Will the explicit teaching of

spelling assist students to

become more fluent writers
quickly?
Wonderings:
Will developing spelling fluency raise the writing achievement in
students from Room1?
Evidence that supports this contention from research:
From: http://www.righttrackreading.com/howtospell.html
And : http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED496700
IMPROVING SPELLING OF HIGH FREQUENCY WORDS FOR TRANSFER IN
WRITTEN WORK
Kathleen DuBois Kristie Erickson Monica Jacobs (2007)
Spelling, although a small piece of the writing process, is of great
concern to teachers, parents, and the general public (Laminack,
Lester, & Woods, 1996, p. 10). Many educators, both locally and
nationally, have noticed a common trend in students lack of ability to
transfer the correct spelling of high frequency and commonly used
words into their daily work and writing. Shah and Thomas (2002) wrote
according to the 1989 Gallop Poll, the United States placed last in
spelling behind Australia, Britain, and Canada. In addition, on the Iowa
Test of Basic Skills, elementary school scores have dropped steadily
since 1990 (p. 31). Shah and Thomas provide evidence that spelling is
of national concern and is indeed in need of attention. Johnston (2000)
stated English spelling has traditionally been considered a trial and
tribulation to those who teach it and those who must learn it (p. 372).
Gentry (2004) discussed a possible explanation for the difficulty of
learning to spell the English language.
But in English, the alphabetic principle is complex, with a plethora of
foreign spellings, myriad spelling combinations, a huge vocabulary,
and sometimes arbitrary spelling patterns (and) this complex system of
English spelling makes it more difficult to spell than an alphabetic
language such as Italian (Gentry, 2004,p. 13).

As educators, we find it difficult and frustrating to teach spelling

because the English language has so many inconsistencies and words
that do not follow spelling rules.
It is our opinion that many students can correctly spell high frequency
and spelling words in isolation, such as on a weekly spelling test, but
they cannot correctly spell these words in their daily work and writing.
We believe that students may not see a purpose or reason to make
correct spelling a priority in their writing. Thus, many students simply
spell words phonetically, even when the word was a word that they had
been taught and had already been mastered on a weekly spelling test.
Yet correct spelling is not only important on a Friday spelling test, but
in all areas of the curriculum (Murphy, 1997, p. 18).
In addition to teachers teaching spelling simply for mastery on the
weekly spelling test, we believe that teachers are not using the current
research on spelling in their daily instruction. According to Gentry
(1987)
Too much that is known about how to teach spelling isnt being put into
practice. I can think of no subject we teach more poorly or harbor more
myths about than spelling. In spite of volumes of research, teachers
still use the same unsubstantiated teaching formulas (p. 7).
Teachers must help students understand that spelling is important and
is a reflection of the students reading and writing ability. As sighted in
Brecher, Gray, Price & Sayles (1998) The focus for spelling needs to
be shifted from rote memorization to communication between writer
and reader (p.i). The words that we expect our students to spell
correctly are high frequency words that are seen daily in reading and
writing, and thus students need to know how to spell these words
correctly.
We believe that spelling is an area that needs to be addressed in the
primary school years. We believe that with effective spelling strategies,
students ability to transfer spelling into their written work will be
enhanced. Phenix and Scott-Dune (1991) wrote that we need to strike
a balance in our teaching so that students understand the place of
spelling, and have enough confidence as spellers that they are not
inhibited as writers (p. 17). A review of the literature confirms that
student spelling and the inconsistency of spelling instruction is of
national concern; teachers need to be aware of more effective ways of
teaching spelling so that students transfer correct spelling into daily
written work.
Resources:
Measured mom- practice games related directly to the instruction
Joy Allcock Switch onto Spelling instructional techniques and
strategies
Jolly Phonics- letter/ sound links practise

Why:
The children in my class have great ideas to write with but lack the
phonological knowledge required to assist them to spell. This is
evidenced through the Pseudo word test, testing of the Essential Word
Lists and by classroom observations.
Children appear to know most letter sound links but are not using this
knowledge to assist them to spell fluently when writing.
Some of the group are showing strong progress now in reading and
these skills are not yet transferring into their writing. They appear to
compartmentalise them as two separate tasks and have not yet seen
the links between the two.
Target group of students:
L L-E
O S -E
L V-M
T T-M
E J J M
TJM- M
How the students were selected:
Students were identified through the data from end of year 2014 and
were included into the school wide goals for 2015.
Students were identified by observation by teachers, previous data and
current assessment- Pseudo Word Test and Essential Word Lists.
Inquiry Process:
I began to prepare the class for this inquiry by using Pseudo word test
(Joy Allcock) and testing the Essential Word lists to establish their prior
knowledge in spelling.
These tests were selected based on their prior use in the school, my
knowledge of the tests and the direct reference to the Essential Word
lists in the NZ National Standards for Reading and Writing in the
Literacy Learning Progressions (Learning Media).
My previous inquiries into raising student achievement in writing has
shown that with regular practise, use and exposure to the HFW
students were then able to transfer these into their writing with
ongoing support and reminding of the links between words they read
and writing them. Particularly the overt demonstration of what we read

