Abstract
Children with language impairment frequently struggle with written language skills such as spelling. With their expertise in language, speech-language pathologists are in the position to promote the development of such skills. One way to do this is through the use of direct spelling instruction which has been shown to facilitate growth in a number of literacy skills such as phonemic awareness, reading, and spelling. This article outlines a 10-week direct spelling intervention program that is aimed at improving the literacy skills of children with language impairment. This treatment protocol may be adapted as necessary to meet the needs of individual students.
The importance of achieving a solid foundation in spelling knowledge can easily be seen in the writing of poor spellers. Misspellings may lessen the reader’s interest in the writer’s message and are frequently viewed as evidence of low intelligence (Graham, Harris, & Chorzempa, 2002). This is especially concerning for students with language impairment, the majority of whom struggle with reading and spelling skills (Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002). However, spelling instruction often has been neglected in many reading curricula in use today (Sayeski, 2011). The primary focus involved with these programs has been to develop accurate and efficient decoding skills. Incidental exposure through writing and reading activities and a reliance on memorization without attention to word structure are common strategies used for spelling instruction (Weiser & Mathes, 2011). Such methods are designed to facilitate proficient spelling skills for the majority of students without the need for explicit spelling instruction. Unfortunately, this approach ignores the complexity of spelling. Because English orthography is not entirely transparent, mastering the tactical and procedural rules governing the spelling of both regular and irregular words can be very difficult (Cummings, 1988).
The lack of state standards concerning spelling has served to minimize the importance of spelling instruction as well. The primary purpose of the U.S. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative was to address the concerns regarding consistent educational practices and expected outcomes across states. However, it has not succeeded in bridging the instructional gap needed to improve literacy achievement for students. Focusing more on literature-based instructional practices, it has ignored the need to treat spelling as a distinct skill worthy of direct instruction. This has resulted in a mismatch between classroom teaching and student learning. Many students are unable to make the connections between their alphabetic knowledge and their ability to spell (Ehri, 2000).
Principles of Direct Spelling Instruction
Spelling is a complex skill but one that is important because of its effects on a variety of literacy skills (Kohnen, Nickels, & Coltheart, 2010; Sayeski, 2011; Wanzek et al., 2006). Although spelling instruction may be frequently ignored in the schools, there are many available spelling programs. These programs may vary according to their instructional scope and sequence. However, research has highlighted four primary principles associated with effective spelling instruction (Wanzek et al., 2006). The first of these principles, teaching of rules, involves explicit instruction in applying orthographic rules to spelling tasks. This is important because orthographic pattern knowledge has been consistently identified as one of the best predictors of children’s reading and spelling achievement (Hammill, 2004). Helping the students learn not only phoneme–grapheme correspondences but also legal spelling conventions and positional constraints allows for improved spelling ability and generalization of new spelling knowledge. Even young children are capable of learning such rules as Graham and Harris (2005) demonstrated in their study. Second-grade students, who received low scores on a standardized spelling assessment, received explicit instruction in both phoneme–grapheme correspondence and orthographic rules. These students demonstrated significant gains in both spelling and reading ability as measured by posttest scores, outperforming a control group who did not receive the instruction. Williams and Hufnagel (2005) found similar results for a group of kindergarten students, demonstrating that this type of instruction should not be reserved only for older students. The second principle is the provision of systematic study strategies. Students need to be able to approach spelling tasks in an organized, methodical manner. In doing so, they are better able to monitor their learning (Graham & Harris, 2003, 2005). This is particularly true for those with language impairment who may tend to use ineffective strategies when spelling if not provided with explicit instruction. Numerous strategies exist for this purpose and may be tailored to the students’ unique needs. For those struggling with phonemic awareness, sound strings have been used successfully; students are taught to use the beads to represent sounds as they count each sound in the word and pair it with at least one letter (Apel & Masterson, 2010). Many of the more complex English words, however, require the use of orthographic or morphological knowledge. Word building strategies are used to help students identify common orthographic or morphological features in words to assist with spelling such words (Apel & Masterson, 2010). Unfortunately, some words do not conform to traditional spelling rules. These irregular words are often difficult for students to master and require the use of different strategies. Mnemonics and backwards spelling are a couple of strategies found to be successful for assisting students in learning irregular words (Schmalzl & Nickels, 2006). Students of all ages may benefit from the use of these systematic spelling strategies. In fact, Butyniec-Thomas and Wolshyn (1997) taught two groups of third-grade students to use several systematic spelling strategies including syllabic segmentation, mental imagery, and word building. After only a week of instruction, these students exhibited significantly higher scores on a spelling assessment than did the students who did not receive instruction in the use of such strategies. Moreover, they were able to generalize this knowledge to novel words as well. The final two principles of effective spelling instruction are repeated practice and immediate corrective feedback. Because of the complexity of spelling, multiple practice opportunities followed by immediate corrective feedback are necessary for the retention and use of newly acquired spelling skills (Wanzek et al., 2006). Given the individual importance of each principle, their combined effect is what truly characterizes effective spelling instruction.
Benefits of Direct Spelling Instruction
The benefits of direct spelling instruction have been well established. In a recent meta-analysis conducted by Graham and Santangelo (2014), the authors examined 53 studies in which spelling instruction was compared with alternate treatment conditions or an absence of instruction altogether. Participants ranged in age from kindergarten through high school, and both typically developing and disabled populations were sampled as well. Variability existed in the duration of the interventions as well as the nature of the treatment programs themselves. However, the four principles of effective spelling instruction were central to each of the interventions. The results across the studies overwhelmingly supported the efficacy of direct spelling instruction. Formal spelling instruction was successful in producing gains in spelling (effect size [ES] = 0.43), word reading (ES = 0.40), and phonemic awareness skills (ES = 0.51). Moreover, the spelling gains were maintained at follow-up posttreatment, suggesting substantive changes in the students’ spelling skills. Significant improvements were noted for reading comprehension (ES = 0.66), reading fluency (ES = 0.36), and spelling in written composition (ES = 0.94) as well. Even more important was that these benefits extended to students of all ages and skill levels. These findings provide strong support for the use of direct spelling instruction as a way to improve students’ literacy skills.
