My last blog entry was written in response to a fifth-grade teacher who wanted to know about spelling instruction. Although teachers at her school thought that formal spelling instruction, like working with word lists, was a bad idea, it turns out that such teaching is beneficial to kids. The same can be said for studying word structure and its implications for spelling, pronunciation, and meaning.
SRA's Spelling Mastery program which is unique because it is written by a linguist takes students through the progression of phonetic spelling, rule and pattern based spelling, and morphographic emphasis. Time after time I've seen students with learning disabilities in reading who had this program outspell their gen ed counterparts after two years. 15 minutes a day is enough, but it must be every day. It's been interesting to note, following the AIMSweb data that while reading skills don't deteriorate when a student leaves school for a more ineffective one (they come back at the same skill level), spelling skills rapidly deteriorate when instruction stops or is ineffective in another school. Spelling Mastery emphasizes oral spelling and writing and students are grouped by ability which usually but not always coincides with their reading level. The program assumes that teachers will teach rules to mastery (when you change y to i......or the floss rule) which students need to metacognitively know at a fluency level in order to apply them without pausing for thought and interrupting their writing discourse. Strong teachers do this, but weaker ones, just move through the curriculum. Currently I'm working in a special ed charter school where students have typically been kicked out of gen ed schools and lag far behind. In most classes using Spelling Mastery, the students' AIMSweb ROI (rate of improvement) indicates that they make 95% more improvement than their peers who started out the year where they did. And in comparison to before the program started you can read their writing!!
5/9/15
Kathy Ganske's Developmental Spelling Analysis is also a great tool.
5/21/15
There has been some pushback in our district with using Word Their Way. Staff claims that it’s not backed by science because it’s inquiry based and uses analytic rather than synthetic approaches. What are your thoughts?
Jean--
Research has found no statistical difference from the results drawn from synthetic or analytic phonics programs. Look at the National Reading Panel Report on that. More recently there have been claims that synthetic was more effective than analytic with newer research, but those differences were confounded with the amount of instruction provided (in other words, they are finding that more synthetic is better than less analytic -- which is not convincing evidence). I'm a big fan of many of the elements in Words Their Way (though there are definitely circumstances when I prefer synthetic).
tim
Leave me a comment and I would like to have a discussion with you!
Copyright © 2024 Shanahan on Literacy. All rights reserved. Web Development by Dog and Rooster, Inc.
Comments
See what others have to say about this topic.