Spelling Rules in the ESL Classroom

Scott Stewart M.Ed.

May 6, 2023

Abstract

As a teacher at an international school, I am always looking for methods to improve literacy, the ability to read and write. Reading comprehension and writing grammatically correct sentences are the usual focus, but I think that we often overlook spelling. Students have dictionaries readily available in the classroom, on their computers, their phones, and writing programs have built-in spellcheckers. This has led some of my colleagues to lessen their focus on spelling. We do the traditional ten-word weekly spelling list where the words are presented on Monday, briefly touched on during the week, and tested on Friday, with the usual “Friday-Know-Monday-No” effect. Many teachers think that, while not necessarily a waste of time, spelling is not something worth investing a lot of time. In my search for finding the most effective ways to teach spelling, I came across Understanding the Logic of English by Denise Eide. She presented a set of comprehensive rules for spelling “which help to explain 98% of English words” (Eide, 2012). The purpose of my study is to discover the benefits, if any, of using these spelling rules to group and teach the spelling words.

Introduction and Background

According to Chliounaki and Bryant (2007), students need to be able to fall back upon their knowledge of the rules of language and how words work to succeed at reading and spelling. Literacy rates in the U.S. are abysmal. Eide (2012) stated in Uncovering the Logic of English that “the United States currently has one of the lowest literacy rates in the developed world… 34% of fourth graders cannot read, and 68% are below proficient” (p.11). Native English speaker are taught a couple of spelling rules and not a system of formal rules. There is not even a consensus over what the rules are. We do not know how often a rule works before it is considered effective or the effect of teaching spelling rules on reading levels. At Grade 4 in an international bilingual school, phonemes are not focused on any longer. There is an expectation that the student would have learned these in early primary. In upper primary, most of the instruction for spelling is just memorization.

The purpose of this study is to explore the importance of spelling, observe the effects of systematically teaching formal spelling rules on student’s spelling tests and reading scores and find out if teaching spelling rules is beneficial to either, and discuss the relationship with reading and writing. The skills are interlinked. Mistakes in spelling make reading more difficult and better spelling makes texts easier to read (Pan et al., 2021). Poor reading affects writing, and not just regarding spelling. Reading improves vocabulary so it makes sense that if spelling improves reading and writing and reading and writing improve vocabulary, then spelling improves vocabulary. And choosing the right vocabulary in writing could be the difference between a paper getting published or not, a proposal getting accepted or not, a call-back for a job, or persuasive writing being able to persuade or not. The topic of spelling came out of my search for ways to improve reading. Student literacy is a problem for our school, and, after discussions with colleagues in other schools, it appears to be a problem with international schools in general. “Research has shown that learning to spell and learning to read rely on much of the same underlying knowledge” (Moats, 2005). Scheduling is rigid to accommodate the variety and number of classes the students take. Only one thirty-five-minute period per week is given for a structured spelling class. I need to use this limited time in the most beneficial and effective way possible. I have incorporated made up spellings to get students used to practicing their phonological awareness, kinesthetic learning with total physical response, prefixes, suffixes, copying words, and any other method that I thought would work. One method I have not tried is using spelling rules. Using spelling rules will be another tool to use in improving spelling and the areas that spelling affects. Exposure and practice with spelling rules will allow students to develop a better understanding of how English phonology and morphology work and provide them with the confidence and ability needed to become competent in English.

Literature Review

Spelling Is Important to Our Society

Spelling might not seem important until someone misspells a word on a resume, or in a paper turned in to a professor that takes an entire letter grade off for each spelling or grammatical mistake. But even beyond these scenarios lies something more important about spelling – its relationship with reading and writing skills. Reed (2012) discussed areas of importance and problems and states, “Accurate spelling reflects more advanced linguistic knowledge … because it requires the integration of phonological, orthographic, and morphological knowledge” (p.5). It makes sense that a student would have difficulty spelling words that they could not read and make more mistakes reading words they could not spell. Using 26 letters that make up some 44 phonemes with roughly 74 phonographs that make up hundreds of thousands of words, including words rooted in German, Latin, French, Spanish, Greek, with words “borrowed” here and there from many other countries, not including confusing spellings with homophones, homographs, irregular spellings, suffixes, prefixes, silent letters, it is no wonder that many students, especially ESL/EFL students, find learning to spell English words frustrating. “Therefore, reading and spelling can be mutually beneficial if taught together, rather than separately, because they create additional opportunities to practice applying common patterns” (Reed, 2012, p.6). There are stages to learning spelling that many teachers are not familiar with and have never used to teach spelling in the classroom. Knowing how students learn to spell and at what stage they are in gives the teacher insight on why the student is making a particular error at a particular time. The teacher would then know if and how to address certain mistakes (Reed, 2012). There are many ways to teach spelling and there is no consensus on just one. “The research suggests the answer is not a choice of a single approach… there seem to be valid reasons to integrate the approaches in order to address different aspects of English spelling (Reed, 2012, p.20).

Putman (2017) also stated the importance and value of spelling, the misunderstood nature of English spelling and its irregularities, and the lack of teacher knowledge. Regular, weekly spelling tests have been a staple of schools and would lead the average person to believe that spelling is important. Spelling something incorrectly is noticed and if students consistently did this, parents would not think that the teacher had fully done their job. Putman (2017) wrote about the current state of spelling. “In fact, our society, in general, values correct spelling above all other writing conventions” (p.24). Especially now, with social media platforms, poor spellers are regularly called out and ridiculed and whatever opinion they had stated is undermined by the appearance of being uneducated and ignorant. But spelling is still approached with hesitancy because teachers and students get frustrated with the irregularity of English spelling. It is even worse for ESL/EFL students. Even as early as the 1960’s, researchers have known that English spelling is rule based and 84% of words can be predictably spelled (Putman, 2017). Yet teachers still diligently choose ten to twenty words about a topic, write them on a board in the classroom, and tell the students to memorize them by Friday. There has not been an effort to learn and teach the patterns and rules of spelling. Teachers may break down the words into syllables, sound out the words, and point out why the spelling of the word seemingly danced to its own beat, but actually teaching a formal, accurate spelling word just is not done, mostly because teachers are unfamiliar with most spelling rules. “The traditional spelling curriculum does not require the teachers to be familiar with developmental spelling stages or understand how the English language system is organized” (Putman, 2017, p.25). Teaching words by topic works if the main goal is learning the vocabulary to discuss a concept or theme, but students learn to spell new words by building on existing knowledge of how the language works and try to spell words by relating them to words with similar spelling, not meaning or topic. “Patterns are the most effective and efficient way to teach regular and predictable words in English” (Putman, 2017, p.26).

