Research findings on spelling and its links with reading
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:45 am
Many thanks to the amazing Dr Kerry Hempenstall who is remarkable at providing a summary of research findings for various aspects of teaching and learning 'literacy'.
On this occasion, the topic of the potential of 'dictations' of cumulative, decodable texts (that match the phonics code taught to date) has been raised via the DDOLL network and Kerry has responded, as usual, with a wealth of helpful and interesting summaries here:
http://www.nifdi.org/resources/news/hem ... ke-a-spell
We are extremely fortunate in England that the approach entitled 'Systematic Synthetic Phonics' is promoted by Government and actually embodied in the National Curriculum for English for key stages 1 and 2 (for 5 to 11 year olds) - and that this approach includes teaching the English alphabetic code in all its complexities as a 'reversible' code - and therefore the phonics skills include not only 'blending' for reading, but also oral segmenting and allotting graphemes (letters or letter groups) for spelling:
[Note that 'dictation' is actually statutory in England's National Curriculum - see page 13]
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 220714.pdf
Thus, England is on a historic journey in the field of literacy education - but not everyone fully appreciates the importance of this and there are numerous critics of the promotion of SSP - particularly as this includes the guidance against using multi-cueing reading strategies (when these amount to guessing words from word-shape, initial letter/s, picture and context clues).
I feel as if we have barely begun to take a close enough look at the consequence of this SSP promotion on 'spelling' as all the emphasis, currently, is on checking for phonics decoding by the end of Year One via the statutory Year One Phonics Screening Check (for which there are many critics evident in the national domain).
The International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction committee members, however, are promoting world-wide use of England's Year One Phonic Screening Check because England, in effect, is providing the whole world (where the English language is formally taught) with an incredible 'baseline' (that is, a record of what children can achieve by the end of Year One with regards to decoding 40 words, and how this achievement can be raised year-on-year with more effective and mindful teaching):
http://www.iferi.org/resources-and-guidance/
Hopefully, there will eventually be greater interest in the effect of SSP on spelling.
Further, the programmes I'm associated with (Phonics International of which I'm the author, and Oxford Reading Tree Floppy's Phonics Sounds and Letters of which I'm the phonics consultant) are very much designed on the basis of teaching not only technical reading (with vocabulary enrichment and language comprehension using cumulative, decodable word banks and plain texts) but also spelling (oral segmenting and allotting graphemes, plus tricky words, and the building up of spelling word banks).
In effect, once learners can read, the programmes ARE spelling programmes - and 'self-dictations' and adult-led dictations for formal assessment are built into both the design of the resources and the guidance for use from the outset.
Someone on Twitter recently (at the time of posting this) has clearly been offended by a comment I made regarding teachers' phonics knowledge in England (I dared to suggest it may not be as good as people think) because systematic phonics has been promoted in England for several years now and there seems to be a tendency for people to think that it's 'job done'. Anyway, this person noted that my programmes are not exactly the same as the 'core criteria' as listed by the Department for Education - and yet these programmes passed muster to be included in the Government's phonics match-funded initiative (2011 - 2013).
This is true. Both programmes are totally systematic in their content, structure and organisation - but in addition I promote 'incidental' phonics teaching and the introduction of the overview of the English alphabetic code by the constant use of Alphabetic Code Charts from the outset (starting with the 4 to 5 year olds).
The rationale is 'two-pronged systematic AND incidental phonics teaching' and not just 'teach a simple code first and then extend to the complex code':
http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Deb ... andout.pdf
My version of a 'simple code' includes more spelling and pronunciation alternatives than other SSP programmes - for example, when I introduce 'ai', I follow this immediately by introducing a spelling alternative 'ay'. When I introduce 'ea' as code for the sound /ee/, I follow this immediately by introducing 'ea' as code for /e/.
This means that I'm introducing the three complexities of the English alphabetic code from the outset, EXTRA teaching and over-learning of letter/s-sound correspondences - and avoiding an entirely 'invented spelling' approach throughout Reception (for which 'phonically plausible' spellings are accepted). This also supports the use of phonics for wider reading and writing in the wider curriculum (as recommended by Sir Jim Rose in his independent national review leading to the Rose Report, March 2006).
Free Alphabetic Code Charts here:
http://alphabeticcodecharts.com/free_charts.html
Further, I heavily promote the notion for the need for learners to be aware that for long-term spelling we simply have to remember which words are spelt which way and this involves, at least in part, the notion of 'building up spelling word banks' (not 'word families' based on onset and rime, but word banks which feature words with the same letter groups as code for the same sounds).
In other words, I'm passionate about good teaching for spelling - for the short term and the long term, and I think generally we have some way to go in teacher-education in this respect - and in programme-design and classroom practice - and research regarding developments in England not only for the two main processes of reading (word decoding/recognition and comprehension), but also for spelling.
