. For example, he crossed out the silent e in sled(e)

and used a silent e in THORNE. He also confuses ck and ke endings, as is evident in his

spelling of STICK (STIKE) and displays a tendency to substitute short vowels for

ambiguous vowels, such as SHOUTED (SHATED) and GROWL (GRALE). These

characteristics are typical of what students use but confuse in the WWP-‐Early stage.

In addition, he still demonstrates some confusion with common long vowel patterns

(CVCe, CVVC) such as WAIT (WAETE) as do Lexis, Min-‐Ji and Anna. These spelling

behaviours indicate that the group has not quite mastered the WWP-‐Early stage and

would benefit from further instruction to consolidate these spelling features.


Sharon McCleary

9

Several of the students in this group (Byron, Lexis, Anna) display knowledge of some

long vowel patterns.

Within Word Pattern-Late:

The students in this group, Kate and James display sound knowledge of short vowel

patterns, digraphs and blends, and long vowel patterns. It is clear they can think about

sound and pattern simultaneously.

Their feature scores of 5/7 for ambiguous vowels result from incorrect words being

written. Kate wrote CHEWED as CHOOSE, and James wrote SERVING as SURFING).

This may be due to aural issues, meaning in context issues or spelling issues; without

knowing the conditions of administering the inventory it cannot be determined if the

feature score actually reflects their knowledge of these spelling features.

It is worth noting that these students display reliable knowledge of ambiguous vowels,

inflected endings and syllable junctures, and could potentially be operating in the

Middle-‐Late Syllables and Affixes stage. Kate correctly changed the y to i in CARRIES,

which is normally absent in the WWP-‐Late stage. This also illustrates the fact that

students are likely to move outside the identified developmental sequence according

to interests and experiences (Fryar, 1997).

However, both students use but confuse r-‐influenced vowels and complex consonant

units, which is typical of WWP-‐Late spellers, and are likely to benefit from instruction

in this area.


Sharon McCleary

10

Planning for Instruction:

The National Strategies (DCSF, 2009) list the main components of a balanced spelling

programme, including understanding the principles underlying word construction

(phonemic, morphemic and etymological), knowing how to apply these and other

strategies to spelling, practising, and building student’s self-‐images as competent

spellers. An additional consideration is “keeping the main thing the main thing”

(Duffy, 2009), and integrating the spelling and assessment programme with the

reading and writing programme.

Instruction must be systematic and explicit, encourage risk taking, generate an interest

in and love of words, and provide students with more than one strategy (word

structure, visual and phonological memory, meaning, mnemonics, syllabification,

analogy and kinaesthetic) in order to appeal to different learning styles and

preferences and allow adequate internalisation. It must also enable multiple authentic

opportunities for practise and consolidation of skills.

It must teach students to develop understanding about the way words in English

orthography work, allow them to investigate general principles of spelling and

explicitly model how they can apply them in their reading and writing.

Furthermore, it must be pitched at the correct developmental level to be meaningful to

each student. There is a wide range of orthographic knowledge within the class,

however planning for differentiated future teaching is facilitated by the individual

spelling groups.

Instruction begins at the boundary of what students use correctly and what they use

and confuse, so that new knowledge can be linked with prior knowledge to build a

strong foundation, integrate success and enjoyment into the programme and gradually

develop confident, independent spellers. The strategies and activities used will vary

according to student developmental level.

Sample plans for each group are included in Appendix F.


Sharon McCleary

11

Conclusion

Learning to spell involves more than rote memorisation; it is a complex developmental

process which requires understanding about how the language has evolved, active

investigation, identification and classification of recurring patterns within words,

problem solving, hypothesis creation, testing and practise.

It includes the use of various integrated strategies: phonetic, kinaesthetic, visual and

morphemic, and by the sheer enormity and dynamic vocabulary of the English

language, implies an ability to examine words in context, apply appropriate

generalisations and use known resources to determine the correct spelling.

Diagnostic assessment is useful in identifying students’ developmental spelling stage

in order to tailor instruction to their individual needs. Their developmental stage

should be considered in conjunction with their reading and writing stage and regularly

assessed to determine relevant changes.

The spelling program should provide repeated opportunities for students to discover

and apply the orthographic principles and strategies of English and to solve spelling

problems within the context of authentic reading and writing in order to build

confident, competent and independent spellers.


Sharon McCleary

12

References

Bean, W. & Bouffler, C., (1997), Spelling: An Integrated Approach, Eleanor Curtain

Publishing, Armadale, Victoria.

Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. & Johnston, F., (2008), Words Their Way:

Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction, Pearson

Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Bickmore-Brand, J. (1996), Literacy and Learning Strategies – Stepping Out,

Education Department of Western Australia, Perth, WA.

Bolton, F. & Snowball, D., (1985), Springboards: Ideas for Spelling, Thomas Nelson

Australia, Melbourne.

Department for Children, Schools and Families, (2009), The National Strategies,

Primary, Department for Children, Schools and Families, UK.

Duffy, G., (2009), Explaining Reading: A Resource for Teaching Concepts, Skills,

And Strategies, The Guildford Press, New York.

Ehri, L. & Rosenthal, J., (2007), Spelling of Words: A Neglected Facilitator of

Vocabulary Learning, Journal of Literacy Research, Vol. 39, pp 389-409.

Fryar, R. (1997), Spelling: from beginnings to independence, Department for

education and Childrenʼs Services, SA.

Hill, S., (2006), Developing Early Literacy: Assessment and teaching, Eleanor

Curtain Publishing, Prahran, Victoria.

Hudson, C. & OʼToole, M. (1990), Spelling: A Teacherʼs Guide, revised edition,

Landmark Educational Supplies Pty. Ltd, Drouin, Victoria.

Kiddey, P. & Waring, F. (2001), Success for All: Selecting Appropriate Learning

Strategies, Stepping Out Curriculum Corporation, WA.

Krause, K., Bochner, S., Duchesne, S. & McMaugh, A. (2010) Educational

Psychology for Learning and Teaching, 3d edition, Cengage Learning

Australia, pp 262-287.


Sharon McCleary

13

Rees, D., (2002), First Steps Spelling Resource Book, Education Department, WA.

Shahar-Yames, D. & Share, D., (2008), Spelling as a Self-Teaching Mechanism in

Orthographic Learning, Journal of Research in Reading, Vol. 31 Issue 1,

pp 22-39.

Williams, C. & Phillips-Birdsong, C., (2006), Word Study Instruction and Second-

Grade Childrenʼs Independent Writing, Journal of Literacy Research, Vol. 38

No.4, pp 427-465.

Young, K., (2007), Developmental Stage Theory of Spelling: Analysis of

Consistency Across Four Spelling Related Activities, Australian journal of

Language and Literacy, Vol. 30 No.3, pp 203-220.