There isn't much to say about spelling .... or is there?

Before you read this article, write down three thoughts that come to mind when you hear the words "spelling" and "spelling instruction."

When one of the authors asked a group of teachers in a graduate class to do this, the group's responses included "write words three times each," "skills" (many said "phonics"), "memorization," "drill," "word lists" and "relevancy/irrelevancy." Were your responses similar to these?

Very few of the respondents mentioned the developmental nature of spelling. Some talked about using misspellings from children's writings as a basis for spelling study, but few mentioned efforts to heighten children's need to spell words correctly. Two teachers brought up patterns, which should be a focus of systematic word study. For the most part, however, the comments confirmed the authors' expectation that many teachers appear to believe that spelling is little more than rote memorization and meaningless drill and practice.

The authors intend to dispel this view of spelling. Beginning with a discussion of children's invented spelling as a reflection of their growing understanding of English orthography, the authors follow with a discussion of what constitutes developmentally appropriate spelling instruction. Finally, they describe characteristics of effective spelling programs.

Invented Spelling and English Orthography

Written English is a second-order symbol system. Spoken words are symbols for our thoughts, and written words are transcriptions of the spoken symbols (Dyson, 1986). The relationship is arbitrary because no connection exists between the characteristics of either the spoken or written word and the attributes of the concept. The relationship between spoken and written words is alphabetic and incorporates three organizational principles: spelling by sound, spelling by pattern and spelling by meaning (Schlagal, 1989).

The defining characteristic of an alphabetic writing system is that letters of the written code represent sounds of the spoken code. This principle, frequently referred to as the alphabetic principle, is exemplified in words such as cat, in which a one-to-one correspondence exists between sounds and letters. This sort of surface relationship between sounds and letters is extended to spelling patterns that consist of letters representing no sound themselves, but serving to mark the sound values of other letters. Examples include the silent e in made, the i in paid or the doubled t in sitting.

Additionally, English spelling preserves meaning relationships among words. This organizational principle of English spelling can result in a great deal of variance from simple sound/symbol-based spellings because the English spelling system also tends to employ single combinations of letters that vary in sound value to represent a given morpheme (Venezky, 1967). Combinations of letters sharing meaning may not share pronunciation (e.g., sacred, sacrarium, sacrifice and sacerdotal).

Children use their knowledge of English orthography to "invent" spellings for words they do not know how to spell. These spellings provide a window into children's growing comprehension of written language's organizational principles. Two decades of research on children's misspellings indicates that their invented spellings are governed by the theories the children construct about spelling (Beers & Henderson, 1977; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1985; Gill, 1992; Read, 1971; Weiner, 1994). As children reorganize and refine their theories, they focus on and apply information about words in different ways (Templeton, 1991). Therefore, inaccurately spelled words should not be viewed as evidence of teacher negligence or the beginning of bad habits (Schlagal & Schlagal, 1992). Instead, teachers can use invented spellings to determine how a child is applying information about words and thus would be able to relate spelling instruction to the child's level of understanding (Nelson, 1989; O'Flahavan & Blassberg, 1992).

Spelling development begins the first time a child picks up a writing instrument and makes a mark on a page. Time spent scribbling, drawing and writing mock letters (i.e., forms resembling actual letters) has been given a variety of labels - prephonemic, preliterate, precommunicative and deviant stage. "Emerging" is perhaps a more appropriate descriptor. That which is emerging is an understanding that things can be represented on paper by symbols that are not pictures. The symbols children produce are governed by four levels of understanding about how words are spelled. Figure 1 illustrates the types of invented spellings children might produce at each level.

Children's initial explorations with written language will lead them to understand that a written word has characteristics separate from the characteristics of the "thing" it represents. One 6-year-old was astonished that the letters "o" and "x" were read as "ox" because, as he explained, "That word isn't big enough to be ox. An ox is big and that word is little." The child had not yet grasped the symbol system of written English.