and how it is spelt when we use it for writing. This needs to be ongoing
and explicit during reading and writing.
Term 1:
I implemented Jolly phonics and began to remind and strengthen letter/
sound links with the children as a whole class.
I created a wall of words that children were encouraged to take and
use and copy during for writing tasks, alphabet, blend and diagraph
word mats were available to students and writing interest words were
brainstormed for writing tasks or children were assisted to isolate and
identify chunks of sound while writing with the teacher. A deliberate
act of teaching was pushing the use of imaging. When you read the
word what does it look like?
To build spelling fluency I also shared the Essential word lists in the
homebook and this was used by some of my families to support their
childrens learning independently.
When first tested it was obvious to me that students were not used to
independent testing so this I believe was reflected in the results to
some extent.
The baseline data for the beginning of 2015 was:
This evidence was gathered in March.

There was some progress made during the term and when the test was
used again as a diagnostic test for this inquiry.
Term 2:
Once the class was once again settled after the school holiday break I
started to teach the spelling games associated with practice
opportunities for this inquiry and laminate the practise sheets around
discrimination, word building using chunks and identifying HFW.
I also sourced on the internet, word matching and bingo games around
short and long vowels that proved to be engaging with the students
however they proved difficult to keep organised based on the students
lack of self management when playing games. I suspect this is partly
due to not having been required to be self-managing previously and
some children are still very young. Next step was to teach them how
we wanted the games played and looked after.
These resources were used as practise opportunities and met the
varying levels of ability within the diverse classroom, with reading
levels ranging from emergent to blue.

They were selected based on their readability, functionality and highly

visual use of prompts, all necessary requirements to meet individual
needs amongst the learners in Room 1.
Next step was to establish the necessary routines given the time
constraints and the staff available to assist the teaching. The timing of
the teacher aid assistance available in the class was not until reading
and my professional judgement was that her time was better
maximised during reading. My contention was that the more progress
the students made in reading the better that they would make the links
between what they could read and how to use that to spell more
effectively.
Within the reading programme there is solid evidence in modelling
books that looking for and using small words within larger or
compound words was explicitly targeted for teaching. Also wordbuilding exercises were consistently used during the reading
programme.
See evidence of modelling books.
In Week 5 of term 2, I re-established the baseline data from students
by once again testing them for letter / sound links using the pseudo
word test and testing the Essential Word Lists.
Prior to the beginning of the inquiry students were able to learn the
Essential Word lists as they were made available to parents through
the students home books. However in order to provide fair testing
students were unable to take spelling notebooks home and given equal
access to them in classroom time.
All word lists were individual and ranged between 5-10 words
depending on student ability and in order to differentiate the learning
for those who had difficulty.
During the course of the term it became apparent that one child in the
class was quite certainly dyslexic to this effect I offered the family
independent learning through the Smart words spelling programme.
This is the only exception other than two students working in Reading
Recovery and another who has been identified as needing glasses
since April but to date these have not been able to be available to him.
These children have not been selected as targeted students for these
reasons.
Even my high needs student was given the first words of Essential list
one, I am tracking her progress separately for my own interest given
her serious lack of phonetic awareness and the fact she has an
identified hearing loss confirmed from the hospital.

Pre intervention data

It can be seen that without any intervention other than parental
assistance at home, teaching through reading programme and the jolly
phonics programme; students generally made progress.
However, I wanted to create a level playing field for the students and
develop their own independence in learning spelling words
I set about explicitly teaching strategies to help students learn to spell.
The strategies taught to the students were: rainbow writing, repeated
copying, write,fold and copy technique, chunking parts of words (this
was also a focus in the reading programme).

Essential List results, pre intervention:

The Pseudo word test results pre- intervention

Regular classroom practice includes collecting an unassisted writing

sample from students each term to monitor and moderate writing
within the classroom. No direct assistance is given from the teacher
apart from providing motivation for the writing and encouragement to
attempt the task.
Term 3
At the beginning of the term I was able to quickly re-establish the
spelling group routines and it was easier to maintain the momentum of
the Switch Onto Spelling
Programme with my modifications to it in order to be able to manage
the programme without teacher aide support.
The modifications included using a tumble board, having the exercises
set up the night before and limiting the time spent on News in the
classroom. We had a very tight window of 20 minutes to run the
programme, four days a week.
The links into the reading programme through word building and word
families, looking at root words and their endings were still maintained.
At the end of five weeks of instruction I again tested the children using
the Essential Word Lists and the pseudo word test.