Spelling Rules Are Important

Pan et al. (2021) reiterated that schools were pulling back from teaching spelling formally and systematically and investigated possible reasons and why explicit instruction is needed. “In the early 21st century, however, skepticism as to the importance of spelling has grown, some schools have deemphasized or abandoned spelling instruction altogether” (Pan et al., 2021, p.1523). This shows the changing attitudes towards spelling instruction in recent years. In the past, spelling was seen as an essential skill that all students should learn. However, in recent years, there has been a growing movement to deemphasize or even abandon spelling instruction altogether. This is due to a number of factors, including the rise of technology, which has made it easier for people to correct spelling errors (Pan et al. 2021). The invention of spellcheck in writing programs, new ways to spell and abbreviate words in areas such as social media and texts, the belief that spelling is arbitrary and English spelling, with its messy irregularities, and the fact that spelling has been omitted from many standardized tests have all contributed to the demise of formal spelling being taught in the classroom (Pan et al., 2021). There has a been a shift from the explicit teaching of spelling to the incidental teaching of spelling even though research has shown that “additional explicit instruction led to greater improvements in spelling skills” and “incidental instruction should at most supplement explicit instruction” (Pan et al., 2021, p.1532). Pan et al. (2021) discussed a number of arguments for and against deemphasizing spelling instruction. On the one hand, some people argue that spelling is no longer as important as it once was, thanks to the rise of technology. They point out that people can easily correct spelling errors using spell checkers and other tools. They argue that there are more important skills that students should be learning, such as critical thinking and problem solving. On the other hand, some people believe that spelling is still an important skill that students should learn. They point out that spelling errors can make students look unprofessional and can even lead to misunderstandings. Also, they contend that spelling is a foundation skill that is necessary for learning other academic subjects, such as writing and reading.

The importance of spelling is supported by research, which shows that spelling skills are prized by recruiters and may be considered in promotion decisions and spelling errors can have negative consequences for companies and organizations, as customers may view them as less credible and less trustworthy (Pan et al. 2021). While spelling is not directly evaluated in some educational assessments, it is still important in various educational settings where it is directly evaluated (Pan et al. 2021)

Al-Sobhi et al. (2018), when looking into Arab ESL secondary students’ spelling mistakes, stated “spelling is a complex written language skill, which requires a learner to possess a number of language abilities, including phonological, morphological, visual memory skills, semantic relationships as well as adequate knowledge of spelling rules” (p.16). ESL students do not have the background of native speakers to naturally put together letters and sounds as easily as native speakers. They need a solid foundation of all aspects of spelling, including rules. A lack of understanding of spelling rules was found to be a large influence among the students in this study (Al-Sobhi et al., 2018). The English writing system is highly irregular, with many words that are spelled differently than they are pronounced, and this can be a major challenge for learners of English, as they have to learn the spelling of each word individually (Al-Sobhi et al., 2018). Correct spelling facilitates better writing by keeping the message clearer and limiting distractions and misunderstandings. This is especially true for ESL learners as a spelling mistake may be an annoyance to a native speaker, it could lead to confusion with an ESL student. By formally and systematically teaching spelling rules, we can avoid an “incomplete application of English spelling rules, or the lack of knowledge of the exceptions of spelling rules, and performance errors” (Al-Sobhi et al., 2018, p.17). Many students are not aware of the spelling rules that govern the English language. This can lead to errors, as students may not know how to spell a word even if they know how it is pronounced (Al-Sobhi et al., 2018).

Simonsen & Gunter (2001) reviewed different spelling practices and concluded “despite what people may believe about the difficulties inherent in spelling instruction, the written English language does conform to predictable patterns, and more importantly, those patterns can be taught directly to students” (p.97). Spelling rules illustrate the patterns of English words and when taught to recognize these patterns, spelling improves. Teaching phonemic awareness is important and most schools do this in earlier grades. Whole word instruction is still used with teaching irregular spellings of common words. The morphemic approach, such as the teaching of prefixes and suffixes is also necessary to understand English words. These three approaches are commonly used but few, if any, schools take it one step further and explicitly teach spelling rules, even though research has shown that rules are effective when combined with other approaches. “Teaching students to spell morphographs and teaching the rules for combining morphographs will allow students to spell a far larger set of words accurately than by teaching individual words through rote memorization of weekly spelling lists” (Simonsen & Gunter, 2001, p.101).

The importance of teaching students to spell accurately has not been lost in the age of computers and spell-checkers and there is a growing body of research that suggests that spelling instruction is still important, even in the digital age (Simonsen & Gunter, 2001). Simsonsen & Gunter (2001) explore the literature associated with different approaches such as the phonemic approach, the whole-word approach, morphemic approach, and direct instruction components. The phonemic approach to spelling instruction is based on the idea that students can learn to spell words by learning the relationship between letters and their corresponding sounds and has been shown to be effective in teaching students to spell accurately (Simonsen & Gunter, 2001). Whole-word approaches to spelling instruction are based on the idea that students can learn to spell words by memorizing the entire word, rather than by sounding it out (Simonsen & Gunter, 2001). Whole-word approaches to spelling instruction can be an effective way to teach irregularly spelled words but it is important to note that whole-word approaches are not as effective for teaching regularly spelled words (Simonsen & Gunter, 2001). The morphemic approach to spelling instruction is based on the idea that students can learn to spell words by learning the smallest units of meaning in written English, called morphographs (prefixes, suffixes, or bases) and by understanding how morphographs are combined, students can learn to spell a large number of words accurately (Simonsen & Gunter, 2001).

“While often neglected, spelling is an important academic skill for students to learn in school.” (Simonsen & Gunter, 2001, p.104.) Spelling is an important academic skill for students to learn in school and is essential for students to be able to spell accurately in order to communicate effectively in writing (Simonsen & Gunter, 2001). Spelling can be taught directly and systematically and spelling programs that teach spelling through phonemic, whole-word, and morphemic approaches while utilizing Direct Instruction components (e.g., systematic error correction, cumulative review/distributed practice, and sequenced lessons) are highly effective in teaching accurate spelling (Simonsen & Gunter, 2001).