Language Impairment and Spelling Knowledge
Due to the linguistic nature of spelling, children with language impairment frequently exhibit problems becoming competent spellers. Indeed, statistics estimate that as many as 75% of children diagnosed with language impairment will be diagnosed with a reading disability or spelling disability (Catts et al., 2002). These children lack the necessary linguistic foundation needed for the development of spelling knowledge. Two such skills critical for reading and spelling development, phonemic awareness and orthographic knowledge, are typically deficient in these children (Apel & Masterson, 2001; Catts et al., 2002; Graham & Harris, 2005). These difficulties put them at great risk of falling behind academically. Unfortunately, few studies have investigated the effects of direct spelling instruction with this population. The primary principles associated with effective spelling instruction, however, have been shown to be effective for these students. Several studies have found that participants diagnosed with language impairment are capable of making gains in orthographic knowledge following such training (Apel & Masterson, 2001; Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, Graham, & Richards, 2002; Graham & Harris, 2005). Similarly, teaching them to use systematic study strategies and apply this knowledge to spelling tasks has also proven successful (Apel & Masterson, 2001; Berninger et al., 2002; Graham & Harris, 2005). Finally, the use of repeated opportunities and immediate corrective feedback are hallmarks of effective instruction for this population. For these children, direct spelling instruction is necessary if they are to succeed in the classroom.
Overview of Spelling Program
Based on the principles of effective spelling instruction, the intervention described in this article focuses on the use of direct spelling instruction to encourage improvement in the phonemic awareness, reading, and spelling skills of students of language impairment. Although the intervention may be used with any student, it was developed with this population in mind. The instruction emphasizes a number of commonly used orthographic patterns/word shapes while teaching students to phonemically segment and blend words, two skills that are critical for successful reading and spelling achievement (Graham & Santangelo, 2014). This two-pronged approach to spelling instruction encourages students to generalize their newly acquired skills to novel words (Graham & Santangelo, 2014). The spelling program was designed to be implemented over a period of 10 weeks with two weekly sessions.
Letter–Sound Correspondence Lessons
Knowledge of letter–sound correspondence is a critical precursor for learning to read and spell. Consequently, the initial two sessions are devoted to a review of letter–sound correspondence. Alphabet strips are used to reinforce these skills. During the initial session, the students take turns labeling the letter, its sound, and then identifying a word that begins with that sound. This is continued during the second session with the inclusion of magnetic boards and letters. In addition, they are introduced to the concept of phonemic segmentation during this lesson.
Orthographic Pattern Lessons
The activities used during the sessions are designed to promote the use of the sounding out and blending strategy through the use of both guided group practice and independent individual practice. The intervention outline—including the order of lessons and target orthographic patterns—may be found in Table 1. Two sessions are devoted to each of the orthographic patterns with the exception of the past and present tense and comparative/superlative suffixes. The interventionist introduces each pattern with the use of lettered blocks, modeling several examples before providing guided practice opportunities for the group. The students are taught to segment each word into its individual phonemes and then to blend the phonemes together to say the word. They are instructed to complete each part of this process verbally as they physically manipulate the appropriate lettered blocks into the correct positions. Following guided practice of the new skill, the students are provided with target words to complete independently. Corrective feedback is provided following each attempt. Instruction also focuses on the creation of new words by changing a letter/sound within the word. The inclusion of such practice is designed to highlight knowledge of the relationship between the sounds within words and how they may be manipulated to create new words. Activities designed to reinforce the target concepts are included at the end of each session. Corrective feedback is provided throughout each of the activities. A description of these activities may be found in the appendix.
Treatment Outline.
Review Lessons
During the fifth and final weeks of treatment, the sessions are devoted to a comprehensive review of the previously discussed concepts. These sessions are designed to ensure mastery of the information. The interventionist continues to provide consistent and immediate corrective feedback throughout the sessions. The initial half of the sessions involves spelling practice using the lettered blocks. The interventionist includes examples from each of the previously taught orthographic patterns and rules. During the second half of the sessions, these skills are reinforced through use of group activities as detailed in the appendix.
Clinical Implications
Given the linguistic nature of spelling, the speech-language pathologist can play an important role in providing spelling intervention. Direct spelling instruction offers the clinician a way to easily and effectively treat multiple literacy skills simultaneously. Programs, such as the one outlined in this article, may be easily incorporated into existing treatment programs and may be adapted to fit the needs of the individual student. One way to individualize the program is to adjust the intervention timeline. The speech-language pathologist (SLP) may choose to devote more time to orthographic patterns with which the student experiences difficulty. Another way to individualize the program is through the selection of the target orthographic patterns. Orthographic patterns may be chosen based on student assessment or frequency of occurrence. Alternately, the SLP may choose to work collaboratively with the classroom teacher and select orthographic patterns that align with the skills being taught in the classroom. This collaborative approach ensures that there is continuity of services between the clinical and educational domains and enhances the likelihood of the student’s success.
Footnotes
Appendix
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to extend appreciation to Kathryn C. Eck for her assistance in the development of this treatment program. A special thank you is also extended to the classroom teachers and students involved in the completion of this study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.