As children begin to realize that spoken language can be broken into parts (words and then sounds) and that these parts of spoken language are represented by letters, their invented spellings begin to be readable. At this letter-name stage, sound is the key to spelling (Buchanan, 1989). In this stage, children recognize the connection between the articulation of a word and the way the word is written (Read, 1971). The child discards the idea that the "thing" itself governs the written symbol, and now understands that the oral language used in naming the "thing" provides the clues to its spelling.

Children's early attempts at spelling are based not upon conventional letter-sound correspondences, but instead on how sounds are produced. For example, children may spell "wall" with a "y" because the beginning sound of "wall" sounds similar to the letter name "y" (Read, 1971). When children make that kind of connection, they are "letter-name spelling." First spellings are very incomplete; only beginning or beginning/ending sounds of words are represented. Later, a child will represent each sound in the spoken word with a letter. As children become more sophisticated in their ability to hear the component sounds in a spoken word, their spellings will start to look more conventional. Teachers must recognize that children first conceptualize the spelling of words in a straight left-to-right, letter-by-letter sequence. They have no notion of spelling by patterns (Templeton, 1991).

Exposure to print through both reading and writing activities develops within-word-pattern knowledge. At the within-word-pattern stage (Henderson, 1985) children are starting to pay attention to groups of letters. At this stage, children begin to understand that the pattern of letters within single syllables determines the spelling-sound relationship. During this time, children refine their theories through extensive experimentation with vowel markers.

Eventually, continued reading and writing will help children gain a fair amount of accuracy with single-syllable words, and they can focus on how single syllables combine to form multisyllable words. Henderson's (1985) term for this stage of spelling development is syllable-juncture. Because their knowledge of within-syllable patterns is very well consolidated, children can now focus on stress and accent across syllables. At this stage, children need to master the doubling principle in which consonants are doubled to mark the short English vowel. An understanding of this principle is built on a solid foundation of basic vowel patterns, including the final e marker. Teachers need to realize that it will be difficult for children to focus on spelling patterns across syllables until their knowledge of within-syllable patterns is very well consolidated (Templeton, 1991).

Children also have to learn that derivational constancies in the English spelling system preserve meaning relationships (Henderson, 1985). As children apply pattern principles in their spelling, they are prepared to pay attention to spelling/meaning relationships among words. While the child who tells you that supervision means "you can see through walls like Superman" has incorrectly interpreted the meaning of the prefix "super," he has, nevertheless, begun to understand the concept of derivational constancy. This understanding helps children realize that while the pronunciation of the root may vary, the spelling remains fairly constant.

Developmentally Appropriate Spelling Instruction

What constitutes a developmentally appropriate spelling curriculum? Literacy development has been conceptualized as the acquisition of information in two areas: information about the form of written language and information about the function of written language. At all levels of word study, children should understand the relationship between spelling and function; they need to learn how spelling helps them convey meaning through a written message. Children's study of written language varies with their level of sophistication because children at different stages of spelling development focus on different types of information when they look at words (Templeton, 1991).

The overarching aim of beginning word study should be to make print functional in the classroom - to communicate with print. Engage children in many shared reading and writing activities. Label desks and storage spaces with their names, let children compose the written directions for center use and use predictable text to create pattern books.

The focus of instruction through the letter-name stage of spelling development should be exploring and elaborating on the alphabetic principle. A writing center, especially one with a variety of colors and shapes of papers and pens, is a wonderful place to explore the form of written language. It is best if an adult can remain at the center to answer children's questions. But writing should not be limited to the center. Placing paper and pen in other classroom centers will encourage children to incorporate writing in their dramatic play. Above all, encourage and appreciate children's invented spellings.

Do not begin formal spelling study until children can focus on within-word patterns. Spelling activities that compare and contrast words are appropriate for within-word-pattern spellers. Children can examine the different spellings for a particular sound or for single syllable vowel patterns. Possible vowel pattern contrasts include 1) short versus long vowel sound patterns, 2) long versus long vowel sound patterns (e.g., CVVC, CVCe), 3) representations for long i (e.g., iCe, igh, ild, ind) and 4) representations for long o (e.g., oCe, oa, old, olt, oll, ost, ow). Children in primary grades should be getting a strong grounding in basic vowel patterns and simple syllable patterns through multiple encounters with exemplars, rather than through direct instruction of phonic generalizations (Johnson, Langford & Quorn, 1981). As children master vowel patterns, the focus of instruction should shift to the doubling principle in order to mark the short vowel sound in multisyllable words (Templeton, 1989).