“Language, both spoken and written, is the foundation of all academics and the medium by which we conduct business, science, politics, and relationships” (Eide, 2012, p.11). The United States has a serious literacy problem. According to the Nation’s Report Card, nearly two-thirds of fourth graders and nearly two-thirds of eighth graders are below proficient in reading and this problem persists into adulthood, with nearly half of all adults not being proficient in reading (Eide, 2012). English is a complex language with a unique writing system. This complexity makes it difficult for many English speakers to understand the basic building blocks of the language: the sounds, their corresponding written expressions, and the spelling rules that go with them (Eide, 2012). English is a complex language, but there are a finite number of tools that can be used to unlock the mystery of 98% of the words in the language and when these tools are presented to students, nearly all of them can succeed in learning how to read, write, and spell correctly (Eide, 2012). English is a complex language with a unique writing system. The 44 sounds in English can be spelled in 74 basic ways, 25 of which make more than one sound and some phonograms (letters or letter combinations) represent multiple sounds, and some sounds are represented by multiple phonograms (Eide, 2012).

According to Denise Eide (2012), “most English speakers do not know the basic building blocks of the language: the sounds, their corresponding written expressions, and the spelling rules that go with them” (p.15). The situation is even worse in ESL/EFL classes where students are struggling to learn to speak, read, write, and spell simultaneously. Eide (2012) laid out a comprehensive list of spelling rules and their explanations for teachers to use to improve spelling and reading in the classroom. English has 30 spelling rules that interact with phonograms and impact how words are pronounced and spelled. These rules are applicable to most words and provide an explanation for why they are spelled and pronounced in a specific way. Without knowledge of these rules, some scholars have estimated that English has over 1,700 phonograms (Eide 2012). However, the 30 rules simplify the complexity of English spelling and bring structure to it (Eide, 2012). English is a complex language and can seem messy at times, especially to non-native speakers, and teachers need as many tools as they can get to effectively improve literacy. Understanding the elements of the language, the patterns, and how the pieces fit are essential in effectively teaching reading and writing and spelling. This may seem daunting, but Eide simply stated “Learning 75 phonograms and 31 spelling rules is the most efficient route to mastering English” (p. 18).

When children learn to read and spell, their understanding of the structure and rules of their language becomes a valuable tool (Chliounaki & Bryant, 2007). The use of morphology is a significant example of the connection between linguistic knowledge and literacy because the spelling of many words in most alphabetic scripts is determined not only by phonology but also by their morphological structure (Chliounaki & Bryant, 2007). In English, morphology provides a straightforward explanation for many spelling patterns that would otherwise seem unpredictable because considering the morphological structure of words can make sense of what would otherwise appear to be an unexplainable variation from basic alphabetic rules (Chliounaki & Bryant, 2007). Chliounaki & Bryant (2007) reiterated the importance of students focusing on the structure and patterns of language when learning to read and write, of which spelling is a large part. Morphology, which is the study of the forms of words, is essential when learning spelling patterns and rules. “In English, for example, morphology provides a clear and simple basis for understanding the reason for many spelling sequences that would otherwise seem capricious” (Chliounaki & Bryant, 2007, p.1360). There is a comprehensive list of spelling rules, but that does not mean most people are aware of them, much less know most or all. They are a resource and a tool that is being wasted. Literacy is the goal, and anything that will help students master reading and writing should be utilized in our lessons.

Chliounaki & Bryant (2007) conducted a 20-month longitudinal study to investigate how children learn to spell morphological inflections. Fifty boys and 53 girls participated in the study. The children were tested on their ability to spell vowel sounds in real words, real word inflections, and pseudoword inflections. The results of the study showed that children were more accurate at spelling vowel sounds in real words than in pseudoword inflections. This suggests that children's knowledge of the spelling of specific words is more important than their knowledge of general spelling rules when it comes to spelling morphological inflections. It also showed that children's initial success at spelling real word inflections was a better predictor of their later success at spelling pseudoword inflections than their initial success at spelling real word stems. This suggests that children's knowledge of the spelling of word endings is more important than their knowledge of the spelling of word beginnings when it comes to learning to spell morphological inflections. The study concluded that children can and do learn about morphemic spelling from direct instruction. This suggests that teachers should explicitly teach children about the link between morphemes and spelling.

Dymock and Nicholson (2017) compared teaching spelling through rules and through rote learning and concluded “the rule-based approach had greater transfer to spelling of new words for both proficient and less proficient spellers.” (p.171). Their study aimed to compare the effectiveness of a common spelling approach used in many New Zealand classrooms, which involves a weekly corrected test using a rote learning strategy, with an alternative approach that teaches students a set of spelling rules and demonstrates how to apply them to spell words. The participants were a total of 57 students from two classes with an average age of 7 years and 7 months and the study lasted 10 weeks (Dymock & Nicholson, 2017). Explicit instruction in spelling rules was found to be effective in improving spelling not only for the words that were taught but also for unfamiliar words and the study showed that explicitly teaching the rules helped with the spelling of both the trained words and transfer words (Dymock & Nicholson, 2017). The results indicate that a rule-based strategy for teaching spelling is more effective than a non-rule-based approach because it not only helps children learn the words that are taught but also allows them to transfer their knowledge to new, untaught words (Dymock & Nicholson, 2017). The non-rule-based approach was effective for the words that were studied, but the effects did not extend to new words and given the vast number of words in the English language, relying solely on rote learning of a small set of words each week is insufficient for generalizing learning to new words (Dymock & Nicholson, 2017). In contrast, the rule-based approach teaches students principled rules for spelling words, enabling them to make informed choices when spelling unfamiliar words. As a result, their spellings are either correct or logical (Dymock & Nicholson, 2017).

Spelling is Important for Reading and Writing

“While spelling never has occupied more than a fraction of the attention devoted to reading, good spelling nonetheless has been regarded by many parents and educators as an essential goal in the development of literacy” (Rankin et al., 1993, p.155). Rankin et al. (1993) went on to discuss the change from the traditional model of just memorizing the spelling of words to the need for teachers to possess a deeper understanding of the orthographic rules of spelling and when and how to apply them and teach them to students. No longer do most teachers use a systematic approach, with regular drills and activities that encourage students to explore the nature and function of words and their parts and to use them in relevant context (Rankin et al., 1993).This affects students’ spelling ability, influences reading and writing, and changes their perception of the importance of spelling. “Students' beliefs about their efficacy as spellers related strongly to their actual spelling performance” (Rankin et al., 1993, p.164).

