Analysis of handwritten spelling data using the Words Their Way programme.

1. 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

2. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
2

3. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
3

4. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
4

5. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
5

6. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
6

7. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
7

8. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
8

9. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
9

10. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
10

11. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
11

12. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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
12

13. Literacy
Education
2
EDUC8516
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.
Sharon
McCleary
13