In the intermediate grades, focus instruction on spelling/meaning relationships by 1) studying the ways affixes, base words and word stems are combined to create words; 2) exploring how spelling retains and represents meaning and 3) examining word origins. Through the examination of affixes, syllable-juncture knowledge can be expanded in the intermediate grades. Figure 2 summarizes developmentally appropriate instruction for each of the spelling stages. Figure 3 is an annotated bibliography of resources for planning a developmentally appropriate spelling program.

Characteristics of Effective Spelling Programs

Recent research in spelling suggests specific characteristics that govern effective spelling programs. Sixty to 75 minutes of instruction each week, allocated over a three- to four-day cycle, should be allotted for studying lists of words (Bloodgood, 1991; Opitz & Cooper, 1993; Templeton, 1991). Additionally, word study should incorporate 1) systematic techniques for studying words (Opitz & Cooper, 1993), 2) comparison and contrast of individual words across structural and semantic features (O'Flahavan & Blassberg, 1992); 3) test-study sequences in which children correct their own tests (Opitz & Cooper, 1993) and 4) instruction that develops children's abilities to proofread their own writing.

Rubric for Studying Individual Words. Systematic study of words is superior to unsystematic procedures (Johnson, Langford & Quorn, 1981). Such strategies (Johnson, Langford & Quorn, 1981; Opitz & Cooper, 1993) typically constitute a rubric containing the following steps:

1. Look at the word as you say it.

2. Cover the word and try to write it.

3. Compare your invented spelling to the standard spelling.

4. If necessary, repeat steps 1-3.

The actual steps used by individual children may vary. The important point is that each child should adopt some organized procedure for studying the spelling of individual words.

Comparing and Contrasting Words. Effective spelling programs incorporate the study of words out of context, arranged in groups so that patterns are apparent. Primary grade instruction on word groups should emphasize common alphabetic characteristics, then shift to an emphasis on morphemic patterns in the intermediate grades (Templeton, 1991, 1992). Spelling instruction should always be built on existing word knowledge (Bear & Barone, 1989). Children should be able to read all and spell at least half of the words they study (Schlagal & Schlagal, 1992).

Word hunts and word sorts are two ways to focus spelling study on patterns within words (Barnes, 1989; Henderson, 1985). The need to base spelling instruction on existing word knowledge can be met by selecting words from texts children are reading and then applying patterns from known words to unknown words (Templeton, 1989). Consider using the book A Mouse in My House (Van Laan, 1990). After several shared readings of the text, take children on a word hunt through the book to find all the words with an "ou" spelling (mouse, house, pounces). This search can take an entire day (Cunningham, 1991). Children will record on a group chart all the "ou" words they find.

The next step is to sort the words. See Figure 4 for examples of how words can be sorted by sound or by spelling. Many may argue that vowel spellings are too variable and that requiring students to examine different spelling patterns will lead to rote memorization. That argument holds up only in those circumstances when students are not developmentally prepared to take advantage of the word study. If they can already read the words, well-constructed spelling instruction will consolidate children's knowledge about patterns within words.

Intermediate grade-level students can study Greek and Latin roots to examine morphemic patterns. Schlagal & Schlagal (1992) describe a lesson in which the teacher discusses with the students the meaning of circumnavigate as it relates to a content-area text the students had read. That discussion then becomes a springboard for recalling other words with the circ root (i.e., circles, circus, circumference, circulation). The lesson effectively ties together spelling, meaning and reading.

Corrected Test. Test-study sequences are superior to study-test sequences for directed word study (Johnson, Langford & Quorn, 1981). An example of a test-study sequence is the corrected-test method (Fowler, 1989; Horn, 1969). In this method each child corrects his or her own test and only group scores are taken. The corrected-test method can be applied so that children focus on a set of words representing a spelling pattern or patterns as they evaluate their ability to spell individual words within the set. The components of the corrected-test method are testing, retesting, immediate feedback and group scoring.