Spelling is not isolated from other areas of language proficiency or acquisition. “Good spelling is a critical component of good writing and that spelling skills, along with an understanding of the rules of grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation, are the necessary foundations on which good writing is built.” (Rankin et al., 1993, p.155-156). English teachers have historically considered spelling proficiency a foundational skill needed for accurate and precise writing (Rankin et al., 1993). There has been a shift in the approach to learning spelling, from the focuses, systematic practice to acquisition through writing and reading (Rankin et al., 1993). This change in approaches can lead to changes in the student’s perception of the role and importance of spelling and the link to writing and communication. “In the revised causal model relating students' perceptions about spelling and writing, spelling performance, and writing performance, students' beliefs about their efficacy as spellers related strongly to their actual spelling performance” (Rankin et al., 1993, p.164). This highlights the importance of self-efficacy beliefs in both spelling and writing and students who believe in their ability to spell and write well are more likely to succeed in these areas and may play a role in mediating students' willingness to write (Rankin et al., 1993).

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant amount of research on reading and spelling disabilities, which has led the scientific community to agree that language processing impairments are the primary cause of these disabilities, rather than general visual-perceptual deficits, difficulties constructing meaning from context, or other attention or memory-related issues (Moats, 1994). Specifically, individuals with reading difficulties struggle to efficiently and accurately process the phonological building blocks of language and the units of print that represent them and as a result, there is a need to help individuals with reading difficulties acquire explicit knowledge of the structure of language (Moats, 1994). However, the findings of reading researchers may not have a significant impact on practice unless teachers are able to interpret and apply them. Unfortunately, graduate level teachers are often not adequately prepared to teach reading and spelling explicitly. In order to be proficient in reading, it is essential to understand that words are made up of individual speech sounds which are represented by letters or letter combinations. Without this knowledge, the writing system can be difficult to understand and decipher for learners (Moats, 1994). Moats (1994) used her research to test teachers on the elements of language to determine if they had the experience and education to be effective in teaching reading, writing, and spelling and the results were not positive and explore the common gaps in their knowledge of language structure, along with reasons for these gaps. It is crucial that teachers have the knowledge to teach the elements of language and students being taught by teachers that lack the basic understanding of phonology and morphology are at a severe disadvantage.

Moats (1994) obtained information about teachers' background knowledge of language from a survey given to teachers at the first meeting of a course entitled Reading, Spelling, and Phonology. The data presented here was collected in six sections of this class. The survey was designed to assess the knowledge teachers have of speech sounds, their identity in words, correspondence between sounds and symbols, concepts of language, and presence of morphemic units in words. The survey assessed the specificity and depth of teachers' knowledge, in order to reveal misconceptions or unfocused concepts as well as outright absence of information. Teachers were asked to define terms, locate or give examples of phonic, syllabic, and morphemic units, and analyze words into speech sounds, syllables, and morphemes. The course the teachers were entering was designed to teach this material and by the conclusion of the class, most students had mastered it at a satisfactory level.

Moats (1994) then conducted two surveys to assess the preexisting knowledge of 52 and 37 individuals, respectively. The surveys revealed that many participants had insufficient concepts about language and pervasive conceptual weaknesses in the skills needed for direct, language-focused reading instruction. For example, many participants were unable to count phonemes or identify phonic relationships. The survey results suggest that even experienced and literate teachers often lack a thorough understanding of the structure of spoken and written language and may therefore struggle to teach it explicitly to both beginning readers and those with reading and spelling disabilities. Many teachers have misconceptions about the distinctions between speech and print, as well as how print represents speech (Moats, 1994).

Moats (1994) stated that “even motivated and experienced teachers typically understand too little about spoken and written language structure to be able to provide sufficient instruction in these areas” (p.81). One reason that teachers do not focus on spelling rules is that they are simply unaware or only have a rudimentary knowledge about them. Teachers are simply not prepared enough in education programs and classes to effectively teach reading, writing, and spelling. “Without adequate training, teachers' sense of efficacy in their jobs is most certainly diminished” (Moats, 1994, p.86).

Martin-Chang et al. (2014) examined the relationship between reading and spelling and found “the difference in reading speed appears to be a function of both the accuracy and stability of the orthographic representations stored in memory, rather than due to characteristics of individual participants or words,” meaning that better spellers are faster readers (p.1). While this seems to be a statement along the lines of “water is wet,” it is still surprising that spelling is not a point of focus in the reading curriculum. Martin-Chang et al. (2014) went on to describe the lexical quality hypothesis (LQH) which states that “consistent, accurate spelling and fluent reading are reflections of the quality of, and the coherence among, the three facets of lexical representation (phonology, semantics, and orthography)” (p.3). And those three areas are precisely the areas that most teachers lack knowledge and training.

Martin-Chang et al. (2014) described when we learn a new word, we store it in our memory in three ways: by its sound, its spelling, and its meaning. However, these three components of word identity are not always directly related to each other. For example, the sound of the word "cat" does not tell us that it is spelled with the letters "c-a-t," and the meaning of the word "cat" does not tell us that it sounds like "kat." Word learning is the process of creating and refining these individual components of word identity, as well as the links between them and this process can be challenging, but it is essential for our ability to communicate and understand language (Martin-Chang et al., 2014). Martin-Chang et al. (2014) conducted a study to investigate the relationship between the quality of orthographic representations in memory and word reading speed. The participants in this study were 74 undergraduate students at a small university in Eastern Canada. The participants were all native English speakers. The researchers administered two subtests to each participant: the spelling subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement and the Test of Word Reading Efficiency. The scores from these two subtests were used to measure the participants' word reading and phonemic decoding proficiency. Studies have demonstrated that individuals who are skilled spellers also tend to be faster readers with stronger bottom-up processing abilities (Martin-Chang et al., 2014). The results showed negative correlations between spelling ability and reading rate, suggesting that better spellers have faster word activation in reading and support and extend previous work showing moderate to high positive correlations between the ability to read and spell (Martin-Chang et al., 2014).

According to reading models, the creation of orthographic memory representations required for smooth reading is achieved mainly through repeatedly recoding words phonologically (Conrad, 2008). "Repeated practice mapping phonemes onto graphemes allows children to set up the representations necessary to support fluent word reading.” (Conrad, 2008, p.869). Through repeated practice, the memory representations of words become more accurate, reflecting their letter sequences and phonological codes and as practice continues, these memory representations become even more precise (Conrad, 2008).

Conrad (2008) investigated how practicing spelling and reading certain words affects the memory's orthographic representations that are involved in reading both practiced words and new, unfamiliar words. The study involved Grade 2 students who were typical readers and underwent a training program to determine if there was a transfer between reading and spelling after reading and spelling practice sessions (Conrad, 2008). The findings suggest that the orthographic representations that are developed through practice can be utilized for both reading and spelling and as a result, it is recommended that reading and spelling programs be aligned and coordinated to provide the greatest benefit to children (Conrad, 2008).