Essential Lists Results: August 2015

Pseudo Word List data: August 2015

The results show:

Every child has made gains in their spelling ability based on pre and
post- test data from the intervention.

The data on the left hand side of the graph represents the pre
intervention results and the data on the right hand side represents the
post intervention results.
Conclusion:
My conclusion is that children of any age benefit from the explicit
teaching of spelling supported by daily practise and instruction four
times a week.
Two of these children are Year 1 children and the other four children are
Yr2 children.

Beg
Data
Oakley
Linkin
LincolnM
Tiare-M
Ererangi
M
TJ-M

Ess List
Ess List
Ess List
Ess List
1
2
3
4
90%
65%
36%
0%
80%
55%
23%
0%
90%
100%

25%
60%

0%
30%

0%
0%

90%
100%

90%
95%

40%
66%

0%
0%

Yr 1 students
M = Identified as Maori

Ess List
Ess List
Ess List
Ess List
End data 1
2
3
4
Oakley
100%
90%
63%
38%
Linkin
100%
85%
56%
38%
LincolnM
90%
70%
23%
8%
Tiare-M
100%
70%
46%
28%
Ererangi
M
100%
95%
56%
64%
TJ-M
90%
85%
100%
96%
Yr 1 students
M = Identified as Maori
Has this transferred into their writing?
For all of the students involved in the inquiry I would certainly
conclude their spelling of HFW has improved from the intervention and
their willingness to attempt other words has been noticed and
identified through results in their UWS pre and post intervention.
I have noticed the ability in more students to their writing fluency (the
ability to add length to their writing).
Given the age of my students I believe the intervention has had a
positive effect on their ability to transfer the learning into their writing.

Was this a successful intervention and why?

The conclusion to be drawn form this intervention was that it was
indeed successful as a spelling intervention.
We need now to determine that it was successful as a writing
intervention.
Recommendations from the inquiry:
1. I believe this intervention be applied across the school with
adaption for differing levels of the curriculum.
2. Develop a school wide spelling programme that meets the needs
of most students
3. Develop similar routines across the school in order to ease
children into new classrooms (research shows that children can
loose up to 3 months of instruction settling into a new teacher

and classroom). This is especially relevant to our high needs and

highly dependent learners.
4. Share my decisions and concerns with the leadership team and
work with them to create a functional spelling programme/s for
school wide use that feed into each other to reduce the fall off in
spelling instruction when students change rooms.
For example: Jolly phonics vs Early Words. Should we be using
one or the other?
Will having two similar but different programmes confuse
students? How much has the school invested in resources and
knowledge that will be lost?
Barriers identified that proved difficult:
1. Students regular absence from school.
2. Timetabling constraints- very narrow window of time to
implement the learning
3. Parent interruptions to the programme by lateness to class,
needing assistance between 8.55am and 9.10am. (A lot of needy
boys who for lots of reasons that do not separate easily from
mothers and grandmothers).
4. No specific budget for the photocopying of resources to assist
the Inquiry. This drained my budget and has left me very tight
until the end of the year. Something to remember for next year.
5. My own absence from class due to leadership commitments and
bereavement.
Where to from here?
1. Parent education about spelling: Holding parent education
evenings to assist them to help their children spell and explain
what they can do at home to help.
This has been asked for in Room 1. I am willing and able to do
this but will need the support of leadership to prepare and
present.
2. Share my learning with my team and encourage them to try
these interventions or with the support of the leadership team
research, identify and test spelling programmes
Post intervention observations:
In the last few weeks of the term the children have fully engaged with
the tumble-board activities now and I shall keep this up, as it is
becoming a normal routine in the class.
My thoughts for next year will be to introduce it earlier perhaps the
second half of the first term, should I be lucky enough to keep my Year
One students to act as peer tutors and role models.

If this is not possible I believe it will take longer to introduce as very

junior children with no experience of tumble boards. They need time to
settle into the routines required.
After taking the UWS it is clear to me that the spelling approximations
and level of transfer of correct use of HFW is beginning to take place.
Student voice:
Click the picture to hear from Lincoln
Yr 1

Click the picture to hear from Tiare

Yr 2

Click on the picture to hear from TJ

Yr 1

Click to hear from Oakley

Yr 2

Parent voice:
Petrina Toimata: Originally Petrina was concerned about the lack of
spelling coming home and at an interview on 17/9/15 when given the
results of testing pre and post intervention was delighted.