With this method, every child is successful. In fact, from test to retest, group scores can increase by as much as 200 or 300 percent. Even if children do not initially spell a word correctly, they usually get closer to the standard spelling on the retest, particularly if the principle of building on children's existing knowledge is applied to the selection of words for study. The authors experienced great success using a corrected-test procedure with Chapter 1 students in grades 4-6. It quickly became a favorite activity in the spelling program. Figure 5 lists the steps for using the corrected-test method.

Proofreading To Develop Spelling Consciousness. At some point, children need to acquire a desire to spell correctly, that is, develop spelling consciousness (Hillerich, 1977; Rubin, 1990). To do this, they have to come to at least four realizations:

* There are two kinds of spelling - functional and standard (Buchanan, 1989). Standard spellings are found in a dictionary (Henderson, 1985).

* Using standard spellings is a courtesy provided to readers (Rubin, 1990; Tompkins & Hoskisson, 1991).

* We may be judged negatively if our written work contains misspellings (Rubin, 1990).

* A good speller can recognize the words he has misspelled (Rubin, 1990). Being able to recognize misspelled words is as important as being able to correctly spell words.

These components of spelling consciousness can be realized as spelling is linked to writing. When children write frequently, for varied audiences and varied purposes, the importance of spelling as a tool of communication becomes apparent to them (Bartch, 1992; Tompkins & Hoskisson, 1991; Wilde, 1990).

Proofreading, an essential part of developing a spelling consciousness (Tompkins & Hoskisson, 1991), can be introduced as teachers and students edit collaborative writing. From this modeling, children learn to read over their own compositions and make necessary corrections. In order for children to apply their proofreading skills, they need resources in the classroom to help them find spellings for words. The resources might include "word walls" composed of words frequently used in writing or of words related to content-area study, and dictionaries, thesauruses and encyclopedias (Wilde, 1991). Of course, children also need modeling of how to use the various resources.

Keep in mind two caveats about proofreading. First, do not over-emphasize using standard spelling in the early stages of literacy learning as you would for more advanced spellers. While children in the intermediate grades may be encouraged to proofread their own writing, the focus in the primary grades may be on teacher modeling. Additionally, do not be concerned with standard spelling until students have at least completed a first draft. Rejoice in the fact that children are using functional (i.e., invented) spellings in their drafts, but help them realize that when their writing is for others (beyond the teacher and fellow students), it should be edited to conform to standard spelling. Children can be taught the meaning of the word "draft" and to label their unedited compositions as "drafts." Also realize that a composition may stay a draft that can sometimes be displayed in the classroom.

Conclusion

This article describes goals for spelling instruction at all levels. Specifically, spelling programs should:

* build upon children's growing understandings of how words are spelled (Cunningham & Cunningham, 1992; Henderson, 1985; Nelson, 1989; Templeton, 1991)

* build upon students' existing word knowledge (Bear & Barone, 1989; Henderson, 1985)

* focus on the structure of English orthography, on patterns within words (Barnes, 1989; Cunningham, 1991; Templeton, 1991)

* foster an understanding of the meaning relationships within and among words (Templeton, 1989; 1991)

* develop a spelling consciousness (Hillerich, 1977; Rubin, 1990; Tompkins & Hoskisson, 1991)

* be linked to reading and writing (Bartch, 1992; Buchanan, 1989; Tompkins & Hoskisson, 1991; Wilde, 1990).

Worthwhile spelling instruction cannot be based merely on drill and practice of unrelated words or on testing and retesting for achievement of mastery. Either practice will merely result in rote memorization. Instead, teachers should evaluate children's spellings qualitatively and design spelling activities that are congruent with children's existing word knowledge. This will enable children to refine their theories about the alphabetic writing system and expand their knowledge about the spellings of individual words.