Research suggests that reading and spelling are closely related skills that share some of the same mental representations (Conrad, 2008). According to Conrad (2008), this means that learning to read can help with learning to spell, and vice versa. However, spelling is a more complex skill than reading, and requires a more accurate mental representation of words. This is because spelling requires the production of letter patterns, while reading only requires the recognition of letter patterns. Therefore, full attention to all letters in a word is necessary for spelling, but not for reading. Conrad (2008) examined the transfer between reading and spelling skills in typically developing readers. The study involved 41 Grade 2 children and were selected from a group of 60 children across five schools in a rural area of western Canada (Conrad, 2008). Conrad (2008) screened the children using a standardized reading and spelling test and the children who were selected for the study were those who scored in the average range on the reading and spelling tests. He randomly assigned children to either a spelling or reading practice group where the spelling practice group repeatedly practiced spelling a list of words containing families of words with shared orthographic rime units and the reading practice group repeatedly practiced reading the same list of words. After practice, Conrad asked all children to read and spell a new list of words, some of which contained the practiced orthographic pattern (2008). He then asked children to spell the words they had practiced reading or read the words they had practiced spelling. The results of the study showed that both spelling practice and reading practice led to significant improvements in reading and spelling skills, however, the benefits of spelling practice were greater than the benefits of reading practice (Conrad, 2008). This suggests that spelling practice may be more effective for improving reading and spelling skills than reading practice. The study also found that there was some transfer of learning between reading and spelling and that children who practiced spelling showed some improvement in their reading skills, and vice versa (Conrad, 2008). However, the transfer of learning was not complete, and the results suggested that reading and spelling are distinct skills that require some degree of independent practice (Conrad, 2008).

Spelling is the process of using letters to represent words and spelling knowledge can be expressed in three ways: rules, statistical patterns, and procedures, and each of these ways of knowing has different implications for instruction (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). Rules are explicit statements about how words are spelled and can be used to guide, self-check, or revise spelling (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). Teachers can verbalize rules and ask children to verbalize them as well, however, linguistic awareness (the ability to understand the rules of language) is not acquired by simply memorizing rules (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). It is acquired by reflecting on and operating on the phonological, orthographic, and morphological forms of words in conscious memory (Berninger & Fayol, 2008).

Statistical patterns are regularities in the way that words are spelled, and teachers can help children learn statistical patterns by providing them with lists of words that follow the same pattern (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). These patterns can then tie in with procedures. Procedures are specific steps that can be followed to spell a word (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). For example, one procedure for spelling the word "beautiful" is to break it down into smaller units (be-au-ti-ful) and then spell each unit separately (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). Teachers can help children learn procedures by providing them with explicit instructions and by giving them plenty of practice (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). Most research on spelling instruction has focused on two factors: word frequency and the role of the alphabetic principle (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). Word frequency refers to how often a word is used in the language and teachers should focus on teaching children to spell words that are frequently used (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). The alphabetic principle refers to the relationship between letters and sounds and teachers should teach children how to use the alphabetic principle to spell words (Berninger & Fayol, 2008).

Berninger and Fayol (2008) looked into whether or not explicit instruction in mapping spoken words onto written words or rules constructive, are activities that focus on orthographic, phonological, or morphological awareness useful, and how does instruction in spelling influence writing. They found that learning to spell new one-syllable words was effective through both lexical mapping and onset-rime mapping, however, during composing, the alphabetic principal mapping resulted in more accurate spelling. Their results also pointed out that spelling knowledge is largely acquired through implicit memory and explicit instruction can improve spelling skills.

Berninger and Fayol (2008) found that improving mapping procedures at different unit levels, including letters, onsets, and rhymes, resulted in better word-spelling skills and greater ease in composing longer pieces. Additionally, engaging in composing activities that involved grade-appropriate high frequency words led to improvements in both spelling and composition (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). Their study also showed that teaching spelling had a positive impact on composition skills. To put it simply, instructing students on how to map letters to sounds, onsets to rimes, and high frequency words to their spellings can enhance their spelling accuracy and writing fluency (Berninger & Fayol, 2008).

The success of students' writing depends on lowering the amount of attention and cognitive effort required to change ideas into words, while at the same time enhancing their understanding of effective writing strategies and genres and it is essential to increase the amount of attention and cognitive effort directed towards planning, monitoring, evaluating, and regulating the writing process (Harris et al., 2017). Focusing too much on spelling can negatively impact other aspects of writing, such as planning and organization, results in less elaborate and shorter papers (Harris et al., 2017). Trying to think about spelling while simultaneously composing can disrupt content integration and coherence, reducing the overall quality of the text and preoccupation with spelling can limit opportunities to precisely convey ideas through sentences, and multiple misspellings can lead readers to question the writer's competence (Harris et al., 2017). “Mastery of skills such as spelling, development of essential knowledge about writing… are crucial for our students yet challenging for most.” (Harris et al., 2017, p.263). When providing explicit spelling instruction to students with special needs, it is crucial to focus on helping them learn to spell commonly used words accurately and automatically and students need to understand the fundamental patterns that govern how many English words are spelled, which will help them correctly spell new words that they have not been explicitly taught (Harris et al., 2017).

To become a proficient speller, research-based and validated explicit spelling instruction procedures can be applied (Harris et al., 2017). These practices include providing a clear rationale for learning new spellings, presenting correct models of the words, providing feedback, and offering guided practice to ensure correct and automatic spelling production and are effective study strategies that can be incorporated into a comprehensive approach to teaching spelling (Harris et al., 2017).

Counterpoint to Topic

While research has been on the side of teaching spelling, concerns have been raised. Many think that too many exceptions exist to offer an effective approach to teaching spelling rules. Another argument is the lack of teacher training and knowledge. Without a deep understanding of the English language, teachers may find it difficult to explain spelling rules to students and this can lead to students becoming confused, especially if there are many exceptions to the rules (Spelling Rules: Help or Hinder Learning to Read, 2023). Additionally, students who have limited working memory or are learning English as a Second Language may find it difficult to follow lengthy verbal explanations of rules (Spelling Rules: Help or Hinder Learning to Read, 2023). MacKechnie (2020) simply stated “Don’t teach spelling rules. English spelling does not obey rules.” The idea that English words do not really follow rules is ubiquitous in education.

Krashen (1989), when discussing the IH (Input Hypothesis), suggested that reading (instead of learning spelling rules) is a better way to improve vocabulary and spelling. When you read, you are exposed to new words and spelling patterns. This helps you to learn the rules of spelling and to expand your vocabulary. There is substantial evidence to indicate that children can acquire spelling skills through natural learning processes, without the need for explicit instruction, memorization of word lists, or studying spelling rules (Krashen, 1989). Some studies suggest that there is no significant difference in spelling improvement between students who receive explicit instruction and those who learn incidentally and even students who receive no formal spelling instruction may still improve their spelling skills at the same rate as those who do receive instruction (Krashen, 1989) .