See page 6 of this 'How to...' guidance where I list routine activities for the cumulative, decodable texts including 'self-dictation' and teacher-led 'dictation':
http://www.phonicsinternational.com/how2.pdf
On this occasion, the topic of the potential of 'dictations' of cumulative, decodable texts (that match the phonics code taught to date) has been raised via the DDOLL network and Kerry has responded, as usual, with a wealth of helpful and interesting summaries here:
http://www.nifdi.org/resources/news/hem ... ke-a-spell
We are extremely fortunate in England that the approach entitled 'Systematic Synthetic Phonics' is promoted by Government and actually embodied in the National Curriculum for English for key stages 1 and 2 (for 5 to 11 year olds) - and that this approach includes teaching the English alphabetic code in all its complexities as a 'reversible' code - and therefore the phonics skills include not only 'blending' for reading, but also oral segmenting and allotting graphemes (letters or letter groups) for spelling:
[Note that 'dictation' is actually statutory in England's National Curriculum - see page 13]
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 220714.pdf
Thus, England is on a historic journey in the field of literacy education - but not everyone fully appreciates the importance of this and there are numerous critics of the promotion of SSP - particularly as this includes the guidance against using multi-cueing reading strategies (when these amount to guessing words from word-shape, initial letter/s, picture and context clues).
I feel as if we have barely begun to take a close enough look at the consequence of this SSP promotion on 'spelling' as all the emphasis, currently, is on checking for phonics decoding by the end of Year One via the statutory Year One Phonics Screening Check (for which there are many critics evident in the national domain).
The International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction committee members, however, are promoting world-wide use of England's Year One Phonic Screening Check because England, in effect, is providing the whole world (where the English language is formally taught) with an incredible 'baseline' (that is, a record of what children can achieve by the end of Year One with regards to decoding 40 words, and how this achievement can be raised year-on-year with more effective and mindful teaching):
http://www.iferi.org/resources-and-guidance/
Hopefully, there will eventually be greater interest in the effect of SSP on spelling.
Further, the programmes I'm associated with (Phonics International of which I'm the author, and Oxford Reading Tree Floppy's Phonics Sounds and Letters of which I'm the phonics consultant) are very much designed on the basis of teaching not only technical reading (with vocabulary enrichment and language comprehension using cumulative, decodable word banks and plain texts) but also spelling (oral segmenting and allotting graphemes, plus tricky words, and the building up of spelling word banks).
In effect, once learners can read, the programmes ARE spelling programmes - and 'self-dictations' and adult-led dictations for formal assessment are built into both the design of the resources and the guidance for use from the outset.
Someone on Twitter recently (at the time of posting this) has clearly been offended by a comment I made regarding teachers' phonics knowledge in England (I dared to suggest it may not be as good as people think) because systematic phonics has been promoted in England for several years now and there seems to be a tendency for people to think that it's 'job done'. Anyway, this person noted that my programmes are not exactly the same as the 'core criteria' as listed by the Department for Education - and yet these programmes passed muster to be included in the Government's phonics match-funded initiative (2011 - 2013).
This is true. Both programmes are totally systematic in their content, structure and organisation - but in addition I promote 'incidental' phonics teaching and the introduction of the overview of the English alphabetic code by the constant use of Alphabetic Code Charts from the outset (starting with the 4 to 5 year olds).
The rationale is 'two-pronged systematic AND incidental phonics teaching' and not just 'teach a simple code first and then extend to the complex code':
http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Deb ... andout.pdf
My version of a 'simple code' includes more spelling and pronunciation alternatives than other SSP programmes - for example, when I introduce 'ai', I follow this immediately by introducing a spelling alternative 'ay'. When I introduce 'ea' as code for the sound /ee/, I follow this immediately by introducing 'ea' as code for /e/.
This means that I'm introducing the three complexities of the English alphabetic code from the outset, EXTRA teaching and over-learning of letter/s-sound correspondences - and avoiding an entirely 'invented spelling' approach throughout Reception (for which 'phonically plausible' spellings are accepted). This also supports the use of phonics for wider reading and writing in the wider curriculum (as recommended by Sir Jim Rose in his independent national review leading to the Rose Report, March 2006).
Free Alphabetic Code Charts here:
http://alphabeticcodecharts.com/free_charts.html
Further, I heavily promote the notion for the need for learners to be aware that for long-term spelling we simply have to remember which words are spelt which way and this involves, at least in part, the notion of 'building up spelling word banks' (not 'word families' based on onset and rime, but word banks which feature words with the same letter groups as code for the same sounds).
In other words, I'm passionate about good teaching for spelling - for the short term and the long term, and I think generally we have some way to go in teacher-education in this respect - and in programme-design and classroom practice - and research regarding developments in England not only for the two main processes of reading (word decoding/recognition and comprehension), but also for spelling.
See page 6 of this 'How to...' guidance where I list routine activities for the cumulative, decodable texts including 'self-dictation' and teacher-led 'dictation':
http://www.phonicsinternational.com/how2.pdf