Figure 1

Invented Spellings Based on Levels of Understanding About How Words Are Spelled

Letter-Name

mk, mak (make) hk, hek (chick) y, yl (wall)

Within-Word-Pattern

spaec (space) quene (queen) rool (rule) maek (make)

Syllable-Juncture

runing (running) starred (stared) makeing (making) normel (normal)

Derivational Constancy

phone, fonograph (phonograph) present, presintation (presentation)

Figure 2

Developmentally Appropriate Spelling Instruction

Emergent and Letter-Name Spelling

Shared Reading Shared Writing Exploring at a Writing Center Sorting Pictures by Categories: Semantic and Sound Learning Letter Names Reading and Writing Alphabet Books Reading Word Play Books with Rhyme and Alliteration Using Name Cards and Labels in the Environment Writing Pattern Books Maintaining Personal Dictionaries

Within-Word-Pattern

Word Walls Word Hunts Word Sorts Corrected-Test Activities Studying Vowel Patterns and Phonograms Studying Homophones

Syllable-Juncture

Studying the Doubling Principle Exploring Open and Closed Syllables in Multisyllable Words Word Sorts by Syllable Stress Patterns Corrected-Test Activities with Multisyllable Words

Derivational Constancy

Vocabulary Study of Affixes and Base Words Studying Word Origins Corrected-Test Activities with Derived and Morphologically Related Words Examining Words with Shared Roots and Shared Affixes Word Walls for Content-Area Subjects Exploring Changes in Pronunciation When a Base Word Is Combined with Different Suffixes

Figure 3

Resources for Planning a Spelling Program

Bloodgood, J. W. (1991). A new approach to spelling instruction in language arts programs. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 203-211. Provides thorough directions for accommodating varying spelling levels in one classroom; describes the integration of spelling into a total language arts program.

Buchanan, E. (1989). Spelling for whole language classrooms. New York: Richard C. Owen. Explains spelling as a process and includes a useful collection of strategies for integrating spelling instruction into a whole language curriculum.

Cunningham, P. M., & Cunningham, J. W. (1992). Making words: Enhancing the invented spelling-decoding connection. The Reading Teacher, 46, 106-115. Describes a group-guided invented spelling instructional strategy for exploring how the alphabetic system works.

Henderson, E. (1985). Teaching spelling. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Classic book by an eminent researcher and practitioner in the spelling field; provides an in-depth discussion of spelling stages and of a developmentally appropriate curriculum.

Routman, R. (1991). Invitations. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Contains sections on shared writing and on linking spelling with reading and writing.

Opitz, M. F., & Cooper, D. (1993). Adapting the spelling basal for spelling workshop. The Reading Teacher, 47, 106-113. Explains how an adopted spelling basal can be integrated into a developmental spelling curriculum.

Reading Psychology, Vol. 10, Nos. 2 and 3 (1989). In 1989, two issues of this journal were devoted to spelling; describes appropriate spelling activities and includes a lengthy discussion of word sorts.

Temple, C., Nathan, R., Temple, F., & Burris, N. (1993). The beginnings of writing (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Provides a rich description of the earliest stages of spelling development.

Figure 4

Word Sorts

Sorts by Sound

mouse house pounces double touch country trouble

Sorts by Spelling

oi               oy

boil             boy
choice           toy
voice            joy
noise            Roy
coin

Figure 5

Steps for Using the Corrected-Test Method

1. Select words with a common spelling pattern. Students should be able to read all of the words and be able to spell at least half of the words.

2. Dictate the words to the students in a traditional spelling test format.

3. Have children check their own papers by using their pencil points to move across each word letter-by-letter as it is spelled by the teacher, and by putting a check mark next to those words that are correctly spelled.

4. Have children count their check marks and record the total in a circle on their papers.

5. Take a group score by saying, "How many of you had a total of one?" One is multiplied by the number of children who raised their hands and the product is written on the chalkboard. The teacher follows this procedure up to the total number of words on the test, each time recording the group's product in a column on the chalkboard. A final total is determined by adding the numbers in the column. This is the group's score.