Summary

Spelling is significant because it is linked to reading and writing skills, but the importance of spelling may not be obvious until a mistake is made on a resume or academic paper, which can have serious consequences (Reed, 2012). Research indicates that spelling is valuable as recruiters highly value spelling skills and may consider them in promotion decisions (Pan et al., 2021). Spelling errors can be detrimental to companies and organizations as they may make them appear less trustworthy and credible to customers (Pan et al., 2021).The prevailing belief among educators is that good readers recognize whole words rather than reading phonetically, which results in faster reading (Eide, 2012). However, recent studies using functional MRI have shown that good readers actually process sounds one at a time and convert letters into sounds, just at a much faster rate (Eide, 2012). This highlights the importance of teaching intensive phonics, specifically the 74 basic phonograms, which are crucial building blocks for spelling and literacy and should be taught systematically to all students, not just struggling ones, and need to be memorized through regular practice (Eide, 2012). ESL students face challenges in spelling as they lack the natural ability of native speakers in combining letters and sounds and understanding spelling rules is crucial, as a lack of knowledge in this area can have a significant impact on their performance (Al-Sobhi et al., 2018). Learning the English writing system is particularly challenging due to its irregularity, with many words that are spelled differently than they are pronounced but proper spelling can improve writing, making the message clearer and reducing confusion and misunderstandings (Al-Sobhi et al., 2018). Formal and systematic teaching of spelling rules can prevent incomplete application or lack of knowledge of exceptions, leading to better performance by ESL students (Al-Sobhi et al., 2018).

Methodology

Participants

The participants of the quantitative study were Grade 4 students attending Xiwai International Primary School. All students were between 9 and 12 years old. There were 75 girls and 61 boys, 136 students in total. There were 5 different classes in Grade 4 from 4A-4E. All students except 2 were of Chinese nationality. Assuming the cost of tuition is a factor, students should all come from middle to high income families. There were not any specific records of income available. 28% of Grade 4 students were boarders (38), meaning that they live on campus Monday-Friday. Of the 38 students, 25 were boys and 13 were girls. There were no diagnosed students with learning abilities in Grade 4 and there were not any methods available for discerning gender identity or sexual orientation at this grade or in this culture. The participants of the qualitative study were the current grade 4 teachers (2 Americans, 1 British, and 2 South Africans). Teachers ranged from 30-48 years of age with 5-20 years of teaching experience. The demographics of the teachers was analyzed in graphs relaying information from the survey (Figures 7-10).

Setting

This study took place in the primary department of Xiwai International School on the 3rd floor in the Grade 4 classrooms. The average classroom had 27 students. There were five classrooms, 4A-4E, that served as homeroom classrooms for the students where they spent most of their day taking core classes such as Math, English, Chinese, Reading, Writing, and Social Studies. Each classroom contained two whiteboards situated behind two sliding blackboards, a wall-mounted television with HDMI, USB, and VGA connections for teachers to use with their personal computers and projectors. Each room had been decorated by the current foreign teacher, displaying posters, pictures, student work, and other decors that the homeroom foreign teacher found useful and valuable. Each classroom had windows facing the hall and the outside. Each room had access, either inside or out in the hall, to a small class library.

Measures

This is a mixed-method research design and involved the collection of both qualitative and quantitative measures for research purposes, as stated by Mills and Gay (2019). In this research, quantitative and qualitative measures were utilized, which included two sets of spelling test scores to be analyzed and a teacher survey covering background and beliefs about spelling and spelling rules. According to Mills and Gay (2019), a survey is a tool used to gather data that describes various characteristics of a particular population.

One data point obtained in this study is the qualitative survey on teachers and their experience and attitude toward spelling rules and instruction. The survey was created by the researcher and distributed to teachers participating in this study. The survey included questions about the teachers' background and experience in teaching spelling and their attitudes and beliefs about the importance of teaching spelling rules. It was important to ensure that the survey questions were clear and unambiguous to avoid bias in the data collected. The survey responses were collected and analyzed using appropriate statistical methods to display the data clearly.

In the study, the researcher had several duties that were essential to the success of the research. First, the researcher administered the grade-wide spelling tests in two rounds in their class and assisted teachers in administering the same exams for their students. The researcher ensured that all exams were valid and specific with a clear purpose so that the data collected was free of bias and useful. All data was then analyzed and presented in a clear, professional manner using accepted charts and graphs.

Design

Data collection was rather straightforward with regards to quantitative data. There were three lists of vocabulary words separated by the formal spelling rule(s) that were followed. List 1 was presented to all Grade 4 students in the form of a multiple-choice exam that was given orally by the homeroom teacher. List 2 was taught to Grade 4E students grouped by the spelling rules over a 6-week period. One rule was taught each week for a total of 6 spelling rules. List 3 was given to all Grade 4 students in the form of a multiple-choice exam given orally by the homeroom teacher. The test grades were analyzed and computed and clearly presented in acceptable charts.

The timeline for data collecting was between April 17 and June 9 of 2023. For the first round of data collecting on April 17, I gave all Grade 4 students a multiple-choice/oral test over the first group of words and recorded the scores. From April 18 to June 1, spelling rules were taught at a rate of one a week while considering holidays and disruptions. After teaching 4E the second list of words along with the corresponding spelling rules, I tested all Grade 4 students on the third list of words (multiple-choice/oral) on June 2 and collected the data and analyzed the results. The final week was data analysis and reporting.

Results

Quantitative Research Question 1- What is the effect of teaching spelling rules on summative spelling tests?

The Test #1 and Test #2 spelling tests results (Figure A) show that there was an initial discrepancy in the spelling abilities between classes. 4D scored the lowest with 61.4% and 4C scored the highest with 76.5%, a difference of 15.1%. The possible reasons for this gap have been discussed in the section about limitations. 4E scored above the average of 69.2% with a score of 72.8% (Figure A). 4E students studied six spelling rules over six weeks with weekly assessments. Grade 4 had two classes per week scheduled to teach spelling, including the review and spelling test, and 4E kept to the same schedule. After six weeks, all classes were retested using spelling words that coincided with the rules taught to 4E but were not specifically taught or reviewed. Some students in all classes had previous exposure to some words on both tests, with more having exposure to the words on the follow up test, clearly shown by the average increase (without calculating 4E) of 8.15%. 4E clearly benefitted from learning formal spelling rules as shown in Figure A. The increase from Test #1 and Test #2 was 17.43%, more than double the increase of the average for classes 4A-4D. The score of Test #2 was 90.25%, 4.82 points higher than 4C, the second highest, and 20.38 points higher than 4D, the lowest score on Test #2. Overall, the results show that teaching formal spelling rules can have a positive impact on spelling scores.

Figure A

Qualitative Research Question Analysis - How do teachers feel about teaching spelling rules and how much do they know about the rules?

Figure 1 shows that 60% of teachers seldom to never teach spelling rules and none of them teach rules with each new list of spelling words although 100% of the teachers express that teaching formal spelling rules is either effective or essential (Figure 2). 60% of teachers reported that they possessed little knowledge and only 20% stated that they were very knowledgeable (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows that this means 80% of teachers knew 10 or less spelling rules (the 20% of knowledgeable teachers that know more than 10 spelling rules is represented by me). This makes sense when looking at the data in Figure 5. 40% of teachers have never had training on spelling rules and 80% of all teachers have had 6 hours or less. Finally, in Figure 6, the graph shows that 40% of teachers do not think teaching formal spelling rules is important while 60% agree or strongly agree that teaching spelling rules is important. Almost all teachers (80%) had most of their teaching experience in primary school (Figure 7). None of the teachers were new to teaching. Figure 8 shows that all teachers had at least 4 years teaching experience at the time of the study and 60% had over 10 years teaching experience. Figure 9 shows that 60% of the teachers have a bachelor’s degree with the rest possessing a master’s degree. 40% had a current, valid teaching license at the time of the study. All teachers were 25 years of age and older (Figure 10) with 80% being 33 or older.

In conclusion, the data presented in Figures 1-10 suggest that there is a discrepancy between teachers' beliefs about the importance of teaching formal spelling rules and their actual practices. While all teachers express that teaching formal spelling rules is either effective or essential, teachers seldom to never teach spelling rules, and none teach rules with each new list of spelling words. Additionally, Figure 3 indicates that only 20% of teachers reported being very knowledgeable about spelling rules, and 80% knew 10 or fewer spelling rules (Figure 4). This lack of knowledge is reflected in Figure 5, where 40% of teachers have never had training on spelling rules, and 80% have had six hours or less. Despite this, 60% of teachers have a bachelor's degree (Figure 9), and 40% had a current, valid teaching license (Figure 9) at the time of the study, suggesting that there is a need for more comprehensive training on teaching spelling rules to improve their effectiveness in the classroom.

Figure 1 Figure 2

Figure 3 Figure 4

Figure 5 Figure 6

Analysis of Teacher Demographics

Figure 7 Figure 8

Figure 9 Figure 10

Limitations of the Study

There were several limitations that this study faced, the main one being student history. Most Grade 4 students have been at Xiwai International Primary since first grade and have been exposed extensively to English reading, writing, and spelling through a range of subjects. The practice of teachers starting with their students in first grade and moving up with them yearly until they graduate to middle school is common. Therefore, it could be assumed that these students had an advantage over students that transferred to the primary department later. Most had come from smaller, public schools that did not strongly focus on an English curriculum. Some classes had more students that have transferred than others. Another limitation that stemmed from this practice is that some students had the benefit of having the same English teacher for multiple years, and it has been shown that these classes are usually at an academic advantage, especially if said teacher is responsible and qualified. Classes that board (the students live at school Monday to Friday) were also at a disadvantage as teachers reported that these classes often have more discipline problems than classes where the students go home each night. Another limitation was the pretests for a baseline. If limitations and threats strongly affected the pretests, then all data collected after could be compromised. Other threats and limitation included treatment diffusion (students of different classes are frequently friends and communicate with each other outside of school), experimenter effects, differences in the approach to teaching spellings from teacher to teacher in Grade 4, the John Henry effect of reactive arrangements, and, but not limited to, the novelty effect of teaching spelling rules.

Summary

The data collection process for the study was straightforward for quantitative data. There were three lists of vocabulary words separated by formal spelling rules, and List 1 was presented to all Grade 4 students in the form of a multiple-choice exam given orally by the homeroom teacher. List 2 was taught to Grade 4E students over a six-week period, with one rule taught each week. List 3 was given to all Grade 4 students in the form of a multiple-choice exam given orally by the homeroom teacher.

The study aimed to investigate the effect of teaching spelling rules on summative spelling tests among Grade 4 students at Xiwai International Primary School. The study found that teaching spelling rules had a positive effect on summative spelling tests. After six weeks of teaching spelling rules, all class scores significantly increased, with 4E students scoring the highest on Test #2 with a 90.25% score, demonstrating the benefits of learning formal spelling rules. The study concluded that teaching formal spelling rules can have a positive impact on spelling scores.

Conclusions

Chliounaki and Bryant (2007) believe that students need to have a strong understanding of the rules of language and how words work in order to succeed in reading and spelling. This is because reading and spelling are both complex skills that require the ability to understand and manipulate the structure of language. Native English speakers are typically taught a few basic spelling rules, but there is no single, comprehensive system of spelling rules in English and English spelling is notoriously irregular. There are many exceptions to even the most basic rules. As a result, it is difficult to say how often a particular rule works, or what the effect of teaching spelling rules is on reading levels. Despite the challenges, there are some benefits to teaching spelling rules. For example, research has shown that explicit instruction in spelling can help students to improve their spelling skills. Additionally, learning about the rules of spelling can help students to become more aware of the structure of language, which can be beneficial for both reading and writing. The objective of this research is to investigate the significance of spelling and analyze the impact of formally teaching spelling rules on students' performance in spelling tests and to determine whether teaching spelling rules is advantageous for students.

According to Pan et al. (2021), errors in spelling can hinder reading, while improved spelling enhances the readability of texts. Since reading enhances vocabulary, it follows that if spelling improves reading and writing, and reading and writing improve vocabulary, then spelling also enhances vocabulary. Moats (1994) has indicated that there is a significant overlap in the foundational knowledge required for learning to spell and learning to read. According to Reed (2012), accurate spelling indicates a higher level of linguistic knowledge since it involves the synthesis of phonological, orthographic, and morphological knowledge.

Reed (2012) highlights that there are various stages to learning spelling, which many teachers may not be familiar with. Being aware of these stages can help teachers understand why a student is making a particular spelling error at a specific time. This knowledge can help teachers address these mistakes effectively. Putman (2017) emphasized the significance and worth of spelling, as well as the misconceptions surrounding the unpredictable nature of the English language's spelling rules and the dearth of teacher knowledge in this area. To teach regular and expected English words, patterns are the most effective and efficient approach (Putman, 2017). Pan et al. (2021) assert that research provides evidence for the significance of spelling skills, as they are valued by recruiters and may influence promotion decisions. Spelling errors may have adverse outcomes for businesses and organizations, as customers may perceive them as less reliable and trustworthy.

The accuracy of spelling enhances writing quality by ensuring clarity of the message and minimizing confusion and distractions. This is particularly relevant for ESL learners because a spelling error can cause confusion among them. Formal and systematic teaching of spelling rules can help prevent performance errors and incomplete application of the rules, as well as the lack of knowledge of the exceptions, as stated by Al-Sobhi et al. (2018). Eide (2012) provided an extensive inventory of 30 spelling rules that relate to phonograms and influence the pronunciation and spelling of words. These rules are widely applicable and offer an explanation for the specific spelling and pronunciation of most words. This can aid teachers in improving the spelling and reading skills of their students.

During the study's data collection process, three sets of vocabulary words were used, categorized according to formal spelling rules. The first list was administered to all Grade 4 students in the form of an oral multiple-choice exam, while the second list was taught to Grade 4E students over six weeks, with one rule introduced per week. The third list was also presented orally to all Grade 4 students in a multiple-choice format by their homeroom teacher. The study's objective was to examine the impact of teaching spelling rules on the results of summative spelling tests among Grade 4 pupils at Xiwai International Primary School. The findings indicated that teaching spelling rules had a positive effect on the students' scores in the spelling tests. Following six weeks of instruction on spelling rules, there was a significant increase in the overall scores of the classes, with the 4E students scoring the highest on Test #2 with a score of 90.25%. This suggests that learning formal spelling rules can be beneficial. The study concluded that the formal teaching of spelling rules can improve students' spelling scores.

Implications to Practice

The research suggests that teaching formal spelling rules can have a positive impact on students' spelling scores. As a result, teachers may consider incorporating structured lessons on spelling rules into their curriculum to improve students' spelling skills. This could involve designing lesson plans that include regular practice and review of spelling rules, as well as assessments to reinforce learning and provide feedback to both students and teachers on progress. The rules that I chose were fairly straightforward and easy for the students to understand, recall, and recognize. Not all spelling rules are structured such. Some rules demand more knowledge of words. For example, one rule required the students to understand syllables and stress and these areas had to be taught in addition to the rule. Simply teaching the rules may not be effective unless the vocabulary and concepts associated with the rules are taught alongside or beforehand. The research also highlights the importance of assessing students' initial spelling abilities to identify any gaps in skills and inform targeted support. Teachers may use the results of these assessments to tailor their instruction and provide additional support to students who may be struggling. Overall, the research suggests that a more structured approach to teaching spelling rules may be beneficial for improving students' spelling abilities. As such, teachers may consider incorporating these techniques into their teaching practice to support student learning and achievement in this area.

Future Research

I plan on repeating this experiment for a longer period of time. COVID sent classes back online and the experiment, originally designed for an entire semester, was shortened to six weeks. Pseudo-words were not a part of this experiment, but I feel that they would show the students’ understanding of the rule better. It is difficult to know how many words the students were exposed to in previous studies and were already known, or at least more familiar. Although the results were positive, spelling rules will not be taught in lower grades for the present. The students are still struggling with phonics at that stage and adding another concept would not benefit the students. However, I would like to also involve more classes and grades in the next experiment. I think having two classes out of five for grades 4 and 5 would produce more accurate results. And if the results are positive, then designing a two-year plan would be the next step. Eventually, research would be done on the impact, if any, on reading and writing scores.

References

Al-Sobhi, B., Md Rashid, S., & Abdullah, A. N. (2018). Arab ESL Secondary School

Students’ Attitude Toward English Spelling and Writing. SAGE Open, 8 (1), 215824401876347. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018763477

Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2008). Why spelling is important and how to teach it effectively. HAL (Le Centre Pour La Communication Scientifique Directe). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00329944

Chliounaki, K., & Bryant, P. (2007). How Children Learn About Morphological

Spelling Rules. Child Development, 78 (4), 1360–1373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678624.2007.01070.x

Conrad, N. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 869–878. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012544

Davis, G., Siegle, D., & Rimm, S. (2017). Education of the Gifted and Talented (What’s New in Special Education) (7th ed.). Pearson.

Dymock, S., & Nicholson, T. (2017). To what extent does children’s spelling improve as a result of learning words with the look, say, cover, write, check, fix strategy compared with phonological spelling strategies? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 22(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2017.1398766

Eide, D. (2012). Uncovering the Logic of English: A Common-Sense Approach to

Reading, Spelling, and Literacy (2nd ed.). Logic of English, Inc.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Houston, J. F., & Ray, A. B. (2017). Teaching Spelling, Writing, and Reading for Writing. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(4), 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917697250

Krashen, S. (1989). We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x

MacKechnie, C. (2020, March 12). How not to teach spelling. Linguistic Phonics Blog. https://linguisticphonics.wordpress.com/2020/03/08/how-not-to-teach-spelling/

Martin-Chang, S., Ouellette, G., & Madden, M. (2014). Does poor spelling equate to

slow reading? The relationship between reading, spelling, and orthographic quality. Reading and Writing, 27 (8), 1485–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9502-7

Mills, G. E., & Gay, L. R. (2018). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis

and Applications. Pearson.

Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the

structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44 (1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02648156

Pan, S. C., Rickard, T. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2021) Does Spelling Still Matter—and If

So, How Should It Be Taught? Perspectives from Contemporary and Historical Research. Educ Psychol Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09611-y

Putman, R. (2017). Using Research to Make Informed Decisions About the Spelling

Curriculum. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 5 (1), 24–32

Rankin, J. L., Bruning, R. H., Timme, V. L., & Katkanant, C. (1993). Is writing

affected by spelling performance and beliefs about spelling? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7 (2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350070207

Reed, D. K. (2012). Why teach spelling? Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research

Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Simonsen, F., & Gunter, L. (2001). Best Practices in Spelling Instruction: A Research

Summary. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1(2), 97–105. https://www.nifdi.org/research/journal-of-di/volume-1-no-2-summer-2001/428-best-practices-in-spelling-instruction-a-research-summary/file.

Spelling rules: Help or hinder learning to read. (2023). https://fivefromfive.com.au/. Retrieved June 4, 2023, from https://fivefromfive.com.au/phonics-teaching/essential-principles-of-systematic-and-explicit-phonics-instruction/spelling-rules-help-or-hinder-leaning-to-read/

Browse all publications