6. Have students fold their papers over for a retest, again using the traditional spelling format.

7. Have students score their tests using the procedures described in Steps 3 and 4.

8. Take a second group score using the procedure described in Step 5. Celebrate the improved group score.

References

Barnes, W. G. (1989). Word sorting: The cultivation of rules for spelling in English. Reading Psychology, 10, 293-307.

Bartch, J. (1992). An alternative to spelling: An integrated approach. Language Arts, 69, 404-408.

Bear, D. R., & Barone, D. (1989). Using children's spellings to group for word study and directed reading in the primary classroom. Reading Psychology, 10, 275-292.

Beers, J., & Henderson, E. (1977). A study of developing orthographic concepts among first grade children. Research in the Teaching of English, 11, 133-148.

Bloodgood, J. W. (1991). A new approach to spelling instruction in language arts programs. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 203-211.

Buchanan, E. (1989). Spelling for whole language classrooms. New York: Richard C. Owen.

Cunningham, P. M. (1991). Phonics they use words for reading and writing. New York: HarperCollins.

Cunningham, P. M., & Cunningham, J. W. (1992). Making words: Enhancing the invented spelling-decoding connection. The Reading Teacher, 46, 106-115.

Dyson, A. H. (1986). Children's early interpretations of writing: Expanding research perspectives. In D. B. Yaden, Jr. & S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning reading (pp. 201218). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1985). Literacy before schooling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fowler, E. D. (1989, April). Raising spelling scores through peer tutoring and cooperative groups. Paper presented at the Annual Spring Conference of the National Council of Teachers of English, Charleston, SC.

Gill, J. T. (1992). Focus on research: Development of word knowledge as it relates to reading, spelling, and instruction. Language Arts, 69, 444-453.

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

Hillerich, R. L. (1977). Let's teach spelling - Not phonetic misspelling. Language Arts, 54, 301-307.

Horn, T. D. (1969). Spelling. In R. L. Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (4th ed.) (pp. 1282-1299). Toronto: Macmillan.

Johnson, T. D., Langford, K. G., & Quorn, K. C. (1981). Characteristics of an effective spelling program. Language Arts, 58, 581-588.

Nelson, L. (1989). Something borrowed something new: Teaching implications of developmental spelling research. Reading Psychology, 10, 255-274.

O'Flahavan, J. F., & Blassberg, R. (1992). Toward an embedded model of spelling instruction for emergent literates. Language Arts, 69, 409-417.

Opitz, M. F., & Cooper, D. (1993). Adapting the spelling basal for spelling workshop. The Reading Teacher, 47, 106-113.

Read, C. (1971). Preschool children's knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 1-34.

Rubin, D. (1990). Teaching elementary language arts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schlagal, R. C. (1989). Constancy and change in spelling development. Reading Psychology, 10, 207-232.

Schlagal, R. C., & Schlagal, J. H. (1992). The integral character of spelling: Teaching strategies for multiple purposes. Language Arts, 69, 418-424.

Templeton, S. (1989). Tacit and explicit knowledge of derivational morphology: Foundations for a unified approach to spelling and vocabulary development in the intermediate grades and beyond. Reading Psychology, 10, 233-253.

Templeton, S. (1991). Teaching and learning the English spelling system: Reconceptualizing method and purpose. Elementary School Journal, 92, 185-201.

Templeton, S. (1992). New trends in an historical perspective: Old story, new resolution - Sound and meaning in spelling. Language Arts, 69, 454-463.

Tompkins, G. E., & Hoskisson, K. (1991). Language arts content and teaching strategies. New York: Macmillan.

Van Laan, N. (1990). A mouse in my house. New York: Knopf.

Venezky, R. L. (1967). English orthography: Its graphical structure and its relation to sound. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 75 - 106.

Weiner, S. (1994). Four first graders' descriptions of how they spell. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 315-330.

Wilde, S. (1990). A proposal for a new spelling curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 275-289.

Priscilla L. Griffith is Associate Professor, College of Education, University of South Florida, Tampa. Judy A. Leavell is Assistant Professor, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas.